HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/15/2009 ( - NEVAL
I
1
f ,
y -
3
}
City of Kent
gn
ity Councl
ESL 4'vF'aS3 s3 � i n N J 3 sari
Fj�}
jo
nda
.gig
� e
- September 15, 2009
� x
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Debbie Raplee, Council President
Councilmembers
Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon
Tim Clark Deborah Ranniger
Jamie Danielson Les Thomas
l
KENT
WASHINGTON
City Clerk's Office
t
Ns:Ir40 KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
KF-14 September 15, 2009
WASHINGTON Council Chambers
MAYOR: Suzette Cooke C UNCILMEMBERS: Debbie Ra lee President
Elizabeth Albertson Tim Clark Jamie Danielson
Ron Harmon Deborah Ranniger Les Thomas
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
5:30 p.m.
Item Description Speaker Time
1. Howard Hanson Levee Update Larry Blanchard 20 minutes
2. H1N1 - Swine Flu Update Jim Schneider 15 minutes
3. Intergovernmental Issues/I-1033 Michelle Witham 15 minutes
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added
to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to
be recognized by the Mayor.
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition
B. Community Events
C. National Public Lands Day at Turnkey Park Proclamation
D. Public Safety Report
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve
B. Payment of Bills - Approve
C. Council Representative on Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Ordinance -
Adopt
D. Kentara, Bill of Sale - Accept
E. Muth Property, Bill of Sale - Accept
F. Landau Associates for the 72"d Avenue Extension Contract - Authorize
(Continued)
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED
G. King Conservation District (KCD)/Downey Farmstead Restoration
Project Grant - Authorize
H. King Conservation District (KCD)/Riverview Park Restoration Project
Grant - Authorize
I. Payment to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Final Designs for
Riverview Park Restoration Project - Authorize
J. Design Agreement for the Upper Russell Road Ecosystem Restoration
Project with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Authorize
K. Washington Traffic Safety Commission-Nighttime Seat Belt-Focused
Patrols - Accept
L. Drug Free Communities Support Program Grant - Accept
M. HealthForce Occupational Medicine, Inc. Professional Services
Agreement - Authorize
N. Resolution Renaming Arbor Village Neighborhood Council and Revising
Boundary - Adopt
O. Seattle Police Department Interagency Agreement - Authorize
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Ordinance
B. Preemptive Emergency Regarding Diminished Reservoir Capacity of
Howard Hanson Dam - Resolution - Adopt
C. Permitting Waiver for Temporary Flood Protection Structures -
Ordinance - Adopt
8. BIDS
None
9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's
Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet
are on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office
in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington
Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
43)
Nc o is Y' � 3O CN-0�CAN
a O O p °> c
0.
yo w E E cv
ro >�sya a 7 -
w �m mom• o
oN c 'o - �- M-0-tki-C ea �s 70 ° wv " °ovE v
NULL Q U E v vr� ` p N o•ausa�-w0 C ��� 7-0 '�
en
c ^V ` =w ucc o ° 3w� aroi �� c0— � cc� yc� o o T
0o ro � _ co cw o x C3wayb00 m '� co 0
ocoow � Y� jO Eoc r Ec vuww 77 va u
Q °1 v �° C->O'� aa))'�-0 E a �' � E-C o� o 0--0 s 00U w aY
• ru--��� c >0s> >0'TN o � o a oo'N o 07 o 7o p �L > m a� Q
o ro ro - oowcw . -0 ro _ > � os^ i O -' oco n
ate.>a V E, 0 ro•cY— aa) S�� � v N o > > wy
oo� c u 7 N a u 7 v O w Y > wo w s i w o
Or-)
7 n w row m 3 Q).L Q-L a,-p v E c ro v-0 oou c 0-
u =, y" Y >— 7 = ro w w� c w O
aciU`o c c-0 �� w a`� E c >0 u p 2 p ocoai'� E"
• — U - w C aL ro N p 7Y w 3' 7
o aa, c ovoo 0 7 7v Y v u E o E'�o E ,u� b a� v o c
Qm ?Qcc � ma 2t >>1 m a7om� vc >o.SUu �_0 ^ :3 UE
1 � _
r .
00 o a La v� a3i � oii
w a - w- Lid 0 07 d�.ya� E c t E 1 ,
w t0 C N w N C w C C w U 1?
w^ V E.�� N > v c c o roY o'� c O c ,c v o0
O—�N E'._. � 7 w >`W blJ— O O L O0
�'um> rcpw� wuS oaoo (u Ewuay d cE ai E U £ 'c `^
w �Fl— tw. w >y YE E ` o Y�Qv'= ��wv� ui fO �^ io ;!, po- a c ap. ,cav �a
� ouaciO � wsV � wo puouO � �= wU �� pa�iVEmu �000 ,a oEoosm�
w cY w ^ >.� p � u O wE � d2EY_ _ �E -0 Y-C a o -r c- mF-- bra
N O w_U �^ w .a p w •-= E c c-o c ro I- '" y r o =~' w p f
E U O N LLl L 7.0 c a V �s 7 _0 E O p w o c ro w w InU7 ro o U E ro b o._ c
o a) 2 ac) >,_r " w 3 � �c E L) 6 ro w � � U JD e v o b o o ro � a� > Q,
w Tc Y u _) c 7 w L, oO rU E M ro o0`-W �_� c a C) 0)
3 c w t._ w o o� ro j= ai E'c c c O
Y w ro opt o� E� u oo m 7 w a w-0 o c w 5- w 0 p �� w 0
n c— 3a V -0 w c a e 3• u �" -Ea ='� w E E >•- w� Ear y F; ac 2 � a—�� y gF o p c
U y) C w N'o C w i O w N tp-` C tp E w .w. C t0 ro Q'Q F ro-C .� C c O N
v c = w E. O p._ U i Er p w w p c m p N y 9 ppyY i ro ro 3 ,
� Q.mo ^-'— � ° OUP —� � - 3aE � uo` w^ �LwMcw aNV)ON a -
Q'u s.^ E v 0 w c c - c w E E w v V.E E d y o ='c U w _' w '2
V > 7 w v� O-C_ O 7 7 7 �n O O O V� E w L w Y 9 A w C N w •- w c w _
FL a3 Q L O E 0t w w V Uu A �lJ� _^ mF�IJ U CL O0� a�w w ro•N E w o w o o w
E _
> W=
p n a
Z _ V�
i T b Mi�l3
7 > 7
• ESE c � ¢ w t°
2-0 Q 0- cO N Y OO .3
U O en a co w O E �n ® L9 ( _
V 'C&; W "'M ri� c w L
•� 7 ro ,� w p —o g o a V O ao 7 u CC) 0
U a V ro = I Ln
u- L. C Vl Y O V1 >
O C -O Y Q N L 1-- 7 N . Nca
NJ =YU -0 j U� c v� z 0 C u o c E
0 co aci aci �o 00 /O� Y 0 E `c" 0 E
u-- �N YY m6L s
II .
w
w c _
—co
I
Cc: w � )
L L o
'0
7 C 0` ... L O. O L. O w ro bD
� 3 1p a.
v2Ev 3 — w = r � Lv wU �• ° o
• L a y E o7 ao'3'> O N o w ro c aroi
W. 3 oo 070 E ate ocv �
• - oc� E : > 3 ° w 7`N ? �L ` , av >pEccoo 1
e m> �—° w 7 a� 70 �' E '"m y b a, as 0Cp o-
• O w L 0 0 w T•� E N u 3 M— -O.0 z u M
V N E O D ` U p r° 0 b C L C j w C w O I�aD
N U
C CU a N L a 3 p Q C w N a o�Ln C O
•C L L 3•E N_ O C p U w a y w• O^ O co l
CL o in c y _ wH 0 3 y o� C:emu? oo^
N w O O OY D'
e. Cl
c b o'o v �c o �� rO v E a'a�o aroi
401.u= c u o w w ors v . w w. w w
v� vO o a as v� u ro QlJ'> a E E cs Q roO
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
1) HOWARD HANSON LEVEE UPDATE
2) H1N1 - SWINE FLU UPDATE
3) INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES/I-1033
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the
subject of interest, so all may be properly heard.
A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B) FROM THE PUBLIC
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A) PUBLIC RECOGNITION
B) COMMUNITY EVENTS
C) NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS DAY AT TURNKEY PARK PROCLAMATION
D) PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
r
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Item No. 6A - 6B
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through O.
r
Discussion
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 1, 2009.
r
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through August 15 and paid on
August 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on September 1, 2009.
' Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/15/09 Wire Transfers 3836-3853 $1,951,939.87
8/15/09 Regular Checks 635024-635514 1,984,270.24
Use Tax Payable 1,568.74
$3,937,778.85
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/7/09 Void 310275 ($57.94)
8/7/09 Reissue 313494 $57.94
Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 1 through August 15 and paid on
August 20, 2009:
1 Date Check Numbers Amount
8/20/09 Checks 313495-313760 $ 231,178.15
8/20/09 Advices 253543-254322 1,604,710.15
' $1,835,888.30
r
f
Kent City Council Meeting
KENT W A S H I N O T O N September 1, 2009
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Clark, Danielson, Harmon,
Ranniger, Raplee, and Thomas. (CFN-198)
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) Bid Item 8A was removed
and will be brought back in a month.
B. From the Public. (CFN-198) Continued Communications Item A was added at
the request of audience members.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) There were no items for public recognition.
B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Ranniger shared the fabulous time she had
watching Kung Fu Panda at the Town Square Plaza which she said is a wonderful
family event. Mayor Cooke announced that the Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey
Circus will arrive September 2"d with performances starting Thursday, September 3
through September 7 at the ShoWare Center.
C. Muscular Dystrouhv Association's Fill the Boot Camaaicin Award.
(CFN-155) Mayor Cooke introduced Firefighter Mark Jones who explained that MDA is
a Fire Fighter Union sponsored charity and will have Boots at the intersections of
Fourth & James and Central & Smith from 10-7 on September 11th to commemorate
the 343 firefighters killed at the World Trade Center disaster, and added that the MDA
Boots will also be at the ShoWare Center in conjunction with another event on
September 11. Liz Jazmir, Executive Director of the Muscular Dystrophy Association
added that she would like to thank the City and the Kent Fire Fighters for taking time
off-duty to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
D. Constitution Week Proclamation. (CFN-155) Mayor Cooke introduced
Alexander Dunmire and Kristina Polyanko who attend Mill Creek Middle School. They
shared their experiences learning about the constitution and government. Mayor
Cooke then introduced their teacher J.P. Frame and after reading the proclamation
presented it to the students and teacher. Mayor Cooke introduced Elizabeth Walker
and Gail Butcher. Ms. Walker explained why citizen's have a responsibility for
protecting and defending the Constitution.
E. Payroll Week Proclamation. (CFN-155) Mayor Cooke presented the
proclamation for Payroll Week to Bob Nachlinger, Finance Director.
F. Day of Concern for the Hungry Proclamation. (CFN-155) Mayor Cooke read
the proclamation setting September 26th as "Day of Concern for the Hungry."
Albertson thanked the Mayor for the proclamation and noted how parents have to
1
1tember
Kent City Council Minutes September , 2009
make a choice between food school clothes and supplies. She also noted that they
Y
had over 200 kids show up for backpacks filled with school supplies and mentioned i
the local food bank breakfast which is October 9 at 7:00 a.m.
G. Employee of the Month. (CFN-147) Jeff Watling, Parks and Community
Services Director, introduced the September Employee of the Month, Brian
Levenhagen. He noted that Brian exhibits great communication skills and teamwork
as a parks planner and project manager. Mayor Cooke then presented him with the
Employee of the Month plaque.
H. "Best Workplace for Recycling & Waste Reduction" Designation.
(CFN-1038) Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager, explained the
program that King County has had for three years and that two places in the city have
been recognized as best places for recycling and waste reduction, one is A-Plus
Technologies and the other is City of Kent. He showed the certificate the City
received from King County for this achievement.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Raplee moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through K. Harmon seconded
and the motion carried.
A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the regular Council meeting of
August 18, 2009, were approved.
B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through July 31 and
paid on July 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 18, 2009, were
approved. f
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
07/31/09 Wire Transfers 3819-3835 $2,089,525.87
07/31/09 Regular Checks 634430-635023 3,511,658.83
Void Checks #634545 & #634713 -490.00
Use Tax Payable 2,101.43
$5,602,796.13
Checks issued for payroll for July 16 through July 31 and paid on August 5, 2009,
were approved:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/5/2009 Checks 313227-313493 $ 232,911.15 i
8/5/2009 Advices 2582762-253542 1617,926.06
$1,850,837.21
C. King County Safe Havens Grant Agreement. (CFN-118) The King County
Domestic Violence Grant in the amount of $10,000 to fund Safe Havens services was
accepted, amendment of the Safe Havens budget was authorized, and the
expenditure of funds was approved.
2
i
Kent City Council Minutes September 1, 2009
i
D. Community, Trade & Economic Development Neighborhood Stabilization I
Program Grant Agreement. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the
Community, Trade and Economic Development Grant Agreement in the amount of
$475,264 to fund the Neighborhood Stabilization I Program, amendment of the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Budget was authorized, and the expenditure of
funds in accordance with the grants terms was approved.
E. King Conservation District Grant Agreement for the Urban Forest
Restoration Plan. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the King
Conservation District Grant Agreement in the amount of $95,000 to fund the creation
of an Urban Forest Restoration Plan, amendment of the Urban Forestry Budget was
authorized, and the expenditure of funds was approved.
F. Cascade Land Conservancy Consultant Agreement for the Urban Forest
Restoration Plan. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement with
Cascade Land Conservancy in the amount of $73,310 to create an Urban Forest
Restoration Plan, amendment of the budget was authorized, and the expenditure of
the grant funds was authorized.
G. Second Ouarter Fee-In-Lieu Funds. (CFN-118) The $39,975 fee-in-lieu funds
for the second quarter of 2009 was accepted, and the expenditure of funds in the
Eagle Creek Park Development and the Clark Lake Outfall budgets was authorized.
H. Budget Adiustment Ordinance, January 1, 2009-June 30, 2009. (CFN-186)
Ordinance No. 3929 which consolidates the budget adjustments made between
January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2009, totaling a decrease of $(8,315.020), including
$(3,773,269) previously approved by Council, was adopted.
I. South 2591h Street Raising Contract. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized
to sign the contract with GeoEngineers to perform geotechnical studies and produce
stamped reports necessary for levee certification for the South 259th Street Raising
project in an amount not to exceed $92,420, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney.
J. Commute Trip Reduction Funding Agreement. (CFN-171) The Mayor was
authorized to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Grant Implementation Agreement in
the amount of $103,170, subject to the final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney.
K. Military Road and SE 2681h Sidewalk Improvements. (CFN-1038) The
Military Road & SE 2681h Street Sidewalk Improvements Project was accepted as
complete and release of retainage to Sanders General Construction, upon receipt of
standard releases from the state and the release of any liens was authorized. The
original contract amount was $91,676.14. The final contract amount was
$127,610.14.
3
Kent City Council Minutes September 1, 2009
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Solid Waste Recycling, Yard Waste, Food Waste Consultant Services
Agreement. (CFN-156) Tim LaPorte, Deputy Public Works Director, explained that
the Public Works Committee asked that the Council be briefed on this important
contract. He noted that the current solid waste and recycling contract is set to expire
on March 31, 2011 and that the City has advertised Request for Proposals. He
explained the present costs to the City and residents, and that hiring a firm to help
analyze data and make recommendations would benefit the citizens in the long run.
In answer to questions by Ranniger, LaPorte explained that the recommendations
would first be presented to a citizens committee, then to Public Works Committee and
then to Council, which would probably take place over the next year. LaPorte also
explained that each of the five companies, that have sent letters of intent, would be
putting together a package with several alternatives to analyze.
Raplee moved to authorize the Mayor to sign necessary consultant agreements
related to the garbage, recycling, yard & food waste collection disposal/marketing
totaling $75,000 or less, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and the Public Works Director. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. ,
REPORTS
A. Council President. (CFN-198) Raplee wanted to congratulate teacher J.P. Frame
for bringing the textbook "We the People" to the students.
B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke mentioned the meeting presented by the
Chamber on September 23rd, aimed at businesses of the potential flooding in the Kent
Valley. She also advised that the best way for citizens to find meetings regarding
flooding in Kent would be to go on-line at www.choosekent.com.
C. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given.
D. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given.
E: Planning and Economic Development Committee. (CFN-198) Danielson
noted that the next meeting will be held on Monday, September 14 at 4:30 p.m.
F. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Harmon noted that the next meeting will
be held next Tuesday, September 8 at 5:00 p.m.
G. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee reported that the next meeting
will be held on September 10 at 4:00 p.m.
H. Administration. (CFN-198) Hodgson reminded Council that no Executive
Session would be held this evening.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A. Soccer Fields. (CFN-118) Michael Gladwell, 27606 129th Ct. SE, noted the lack
of soccer fields in the City and asked whether the City has any plans to build a new
4
Kent City Council Minutes September 1, 2009
facility for the kids to play soccer. JJ Setera, 27050 125t" Ave. SE, introduced
himself, and talked about the lack of field space for soccer and if there are plans to
build any fields in Kent that KYSA could use, or to help with plans for getting new
facilities.
In response to Thomas' question, Jeff Watling, Parks Director, stated that the P-patch
is a King County facility and that KYSA has an operating agreement with King County
and there is no immediate threat of that closing at this time. Watling explained that
he and Wayne Jenson, President of the Kent Youth and Soccer Association, and the
Kent School District have been discussing ways to be creative and looking for
opportunities in all public spaces including City park spaces as well as Kent School
District spaces to create lit, ideally synthetic turf on community sports fields that can
accommodate year-round use. He stated that he would certainly keep everyone
involved informed as well as Council, as they look at innovate ways to get more fields.
Mayor Cooke stated that the City is open to and seeking partners in being able to
provide activities and services to the public.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. (CFN-198)
Mary Simmons
Deputy City Clerk
i
I
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6C
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON LODGING TAX ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ORDINANCE - ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. which amends Kent
City Code section 2.54.020 to provide that the Council President will appoint a
member of the Operations Committee to serve and to chair the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee.
Currently, section 2.54.020 of the Kent City Code (KCC) provides that the Chair
of the Operations Committee also serves as the chair of the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee.
This ordinance would amend KCC 2.54.020 to provide that the Council
representative position on the committee would be appointed by the Council
President from any of the members of the Operations Committee rather than only
the Operations Committee Chair.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
jCurrently in the Budget? Yes No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
' DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
II
ORDINANCE NO.
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending section
2.54.020 of the Kent City Code to provide that the
Council President will appoint a member of
Council's Operations Committee to serve as a
member of and to chair the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee.
RECITALS
A. Currently, section 2.54.020 of the Kent City Code ("KCC")
provides that the chair of the Operations Committee shall serve as the
chair of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
B. Council would like to revise KCC 2.54.020 to provide that the
Council President will appoint a member of Council's Operations Committee
to serve on and to chair the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. This
ordinance amends the Kent City Code to implement this revision.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amend KCC 2.54.020. Section 2.54.020 of the Kent
City Code regarding membership to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is
amended as follows:
1 Membership to Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee - KCC 2.54.020
I
f
Sec. 2.54.020. Membership. The Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee shall consist of seven (7) members as follows: f
A. Three members appointed by the City Council who are
representatives of businesses required to collect tax under Chapter 67.28
RCW;
B. Three members appointed by the City Council who are persons
involved in activities authorized to be funded by revenue received under
Chapter 67.28 RCW; and
C. The Council President shall appoint a member of Council's
Operations Committee to
serve as a member Hof and to chair the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee.
SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsections,
or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, ,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. f
SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. {
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
f
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
1
2 Membership to Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee - KCC 2.54.020
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER/ CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of September, 2009.
APPROVED: day of September, 2009.
PUBLISHED: day of September, 2009.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
I
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I
P:\Civil\Ordinance\LodgingTaxAdvisoryCommitteeKCC_2_54_020.doc
i
3 Membership to Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee - KCC 2.54.020
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6D
1. SUBJECT: KENTARA, BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Bill of Sale for the Kentara project for
8 water main gate valves, 2 hydrants and 1,720 linear feet of waterline; 12
sanitary sewer manholes and 1,913 linear feet of sanitary sewer line; 1,640 linear
feet of new street, 687 linear feet of frontage improvements, 1 storm sewer
manhole, 22 catch basins, 81,887 CF of detention pond storage, and 1,804 linear
feet of storm sewer line.
3. EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
3�113
MAIL TO:
CITY OF KENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
40 dk ATTN: JACKIE BICKNELL
220 — 4T" AVENUE SOUTH
KENT
W A 3 H 114 f3 T Q N KENT, WASHINGTON 98032
Project: KENTARA
Permit #:
Location: SE 272"d St. & 10411 Ave. SE
Parcel #:322205-9049,, 322205-9022
BILL OF SALE
CITY OF KENT
I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
THIS INSTRUMENT made this day of 204 , by and between
i
Schneider-Homes, Inc., hereinafter called "Grantors", and City of Kent, a municipal corporation of King
County, State of Washington, hereinafter called
"Grantee":
WITN ESSETH:
That the said Grantors for a valuable consideration does hereby grant, bargain, sell to Grantee the following
described improvements:
A. WATERMAINS:
i
Together with a total of 8 gate valves at $ 700.00 each, 2 hydrants at $2,500.00 each and/or any other
appurtenances thereto.
ON FROM TO
(street, easement, etc.)
SE 273rd/ 1041h Ave. SE, STA 31 + 52 STA 24 + 14
SE 272"d St. &
Tracts A, D & E access
easement
Including 1,720 linear feet at $ 28.00 per LE of 8" D.I.P.
(size &type) waterline.
B. SANITARY SEWERS:
Together with a total of 12 manholes at$2,400.00 each and/or any other appurtenances thereto.
ON FROM TO
(street, easement, etc.)
SE 272"d St., 1041h Ave. SE, STA 24 + 14, STA 4 + 41 STA 31 + 52, STA 10 + 62
SE 273rd St., Tracts A, D & E
Access Easement
Bill of Sale
1 of 5
' f
Including_1,913 linear feet at $ 40.26 per LF of 8" PVC l
(size &type) sewerline, l
C. NEW STREETS:
Together with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and/or any other appurtenances
,ON FROM TO
(street, easement, etc.)
SE 273rd, 100 Ave. SE, STA 24 + 14 STA 31 + 52
Tracts A,D,E Access
Easement
Including 1,640 linear feet at$ 98.15 per LF of City Roads
(size &type) curb, sidewalk&asphalt (improvement).
D. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: I
Together with lights, trees, landscaping (except residential streets) and/or any other appurtenances
ON FROM TO
(street, easement, etc.)
SE272"dSt. 3 + 75 10 + 62
Including 687 linear feet at $ 102.84 per LF of City Road
(size &type) curb, sidewalk&asphalt (improvement).
E. STORM SEWERS:
Together with a total of 1 manholes at $ 2,000.00 each or total of 22 catch basins at $800.00
each, N/A LF of blofiltration swale or drainage ditch with a total cost of $ N/A , 81,887 cubic feet of
detention pond storage with a total cost of$ 97,483.00, and/or any other appurtenances thereto.
OMl FROM TO
(street, easement, etc.) ll
SE 272"d St; 104`h Ave. SE; STA 24 + 14 STA 31 + 52
SE 273rd St; Tracts A,D,E,
Access Easement
Including 1,804 linear feet at $ 26.50 per LF of 12"PVC
(size &.type) sewerline, f
l
1
Bill of Sale
2 of 5
To have and to hold the same to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever.
The undersigned hereby covenants that it is the lawful owner of said property; and that the same is free
from all encumbrances; that all bills for labor and materials have been paid; that it has the right to sell
the same aforesaid; that it will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demand of all
person(s).
The Bill of Sale is given on consideration of the agreement of the Grantee for itself, its successors and
assigns to incorporate said utilities in its utility system and to maintain them as provided in the applicable
City Ordinances. The City accepts the Items subject to staff approval and completion-of a 2 year
maintenance period.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the u dersignAd has caused this instrument to be executed on this
= -`
day
i
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
On this VI day of April , 2009, before me, the undersigned A Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Gerald E. Schneider and Russell J. Tye
to me to be the C.E.O and Vice-President/General Manager respectively of Schneider .Homes, Inc., the
I
Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said Instrument to be the free
and voluntary act and deed of said Corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath
stated that they are authorized to execute the said instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal hereto affix the day and year first above written.
ti4`' �► 1;._�" tji_y Johanna M. Colman
Notary Public in and for the State of
h
s Washington, residing at
` s i
- King County
t-6.;. My Commission Expires:
/��ITS..?��►��.�t�i�-.W
Bill of Sale
3of5
- f
The Bill of Sale is given and accepted pursuant to a motion duly made, seconded, and passed by the City {
Council of the City of Kent, King County, Washington, on the day of
20
{
I
1
I
1
{
{
{
Bill of Sale
4of5
40
KENT
WAsHiNwroN
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION
CITY OF KENT
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
The figures used on the Bill of Sale for , project
dated (,a� , for the same said 1
i project. �U►� the undersigned
P.E. or land surveyor is the person responsible for the preparation of the
>Bill of Sale and
is an employee of '" � C / , the firm
responsible for the preparation of the record drawings.
Mo
h F W FO
roN s�'
Signa ure b
(Engineer stamp required)
Bill of Sale
5 of 5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6E
1. SUBJECT: MUTH PROPERTY, BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Bill of Sale for the Muth Property
project for 6 storm sewer manholes, 1,303,365 CF of detention pond storage, and
1,469 linear feet of storm sewer line.
3. EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
I
4^4
KENT zv toy
WASHINGTON
MAIL TO:
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ATTN:
220 411i AVENUE SOUTH
KENT,WASHINGTON 98032
PROJECT: Muth fond—Phase 2
LOCATION: SE Comer of S.212t'Street
and 42nd Avenue S.
1 TAX ACCT NOS: 102204-9004&-9139
I
BILL OF SALE
CITY OF KENT
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
I
THIS INSTRUMENT made this �144,,,. day of* c VLuCw 20 O1 by
and between Silver Oak LLC ,
hereinafter called`Grantors",and City of Kent,a municipal corporation of King County,State of
Washington,hereinafter called"Grantee":
WITNESSETH:
That the said Grantors for a valuable consideration,does hereby grant,bargain,sell to
Grantee the following described improvements:
A. WATERMAMS: together with a total of gate valves at$
each, hydrants at$ each and/or any other appurtenances thereto.
ON FROM TO
(street,esmt,etc)
Including linear feet at$ per LF of
(size&type) waterline.
B. SANMR�YF�EERS: Together with a total of manholes at
$ each and/or any other appurtenances thereto.
1 of 4
Bill of Sale 11265.010.doe
ON FROM TO
(street,esmt,etc)
Including linear feet at$ per LF of
(size&type) sewer line.
C. STREETS: Together with curbs,gutters,sidewalks,and/or any other appurtenances
thereto.
ON FROM TO .
(street,esmt,etc) i
Including centerline IF at$ per IF of
(type)streets, Feet asphalt roadway.
D. STORM SEWERS: Together with a total of 2 Type 11-48" manholes at$2,200 J
each, 3 Type 1I-72" manholes at$6.000 each, 1 Type II-96" manholes at$10.000
each, 1,303,365 CF of detention pond storage with a total cost of$ 12. 00.000,and/or any
other appurtenances thereto.
ON FROM TO
Road `A' Ex.CB#1 CB#4 I
Including 107 linear feet at$65.00 per LF of 24"(size&type)D.I.sewer line.
ON FROM TO
Road `A' CB#4 CB#3
Including 110 linear feet at$75.00 per LF of 30"(size&type)�.I.sewer line.
ON FROM TO
S.212'h STREET CB#3 POND
Including 1.146 linear feet at$75.00 per LF of 30"(size&type)D.I.. sewer line.
ON FROM TO { _
Muth Property Pond Discharge Point
Including 50 linear feet at$75.00 per LF of 30"(size&type)D.I.sewer line. j
Including 42 linear feet at$55.00 per LF of 18"(size&type)RCP sewer line.
Including 14 linear feet at$45.00 per LF of 1�-(size&type)D.I.. sewer line. (l
To have and to hold the same to the said Grantee,its successors and assigns forever. 1
The undersigned hereby covenants that it is the lawful owner of said property; and that the
same is free from all encumbrances; that all bills for labor and material have been paid;
that it has the right to sell the same aforesaid;that it will warrant and defend the same
against the lawful claims and demand of all person.
2 o£4
Bill of Sale 11265.010.doc
The Bill of Sale is given on consideration of the agreement of the Grantee for itself,its
successors and assigns to incorporate said utilities in its utility system and to maintain them
as provided in the applicable City Ordinances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed on
this -day of ,20
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)SS
COUNTY OF KING )
On this -1+-Vv day of ,2009 before me,the
undersigned A Notary Public i}�and f the State ashington,duly commissioned and
sworn,Personally appeared I g . sue-- to me known to be the
individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged to
me that he/she signed and sealed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of u 2064,
I
e®o®eo�o
1% Notary P is in and for the
s
� b800l. ��! ,"per.
qa 8i, ;'� ' �®. State of bington,residing at
i 5 4
`
4 f�UF�11� a ,o My Commission Expires:
� o000000 f
The Bill of Sale is given and accepted pursuant to a motion duly made,seconded,and
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,King County,Washington,on the
day of ,20
3 of 4
Bill of Sale 11265.010.doo
. I
ADDENDUM TO BILL OF SALE
CITY OF KENT
The figures used on the Bill of Sale for Muth Pond—Phase 2 project dated December 30,
2008,were based on the"As-Built"Engineering Plans dated December 16,2008,for the
same said Muth Pond project. Don.E. D4wes the undersigned P.E.or land surveyor is the
person responsible for the preparation of the Bill of Sale and is an employee of Bar ausen 1
Consulting Engineers, Inc. ,the firm responsible for the preparation of the"As-Built"
Engineering Drawings.
� l
1
Signature
I
t
I
I
f
1
4 of 4
Dill of Sale t►
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6F
1. SUBJECT: LANDAU ASSOCIATES FOR THE 72ND AVENUE EXTENSION
CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the consultant
agreement with Landau Associates in an amount not to exceed $85,600, to
provide geotechnical, environmental and natural resources services for the 72"d
Avenue South Extension Project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable
to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
The 72"d Avenue Extension Project will complete the missing link between South
196th Street and South 200th Street. The project will cross Mill Creek and is
located across the Western Processing Superfund Site (regulatory oversight is
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Landau Associates has 26 years experience as a consultant for the Western
Processing Trust and was also the City's geotechnical consultant for the South
196th street project which also crossed Western Processing.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum dated 8/25/09 and Consultant Agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? X Revenue?
Currently in the Budget? Yes X No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
5
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director
Phone:253-856-5500
KEN Fax:Fax: 253-856-6500
W A S H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA. 98032-5895
I
Date: August 25, 2009
To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PIN Committee Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
From: Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor
Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director
Subject: Consultant Services Agreement with Landau Associates to provide
geotechnical, environmental and natural resources services for the
72"d Avenue S. Extension Project.
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Contract
Agreement with Landau Associates to provide geotechnical, environmental and
natural resources services for the 72"d Avenue South Extension Project funds will
be directed towards this project, upon concurrence of the language therein by the
City Attorney and the Public Works Director.
Summary:
72nd Avenue South exists from South 180th Street to South 196th Street and from South
200th Street to South 228th Street. The 72nd Avenue South Extension Project will complete
the missing link between South 196th Street and South 200th Street. The project will cross
Mill Creek and is located across the Western Processing Superfund Site (regulatory
oversight is administered by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington
State Department of Ecology) and across the Bayside Automotive Property, aka the LIDCO
site (which is under an order from the Washington State Department of Ecology for remedial
action). Landau Associates has 26 years of experience as a consultant for the Western
Processing Trust and was also the City's geotechnical consultant for the South 196th Street
project which also crossed Western Processing.
Based on Landau Associates experience and expertise, and given that the City does not
currently have the expertise to perform these tasks, Landau Associates was selected to
perform geotechnical, environmental and natural resources services for this project.
IJAPWCommittm\2009\09 10 09 APLandauAgrmnt 72'Ave Ext Proj AMurillo.doc 7
I 1
7
KENT
WA a N I N a r o N
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
between the City of Kent and
Landau Associates
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation
(hereinafter the "City"), and Landau Associates organized under the laws of the State of
Washington, located and doing business at 130 2nd Avenue S., Edmonds, Washington 98020,
Phone: (425) 778-0907/Fax: (425) 778-6409, Contact: David Pischer (hereinafter the
"Consultant").
I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
Consultant shall perform the following services for the City in accordance with the
following described plans and/or specifications:
The Consultant shall provide geotechnicai, environmental, and natural resources
services for the 72nd Avenue S. Extension Project. For a description, see the
Consultant's August 17, 2009 Scope of Work, which is attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated by this reference.
Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be
performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practice's within the Puget Sound
region in effect at the time those services are performed.
II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks
described In Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement. Upon the
effective date of this Agreement, Consultant shall complete the work described in Section I by
December 31, 2010.
III. COMPENSATION.
A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to
exceed Eighty Five Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($85,600.00) for the services
described in this Agreement. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this
Agreement for the work described in Section I above, and shall not be exceeded
without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and
executed amendment to this agreement. The Consultant agrees that the hourly or
flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at
the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this
Agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A.
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1
(Over$10,000)
8 I
B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work
performed, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this
Agreement. The City shall provide payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of
an invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, It shall notify the
Consultant and reserves the option to only pay that portion of the invoice not in
dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the
disputed portion.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent 11
Contractor-Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this
Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following
representations:
A. The Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and
details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained
under this Agreement.
B. The Consultant maintains and pays for its own place of business from which J
Consultant's services under this Agreement will be performed.
C. The Consultant has an established and independent business that is eligible
for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before
the City retained Consultant's services, or the Consultant is engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the
same nature as that involved under this Agreement.
D: The Consultant is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax
documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal
Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue.
E. The Consultant has registered its business and established an account with I
the state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be
required by Consultant's business, and has obtained a Unified Business
Identifier (UBI) number from the State of Washington.
F. The Consultant maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and
earnings of its business.
V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without j
cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on
the signature block of this Agreement. After termination, the City may take possession of all
records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project, which may be
used by the City without restriction. If the City's use of Consultant's records or data is not
related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant.
VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under
this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on
behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age,
sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability,
discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the
employment relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2
(Over$10,000)
i
9
Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion
of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, Its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
1 damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in
connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the
injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence.
i
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not
be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant
and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability
hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence.
1
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY
NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
i
VIII. INSURANCE. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and
} incorporated by this reference.
i
IX. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The City will provide its best efforts to provide
reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of
completion of the work under this Agreement.
X. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents,
drawings, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement
shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City to the
Consultant will be safeguarded by the Consultant. Consultant shall make such data, documents,
and files available to the City upon the City's request. The City's use or reuse of any of the
documents, data and t:lles created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than
Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant.
XI. CITY'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Even though Consultant is an independent
contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work
authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be
subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure satisfactory completion.
XII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK. Consultant shall take all
necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and
subcontractors in the performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary
for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3
(Over$10,000)
10
responsible for any lots of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in
connection with the work.
i
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City
requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever
practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product.
B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option
conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or
relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable
to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this
Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by
filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court,
King County, Washington, unless the parties agree In writing to an alternative dispute resolution
process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this
Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or
bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award
provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the `
City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement.
D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the
contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the 1
date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to
the addressee at the address staffed in this Agreement or such other address as may be
hereafter specified in writing.
E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written
consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to
any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no
further assignment shall be made without additional written consent.
1
F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of
the City and Consultant.
G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together
with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or
other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as
entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above
documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement. However, should any language in any of
the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms
of this Agreement shall prevail.
I
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4 1
(Over$10,000) 1
11
H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and
municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable
to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this
Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations.
I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one
Agreement.
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become
effective on the last date entered below.
CONSULTANT: CITY OF KENT:
i
By: By:
(signature) (signature)
Print Name: Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its Its Mayor
(title)
DATE: DATE:
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO:
CONSULTANT: CITY OF KENT:
i
David Pischer Larry R. Blanchard
Landau Associates City of Kent
130 2nd Ave. S. 220 Fourth Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020 Kent, WA 98032
(425) 778-0907 (telephone) (253) 856-5500 (telephone)
(425) 778-6409 (facsimile) (253) 856-6500 (facsimile)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kent Law Department
Landau-72nd/Horn
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 5
(Over$10,000)
12
DECLARATION
CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. I
As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this
Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity
policies.
The following questions specifically .identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any
contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative
response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding.
If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the
directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole
determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement;
The questions are as follows:
1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. '
2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of
sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical
disability.
3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to 1
all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity 1
employer.
4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and
promotion of women and minorities.
5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the t
Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth
above.
By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above.
i
Dated this day of , 200_.
By:
For:
Title
Date,
I
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 1
i
13
CITY OF KENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
NUMBER: 1,2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998
i
SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996
CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor
POLICY:
Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and
state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee
equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City
amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps:
1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating
commitment as an equal opportunity employer.
2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women.
Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the .City's
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract
and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.
Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public
Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments.
1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these
regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity
policy.
2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines.
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 2
14
CITY OF KENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
I
This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the
Agreement.
I
I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of j
Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime
contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on the
(date) , between the firm I represent and the City of Kent.
i
I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City
i
of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity
Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement.
1
Dated this day of , 200
1
By:
For:
Title:
Date:
I
l
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 3
15
EXHIBIT A
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
August 17,2009
City of Kent
Public Works Engineering
400 West Gowe Street
Kent,Washington 98032
Attn: Ken Langholz,Engineering Supervisor
RE: SCOPE AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTATION SERVICES
72ND AVENUE SOUTH EXTENSION PROJECT
KENT,WASHINGTON
Dear Ken:
Landau Associates is pleased to present this proposed scope of services and cost estimate for our
geotechnical, environmental, and natural resources support services associated with the proposed extension
of 72"d Avenue South across the western portion of the Western Processing Superfund site located in Kent,
' Washington.
The proposed scope of services presented below is based on discussions with and information
I provided by the City of Kent(City); the information discussed at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(EPA)/Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (i.e., Governments) meeting held with the
Western Processing Trust Fund II(Trust) and City representatives on June 18, 2009; and our past experience
i
at the site.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
We understand that the City plans to expand and extend the 72"d Avenue South roadway from the
southern boundary of the Western Processing site (South 2000' Street), cross over Mill Creek using an 18-
foot (ft)-diameter culvert, and extend the roadway across. the Bayside Automotive property to connect with
the existing intersection of 72"d Avenue-South and South 196a' Street. The industrial collector roadway will
have a curb-to-curb width of 44 ft, and widen out to 58 R approaching the intersection with South 1960'
Street. We understand that the planned culvert crossing of Mill Creek has a final roadway elevation of
29.48 ft mean sea level (MSL), with the top and bottom of the 18-ft-diameter culvert at elevation 26 ft and
8 ft MSL,respectively(note that elevations based on NAVD 88 are approx. 3.53 feet higher).
An initial portion of the 72"d Avenue South roadway was constructed over the southwestern corner
of the Western Processing site cap in 2000. That project was designed and constructed to facilitate access to
commercial buildings constructed just west of the roadway extension, and included both relocation of
ENVIRONMENTAL) GEOTECHNICAL)NATURAL RESOURCES
1302nd Avenue South •Edmonds,WA 98020• (425)778-0907• fox(425)778.6409 •www.landaLAnc.com
SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND
16 i
utilities and construction within and over a portion of the existing site cap. That existing portion of the
roadway extension will be widened and extended north to the Mill Creek culvert crossing location. f
Additional details regarding the Western Processing site areas associated with the proposed roadway
extension are available in a variety of documents available from the Trust and the Governments, and are not
summarized further in this proposal.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES
As requested by the City, our proposed scope of services includes geotecbnical engineering needed
for roadway and culvert design, natural resources and permitting support associated with the proposed
culvert crossing of Mill Creek,and environmental engineering associated with protection and modification of
existing remedial features at the Western Processing site. The associated scope tasks are discussed further in
the following sections.
We understand that the scope of certain tasks may need to be modified during the course of the
project as site conditions and project design activities are further defined. We intend to coordinate closely
with the City and adjust our scope tasks and reallocate our authorized budget between our scope tasks as
appropriate to meet the needs and constraints of the project.
Task 1.0 Geotechnical Consultation Services
Landau Associates will conduct a limited geotechnical investigation to help characterize existing
subsurface conditions along the roadway alignment north of Mill Creek and to support design of the Mill
Creek culvert and other project earthwork activities. Because the current plans for the roadway extension
call for construction primarily on fill materials versus cuts into existing soil,a culvert crossing of Mill Creels,
and containment of excavated soil within the planned roadway fill, our proposed geotechnical exploration
scope is limited to review of existing data and implementation of a shallow test pit exploration program. l
1.1 Existing Data Review
We will collect and review readily available information related to geotechnical conditions along the
roadway alignment that will likely affect planning and design of the roadway extension and the culvert
crossing of Mill Creek.
1.2 Geotechnical Investigation
We propose to advance approximately five to six hand-excavated test pits to a depth of about 3-to O-
ft below ground surface (BGS) along the roadway alignment adjacent to and north of Mill Creek to help
estimate the depth of vegetation and organic matter to be cleared as part of roadway subgrade preparation.
The explorations will be coordinated and monitored by a Landau Associates geotechnical engineer or
8/17/09\%dmdara\projects\334\002-72nd Ave SExRrigrServices-Revl,pro.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
2
17
engineering geologist. Relatively disturbed soil samples will be collected from the test pits at selected depth
intervals, and a detailed field log will be prepared of the subsurface conditions encountered at each
exploration location. The soil samples will be returned to our laboratory for further examination,
classification, and testing. We have assumed that excavated materials can be used to backfill the test pits,
and that restoration of the ground surface at each test pit location will be limited to that typically achieved by
an experienced backhoe operator.
Laboratory testing is expected to consist of natural moisture content determination and grain-size
classifications or Atterberg Limits determinations on selected representative soil samples.
1.3 Geotechnical Evaluation and Reporting
The above geoteclmical data and observations,supplemented with our review of previous subsurface
data, will be used to develop our geotechnical engineering recommendations for the roadway extension "
project. Our findings and geotechnical engineering recommendations will be summarized in a written report
that will contain the following information:
• A site plan showing pertinent existing site features and the approximate locations of the
subsurface explorations relied on for the project; we will use the site base map and topographic
information provided by the City to prepare this site plan.
• Logs of the available soil explorations.
• A summary of soil and groundwater conditions anticipated along the roadway alignment.
• Recommendations for general site preparation and earthwork, roadway subgrade preparation,
grading and drainage,and reuse of site soil as fill materials.
• Recommendations for the foundation support and backfilling of the Mill Creek culvert, as well
as for temporary diversion of creek flows during culvert installation.
• Seismic considerations, including an initial evaluation of the liquefaction potential of soils along
the alignment.
• Utility trench excavation and backfilling considerations.
• _Recommendations for support of light poles on shallow spread footings.
• Procedures for excavation,material handling, and restoration of areas where intrusive earthwork
over the existing site cap is required.
• Reconunendations for monitoring of certain earthwork activities during construction.
We will provide a draft of our geotechnical report to the City for review prior to submittal of our
final report.
8117109\\EdmdalalprojeMX334\002.72ndAve S ExPLn&rScrvicwRevl_pro.doc t.ANDAu ASSOCIATES
3
18 I
Task 2.0 Natural Resources and Permitting Support Services
This task includes providing natural resources and permitting support services associated with thel
proposed culvert crossing of Mill Creek. We understand that the City will take the lead in project permitting
activities, including preparation of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) checklist and a Joint Aquatic i
Resources Permit Application(7ARPA)for the project along with documentation associated with obtaining a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 10/404 permit, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification +i
from Ecology for in-water construction activities in Mill Creek.
2.1 Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation:
Landau Associates will initially review the existing Biological Assessment (BA) and Essential Fish
Habitat(EFH)evaluation report prepared for the existing South 1960'Street crossing of Mill Creek,a copy of
which we understand will be provided by the City.
Landau Associates will then prepare a project-specific BA for selected species listed as threatened or
endangered in the project area under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and an EFH evaluation required as {
part of the USACE Section 10/404 permit. We will obtain updated species lists from agency websites and
also request site-specific species and habitat information from the WDFW priority habitats and species
database. Evaluation of specific project details (such as construction techniques and equipment used, timing I
of construction, temporary sediment and erosion control measures, and best management practices) will be
based on information provided by the City.
Information on the amount of new impervious surfaces, stormwater detention, and stormwater
quality treatment will also be based on information provided by the City. However,we currently understand
that existing stormwater management facilities located on either end of the project area have been sized to
accommodate stormwater runoff from the new roadway segment. We also understand that portions of the
project area could potentially be considered within the 100-year floodplain, depending upon the results of
floodplain maps that are currently being updated.
Landau Associates will prepare a draft BA and EFH report for review by the City, address review IJ
continents, and then issue a final document for use by the City. In developing our estimated budget for this
task,we have assumed the following;
• The project will have"no effect" on or"may affect,not likely to adversely affect"listed species
or their designated critical habitat, and a formal Biological Opinion will not be required. The
project will have no impact to EFH.
• Meetings with agency staff from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Fisheries are not included in this task.
8117/09 NEdmdatnlpr0iccL033A002-72nd Ave SCAPn&IScrviccs-Revlsro.doc t_ANDAu ASSOCIATES f
4
1
19
• The Mill Creek culvert will be designed in accordance with WDFW guidance for fish passage,as
necessary.
• In-water construction within Mill Creek will occur during appropriate work windows.
• Necessary design and construction details will be provided by the City. Such elements include,
but are not limited to, grading plans and details; limits of clearing and grading; sediment and
erosion control plan and features; proposed construction timing, sequencing, and duration; and
primary types of construction equipment to be used.
• This task does not include efforts to perform a 6-nxonth update of species listings,if necessary.
2.2 SEPA Checklist
Landau Associates will assist the City, as requested, during preparation of the SEPA Checklist for
the project. Because the City will be the lead agency for project permitting, our budget for this task assumes
a relatively limited level of effort to support the City during preparation of the SEPA Checklist and
summarizing the project's effects on elements of the environment.
2.3 Permitting Support
We currently understand that work associated with installation of the proposed culvert in Mill Creek
will require a Section 10/404 permit from the USACE, an HPA from WDFW, and a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification from Ecology.
Landau Associates will assist the City, as requested, during preparation of the DARPA form and
supporting documentation required to obtain the necessary project pen-nits. Because the City will be the lead
agency for project permitting, our budget for this task assumes a relatively limited level of effort to support
the City's project permitting activities. We have assumed that Landau Associates will participate in a pre-
application meeting with USACE, WDFW, Ecology, and other agency representatives to discuss planned in-
water construction activities. We have also assumed that we will assist the City in justifying use of a culvert
versus a bridge crossing of Mill Creek. We understand that the City will submit the notice of intent to obtain
a Construction Stormwater General Permit from Ecology for discharge of construction stormwater.
Task 3.0 Remedial Engineering Support Services
Landau Associates will assist the City in coordinating with the Trust and the Governments regarding
design of the roadway extension across the Western Processing site, and detennining appropriate methods to
protect/modify/relocate existing remediation features that could be affected by the roadway project, as
generally summarized below.
8117/09 Mindwa\projecls\334\002.72nd Ave S Exl\Eogr Services-Rev)_Pro doe t.ANDAu AssocIATES
5
i
20
i
3.1 Existing Site Features Evaluation
Landau Associates will coordinate with the Trust and review the location and elevation of existing
Western Processing site features within the roadway alignment. This information will be used to help
i
evaluate the requirements for protecting,modifying,or relocating existing remediation features. i
3.2 Existing Environmental Data Review
Landau Associates will review readily available data regarding the level of chemical constituents that
maybe present in site soil that is likely to be disturbed by project construction, This includes obtaining
available reports from Ecology regarding existing environmental conditions at the Bayside Automotive
property located between Mill Creek and South 1960'Street.
i
3.3 Roadway Extension Work Plan
Landau Associates will prepare the project work plan that is required to be submitted to the Trust and
the Governments for review and approval. The plan will generally describe the work associated with design
and construction of- the roadway extension, and will summarize the measures to be taken to
protect/inodify/relocate existing remediation features that could be affected by the roadway project. It has I
been assumed that only one project work plan that summarizes design and construction of the roadway
extension across the Western Processing site will need to be prepared because the project design plans and J
specifications will also be submitted to the Trust and the Governments for their review and concurrence.
A draft work plan will be submitted to the Trust and the Governments for review and cormnent, and
a final work plan will be prepared and submitted after review cominents are addressed.
3.4 Design Engineering,Drawings, and Specifications 1
The City will lead the project design effort and prepare the project contract documents and drawings
and specification package. We understand that the City will conduct all hydraulic evaluations associated
with the proposed culvert crossing of Mill Creek, evaluate stormwater management provisions for the
roadway project, and prepare the project construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP .
Landau Associates will assist the City during preparation of selected drawings and specifications and
associated plans related to protecting, modifying, or relocating certain site remediation features, as well as j
for maintaining adequate health and safety, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and environmental 1
protection measures during construction. This task includes assistance in correlating the City's horizontal
coordinate system with the existing Western Processing local coordinate system.
We understand that the City will likely agree to have the Trust implement certain modifications to
selected site remediation features rather than having the selected construction contractor conduct such 1
I
8117/09 HEdmdala%projects\714\002-77.nd Ave SEx6En&rServices•Revl-Pro.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
6
l
21
activities. We will assist the City in coordinating such project work activities outside of the City's roadway
construction contract.
3.5 Project Bidding and Construction Monitoring Support
This proposal does not include a scope or budget for any project bidding support or construction
monitoring services. Those services can be provided, if desired, as a supplemental scope of services and
budget.
i
Task 4.0 Project Meetings,Coordination, and Project Management
Landau Associates will attend project meetings, coordinate with the City, the Trust, and the
I Governments(as appropriate),and provide project management activities as summarized below.
4.1 Design Meetings
We have assumed that we will participate in up to five 2-hour project team coordination meetings at
i
the City's offices in Kent. We anticipate that these meetings will be held to discuss the status of our
authorized tasks, project design alternatives/options, and issues and constraints that may affect planning and
design for the project.
4.2 Trust and Governments Meetings
We have assumed that we will participate in up to three 3-hour project meetings at the Trust's office
at the Western Processing site. It is anticipated that such meetings will include site walks to review the
location of the roadway and Mill Creek culvert alignment relative to existing remedial features at the site.
4.3 Coordination
This task includes ongoing communications and coordination with the City and Trust
representatives,and participation in project conference calls.
4.4 Project Management
This task includes our project management and invoice review activities, as well as staff scheduling
and coordination associated.
SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS
We understand that the City intends to design the project in late 2009/early 2010 with a goal of
project construction in 2010. The project schedule will likely be subject to any delays associated with
$117/09\\EdmdaiaXprojecs\334\002-72nd Ave S EzQEngr Services-Revi_Pro.doe LANDAU ASSOCIATES
7
22
i
obtaining the necessary project permits. We propose to work closely with the City and will strive to meet the
City's overall project design and construction schedule.
1
ESTIlvtATM COST
I,
We propose to provide our proposed services on a time and expense basis according to the estimated
budget set forth below and our attached 2009 compensation schedule and equipment/supply rate schedule. It
is somewhat difficult to anticipate the level of effort that might be required to complete certain scope tasks.
However, as project requirements change or unexpected conditions are disclosed that appear to require
further field effort, study, or analysis, we will contact you and seek your approval for modification to our
authorized scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will coordinate closely with the City and will
adjust our scope of services and reallocate our authorized budget amounts between certain scope items as
appropriate to help meet the needs and constraints of the project.
We currently estimate the cost for our proposed scope of services will be approximately $85,600 in
general accordance with the following breakdown for Tasks 1.0 through 4.0, based on the assumed level of
effort and costs presented in the attached budget spreadsheet: - I
Task 1.0: Geotechnical Consultation Services
1.1—Existing Data Review $1,900
1.2—Geotechnical Investigation $2,900 I
1.3—Geotechnical Evaluation and Reporting $9,200
Task 1.0 Cost Estimate: $14,000
Task 2.0: Natural Resources and Permitting Support
2.1—Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation $12,500
2,2—SEPA Checklist $1,300
2.3—Permitting Support $4,200
Task 2.0 Cost Estimate: $18,000 !
Task 3.0: Remedial Engineering Support Services
3.1—Existing Site Features Evaluation $3,600
3.2—Existing Environmental Data Review $2,200
3.3—Roadway Extension Work Plan $18,900 )
3.4—Design Engineering,Drawings,and Specifications $11,500
3.5—Project Bidding and Construction Monitoring Support ---
Task 3.0 Cost Estimate: $36,200
1
I
8/17/09\\Edmdala\projccrs\334\002.72nd Ave SEx1\EngrScrvim-RcvJ_pro.doc t-ANDAu ASSOCIATES
l
23 '
Task 4.0: Meetings,Coordination,and Project Management
1 4.1—Design Meetings $4,700
4.2—Trust and Governments Meetings $2,900
I4.3—Coordination $5,500
4.4—Project Management $4,300
Task 4.0 Cost Estimate: $17,400
( Tasks 1.0 through Task 4.0-Total Cost Estimate: $85,600
} AUTHORIZATION
We anticipate that a Consultant Agreement between the City and Landau Associates will be prepared
to formalize our working relationship on this project. Please Iet us know how we can assist you in that
process.
4 We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Kent on this project, Please contact us at
425-778-0907 or email us at dpisclier(ii landauine.coni and dstettler(c 1andauin.o.coun if you have any
i questions regarding our proposed scope of services and budget for this phase of the pa oject.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES,INC.
�(-- 4e'k"t�
1 `
David A.Tischer,P.E.
Senior Associate
Dennis R.Stettler,P.E.
Principal
DAP/SJQ/DRS/kes
334002
Attachments: 2009 Compensation Schedule
i Equipment/Supply Rate Schedule-2009
Budget Spreadsheet
l
F 1%U9 IiAmdam•tanlca.•??J 002.72pd Aai 5 L•ti Gnvr Scn ices-Berl_i ac
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
9
24 1
LANDAU
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE -- 2009 ASSOCiA s
Personnel Labor Hourly Rate
Principal 190
Senior Associate 172
Associate 155
Senior 140
GIS Specialist I30
Senior Project 127
Project 117
GIS Analyst 110
Senior Staff 104
Senior CAD 93
Staff/Senior Technician II 92
Assistant/Senior Technician 1 82
Project Coordinator 80
CAD/GIS Technician 75
Technician 71
Support Staff 60
Expert professional testimony in court, deposition, declaration, arbitration, or public testimony is charged at L5
times the hourly rate.
Rates apply to all labor,including overtime.
Technical disciplines include; Biologist, Chemist, Engineer, Environmental Planner, Geoehemist, Geologist,
Hydrogeologist,Hydrologist,Risk Analyst,Scientist.
Equipment
Field,laboratory and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit
rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request.
Subcontractor Services and Other Expenses
Subcontractor billing and other project expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized routine
services will normally be charged at a rate of cost plus a twelve percent(12%)handling charge. A higher
handling charge for technical subconsultants and for high-risk field operations may be negotiated on an
individual project basis; similarly, a lower handling charge may be negotiated on projects requiring —
disproportionally high subconsultant involvement.
Invoices
Invoices for Landau Associates'services will be issued monthly. Interest of 1%percent per month(but not
exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law)will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days.
Term
Unless otherwise agreed, Landau Associates reserves the nght to make reasonable adjustments to our
compensation rates over time(e.g.,long-term continuing projects).
7117/09 gEdmda181pr*cIs13341002-72nd Ave S Ex152009 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE doc LANDAU As$OCIATES ,
25
EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES MATE SCHEDULE - 2009 LANDAU CI
AssocrATes
Traffic Cones 2 00 Day
Daily Field Equipment Charges 20.00 Day Traffic Signs(Shoulder Road Work) 50.00 Day
Air Compressor 40.00 Day Vane Shear Equipment 40.00 Day
Air velocity Meter 50.00 Day Water Infiltration Testing Equipment 20.00 Day
Anderson Sampler 70.00 Day Water Level Indicator 26.00 Day
Archaeology Field Kits 10.00 Day Weed Whacker/Brush Cutter 20.00 Day
Archaeology Subsurface Kit 25.00 Day Wetland Field Kit 30.00 Each
Autolevel wfTripod and Rod 15.00 Day
Bailer-Stainless Steel PVC 10.00 Day
Beach Seine 75.00 Day Absorbent Pads(18"x 181 0.75 Each -
Benthic Sieving Equipment 45.00 Day Bailer-Rope 0.10 Foot
Camera-Video 35.00 Day Brass Lock 10.00 Each
Videocassette 10.00 Each Buckets with Lids 5.00 Each
Camera-35 mm 10.00 Day Cloth Sample Bag-Small 0.70 Each
Film(35 mm) 5.00 Each Cloth Sample Bag-Large 3.00 Each
Camera-Digital 10.00 Day Disposable Bailer-Regular 800 Each
D
omputer,Portable 35.00 Day Locks 10.00 Each
Density Equipment-Nuclear Densometer 50.00 Day Locking Well Seal(2-inch) 13.00 Each
ensity Equipment-Sand Cone 20.00 Day Free Product Sampler 3.00 Each
Ekman Grab 45.00 Day Groundwater Filter(40 micron) 17.00 Each
Ensys Field Test Kit-PCB/TPH 100.00 Day Peristaltic-Tubing Union Fittings 2.30 1 Each
Fathometer 20.00 Day Peristaltic-Master Flex Tubing 5.00 Foot
Flow Cell-Low Flow 5.00 Day Peristaltic-Poly Tubing'h inch 0.35 Fool
Flow Restrictor 15.00 Day Peristaltic-Poly Tubing%inch 0.45 Fool
Generator-Honda EZ3500 50.00 Day Peristaltic-Poly Tubing%inch 0.25 Foot
GPS-Trimble ProXRS/GeoXT 110.00 Day Peristaltic-Poly Tubing Y.inch 020 Foot
Groundwater Datalogger 40.00 Day Shelby Tube Soil Seals 10.00 Each
Hand Level 5.00 Day Spray Marking Paint 5.00 Each
Kemmerer Sampler 40.00 Day Soil Sample Chip Trays 4.00 Each
Magnehelic Gauge Set 30.00 Day Survey Flagging 3.00 Each
Meter-Dissolved Oxygen 4000 Day Survey Stakes 0.60 Each
Meter-HAM Aerosol Monitor 60.00 Day Tedlar Bags 16.00 Each
Meter-YSI Multi GW Sensor 75.00 Day Wattera Foot Valve 25.00 Each
Meter-LEL/H2S/02-MultiGas 75.00 Day Wetland Stakes .10 Each
Meter-pH/Cond./Temp.Cole Parmer-10 30.00 Day Zefon Spore Trap Media 1000 Each
Meter-PIDs 60.00 Day Easy Draw Syringe 2.25 Each
Meter-ORP/Turbidity 30.00 Day Encore Sampler 9.50 Each
"No Park"Signs 2.00 Day Free Product Sampler 3.00 Each
Oil-Water Interface Indicator 60.00 Day
Peat Probe 5.00 Day •
Poly Tank or Drum 10.00 Day Gloves-Nitrile 0.20 Each
Pump-Bladder 40.00 Day Gloves-Scorpio 6.50 Pair
Bladder Pump Controller 60.00 Day Gloves-Solvex,Elbow 10.00 Pair
Pump-Draeger or Sensidyne 10.00 Day Gloves-Solvex,Standard 3.50 Pair
Pump-Honda 35.00 Day Protective Suit-Saranex 19.00 Each
Pump-Peristaltic 35.00 Day Protective Suit-Tyvek 7.50 Each
Pump-Purge 12 Volt 15.00 Day Protective Boot Cover-Tyvek 0.50 Pair
Pump-Redi Flow 2 100.00 Day Protective Boot Cover-PVC 6.00 Pair
Pump-Redi Flow Controller 30.00 Day Respirator Cartridge 10.00 Each
Respirator 5.00 Day
Scale-Field Gram and Pound 5.00 Day
Shop Vac 25.00 Day Mileage IRS Rate Mile
Soil Nand-Auger Equipment 1500 Day Vehicle Use 40.00 Day
Soil Split-Barrel Sampler Kit(Dames&Moore) 25.00 Day
Soil Samples(Rings)-each 6.00 Each
Stream Dip Net 5.00 Day Moisture Content Tr
Surber Benthic Sampler 5000 Day Unit Weight 20.00
Surge Blocks 1 3.00 Day
7M7=11Edmdatalprojects133*002-72nd Ave S Ext12009 Equipment&Suppkes Rate Schedule doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
LANDAU 26
EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES RATE SCHEDULE -- 2009 AsSOCIA1TES
Atterberg Limits 95.00 Each Computer Use CAD Design/GIS 15.00 Hour
Sieve Analysis 80.00 Each Advanced Engineering Software 20.00 Hour
Sieve Analysis—Large Sample 120.00 Each Copies 0.12 Page
200-Wash Sieve 45.00 Each Copies—color 0.50 Page
Hydrometer 110.00 1 Each Plotter Copies—B&W 1.25 Sq Ft
Combined Analysis 180.00 Each Plotter Copies—Color 2.50 Sq Ft
Compaction Test 175.00 Each CDs/DVDs 2.00 Each
Report Combs/Covers 4.00 Set
Weekly/monthly rates can be established upon request for extended uses. Charges for other special equipment and supplies are to be determined on
an as-needed basis.
j
r
7117109 1%Edmdata\protectsl334\002-72nd Ave S Ext12009 Equipment&Supplies Rate SchedLde doe LANDAU ASSOCIATES
27
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENTS
Insurance
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. _Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned,
hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance
Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing
equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be
endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO
occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from
premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed
operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability
assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General
Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per
Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 11 85. The City shall be
named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General
Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the
City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 11 85 or a
substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial
Insurance laws of the State of Washington.
4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's
profession.
B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single
limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per
accident.
28
EXHIBIT B (continued)
1 �
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits
no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate and a $1,000,000 products-completed operations
aggregate limit.
3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less
than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit.
C. Other Insurance Provisions 1
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability
insurance:
1. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool
coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
2. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage
shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has
been given to the City.
3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all
policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed
by or on behalf of the contractor and a copy of the endorsement
naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the
Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a
certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's
Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause
stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the
limits of the insurer's liability.
D. Acceptability of Insurers `
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not
less than AWII.
E. Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the
amendatory endorsements, Including but not necessarily limited to the
additional Insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of
the Contractor before commencement of the work.
l
I_
t_.
29
EXHIBIT B (Continued)
F. Subcontractors
I Contractor shall Include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or
shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance
requirements as stated herein for the Contractor.
I
I
I
1
,I
I
1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6G
1. SUBJECT: KING CONSERVATION DISTRICT (KCD)/DOWNEY FARMSTEAD
RESTORATION PROJECT GRANT - AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign a grant agreement
with the King Conservation District (KCD) for the City to receive a $100,000 grant
award (or any adjustments to this amount made as a result of modifications by
the KCD WRIA 9 Forum), subject to final grant terms and conditions acceptable to
the City Attorney, amend the budget, and authorize staff to spend the grant
proceeds on the Downey Farmstead Restoration project in accordance with the
grant's terms.
The overall project goal is to create floodplain storage and side channel refuge
habitat for salmon in the Green River. The City of Kent was awarded a $100,000
grant in August of 2009 from the King Conservation District.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum dated 8/31/09
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Revenue? X
� Currently in the Budget? Yes No Y
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
I31
I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
W A 5 H I N O T O N
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
II
Date: August 31, 2009
To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
I From: Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director
Subject: Downey Farmstead Restoration Project Agreement to Accept a
j $100,000 Grant Award from King Conservation District WRIA 9 Forum
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the King Conservation
District (KCD) WRIA 9 Forum's Agreement for the City to receive a $100,000 grant
award from KCD or any adjustments to this amount made as a result of
modifications by the KCD WRIA 9 Forum to be used for the city of Kent's Downey
I i Farmstead Restoration Project upon concurrence of the language by the Public
Works Director and City Attorney.
Summary:
'J The project site is located across the Green River from the Riverbend Golf Course driving
I range and north of SR 516. Just downstream of the project is the mouth of Lower Mullen
Slough. This project is located on four parcels (21.81 acres) owned by the City of Kent but
J located outside of city limits and in King County.
The overall project goal is to create floodplain storage and side channel refuge habitat for
salmon in the Green River. Very few areas along the Green River are available for this type
of restoration project which will benefit Chinook and other salmonids. The new channel will
be approximately 1200 feet long and will include fish habitat friendly features including large
woody debris and native riparian plantings.
IOn August 10, 2009 the City of Kent was awarded a $100,000 grant from the King
Conservation District KCD. Grant funds will be used for the demolition of existing structures
and foundations, site clearing, and removal of construction debris. The structures are part of
a former landscape nursery business operation known as Marco's Landscape Nursery.
Pending review of the grant agreement language by the Public Works Director and by the
City Attorney, our request is for council to recommend the Mayor to accept the $100,000
grant to be used for the project or any adjusted amounts made as a result of modifications
by the KCD WRIA 9 Forum. Using these grant funds will progress the work on this important
isalmon habitat restoration project.
U:►PWCommittee�ActlonPagel2009l0910 091DowneyFramsteadRestorationGrantAwardKCDWRIA9 AMurillo.doc
I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6H
1. SUBJECT: KING CONSERVATION DISTRICT (KCD)/RIVERVIEW PARK
RESTORATION PROJECT GRANT - AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign a grant agreement
with the King Conservation District (KCD) for the City to receive a $250,000 grant
award (or any adjustments to this amount made as a result of modifications by
the KCD WRIA 9 Forum), subject to final grant terms and conditions acceptable to
the City Attorney, amend the budget, and authorize staff to spend the grant
proceeds on the Riverview Park Restoration project in accordance with the grant's
terms.
This project is on City Park Department property known as Riverview Park, which
is located along the green River just south of Willis Street and west of SR 167.
Through creation of a new off-channel habitat area, the project will provide
summer rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge for salmon along the Green
River.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum dated 8/31/09
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Revenue? X
Currently in the Budget? Yes No X
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
35
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500
i WASHINGTON
� Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: August 31, 2009
To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
From: Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director
I '
Subject: Riverview Park Restoration Project Payment of $201,062 to the Army
Corps of Engineers to Complete Final Designs
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to make a payment to the Army
Corps of Engineers in the amount of $201,062 to complete the final designs for
the Riverview Park Restoration Project, upon concurrence of the language
I
therein but the Public Works Director and City Attorney.
I '
Summary:
The project is located on City of Kent Park department property known as Riverview Park,
fwhich is located along the Green River just south of Willis Street and west of SR 167.
Through creation of a new off-channel habitat area, the project will provide summer rearing
habitat and high flow winter refuge for salmon in a key reach of the Green River. The new
channel will be approximately 800 feet long and will include fish habitat friendly features
such as large woody debris, and native riparian plantings.
On May 17, 2007 the City of Kent and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) entered into a
i Design Agreement for the Riverview Park Restoration Project. The Design Agreement
stipulated the financial terms of the project's design cost: 75% to be paid by the Corps, and
25% to be paid by the city of Kent. At that time, a payment of $112,800 was authorized to
pay for the city's share of the designs for the project. To fund these design costs, the city
obtained a $150,000 grant award from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB).
Most recently the Corps has provided an updated design cost which shows a higher estimate
to complete the designs than what was provided in 2007. The higher costs are from
additional design work as a result of comments received from the SRFB to design the
channel with more fish friendly habitat features. As such, on June 26, 2009, the Corps
requested additional payment from the city in the amount of $201,062 to complete the final
designs.
II As a result of a grant application request by the city to King Conservation District (KCD), the
City of Kent was awarded a $250,000 grant on August 10, 2009 to complete the project
designs. These grant funds from KCD will be used as the City of Kent's payment to the
Corps to finalize designs of the Riverview Park Restoration Project.
Payment to the Corps to complete the project designs will allow this important project to
progress towards construction. The Riverview Park Restoration project is a critical project for
salmon habitat restoration in the Green River.
I U:JPWCommitteejActionPage►2009109 10 091Pymnt ArmyCorpsofEng CompleteDesignRiverviewPark AMurillo.doc
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6I
1. SUBJECT: PAYMENT TO U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR FINAL
DESIGNS FOR RIVERVIEW PARK RESTORATION PROJECT -
AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to make an additional
payment to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in the amount of $201,062 to
complete the final designs for the Riverview Park Restoration Project, subject to
the City's receipt of grant funds from the King County Conservation District.
This project is on City Park Department property known as Riverview Park which
is located along the green River just south of Willis Street and west of SR 167.
Through creation of a new off-channel habitat area, the project will provide
summer rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge for salmon along the Green
River. The City entered into a Design Agreement (DA) with the Corps for the
restoration project. The DA stipulated the financial terms of the project's cost
with 75% to be paid by the Corps, and 25% to be paid by the City. The City
previously remitted $112,800 to the Corps for the City's 25% share of the original
project cost estimate. However, most recently, the Corps has provided an
updated design cost which shows a higher estimate to complete the designs than
what which was provided in 2007.
This $201,062 payment represents the difference between the City's 25% share
under the original project cost estimate and the newly revised project cost
estimate.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum dated 8/31/09 and Letter from Army Corps of
Engineers
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? X Revenue?
Currently in the Budget? Yes No X
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
i
35
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASHING 7 O N
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: August 31, 2009
To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
From: Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director
Subject: Riverview Park Restoration Project Payment of $201,062 to the Army
Corps of Engineers to Complete Final Designs
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to make a payment to the Army
Corps of Engineers in the amount of $201,062 to complete the final designs for
the Riverview Park Restoration Project, upon concurrence of the language
therein but the Public Works Director and City Attorney.
Summary:
The project is located on City of Kent Park department property known as Riverview Park,
which is located along the Green River just south of Willis Street and west of SR 167.
Through creation of a new off-channel habitat area, the project will provide summer rearing
habitat and high flow winter refuge for salmon in a key reach of the Green River. The new
channel will be approximately 800 feet long and will include fish habitat friendly features
such as large woody debris, and native riparian plantings.
On May 17, 2007 the City of Kent and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) entered into a
Design Agreement for the Riverview Park Restoration Project. The Design Agreement
stipulated the financial terms of the project's design cost: 75% to be paid by the Corps, and
25% to be paid by the city of Kent. At that time, a payment of $112,800 was authorized to
pay for the city's share of the designs for the project. To fund these design costs, the city
obtained a $150,000 grant award from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB).
Most recently the Corps has provided an updated design cost which shows a higher estimate
to complete the designs than what was provided in 2007. The higher costs are from
additional design work as a result of comments received from the SRFB to design the
channel with more fish friendly habitat features. As such, on June 26, 2009, the Corps
requested additional payment from the city in the amount of $201,062 to complete the final
designs.
As a result of a grant application request by the city to King Conservation District (KCD), the
City of Kent was awarded a $250,000 grant on August 10, 2009 to complete the project
designs. These grant funds from KCD will be used as the City of Kent's payment to the
Corps to finalize designs of the Riverview Park Restoration Project.
Payment to the Corps to complete the project designs will allow this important project to
progress towards construction. The Riverview Park Restoration project is a critical project for
salmon habitat restoration in the Green River.
U:1PWCommittee%ActionPage►2009k09 10 09►Pymnt ArmyCorpsofEng CompleteDesignRiverviewPark AMurillo.doc
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS,SEATTLE DISTRICT
P.O.BOX3755
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-3755
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
R EIVED
Civil Projects Branch 26 June 2009
Alex Murillo CITY OF KENO'
Public Works ENGINEERING DEPT
City of Kent
220 4"Ave. South
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Dear Mr. Murillo:
In 2007 the City of Kent executed a Design Agreement with the U.S. Arley Corps of
Engineers for the design of the Riverview Park Restoration Project, a separable element of the
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. As outlined in the Design Agreement,total
design costs were estimated at$451,200.00,with the Non-Federal share being$112,800.00 and
the Federal share being.$33 8,400.00. The total design costs included in the Design Agreement
was the Corps' best estimate at the time the parties signed the Design Agreement.
The Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB)reviewed the Corps' 2006
design as a requirement of their grant funding the Non-Federal sponsor's cost share amount of
the design. The SRFB raised a significant protest to the amount of rock armoring on the banks
of the side channel in the Corps' proposed design. As a result,the SRFB has conditioned their
funding of the project and stated that the Riverview Park Restoration Project must include
additional ecosystem features. Design costs have increased due to the re-design of the proposed
project, in order to meet SRFB's concerns.
The new estimated design costs are$1,255,450.00,with the Non-Federal share being
$313,862.00 and the Federal share being$941,587.00. The Corps has already received
$112,800.00 from the City of Kent. The remaining amount for the 25%Non-Federal cost-share
would be$201,062.00. Please review the enclosed updated Riverview Park Restoration Project
Management Plan for the breakdown of the costs.
In accordance with Article N.B. of the agreement, the government shall give at least 30 days
notice to the City of the required amount of funds and the Non-Federal sponsor shall provide the
Government with the full amount of the required funds. We request that funds be made available
to move forward with design of the project.
2
I
We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Kent on this important project. If you
need additional information,please contact the Project Manager, Lan Nguyen at 206-764-6675.
Sincerely,
f
'/Noel Gilbrough
Program Manager
Green Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program
I
(
I
- f
I
i
i
I
2
l
i
RIVERVIEW PARK RESTORATION Project
i
Project Management Plan for the Period of Design
REVISED: 19 JUNE 2009
Original 10 March 2006
SCOPE
1. Overview:
This Project Management Plan is intended to specify the roles,responsibilities, and
protocols of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Kent during the Period of
Design of the Riverview Park Restoration Project. This plan will be reviewed by the
project team at the beginning of the project, and updated quarterly to reflect schedule,
scope, and team member changes.
4 2.Location: The project site is located in the Middle Green River Basin on the right
bank at approximately River Mile 23.7. The project site is currently an undeveloped
park owned by the City of Kent.
3. Project Background: This project is a separable element of the Duwainish/Green
Ecosystem Restoration Project(ERP), authorized by Section 101(b)(26) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000,Public Law 106-541,which lists the project as
"Green River Park". A conceptual design and cost estimate was prepared in 1998 as part
of feasibility phase. The Duwamish/Green ERP gained construction New Start capability
in the Water and Energy Act of 2003. The project was renamed Riverview Park in early
2006 when the period of design was initiated with the City of Kent.
i The City of Kent is sponsoring the restoration of an 800' side channel as the restoration
piece of the larger City of Kent project to develop Riverview Park for recreation. The
lands for both pieces of the project(restoration and recreation)were purchased by the
City of Kent,using non-Federal grant funds, in 2005. City of Kent Public Works is
responsible for the restoration project,which is the Corps/City of Kent Riverview Park
Project. The City of Kent Parks Department is responsible for the adjacent site
development for recreation. These two projects are directly adjacent to each other;
jointly creating the newly developed Riverview Park.
4.Non-federal Sponsor (NFS):
City of Kent
Public Works Department
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
POC: Alex Murillo, (253) 856-5528
1
I
5.Authority: This project is authorized within the parent project Duwamish/Green
Ecosystem Restoration Project(ERP), authorized by Section 101(b) (26) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000,Public Law 106-541.
6. Scope: The proposed project is currently scoped to construct an 800' side channel
providing salmonid refuge habitat'in high-flow and low-flow conditions at the Riverview
Park site.
Elements within this project phase includes: the Design and Engineering Report(DER),
Intermediate Design Submittal and 95% designs and final plans and specifications,
Independent Technical Reviews, cost estimates, environinental coordination and
permitting,Real Estate coordination and land certification, development, approval and
signature of the Project Partnership Agreement(PPA)for construction.
TEAM IDENTIFICATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Project Delivery Team Members f
Corps of Engineers -Team
Name Role Phone Email f
Beth Coffey CG Program Manager (206) 764-3590 ngag.t.chin@usace.army.mil
.mil
Noel Gilbrough Green Duwamish Pgm (206) 764-3652 noel.l. ilbrou h @ usace.arm .mil
Lan Nguyen Project Manager (206) 764-6675 lan.n u en@usace.arm .mil I
Mike Scuderi Biologist (206) 764-7205 mike.r.scuderi@usace.army.mil
Nancy Gleason Biologist (206) 764-6577 nanc .c. leason@usace.arm .mil
Ron Kent Archeologist (206) 764-3576 ronald.".kent@usace.arm .mil
Jen West Civil Engineer (206) 764-3452 en niter.Imest@usace.arm .mII I
Paul Anderson Geotechnical Engineer (206) 764-6506 aul.f.anderson@usace.arm .mil
Zac Corum Hydraulic Engineer (206) 764-6581 zachar . .corum @ usace.arm .mil
Mike Likavek Structural Engineer 206-764-6877 michael.t.likavec@usace.arm .mil
Don Bisbee Economist (206) 764-3713 donald.'.bisbee@usace.arm .mil
Kevin Kane Real Estate Specialist (206) 764-6652 kevin.l.kane@usace.army.mil
Bruce Rohde Office of Counsel (RE) (206) 764-3797 bruce.g.rohde@usace.army.mil
Sue Leong Office of Counsel (206) 764-3731 sue. .leon @usace.arm .mil
Tim Sullivan Cost Estimator (206) 764-6757 timoth .f.sullivan@usace.arm .mil Il
Jayson Osborne Hazardous,Toxic and (206) 764-3521
Radioactive Wastes I
HTRW) a son.b.osborne@usace.arm .mil
City of Kent-Team
Lori Flem . Superintendent,Parks (206) 856-5112 Iflemm@ci.kentma.us
Shane Gilbertson Parks,Project Manager (206) 856-5115 sailbeftson@dkentwa.us
2 I
Alex Murillo Environmental (253) 856-5528
Engineering Supervisor,
Public Works Engineering amurillo@dkentma.us
Mike Mactutis Environmental (253) 856-5220
Engineering Manager,
Public Works Engineering mmactutis@ci.kentma.us
Kim Adams Pratt Assistant City Attorney 253-856-5786 Kpratt@dkentma.us
I
7.Roles and Responsibilities
Corps responsibilities
1 The Corps of Engineers will provide technical expertise in the areas of engineering,
environmental, and economic analysis for the purpose of furthering the project during all
phases. The Corps will also provide project management and guidance, such as
coordination with agencies and local groups, attendance at site visits, and legal guidance.
After the project design,plan, specifications and cost estimate are complete,the Corps
( will sign the PPA. The PPA will dictate the Corps and Sponsor responsibilities during
construction.
i Sponsor Responsibilities
The local sponsor will, at minimum,provide project management support, such as regular
meetings with the project team, site visits,technical reviews, and guidance on local
project goals. The local sponsor should inform the project team of local issues that may
affect the viability of the project. The local sponsor should also provide all necessary
lands, easements,rights of way,relocations and disposal areas (LERRD) and rights of
entry(if necessary) for the project site. The local sponsor shall provide 25% of the total
design costs during the period of design in non-federal cash, in accordance with the
Design Agreement(DA). The remaining portion of the non-federal share of costs will be
provided in accordance with the provisions of the PPA.
ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
1. Project goal/objectives:
Create Salmonid habitat
• Provide off channel rearing habitat
• Provide a suitable water source for channel (avoid negatively affecting
temperature and dissolved oxygen)
• Provide spawning areas for chum
Protect and Enhance existing terrestrial habitat
• Protect existing riparian cottonwood grove
• Remove existing invasive plants and noxious weeds and control exotics
• Provide riparian cover along side channel for shade, detrital input, erosion control,
insect drop.
3
l
2. Critical Assumptions and Constraints
The following assumptions directly affect design development:
• The park was purchased by the City of Kent with Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account(ALEA) grant funds. The grant specifies that the land purchased must
retain vegetation and be used for public parkland. In order to meet the ALEA
grant requirements, Riverview Park restoration project will minimize the project
footprint,provide for recreational use within all accessible parts of the restoration
project and minimize removal of existing vegetation.
• The final design for construction will require close coordination with the City of
Dent Parks Department on their adjacent recreation project elements. The two
projects will coordinate closely on issues to include the project footprints,
utilization of materials onsite(to the maximum extent practicable),recreation
access within the restoration project and construction phasing. Currently,it is
assumed that the recreation project construction will start prior to the restoration
project.
• All in-water work must be completed within the"fish-window"of August 1 thru
31 st
• Project plans must be acceptable to the Corps and the local sponsor.
• Operation and maintenance costs must be acceptable to local sponsor
• The project must be feasible for construction(permitable,politically acceptable, l
physically possible) l
As a condition of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB) grant, obtained by the
NFS for cost share of the design,the final design of Riverview Park must: 1
• Widen the inlet and outlet of the side channel
• Incorporate large woody debris into the side channel
• Vary the side channel width
• Be coordinated with a SRFB panel member
And the design should: f
• Evaluate the value of terraced channel cross-section
• Evaluate the optional design of scalping the entire site west of the currently I
proposed channel, creating high-flow refugia.
MAJOR TASKS i
1.Work Breakdown Structure
This project is now managed in the Corps of Engineers"PT'system, an automated
scheduling,resourcing, and budgeting program. Information from P2 is linked into l
CEFMS,the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System. CEFMS will only allow l
expenditures that have been scheduled,resourced, and budgeted in P2. The work
breakdown structure below shows activities in P2 that are scheduled,resourced and
budgeted in bold. The 6 character code is the CEFMS work item that corresponds to the
activity,the indentation shows hierarchy. Text following the bold activities describes
work to be included in that activity. All project expenditures are initiated and tracked in
CEFMS, and are linked to one of the bold activities.
4
i
Design Evaluation Report(DER)
The purpose of the DER is to generate agreement in the project conceptual design
and design criteria so that the contractor can efficiently proceed with design. The
DER will be completed by the contractor.
The presentation and subsequent discussions should demonstrate a thorough
understanding of the issues and a capability to accomplish the work. Following the
presentation a question and answer period will be conducted. Based on discussions,
I the design concepts and the design criteria should be agreed upon by the PDT. The.
SOW should be reviewed by the Contractor and COE to make sure it accurately
reflects the design work to be conducted and the agreed upon schedule.
Intermediate Design Submittal
i Resolution of all issues that affect the project footprint and cost estimates to include:
targeted depth of channel, side slopes,use of rock,maintenance access bridge
location and design criteria,woody debris number, location and placement method,
bench size and number and a Level 1 assessment of hazardous and toxic waste. The
technical design lead will maintain a Design Documentation Report(DDR) and a
supplemental Engineering Documentation Report(EDR)with input from the PDT.
The DDR will provide a summary of the design progress including a full record of
design decisions, assumptions and methods, subsequent to the Feasibility Report
(authorized project). The EDR will supplement the DDR in describing the changes
in design and costs from authorizing reports. Both documents will be in compliance
with ER 1110-2-1150. The 65%Design task will include ITR and revisions to the
design. The 65% design will be the basis for permit applications for Corps and City.
l At the 65% level of design,both the Corps and the NFS will convene to determine
I whether this project remains an appropriate investment.
This task will include the following resources: H&H, Civil, Soils, Structural, Cost
Engineering, and Environmental and the Non-Federal Sponsor. The contractor will
be responsible for the following resources listed above. The Corps will review and
i evaluate all materials completed by the contractor.
95%Design
Incorporate public and agency comments obtained during permit review process.
Include development of all specifications necessary to support the designed project
for construction bid. The technical design lead will maintain a Design
Documentation Report(DDR) and a supplemental Engineering Documentation
Report(EDR) with input from the PDT. The DDR will provide a summary of the
design progress including a full record of design decisions, assumptions and
methods, subsequent to the Feasibility Report(authorized project). The EDR will
supplement the DDR in describing the changes in design and costs from authorizing
reports. Both documents will be in compliance with ER 1110-2-1150. 95% Design
task will include 95% design, ITR,revisions and the completion of 100% design.
This task will include the following resources: H&H, Civil, Soils, Structural, Cost
Engineering, and Environmental, and the Non-Federal Sponsor. The contractor will
be responsible for the following resources listed above. The Corps will review and
5
1
evaluate all materials completed b the contractor.
p Y
Environmental Permitting {
Include coordination of all necessary permits. Corps will lead in obtaining
EA/FONSI, 404/401 Certification, ESA consultation, CZM determination,WDFW
coordination and Section 106 compliance, JARPA.
NFS will lead in obtaining the following permits: shoreline, fill and grade, SEPA. l
This task will include the following resources: Biologist, archeologist, other PDT
members, as necessary.
Real Estate Coordination
Real Estate Coordination for Design Phase includes coordination with Project I
Manager,Non-Federal Sponsor, and others on lands, easements,rights-of-way
relocations and disposal areas (LERRD) sites necessary for LERRD certification
mapping; discussions on LERRD acquisition appraisals and the certification and 1
crediting processes;preliminary real estate drawings and project footprint maps;real 1
estate requirements including identification of standard estates; and identification of
facility and utility relocations and preparation of opinion of compensability.
This task will include the following resources: Realty specialist,program manager,
Office of Counsel real estate attorney,review appraiser and the Non-Federal
Sponsor.
PPA Coordination
Coordination with the local sponsor to develop and get approval of PPA, including
any necessary deviations, leading to signature of the PPA.
This task will include the following resources: Realty specialist, Real Estate program
manager, Office of Counsel,Project Manager,the Non-Federal Sponsor,Department l
of Natural Resources (DNR) and higher authority approvers of PCA. 1
SCHEDULE f
Period of Design Milestones
Milestones I
Baseline Schedule Current
Completion Date Completion Actual Completion
at signature of DA) Date Date
Submit Draft DA for approval 27-Nov-06 27-Nov-06
Fed and NFS Approval of Draft DA 01-Dec-06 23-Feb-07
NFS Signature of DA 26-Feb-07 04-Ma -07 l
Fed signature of DA 5-Mar-07 17-Ma -07 1
Receive NFS funds 19-Mar-07 31-Jul -07
Initiate Design Phase 19-Mar-07 01-Au -07
Design Contractor—NTP 05-Feb-08
Design Evaluation 02-A r-08
Intermediate Design Submittal 25-Jul-07 29-Jul-09
Complete 95%Design and Specs
Submittal 12-Oct-07 7-Oct-09
Complete 95%Cost Estimate 26-Oct-07 14-Oct-09
6 l
Complete 95%ITR 18-Dec-07 28-Oct-09
Final Design Submittal 26-Dec-07 11-Nov-09
PPA Submittal for Approval 29-Oct-07 11-Nov-09
Execute PPA 06-Ma -08 7-Jan-09
LER Certification 20-Ma -08 07-Jan-09
RFP Issued 25-Ma -08 14-Jan-09
Contract Award 2-Jul-08 10-Feb-09
Issue NTP 17-Jul-08 10-Feb-09
All Milestones will be updated monthly. All in-water construction must be planned to be
complete within the allocated work window—August 1st through 31st. An evaluation
will be conducted,prior to initiation of construction, of the Government,NFS and
Contractor's ability to work within these constraints.
PROJECT COSTS
Design Costs. The scope of work described in this PMP for the Period of Design is cost-
shared 75% federal 25%non-federal. The non-federal match for this phase can only be
provided in non-federal cash. Cash will be requested and received as specified in the
Design Agreement. The totals are shown in Figure 1.
j The Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB)reviewed the Corps'
2006 design as a requirement of their grant funding the Non-Federal sponsor's cost share
amount of the design. The SRFB raised a significant protest to the amount of rock
armoring on the banks of the side channel in the Corps' proposed design. As a result, the
SRFB has conditioned their funding of the project and stated that the Riverview Park
Restoration Project must include additional ecosystem features. Design costs have
increased due to the re-design of the proposed project, in order to meet SRFB's concerns.
Construction Costs. The sponsor will be responsible for providing 35%of the design
and construction costs at the time of signing the PPA, thru cash,work-in-kind and the
provision of Lands, Easements,Rights-of-Way, Relocations and Disposal areas (LERRD)
and credit for the acquisition and certification of LERRD.
At the 3 5%design level, implementation costs were estimated at$1,200,000 including
design, construction, and LERRD. Due to changes in design resulting in increased
excavation and disposal quantities,the implementation costs are expected to increase.
Cost estimates will be prepared at the 95% and final design levels to ensure accurate
costs be reflected in the PPA.
7
$ K 0
Pi
uaus tilll _ _ s£ -
ff I s
Uw -'uw Es
., v o 3
Ns
I a'
its ' vi S n N
.6 i. ' N L
p L $n E
R
a m
- chi+<� lG..^'`. =i5�� win•u' u �_`_—��`- -___..��. _._—.._--_.._._----.-_..
I o
E
�a ry
o 0
� I , , �
S
I so & I x.u.13 lwm 07 0- �-------------- ----.__.- ----
o � #
xo'c�A. u"1 n:c�`Lu ---------------,--- _---.-
rn
I I o Ito I
o =r ,u
w
a� � I
I xI_� I I
1 s
A ! G.
rd ec
a`o
Aele , EoI21 78
to o i I i o -
1 0
l
QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
1. Purpose
The technical review process for this study will be in accordance with ER 1110-1-12
"Engineering and Design Quality Management". To ensure a quality product, all action
will be documented in the PMP,including decisions,rejection or acceptance of
alternatives, etc. This QC Plan defines the responsibilities and roles of each member on
the project and the Independent Technical Review(ITR) team. The products to be
reviewed by the ITR team are the design submittals,the EA, and supporting appendices.
Under current procedures,ITR is a district function along with a legal sufficiency and
policy compliance review. ITR will be conducted for all decision documents and will be
independent of the technical production of the product/project, The sponsor may provide
members of the ITR team.
2. QC Objectives:
The ITR will ensure and confirm that:
•The documents are consistent with established criteria,procedures and policy;
•Assumptions that are clearly justified have been utilized in accordance with
1 established guidance and policy,with any deviations clearly identified and properly
approved;
•The concepts, features, analytical methods, analyses, and details are appropriate,
fully coordinated, and correct;
•The problems/issues are properly defined and scoped; and
•The conclusions and recommendations are reasonable.
3. Quality Control.Process
31 Technical Coordination
Generally,product development shall be performed in accordance with established
criteria and guidance and with policy. Meetings with the appropriate ITR team members
during the planning process will be held at key decision making points. Meetings will
also be held to discuss and resolve technical and/or policy issues that may arise during
the course of product development. Technical issues and concerns raised during the ITR
review process will be documented, as wilt the resolution of these issues and concerns.
Telephone and personal contacts with appropriate ITR team members will be used to
informally discuss study issues throughout the process.
3.2 Product Quality Control
Product Quality Control is the ITR of a completed product. The Corps' Project Manager
will provide completed documents to the review team leader who will distribute them to
the ITR team members for review. During the review,ITR team meetings will be
scheduled as required to ensure that all components have been coordinated, there is
consistency throughout the document, and there is a consensus on proposed revisions.
Any issues on which a review team position cannot be reached will be referred through
the Project Manager to the District Functional Chief for resolution. The ITR team leader
will record the significant team comments in a written review memorandum that will be
provided to the Project Manager for appropriate action. Comments that cannot be
resolved between reviewers and PDT will be taken by the ITR team leader and Project
Manager to the appropriate Functional Chief for final disposition. If resolution is not
9
1
possible,the assistance of Northwest Division and HQUSACE will be requested, as
needed.
ACQUISITION PLAN
At this point in the project, all work has been performed by the Corps Team. Design
work through plans and specs will be completed in-house by the Seattle District or l
contracted by the Seattle District. Construction will be completed by contract thra the l
Corps Construction Small Projects Team.
RISK MANAGEMENT
1. Cost
Estimated total construction costs are approximately$1.2M, including construction and
LERRD. The feasibility construction cost estimate was conducted prior to 2000 and the
design has been significantly changed. This results in a high risk that the project
construction costs will increase during the period of design. To manage this risk, cost
estimates are being prepared and technically reviewed at the 65% and final design levels
to ensure early sponsor notification of construction costs.
2. Project Benefits
Because the benefits evaluation and cost analysis was completed in feasibility phase, any i
changes to the design will be undergo cost effectiveness analysis. The risk is that the l
benefits will change due to design changes during the period of design. The design team
will keep the primary objectives of the project benefits throughout Design during
Construction phase.
3. Special Conditions
The restoration project will be part of a pack development by the City of Kent.
Coordinating the design and construction sequencing of restoration and recreation l
components will be necessary throughout the period of design. Access, aesthetics, and
safety will be key issues to be factored into the Corps ecosystem restoration design. City
of Kent's Parks department PM will be included in all design meetings.
As a condition of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB) grant, obtained by the I
NITS for cost share of the design,the final design of Riverview Park must:
• Widen the inlet and outlet of the side channel
• Incorporate large woody debris into the side channel l
• Vary the side channel width 4
• Be coordinated with a SRFB panel member
And the design should:
• Evaluate the value of terraced channel cross-section
• Evaluate the optional design of scalping the entire site west of the currently
proposed channel, creating high-flow refugia.
4. Scope Changes:
All scope changes in the period of design (governed by the Design Agreement) will be
coordinated in accordance with the Change Management process. Changes in scope
related to the construction will be evaluated for their effect on the work planned for
10
during period of design. Additional scope elements must be approved thru the Change
management process.
5. Construction Schedule
There is a risk that small delays in the project will seriously affect the construction
schedule. Because of the short in-water construction window, a small delay could cause
the project construction to move to the following year. The Construction schedule will
be closely monitored thru status updates to the overall project schedule.
6.Hazardous,Toxic and Radioactive Wastes:
An HTRW investigation will be completed prior to signing the PCA. There is a potential
for hazardous and toxic wastes in the project area. If any are found,the entire area
necessary for the project must be remediated at the expense of the local sponsor,prior to
the land certification.
SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MONITORING
There are no identified risks at this time.
f
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
The decision-malting processes for the project will be highly dependent upon various
issues. For the most part,the Corps and Sponsor PMs will make decisions in
coordination with their management/supervisory chains. If any issues cannot be resolved
at the staff level,the management team will become involved to develop a solution. The
following team will be members of the management team. In the event this team cannot
resolve the issues,the parties will proceed according to Article V of the Design
Agreement.
Corps
Noel Gilbrough Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program(ERP)Manager
Beth Coffey Chief, Civil Projects Branch
Mark Ziminske Chief, Environmental Resources Section
Dennis Fischer Chief, Design Branch
Sponsor
City of Kent Mike Mactutis,Public Works Department
City of Kent Lori Flemm, Park Department
City of Kent Alex Murillo,Project Manager
City of Kent Shane Gilbertson, Parks Department
I
COMMUNICATION PLAN
Design Team
The Design team will meet on a regular basis to discuss design progress and resolve
product development issues. Team includes both Corps and Sponsor staff.
Sponsor
The communication with the sponsor will occur on an as needed basis to ensure sponsor
is informed of all pertinent project decisions. Periodic meetings between the Corps and
sponsor management will facilitate project oversight.
11
1
Agencies and Stakeholders
Communication with agencies and stakeholders will occur through the WRIA9 Technical
Committee,public notices, as required for NEPA coordination, and other outreach 1
channels.
Public Webpage
A project website will be developed. The webpage will be used as a communication and
public outreach tool. Documents such as the PMP and Design Reports will be posted on
the webpage: I
EARNED VALUE AND VALUE MANAGEMENT
An earned value and value management plan has not yet been developed.
CLOSEOUT PLAN
Throughout the project, expenditures will be monitored in CEFMS to ensure Federal/non-
federal contributions and expenditures are in balance. Also, after the PCA is signed,in-
kind contributions from the local sponsor(s)will be monitored and in-kind approvals by
the project manager will be submitted to the Chief of F&A on a quarterly basis. In
addition, accounts in CEFMS will be de-obligated as needed as the project progresses.
This will ensure a timely and smooth closeout procedure for the project. A lessons-
learned report will be completed in Dr..Checks. {
APPROVALS
Review and approval of this PMP was conducted by internal PDT and sponsor team
members in November 2006. j
f
12
Kent CityCouncil Meeting
9
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 63
1. SUBJECT: DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE UPPER RUSSELL ROAD
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORP
OF ENGINEERS - AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Design Agreement
between the City of Kent and the US Army Corps of Engineers to initiate the
Upper Russell Road Levee (Lake Levee) Ecosystem Project, subject to final terms
and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney, and establish a budget for this
project.
The project is a separable element of the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (GDERP) and is subject to a cost
share program to fund the design and construction of the project.
The Design Agreement (DA) must be executed between the City of Kent and the
Corps. The DA stipulates the 25/75 percent cost share and a payment to the
Corps is required to complete the designs.
The City's share is $200,000. If the City chooses not to enter into a DA with the
Corps and does not make payment to fund the designs, then funding the design
and construction to rebuild the Upper Russell Road Levee will be the City's full
responsibility.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum dated 8/31/09
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? X Revenue?
Currently in the Budget? Yes X No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
37
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director
4400 Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
I
Date: August 31, 2009
To: Chair Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
From: Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director
Subject: Upper Russell Rd Levee (Lakes Levee) Ecosystem Restoration Project
Army Corps of Engineer's Design Agreement and Budget Establishment
1
Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Design
Agreement between the City of Kent and the US Army Corps of Engineers to initiate
j the Upper Russell Road Levee (Lakes Levee) Ecosystem Project and establish a
f budget for this project, upon concurrence of the language therein by the Public
Works Director and City Attorney.
l
I
Summary:
The Upper Russell Road Levee project, also known as the Lakes Levee, is about one mile in
length and is located along the east bank of the Green River, north of James Street and
ending just south of the S 231st Street Bridge near Russell Woods Park. The project is a
separable element of the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project (GDERP) and is subject to a cost share program to fund the design and
l construction of the project.
Under the Corps' GDERP program, the City of Kent can choose to partner with the Corps to
complete the project. The main benefit in pursuing this partnership is the ability to share in
the design and construction cost of the project. For design, the City of Kent is obligated to
pay 25 percent of the design cost, while the Corps pays 75 percent. For construction cost,
the city of Kent pays 35 percent while the Corps pays the remaining balance of 65 percent.
To enter into this contractual relationship, a Design Agreement (DA) must be executed
between the City of Kent and the Corps. The DA stipulates the 25/75 percent cost share and
a payment to the Corps is required to complete the designs. For the Upper Russell Road
Levee project, the city's share in the design costs is $200,000.
Signing the DA and making a payment to the Corps initiates the designs of the project. The
project will improve the levee's safety by making the levee's side slopes less steep and by
setting the levee back further away from the river.
Budget Impact:
The budget impact for this project is $200,000. If the city chooses to not enter into a DA
with the Corps and does not make payment to fund the designs, then funding the design and
construction to rebuild the Upper Russell Road Levee will be the city's full responsibility.
U:►PWCommltteeVctionPage►2009l0910 09JUpperRussell Rd Levee.doc
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6K
1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION-NIGHTTIME SEAT
BELT-FOCUSED PATROLS - ACCEPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the grant award from the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission in the amount of $1,800 to fund officer overtime for
the Night Time Seat Belt Enforcement mobilization, authorize the Police Chief to
sign the Memorandum of Understanding and amend the budget accordingly.
This is an enforcement activity with "zero tolerance" for seat belt violators.
The campaign will begin on October 23rd and run through November 8, 2009.
Funding is on a reimbursement basis
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum of Understanding
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 9/8/09
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Y Revenue? Y
Currently in the Budget? Yes No X
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(MOU)
This agreement is made and entered into by and between:
The Washington Traffic Safety Commission
PO Box 40944,Olympia,WA 98504-0944
Hereinafter referred to as"WTSC"
And:
THE KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT
(hereinafter referred to as "Contractor")
It is the purpose of this agreement to provide overtime funding to law enforcement agencies to conduct nighttime seat
belt-focused patrols during the following time period:October 23,2009 and November 8,2009, The goal of the
enforcement is to intercept seat belt law violators at night.
IT IS,THEREFORE,MUTUALLY AGREED THAT:
1. Contractor will provide commissioned police officer(s) (active or paid reserve)with appropriate equipment on
an"overtime"basis(not to exceed 1.5 times their normal salary)to participate in seat belt patrols at night.No
on-duty personnel will be funded under this agreement or grant.
2. The patrols will take place between October 23 and November 8,2009.Funding is not available before or after
this period and funding may not exceed the agreed upon amount of$1,800.00.
3. Funded personnel agree to follow procedures outlined in the grant approval letter.Patrol dates and locations
may change,pending availability of personnel, Patrols will be no more than five hours long.
4. Participants agree to take a"zero tolerance"approach with seat belt and child car seat law violators.
5. It is understood that violator contacts may result in other traffic related activity,such as DUI,Activity other
than that initiated through nighttime seat belt emphasis patrols(investigating collisions,emergency calls,
etc.)will be the responsibility of the contracting agency and will not be reimbursed.
6. Contractor must submit for reimbursement no later than December 5,2009. j
7. Billings must include:
a, Invoice Voucher(A 19-1A Form).Please note that we cannot accept a FAX.Your agency is the
"Claimant,"include a Federal Tax ID number and an original signature of your agency head,
command officer or contracting officer on the A 19-1A.A sample filled out A-19 can be emailed to you,
if needed.The CFDA number for these funds is 20.602.
b. Payroll support documents(evidence the officers were paid,such as overtime slips or payroll
documents).
c. Emphasis Patrol Activity logs. Please use the appropriate log and send in your ticket data with your
A-19, Do not send copies of tickets.
8. Disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative of the
WTSC,one representative from the Contracting Agency and a mutually agreed upon third party.The dispute
panel shall thereafter decide the dispute with the majority prevailing.
9. Either party may terminate this agreement upon(30) days written notice to the other party.In the event of
termination,the terminating party shall be liable for the performance rendered prior to the date of
termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT:
The Kent Police Department
Contacting agency Jorma VanDyk,Occupant Protection
Chief Steve Strachan WA Traffic Safety Commission
Contracting agent(print/type name)
Date �
i
Signature Date
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6L
1. SUBJECT: DRUG FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM GRANT - ACCEPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the grant from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services Substance Abuse Mental Health Services (SAMHSA)
FY 2009 Drug Free Communities Support Program in the amount of $54,372,
authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents, amend the budget, and
authorize staff to spend the grant proceeds.
The grant funds will be used to support the Kent Drug Free Communities
Coalition. The award amount for the second year of the five-year project is
$54,372.
3. EXHIBITS: SAMHSA Award Letter
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 9/8/09
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Y Revenue? Y
Currently in the Budget? Yes No X
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Notice of Award
" �✓ Drug Free Communities Support Program Issue Date: 08/11/2009
f Department of Health and Human Services
"r Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Grant Number: 51-179SP014902-02
Program Director:
Stacy Judd
Project Title: Kent Drug Free Coalition
Grantee Address Business Address
KENT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Debra LeRoy
Steven Strachan Research and Development Analyst
Kent Police Department
220 4th Avenue S 220 4th Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032 Kent,WA 98032
Budget Period: 09/30/2009—09/29/2010
Project Period: 09/30/2008—09/29/2013
Dear Grantee:
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration hereby awards a grant in the amount of
$54,372(see"Award Calculation"in Section I and"Terms and Conditions"in Section III)to KENT CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT in support of the above referenced project. This award Is pursuant to the authority
of Drug Free Communities Act(21 U.S.C.1524)and is subject to the requirements of this statute and
regulation and of other referenced, incorporated or attached terms and conditions.
Award recipients may access the SAMHSA website at www.samhsa.gov(click on"Grants"then SAMHSA
Grants Management), which provides information relating to the Division of Payment Management System,
HHS Division of Cost Allocation and Postaward Administration Requirements. Please use your grant
number for reference .
Acceptance of this award including the"Terms and Conditions"is acknowledged by the grantee when funds
are drawn down or otherwise obtained from the grant payment system.
If you have any questions about this award, please contact your Grants Management Specialist and your
Government Project Officer listed in your terms and conditions.
Since ely yours,
��a bara Orlando
Grants Management Officer
Division of Grants Management, OPS
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
See additional information below
Page-1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category_Consent Calendar - 6M
1. SUBJECT: HEALTHFORCE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE, INC. PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the professional
services agreement with HealthForce Occupational Medicine, Inc. for fire fighter
medical examinations.
Medical physical examinations must be performed on a regular basis, per the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Kent and Kent Fire Fighters
Local 1747, I.A.F.F., Section 14.1 Medical Examinations. Medical physical
examinations are performed to ensure the employee is medically fit for duty.
HealthForce Occupational Medicine will perform annual medical examinations,
pre-employment medical examinations, Hazardous Materials team medical
examinations, and follow-up and referral examinations.
The Professional Services Agreement is subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney.
3. EXHIBITS: Professional Services Agreement, Exhibit A - Request for
Proposals, and Exhibit B - Contractor's Request for Proposal Response
i. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 9/8/09
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Y Revenue?
Currently in the Budget? Yes X No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Between the City of Kent and
Health Force Occupational Medicine, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation
(hereinafter the "City"), and HealthForce Occupational Medicine, Inc. organized under the laws of
the State of Washington, located and doing business at 11805 North Creek Parkway S., Suite 113,
Bothell, Washington 98011 (hereinafter the "Contractor").
I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
Contractor shall perform the following services for the City:
p 9 Y
Annual medical examinations, pre-employment medical examinations,
Hazardous Materials Team medical examinations, and follow-up and
referral examinations services in accordance with the City's May 17,
2009, Request for Proposals, attached and incorporated as Exhibit A,
and the Contractor's June 4, 2009, Proposal Response, attached and
incorporated as Exhibit B.
Contractor further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be
performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices within the Puget Sound
region in effect at the time those services are performed.
II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks
described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement, and Contractor
shall complete the work by December 31, 2011. At its option, the City may elect to extend the
terms of this Agreement for up to three (3) additional one (1) year terms. The Contractor's
compensation schedule in any option year shall not exceed 103% of the Contractor's compensation
schedule in the prior year.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay Contractor a total amount not to exceed
$100,000 for the services described in this Agreement. The Contractor shall invoice the City
monthly based on time and materials incurred during the preceding month. The hourly rates
charged for Contractor's services shall be as delineated in the attached and incorporated Exhibit B.
All hourly rates charged shall remain locked at the negotiated rates throughout the term of this
Agreement.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent
Contractor-Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this
Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following
representations:
A. The Contractor has the ability to control and direct the performance and
details of Its work, the City being interested only In the results obtained under
this Agreement.
B. The Contractor maintains and pays for its own place of business from which
Contractor's services under this Agreement will be performed.
C. The Contractor has an established and independent business that is eligible
for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before
the City retained Contractor's services, or the Contractor is engaged in an
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 1 of 7
Independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the
same nature as that involved under this Agreement.
D. The Contractor Is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax
documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal
Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue.
E. The Contractor has registered its business and established an account with
the state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be
required by Contractor's business, and has obtained a Unified Business
Identifier (UBI) number from the State of Washington.
F. The Contractor maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and earnings of its
business.
V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause,
upon providing the other party seven (7) calendar days written notice at its address set forth on
the signature block of this Agreement.
VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiringof employees for the performance of work under
this Agreement or any subcontract, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on
behalf of the Contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate against any person who is qualified
and available to perform the work to which the employment relates as provided for by the City of
Kent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. Contractor shall execute the attached City of Kent
Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and
upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or In connection
with the Contractor's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and
damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of
Contractor's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of
indemnification. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
VIII. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, Insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit C attached and
incorporated by this reference.
XII. CONTRACTOR'S WORK AND RISK. The Contractor agrees to comply with all
federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future
become applicable to Contractor's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations
covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those services. All work shall be
done at Contractor's own risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to
materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work.
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City
requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever
practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product.
B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 2 of 7
conferred by this Agreement in one or more Instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or
relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing_ Law. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed In accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to
settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the
exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively
under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County,
Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any
claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party
shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or
lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided,
however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification
under Section VII of this Agreement.
D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the
contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the
date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the
addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter
specified in writing.
E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written
consent of the non-assigning party shall be void.
F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the
City and Contractor.
G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together
with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or
other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as
entering into or forming a part of or altering In any manner this Agreement. Should any language
in any of the exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement,
the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become
effective on the last date entered below.
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT:
By: By:
(signature) (signature)
Print Name: I)C'n-i,'i k-. VA rT►f Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its: \I P Sy ,e_c• Its Mayor
(title)
DATE: S 'ul DATE:
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 3 of 7
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO:
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT:
Darin R. Smith Mike Scott, Fire Battalion Chief
HealthForce Partners, Inc City of Kent
11805 North Creek Parkway South, Suite 113 220 Fourth Avenue South
Bothell, WA 98011 Kent, WA 98032
425-806-5735 (desk) (253) 856-4308 (telephone)
425-5271814(fax) (253) 856-6300 (facsimile)
�r
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kent Law Department
k
II
1
L
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 4 of 7
DECLARATION
CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal
opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with
relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment
opportunity policies.
I
The following questions specifically Identify the requirements the City deems necessary for
any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An
affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be
valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents
themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract
and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or
part of the Agreement;
1
{ The questions are as follows:
1. I have read the attached City of Kent
administrative policy number 1.2.
2. During the time of this Agreement I will not
discriminate In employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the
Ipresence of all sensory, mental or physical disability.
3. During the time of this Agreement the prime
1 contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors
indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer.
4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime
contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities.
5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an
{ adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime
( Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above.
t By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above.
1
Dated this day of \KP W d , 200-!R.
By:
For: P45(v-r"W-5 .1 j1p..a C-
Title: V P
I
Date: 0
l
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 5 of 7
i
CITY OF KENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998
SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996
CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor
POLICY:
Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and
state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must
guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding
Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take
the following affirmative steps:
1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating
commitment as an equal opportunity employer.
2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women.
Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of
contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.
Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and
Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments.
1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these
regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment
opportunity policy.
2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and
guidelines.
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 6 of 7
CITY OF KENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded
the Agreement.
I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of HealthForce Partners, Inc.�Company,
hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime
contractor for the Agreement known as Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire
Department that was entered into on the August 5, 2009, between the firm I represent
and the City of Kent.
I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as
outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of
Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned
Agreement.
Dated this day of A s 1 , 200 ci .
By:
For: `
Title:
Date:
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 7 of 7
i
Exhibit C
to Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Personnel f
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS l
Insurance f
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, Insurance 1
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, Its agents,
representatives, or employees.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and I
leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO)
form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If
necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability
coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability Insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence
form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations,
Independent contractors and personal injury and advertising Injury. The City
shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General
Liability Insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws
of the State of Washington._
4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession.
B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less '
than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit.
C. Other Insurance Provisions 1
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for
Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability Insurance:_
1. The Consultant's Insurance coverage shall be primary Insurance as respect
the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage
Exhibit G - Follow-Up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
Page 8 of 1 j
1 maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
j2. The Consultant's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice
by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies
(except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of
the contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional
Insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance, The City reserves
the right to received a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The
Contractor's Commercial General Liability Insurance shall also contain a clause
1 stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom
claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the
insurer's liability.
D. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than
A:VII.
y E. Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional Insured endorsement,
evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the
work.
l
'I
I
1
Exhibit G - Follow-Up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
Page 9 of 1
Exhibit A
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Personnel
PROJECT TITLE: Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire
Department Personnel
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: June loth, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time
EXPECTED TIME PERIOD June 30th, 2009, to December 31, 2011
FOR CONTRACT:
PROPOSER ELIGIBILITY: This process is open to those Proposers registered to
do business in Washington State that exhibit the
experience, resources, and skills necessary to
accomplish the services described in the Request for
Proposal Document.
CONTENTS OF THE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: 1. Introduction
2. General Information for Proposers
3. Proposal Contents
4. Evaluation and Award
5. Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Certifications and Assurances
Exhibit B: Draft Contract
Exhibit C. Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D: Medical Examination Criteria for
General Physical Exams
Exhibit E: Medical Examination Criteria for
Hazardous Materials Team
Members
Exhibit F: Medical Examination Criteria for
Pre-Employment Exam
Exhibit G: Follow-up Medical Examination
and Referral by Health Care
Provider
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 1 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose, Background, and Objective
1.2 Period of Performance
1.3 Definitions
2. General Information for Proposers
2.1 RFP Coordinator
2.2 Estimated Schedule of Procurement Activities
2.3 Submission of Proposals
2.4 Proprietary Information/Public Disclosure
2.5 Revisions to the RFP
2.6 Minority & Women-Owned Business Participation
2.7 Acceptance Period
2.8 Responsiveness
2.9 Most Favorable Terms
2.10 Contract and General Terms & Conditions
2.11 Costs to Propose
2.12 No Obligation to Contract
2.13 Rejection of Proposals
2.14 Commitment of Funds
2.15 Insurance Coverage
3. Proposal Contents
3.1 Letter of Submittal
3.2 Proposer's Experience
3.3 Medical Examination and Cost of Proposal
4. Evaluation and Contract Award
4.1 Evaluation Procedure
4.2 Clarification of Proposal
4.3 Evaluation Weighting and Scoring
4.4 Oral Presentations May Be Required
4.5 Notification to Proposers
4.6 Debriefing of Unsuccessful Proposers
5. RFP Exhibits
Exhibit A Certifications and Assurances
Exhibit B Draft Contract
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams
Exhibit E Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Exhibit F Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Exam
Exhibit G Follow-up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 2 of 18
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, and OBJECTIVE
The City of Kent (City) is initiating this Request for Proposal (RFP) to
solicit proposals from health care providers interested in conducting
annual medical examinations, pre-employment medical examinations, and
Hazardous Materials Team medical examinations for City of Kent Fire
Department personnel.
The City of Kent is a community of approximately 85,000 citizens, with
future projections estimating a population of 130,000 in the next 10
years. The City's vision statement is "Leading through excellence and
public trust. . . let us show you. Its organizational values are: integrity,
caring, communication, teamwork, innovation, and achievement. We will
have a high level of expectation from the firm chosen to work with the
City of Kent on this project.
The City of Kent Fire Department has adopted a health maintenance
program, which includes a physical fitness program as well as a program
of regularly scheduled medical evaluations based on the risk level of Fire
personnel. The purpose of this Request for Proposals is to ultimately
contract with a health care provider to provide these medical
examinations.
1.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The period of performance of any Contract resulting from this RFP is tentatively
scheduled to begin on or about July 5th, 2009, ending on or about December 31,
2011. At its option, the City may elect to extend the term of any Contract up to
three (3) additional one (1) year terms.
1.4 DEFINITIONS
Definitions for the purposes of this RFP include:
Contractor - Individual or company whose proposal has been accepted
by the City as the most responsive and responsible proposal, is awarded
the Contract, and executes a written Contract with the City of Kent.
Contract - The Contract(s) entered into between the City of Kent and the
successful Proposer for the performance of the work that is described in
this RFP.
Proposer - Individual or company submitting a proposal in order to
i� obtain a contract with the City of Kent.
Proposal - A formal offer submitted in response to this solicitation.
Request for Proposals (RFP) - Formal procurement document in which
a service or need is identified but no specific method to achieve it has
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 3 of 18
been chosen. The purpose of an RFP is to permit qualified firms to
suggest various approaches to meet the need at a given price.
City - The City of Kent, Washington.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSERS
2.1 RFP COORDINATOR
The RFP Coordinator is the sole point of contact for this procurement.
Upon receipt of this RFP, all communication between the Proposer and the
City shall be with the RFP Coordinator as follows:
Name Mike Scott Fire Battalion Chief ,
Address 220 4t Ave. S.
City, State, Zip Code Kent, Washington 98032
Phone Number 253 856-4308
Fax Number 253 856-6300
E-Mail Address mscott@ci.kent.wa.us
An other communication will be considered unofficial and non-binding on
Y 9
the City.
Proposers are to rely on written statements issued by the RFP
Coordinator. Communication directed to parties other than the RFP
Coordinator may result in disqualification of the Proposer.
2.2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES I
Issue of Request for Proposals May 20t 2009 1
May 21t through
Question and Answer period June 4th 2009
Last Date for Questions Regarding RFP June 1st 2009
Issue Addendum to RFP (if applicable) June 4 , 2009 through
June 9th 2009 r
Proposals Due June 101 , 2009, by I
3:00 .m. Pacific time
June 11rh through
Evaluate Proposals f
June 17 2009 J
Announce "Apparent Successful Contractor" and
Send Notification Via Fax or E-mail to June 17th , 2009
Unsuccessful Proposers
June 17t , 2009
Negotiate and sign contract through
July Sth , 2009
Council Authorization to Sign Contract July 21 2009
The City reserves the right to revise the above schedule within its sole SJ
discretion.
2.4 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS 1
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS 1
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 4 of 18
Proposers are required to submit three (3) sets of their sealed Proposal,
which must have original signatures. The proposal, whether mailed or
hand-delivered, must arrive no later than 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on June
4th, 2009.
The proposal is to be sent to the City Clerk for the City of Kent. The
envelope should be addressed on the outside of the envelope/package in
the following manner:
City Clerk's Office
City of Kent
220 4t Ave. S.
Kent Washington 98032
Proposal for Conducting Medical Examinations for the Kent Fire
Department
I
Proposers submitting proposals by mail or delivery service should allow
sufficient delivery time to ensure timely receipt of their proposals by the
City Clerk. Proposers assume the risk for the method of delivery chosen.
The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by mail or any
delivery service. Proposals may not be transmitted using electronic media
such as facsimile transmission or electronic mail.
Late proposals may not be accepted and may automatically disqualify a
Proposal from further consideration. All proposals and any accompanying
documentation become the property of the City and will not be returned.
2.5 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION/PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
BY SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL, ANY PROPOSER AGREES TO FORGO
MAKING ANY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR ANY PROPOSAL
i SUBMITTED FOR THIS RFP AND, TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW,
WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A REQUEST UNTIL THE CONTRACT IS
AWARDED TO THE SELECTED PROPOSER AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR.
To the extent allowed by law, all proposals received shall remain strictly
confidential until the Contract, if any, resulting from this RFP is signed by
the Mayor and the apparent successful contractor.
Any information in the proposal that the Proposer desires to claim as
proprietary and exempt from disclosure under the provisions of
Washington State Public Records Act must be clearly designated. The
page must be identified as well as the particular exemption from
disclosure upon which the Proposer is making the claim. Each page
claimed to be exempt from disclosure must be clearly identified by the
word "Confidential" printed on the lower right hand corner of the page.
HOWEVER, IDENTIFYING PORTIONS OF A PROPOSAL IN THIS MANNER
DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE MATERIALS WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED,
AND THE CITY CANNOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY THE SAME.
I
The City will consider a Proposer's request for exemption from disclosure;
however, the City will make a decision based on its interpretation of state
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 5 of 18
1
law. Marking the entire proposal exempt from disclosure will not be
honored. The Proposer must be reasonable in designating information as
confidential. If any information is marked as proprietary in the proposal,
such information will not be made available until the affected Proposer has i
been given at least 24 hours prior notice so that the Proposer may seek a
protective order in a court of appropriate jurisdiction against the I
requested disclosure.
BY SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL, THE PROPOSER AGREES THAT IT IS NOT
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF KENT TO SEEK ANY PROTECTIVE
ORDERS ON BEHALF OF THAT PROPOSER AND PROPOSER WAIVES ALL
RIGHTS IN THAT REGARD.
2.6 REVISIONS TO THE RFP
All questions and requests for clarification must be put in writing and .
submitted to the RFP Coordinator by May 29th, 2009, and will be formally
answered in the form of a written addendum that will be sent by email or
facsimile to all prospective Proposers who have requested this Request for
Proposal Document. Such addenda will become part of the RFP. All
revisions to this RFP will be in the form of such written addenda, and no
oral revision should be relied on by any Proposer for any purpose.
The City also reserves the right to cancel or to rescind and reissue the RFP
in whole or in part, at any time prior to execution of a Contract.
2.7 MINORITY & WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
The City encourages participation in all of its contracts by women and
minority owned firms or companies. Participation may be either on a
direct basis in response to this solicitation or on a subcontractor basis.
However, no preference will be included in the evaluation of proposals, no
minimum level of MWBE participation shall be required as a condition for
receiving an award, and proposals will not be rejected or considered non-
responsive on that basis.
2.8 ACCEPTANCE PERIOD
Proposals must provide sixty (60) days for acceptance by the City from
the due date for receipt of proposals.
2.9 RESPONSIVENESS �.
All proposals will be reviewed by the RFP Coordinator to determine
compliance with administrative requirements and instructions specified in
this RFP. Proposers are specifically notified that failure to comply with !
any part of the RFP may result in rejection of the proposal as non-
responsive.
The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor
irregularities that do not confer a material advantage to a given proposal.
2.10 MOST FAVORABLE TERMS
1 ,
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 6 of 18
The City reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of
the proposal submitted. Therefore, the proposal should be submitted
initially on the most favorable terms that the Proposer can propose.
There will be no best and final offer procedure. The City does reserve the
right to contact a Proposer for clarification of its proposal during the
evaluation process. In addition, if the Proposer is selected as the
apparent successful contractor, the City reserves the right to enter into
Contract negotiations with the apparent successful contractor, which may
include discussion regarding the terms of the proposal. Contract
negotiations may result in incorporation of some or all of the Proposer's
proposal submission. The Proposer should be prepared to accept this RFP
for incorporation into a Contract resulting from this RFP. It is also
understood that the proposal will become part of the official procurement
file.
2.11 CONTRACT AND GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
The apparent successful contractor will be expected to enter into a
Contract that is substantially the same as the sample Contract attached
'I and incorporated as Exhibit B. In no event is a Proposer to submit its
own standard contract terms and conditions in response to this
solicitation. The Proposer may submit exceptions as allowed in the
Certifications and Assurances section, attached as Exhibit A to this
solicitation. The City will review requested exceptions and accept or
reject the same at its sole discretion.
i
2.12 COSTS TO PROPOSE
The City will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Proposer in
preparation of a proposal submitted in response to this RFP, in conduct of
a presentation, or any other activities related to responding to this RFP.
2.13 NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRACT
This RFP does not obligate the City to contract for services specified
herein. Participation in this RFP and/or submission of a proposal does not
confer any legal right or entitlement to Proposers, nor create any
obligation thereto on the part of the City.
2.14 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any and all
proposals received without penalty and not to issue a Contract as a result
of this RFP.
2.15 COMMITMENT OF FUNDS
The Mayor or the Mayor's delegate is the only individual who may legally
commit the City to the expenditures of funds for a Contract resulting from
this RFP. No cost chargeable to the proposed Contract may be incurred
before receipt of a fully executed Contract.
2.16 INSURANCE COVERAGE
The Contractor shall, at its own expense, obtain and keep in force
insurance coverage that shall be maintained in full force and effect during
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 7 of 18
,I
the term of the Contract. The insurance provided shall be in the minimum
I
types and amounts set forth in the attached Exhibit C. The Contractor
shall furnish evidence, in the form of a Certificate of Insurance, that 1
insurance shall be provided, and a copy shall be forwarded to the City
prior to the effective date of any Contract entered into as a result of this
RFP.
3. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Proposals must be submitted on eight and one-half by eleven (8 1/2 x 11) inch 1
paper with tabs separating the major sections of the proposal. The sections of
the proposal are to be submitted in the order noted below:
A. Signed or Certified Letter of Submittal, including signed Certifications and
Assurances (Exhibit A to this RFP) +
B. Proposer's Experience 1
C. Medical Examination and Cost Proposal
1. Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exam (Exhibit D
to this RFP) j
2. Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Member 1
Exam (Exhibit E to this RFP)
3. Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Exam (Exhibit F
to this RFP)
4. Follow-Up and Referral by Health Care Provider (Exhibit G to this
RFP) �+
Proposals must provide information in the same order as presented in this
I '
document with the same headings.
3.1 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
The Letter of Submittal and the attached Certifications and Assurances
form (Exhibit A to this RFP) must be signed and dated by a person
authorized to legally bind the Proposer to a contractual relationship, e.g.,
the President or Executive Director in a corporation, the managing partner
if a partnership, or the proprietor if a sole proprietorship. Along with
introductory remarks, the Letter of Submittal is to include, by attachment,
the following information about the Proposer and any proposed
subcontractors:
A. Name, address, principal place of business, telephone number, and
fax number/e-mail address of legal entity or individual with whom ;
Contract would be written.
,J
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 8 of 18
I
B. Name, address, and telephone number of each principal officer
(President, Vice President, Treasurer, Chairperson of the Board of
Directors, etc.).
C. Legal status of the Proposer (sole proprietorship, partnership,
corporation, etc.), and the year the entity was organized to do
business as the entity now substantially exists.
D. Federal Employer Tax Identification Number or Social Security
i Number, and the Washington Uniform Business Identification (UBI)
number issued by the state of Washington Department of Revenue.
Proposals of entities not registered to do business in Washington
State will be rejected as not responsive.
E. Identity of any City employee or former City employee employed or
on the firm's governing board as of the date of the proposal.
Include his or her position and responsibilities within the Proposer's
organization. If following a review of this information it is
1 9 9
determined by the City that a conflict of interest exists, the
Proposer may be disqualified from further consideration for the
award of a Contract.
3.2 PROPOSER'S EXPERIENCE
The experience portion of the Proposal must contain information regarding
i the Proposer's staff qualifications, related experience, and references.
I
A. Description of the Proposer - A succinct description of why the
Proposer's company is the best qualified choice to provide medical
examination services to the Kent Fire Department.
B. Philosophy - Include an overview of the Proposer's operating
i concept and philosophy.
C. Experience - Indicate the experience the Proposer has had in
providing the medical examination services described in this RFP.
In responding to this portion of the proposal, the Proposer should:
1. Indicate the experience the Proposer has had in providing
medical examination services, including experience in
providing those services to fire department personnel.
2. List contracts the Proposer may have had in the last five (5)
years that relate to the Proposer's ability to provide medical
examination services under this RFP. List contract reference
numbers, contract period of performance, contact persons,
telephone numbers, and fax numbers/e-mail addresses.
3. Number of full time personnel committed to providing
medical examination services.
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 9 of 18
r
1'
4. The names and qualifications of personnel who will be
assigned to carry out contract responsibilities if contract is
awarded. j
5. Indicate any other experience that indicates the
qualifications of the Proposer for the performance of the
potential Contract.
D. Subcontractors - In the event the Proposer intends to subcontract
or joint venture any of the proposed work stated in its Proposal,
the Proposer shall submit the information required by this section
3.2 for each proposed subcontractor or joint venturer.
E. References - List names, addresses, telephone numbers, and fax
numbers/e-mail addresses of three (3) business references for
which work has been accomplished and briefly describe the type of
service provided. The Proposer and staff proposed to provide the
products and services set forth in this RFP must grant permission
to the City to contact references, and others for whom services
have been provided. References will be contacted and scored for
the finalist proposal(s) only.
F. Related Information
1. If any member of the Proposer's staff, or its subcontractor's
staff, was an employee of the City during the past 24 t
months, or is currently a City employee, identify the
individual by name, job title, or position held, and separation
date.
2. If the Proposer has had a contract terminated for default in
the last five (5) years, describe such incident. Termination
for default is defined as notice to stop performance due to
the Proposer's non-performance or poor performance and
the issue of performance was either: (a) not litigated due to
inaction on the part of the Proposer, or (b) litigated and such
litigation determined that the Proposer was in default.
3. Submit full details of the termination for default including
the other party's name, address, and phone number.
Present the Proposer's position on the matter. The City will
evaluate the facts and may, at its sole discretion, reject the
proposal on the grounds of the past experience. If no such
termination for default has been experienced by the 6
Proposer in the past five (5) years, so indicate.
3.3 MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND COST PROPOSAL r
This portion of the Proposal must contain a comprehensive description of 1
services including the following elements:
i
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 10 of 18
A. Generally.
1. Standards of Care Required. All medical examination
services shall be conducted in accord with the Standard on
Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire
Departments, published by the National Fire Protection
Association, which has been adopted by the City's Civil
Service Commission as the basis for all examinations. A
copy of this program may be obtained by contacting:
National Fire Protection Association
i 1 Batterymarch Park
PO Box 9101
i Quincy, MA 02269-9101
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog
2. Exceptions and Additions to Care. At a minimum, all tests,
examinations, and services reflected in this Request for
Proposal shall be conducted. Any exceptions shall be noted
as provided for in Section 2.1 above. If Proposer
recommends additional services be performed beyond those
set forth in this Request for Proposals Document, the City
requests that the Proposer identify those services, and any
i applicable fees associated with those additional services.
i
3. Exam Location. Each proposal shall affirm that all tests and
i medical examination services will be provided on site at a
designated Kent Fire Department facility, and shall state the
length of time associated with each examination. Note: All
tests and exams shall be conducted in one visit, unless an
alternative arrangement is agreed to by the City. Any
exceptions shall be noted as provided for in Section 2.1
above.
4. Follow-up Exams. Each proposal shall include a follow-up
visit with the health care provider on all annual medical
examinations and a follow-up visit for all applicants who are
hired after their pre-employment medical examination, as
provided for in this Request for Proposal Document.
5. Release of Information. The results of all examinations shall
generally be kept confidential by the health care provider.
The health care provider shall only be allowed to provide to
the City information that relates to the employee's medical
fitness for duty in accordance with HIPPA, NFPA 1582, and
and its fire personnel,the union agreement between the City a p ,
and any follow-ups or referrals that impact the employee's
ability to perform emergency duties. Prior to notifying the
City of the results of the examination and any tests
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 11 of 18
i
conducted, the health care provider shall first notify the Fire
employee of those results in a timely manner, unless in the
health care provider's opinion, immediate notification to the
City is necessary. Subject to federal and state laws, no
information shall be released to any other party without
prior written permission by the Fire employee, for each
requested release of information.
6. Lab Results. The health care provider shall also provide
results of all lab tests and analysis to the employee.
7. Blood or Airborne Exposure. The Proposal shall include
provisions for handling any and all blood or airborne
exposure incidents experienced by Kent Fire Department
personnel while in the performance of their duties.
Personnel exposed off-duty are to be allowed access to the
same systems, without expense incurred to the City beyond
those provided for in this Request for Proposals. Proposals
will include provisions for access to a knowledgeable, live
contact person 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, who will
give the requesting Fire employee a detailed explanation of
the correct procedures to follow for the proper handling of '
the exposure.
8. Billing. All invoices for care rendered shall be submitted {
periodically as the successful contractor and the City may 1
provide for in any resulting contract. However, all invoices
submitted shall contain an accounting of the medical
services actually performed as agreed to in any resulting
contract for approved services and costs, and the name of
each employee receiving services. r
B. Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams.
1. Medical Services to Be Performed and the Cost of those
Services. In providing general physical exams, the
successful contractor shall provide, at a minimum, those
services provided for in Exhibit D to this Request for
Proposals. All Proposers shall submit Exhibit D with its
Proposal and identify the fee charged by it for the identified
services.
If a Proposer recommends additional services be performed
beyond those set forth on Exhibit D, the City requests that
the Proposer identify those services, and any applicable fees
associated with those services, as a supplement to Exhibit D.
2. Frequency of General Physical Exam. The Kent Fire
Department has adopted a schedule, based on age and risk,
of the frequency of when general medical examinations will
i
i
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 12 of 18
I
i
be provided to Fire personnel. A general physical would be
given by age as follows:
Age Exam Frequency
18 - 29 Years Old Every 4 Years
30 - 36 Years Old Every 3 Years
37 - 45 Years Old Every 2 Years
46 Years Old and Older Every Year
Despite this frequency schedule, and in accordance with the
union agreement between the City and its fire personnel, an
S employee may request a medical examination be performed
by the health care provider under this Request for Proposal
Document.
Based on this schedule, approximately 140 general physicals
are conducted every year. The timing of those examinations
may vary, but generally all physical examinations will be
conducted between September and November of each
calendar year.
3. Additional Exams or Follow-Ups, If Necessary or Requested.
Fire personnel with known health problems that might
predispose them to injury or illness may arbitrarily be
j assigned to more frequent examinations at the health care
(( provider's discretion. Likewise, if a Fire employee feels the
need for an examination, he or she may request one. Upon
request, the health care provider shall perform an
examination reasonable and appropriate for the condition
causing the request, and if necessary, may refer the
r employee to another health care provider.
( C. Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team
i Members.
1. Medical Services to Be Performed and the Cost of those
Services. In providing examinations for Hazardous Materials
Team Members, the successful contractor shall provide, at a
minimum, those services provided for in Exhibit E to this
Request for Proposals. All Proposers shall submit Exhibit E
? with its Proposal and identify the fee charged by it for the
identified services.
If a Proposer recommends additional services be performed
1 beyond those set forth on Exhibit E, the City requests that
the Proposer identify those services, and any applicable fees
associated with those services, as a supplement to Exhibit E.
2. Number of Examinations for Hazardous Materials Team
Members. Approximately 20 examinations are conducted
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 13 of 18
every year for Hazardous Materials Team Members. All new
members to the Hazardous Materials Team receive a
baseline exam. Thereafter, examinations are conducted on
an annual basis, and a final examination is conducted at the
time the employee leaves the Hazardous Materials Team for
reassignment. These medical examinations are generally
conducted at the same time as the general physical.
Additional examinations will occur when personnel are
exposed to hazardous materials.
D. Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Exam.
1. Medical Services to Be Performed and the Cost of those
Services. In providing pre-employment medical
examinations, the successful contractor shall provide, at a
minimum, those services provided for in Exhibit F to this
Request for Proposals. All Proposers shall submit Exhibit F
with its Proposal and identify the fee charged by it for the
identified services.
If a Proposer recommends additional services be performed
beyond those set forth on Exhibit F, the City requests that
the Proposer identify those services, and any applicable fees
associated with those services, as a supplement to Exhibit F.
2. Number of Pre-Employment Examinations. Approximately
15 pre-employment examinations are conducted every year.
These examinations will be scheduled based upon the City's
need to fill vacancies.
3. Follow-Up Exam. If an applicant has been offered
conditional employment by the City, the successful
contractor shall conduct a pre-employment examination as
set forth in Exhibit F, and provide a follow-up interview with
the prospective employee.
E. Follow-up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care
Provider. For follow-up examinations and referrals, the successful
contractor shall provide, at a minimum, those services provided for
in Exhibit G to this Request for Proposals. All Proposers shall
submit Exhibit G with its Proposal and identify the fee charged by it
for the identified services.
F. Creativity. Proposers may present any creative approaches that
might be appropriate. The Proposer may also provide supporting
documentation that would be pertinent to this RFP, but not
mentioned by the City in this RFP.
4. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 14 of 18
4.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The City will select finalist(s) from the Proposers' responses to the RFP,
any requested written submittals, and any requested oral presentations.
The City may contact the finalist(s) to schedule a date, time, and location
for further discussion, clarification, negotiation, or interviews. If the City
elects to continue its selection process with more than one Proposer, it
will inform the finalists at that time of the final selection process. If the
City selects a single finalist, it will enter into and seek to complete
contract negotiations immediately. Should negotiations fail with any
finalist at any time, the City may reopen discussions or negotiations with
any of the other initial Proposers.
The City's final decision will be based on the scoring process in
combination with references and the informed judgment of the evaluation
team regarding the creativity, willingness, and ability of the apparent
successful Proposer to meet the City's requirements. The City reserves its
unqualified right to select the proposal it determines best meets all of the
City's needs and goals. The evaluation team, and not any Proposer, is
best qualified to make that decision.
By submitting to this RFP process, the Proposer acknowledges and accepts
that the City evaluation team decision will be made on both objective and
subjective criteria, further agrees it will not subsequently file any claim or
suit pertaining to the City's decision on this RFP based on this process and
specifically waives any right it might have to file such a suit or claim and
accepts that any protest will be limited to the process described in Section
4.7.
4.2 CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSAL
The RFP Coordinator may contact the Proposer for clarification of any
portion of the Proposer's proposal submission.
4.3 EVALUATION WEIGHTING AND SCORING
The following weighting and points will be assigned to the proposal for
evaluation purposes:
Ability of Proposer to Meet the Needs of the City 40% percent
Experience of Proposer 20% percent
Cost of Proposal 30% percent
References 10% percent
4.4 ORAL PRESENTATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED
Should oral presentations become necessary, the City will contact the top-
scoring firm(s) to schedule a date, time, and location. Commitments made
by the Proposer at the oral interview, if any, will be considered binding.
The score from the oral presentation will determine the apparent
successful Proposer.
4.5 NOTIFICATION TO PROPOSERS
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 15 of 18
I
Firms whose proposals have not been selected for further participation or
award will be notified via FAX or by e-mail.
4.6 DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSERS
Upon request, a debriefing conference will be scheduled with an
unsuccessful Proposer. The request for a debriefing conference must be
received by the RFP Coordinator within three (3) business days after the
Notification of Unsuccessful Proposer letter is faxed/e-mailed to the
Proposer. The debriefing will be held within three (3) business days of the
request or at such later date as is identified by the City. Discussion will 'I
be limited to a critique of the requesting Proposer's proposal submission.
Comparisons between proposals or evaluations of the other proposals will 1
not be allowed. Debriefing conferences may be conducted in person or on
the telephone and will be scheduled for a maximum of one (1) hour.
S. RFP EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Certifications and Assurances
Exhibit B Draft Contract
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams
Exhibit E Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Exhibit F Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Exam
Exhibit G Follow-up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
1
S .
CITY OF KENT RFP: MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Page 16 of 18
Exhibit A
to Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Personnel
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the proposal to
which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the
continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent to the award or
continuation of the related contract(s):
1. I/we declare that all answers and statements made in the proposal are true and correct.
2. The prices and/or costs data have been determined independently, without consultation,
communication, or agreement with others for the purpose of restricting competition.
However, I/we may freely join with other persons or organizations for the purpose of
presenting a single proposal.
I3. The attached proposal is a firm offer for a period of 60 days following receipt, and it may
be accepted by the City of Kent, Washington without further negotiation (except where
obviously required by lack of certainty in key terms) at any time within the 60-day
period.
4. In preparing this proposal, I/we have not been assisted by any current or former
employee of the City of Kent whose duties relate (or did relate) to this proposal or
prospective contract, and who was assisting in other than his or her official, public
capacity. (Any exceptions to these assurances are described in full detail on a separate
Ipage and attached to this document.)
5. I/we understand that the City of Kent will not reimburse me/us for any costs incurred in
the preparation of this proposal. All proposals become the property of the City of Kent,
i and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings, items, or samples, unless so
stated in this proposal.
6. Unless otherwise required by law, the prices and/or cost data which have been submitted
have not been knowingly disclosed by the Proposer and will not knowingly be disclosed
by him/her prior to opening, directly or indirectly, to any other Proposer or to any
competitor.
7. I/we agree that submission of the attached proposal constitutes acceptance of the
solicitation contents and the attached sample contract and general terms and conditions.
If there are any exceptions to these terms, I/we have described those exceptions in
i ,
detail on a page attached to this document.
8. No attempt has been made or will be made by the Proposer to induce any other person
or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal for the purpose of restricting competition.
9. I/we grant the City of Kent the right to contact references and others, who may have
pertinent information regarding the Proposer's prior experience and ability to perform the
services contemplated in this procurement.
i
Signature of Proposer
/ S /
Title Date
Exhibit A — Certifications and Assurances to
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 1 of 1
i
I"
Exhibit B
{
to Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Personnel
f
SAMPLE CONTRACT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Between the City of Kent and �I
[Insert Contractor's Company Name]
f
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation
(hereinafter the "City"), and [Insert Contractor's Co. Name] organized under the laws of the State i
of [Insert State Co. Formed Under], located and doing business at [Insert Contractor's Address and
Phone Number] (hereinafter the "Contractor").
I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
Contractor shall perform the following services for the City:
Annual medical examinations, pre-employment medical examinations,
Hazardous Materials Team medical examinations, and follow-up and
referral examinations services in accordance with the City's
, 2009, Request for Proposals, attached and incorporated
as Exhibit A, and the Contractor's 2009, Proposal
Response, attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.
Contractor further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be
performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices within the Puget Sound
region in effect at the time those services are performed. 1
II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks 1
described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement, and Contractor {
shall complete the work by December 31, 20 . At its option, the City may elect to extend the 1�
terms of this Agreement for up to three (3) additional one (1) year terms.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay Contractor a total amount not to exceed j
[Insert maximum dollar amount to be paid for services. You may type out the dollar amount and
place the numerical dollar amount in parentheses or you may just enter the numerical dollar
amount.] for the services described in this Agreement. The Contractor shall invoice the City
monthly based on time and materials incurred during the preceding month. The hourly rates
charged for Contractor's services shall be as delineated in the attached and incorporated Exhibit B.
All hourly rates charged shall remain locked at the negotiated rates throughout the term of this
Agreement. (�
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent
Contractor-Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this
Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following
representations:
A. The Contractor has the ability to control and direct the performance and
details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under
this Agreement.
B. The Contractor maintains and pays for its own place of business from which 1
Contractor's services under this Agreement will be performed.
I
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 1 of 7
I
C. The Contractor has an established and independent business that is eligible
for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before
the City retained Contractor's services, or the Contractor is engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the
same nature as that involved under this Agreement.
D. The Contractor is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax
documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal
Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue.
E. The Contractor has registered its business and established an account with
the state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be
required by Contractor's business, and has obtained a Unified Business
Identifier (UBI) number from the State of Washington.
F. The Contractor maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and
earnings of its business.
V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause,
upon providing the other party seven (7) calendar days written notice at its address set forth on
the signature block of this Agreement.
VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under
this Agreement or any subcontract, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on
behalf of the Contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate against any person who is qualified
and available to perform the work to which the employment relates as provided for by the City of
Kent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. Contractor shall execute the attached City of Kent
I Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and
upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection
I with the Contractor's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and
damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of
Contractor's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of
indemnification. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
'i Agreement.
VIII. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit C attached and
I incorporated by this reference.
XII. CONTRACTOR'S WORK AND RISK. The Contractor agrees to comply with all
federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future
become applicable to Contractor's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations
covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those services. All work shall be
done at Contractor's own risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to
materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work.
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 2 of 7
A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City
requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever
practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product.
B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option j
conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or
relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
I
C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to
settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the
exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively
under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County,
Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any j
claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party {
shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or
lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided,
however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification
under Section VII of this Agreement.
D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the
contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the
date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the
addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter 1!
specified in writing.
E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written
consent of the non-assigning party shall be void.
F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the
City and Contractor.
G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together {
with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or
other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as
entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. Should any language
in any of the exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement,
the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
1
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become
effective on the last date entered below.
i
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT: j
By: By:
(signature) (signature)
Print Name: Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its: Its Mayor
(title)
DATE: DATE:
l
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 3 of 7
i
I
I
I
Ii
} 1
I
I -
I
l
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 4 of 7
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: i
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT:
[Insert Contact Name] Mike Scott, Fire Battalion Chief l
[Insert Company Name] City of Kent
[Insert Address] 220 Fourth Avenue South
[Address - Continued] Kent, WA 98032
[Insert Telephone Number] (telephone) (253) 856-4308 (telephone)
[Insert Fax Number] (facsimile) (253) 856-6300 (facsimile)
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kent Law Department
1
d
ti
� l
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 5 of 7
i
DECLARATION
CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal
opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with
relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment
opportunity policies.
The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for
any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An
affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be
valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents
themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract
and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or
part of the Agreement;
The questions are as follows:
1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2.
2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis
of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or
physical disability.
I3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written
i - statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an
equal opportunity employer.
l
4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider
hiring and promotion of women and minorities.
I5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me,
the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as
set forth above.
By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above.
Dated this day of , 200_.
By:
For:
I
Title:
Date:
i
�I
I
i
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 6 of 7
i
I
CITY OF KENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
�I
NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998
SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996
CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor
11
POLICY:
Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and
state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must
guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding
Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take
the following affirmative steps:
1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating
commitment as an equal opportunity employer. i
2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. I
l
Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of
contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.
Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and
Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. J
1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these l
regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment
opportunity policy.
2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and
guidelines.
sl
I .
4
I
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 7 of 7
CITY OF KENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded
the Agreement.
I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of
Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the
prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered
into on the (date, between the firm I represent and
the City of Kent.
I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as
outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of
Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned
Agreement.
i
Dated this day of , 200
By:
For:
Title:
Date:
Exhibit B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 8 of 7
Exhibit C +
to Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Personnel
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Insurance
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, i
representatives, or employees.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and 1
leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) l
form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If
necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability
coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence
form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations,
independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City
shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General
Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws
of the State of Washington.
1
4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession.
B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance 4
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for d
bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less
than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. i
C. Other Insurance Provisions
I
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for
Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: i 1
1. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect
the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage
1 ,
Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 1 of 2
c
maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
�! I
2. The Consultant's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice
by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
i
3. The Cityof Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies
(except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of
the contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional
insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves
the right to received a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The
Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause
stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom
claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the
1, insurer's liability.
D. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than
AN II.
E. Verification of Coverage
I! �
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement,
evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the
work.
I ,
i
Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements
RFP for Medical Examinations for City of Kent Fire Department Page 2 of 2
Exhibit D
Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams (�
I'
1. Medical History Questionnaire $
An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide f
baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns. A periodic
medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information.
Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. An Annual respiratory
questionnaire is required. y
2. Hands-on Physical Examination Included
• Vital Signs l
• Head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat
Neck 1
• Cardiovascular
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Pulmonary
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation 1
• Gastrointestinal
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Genitourinary
Hernia exam (also see cancer screening)
• Rectal
(See cancer screening)
• Lymph Nodes
The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation `I
of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary, and inguinal regions.
• Neurological
The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental
status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral
nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes)
• Musculoskeletal
Includes an overall assessment of range of motion (ROM) of all joints.
Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office
exercises or functions is helpful in assessing joint mobility and function.
3. Blood Analysis $
The following are components of the blood analysis. At a minimum, laboratory
services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel (a.k.a.
SMAC 20) and complete blood count (CBC) protocols.
• White Blood Cell Count
• Differential `
• Red Blood Cell Count (Hematocrit)
• Platelet Count
i
Exhibit D - Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams
Page 1 of 3
I
i
Liver Function Tests
Includes SGOT/AST, SGPT/ALT, LDH, Alkaline Phosphatase, and Bilirubin
• Triglycerides
• Glucose
Blood Urea Nitrogen
' Creatinine
• Sodium
IPotassium
• Carbon Dioxide
• Total Protein
I '
• Albumin
• Calcium
• Cholesterol
Includes Total Cholesterol, Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C) level, High
Density Lipoprotein (HDL-C), and Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio.
j 4. Urinalysis
Dip Stick Included w/ Above
Includes pH, Glucose, Ketones, Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin
fl • Microscopic Included w/ Above
i I Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals
S. Vision Tests $
i Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance, near, peripheral, and color
vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts, macular
f degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy.
l 6. Hearing (Audiogram) $
7. Pulmonary (Spirogram) $
S. Chest X-Ray - Every 5 years - mandatory $
9. EKG (Resting) $
10. Cancer Screening Elements
j May be provided to health care provider by employee's personal physician:
o Clinical Breast Examination $
o Mammogram $
o Pap Smear $
i
Exhibit D - Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams
Page 2 of 3
i
• Prostate Specific Antigen $
Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of
prostate cancer or are African-Americans beginning at age 40. All male
uniformed personnel beginning at age 50.
• Digital Rectal Exam N/C
• Fecal Occult Blood Testing $
1
• Skin Exam N/C
i
• Testicular Exam N/C
11. Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening
• Tuberculosis Screen - Annual $ 1�
• Tetanus/Diphtheria Vaccine (Booster every 10 yrs) $
• Hepatitis A Vaccine $ �I
Vaccine shall be offered to high risk (HazMat, USAR, and SCUBA) and other
uniformed personnel with frequent or expected frequent contaminated water
exposures. 1�
• Hepatitis C Virus Screen - OPTIONAL $ (I
• HIV Screening (required that it be offered) $ l
HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure
protocols and as requested by the physician and patient.
12. Annual Fitness Evaluation - identified at risk members and any member
over the age of 46.
• Aerobic Capacity
o Gherkin Protocol (Treadmill) $
o Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $
I
Exhibit D - Medical Examination Criteria for General Physical Exams
Page 3 of 3 )
1
Exhibit E
Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
1. Medical History Questionnaire $
An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide
baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns. A periodic
medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information.
Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. An Annual respiratory
questionnaire is required.
i
2. Hands-on Physical Examination Included
Vital Signs
' • Head, eyes, ears, nose and throat
Neck
i • Cardiovascular
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Pulmonary
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Gastrointestinal
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
I • Genitourinary
Hernia exam (also see cancer screening)
• Rectal
(See cancer screening)
• Lymph Nodes
The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation
of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary and inguinal regions.
• Neurological
The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental
status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral
nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes)
• Musculoskeletal
Includes an overall assessment of range of motion (ROM) of all joints.
Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office
exercises or functions is helpful in assessing joint mobility and function.
3. Blood Analysis $
The following are components of the blood analysis. At a minimum, laboratory
services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel (a.k.a.
SMAC 20) and complete blood count (CBC) protocols.
• White Blood Cell Count
• Differential
• Red Blood Cell Count (Hematocrit)
Exhibit E - Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Page 1 of 4
• Platelet Count
• Liver Function Tests
Includes SGOT/AST, SGPT/ALT, LDH, Alkaline Phosphatase, and Bilirubin 1
• Triglycerides
• Glucose
• Blood Urea Nitrogen ,
• Creatinine
• Sodium
• Potassium
• Carbon Dioxide r
• Total Protein
• Albumin
• Calcium
• Cholesterol
Includes Total Cholesterol, Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C) level, High
Density Lipoprotein (HDL-Q, and Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio.
4. Urinalysis f
• Dip Stick Included w/Above
Includes pH, Glucose, Ketones, Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin
1
• Microscopic Included w/Above
Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals
S. Heavy Metal and Special Exposure Screening $
Baseline testing, for heavy metals may be assessed on the initial physical but is not ll
required under the Initiative since the utility of such testing has not been medically
established. However, evaluations are required to be done under special i
circumstances, such as following a known exposure, for recurrent exposures, or
where required under Federal, State or Provincial regulations (e.g. OSHA standards).
• Arsenic (urine) $
• Mercury (urine) $
• Lead (urine) $ I
• Lead (blood) $
• Aluminum $
• Antimony $
• Bismuth $
• Cadmium $
• Chromium $
• Copper $ I�
• Nickel $
• Zinc $
• Organophosphates (RB cholinesterase) $
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (blood) $
4
Exhibit E - Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Page 2 of 4
i
i
6. Vision Tests $
Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance, near, peripheral, and color
vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts, macular
degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy.
7. Hearing (Audiogram) $
8. Pulmonary (Spirogram) $
9. Chest X-Ray - Every 5 years - mandatory $
10. EKG (Resting) $
11. Cancer Screening Elements
May be provided to health care provider by employee's personal physician:
o Clinical Breast Examination $
o Mammogram $
o Pap Smear $
• Prostate Specific Antigen: $
Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of
prostate cancer or are African-Americans beginning at age 40. All male
uniformed personnel beginning at age 50.
Digital Rectal Exam N/C
I0 Fecal Occult Blood Testing $
• Skin Exam N/C
• Testicular Exam N/C
12. Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening
• Tuberculosis Screen - Annual $
• Tetanus/Diphtheria Vaccine (Booster every 10 yrs) $
• Hepatitis A Vaccine $
Vaccine shall be offered to high risk (HazMat, USAR, and SCUBA) and other
uniformed personnel with frequent or expected frequent contaminated water
exposures.
• Hepatitis C Virus Screen - OPTIONAL $
• HIV Screening (required that it be offered) $
HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure
protocols and as requested by the physician and patient.
Exhibit E - Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Page 3 of 4
i
i
i
13. Annual Fitness Evaluation - identified at risk members and any member
over the age of 46.
• Aerobic Capacity
o Gherkin Protocol (Treadmill) $ 1
o Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $
14. Weight and Body Composition $
Body weight shall be measured and recorded. Body composition shall be conducted li
solely for the purpose of departmental health surveillance.
I
1
I
I
,I
II
Exhibit E - Medical Examination Criteria for Hazardous Materials Team Members
Page 4of4
i
i
Exhibit F
Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Exam
1. Medical History Questionnaire $
An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide
baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns. A periodic
medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information.
Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. An Annual respiratory
questionnaire is required.
2. Hands-on Physical Examination Included
• Vital Signs
• Head, eyes, ears, nose and throat
Neck
• Cardiovascular
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Pulmonary
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
Gastrointestinal
Inspection, auscultation, percussion and palpation
• Genitourinary
Hernia exam (also see cancer screening)
• Recta I
(See cancer screening)
• Lymph Nodes
The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation
i of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary and inguinal regions.
• Neurological
The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental
status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral
nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes)
• Musculoskeletal
Includes an overall assessment of range of motion (ROM) of all joints.
Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office
exercises or functions is helpful in assessing joint mobility and function.
3. Blood Analysis $
The following are components of the blood analysis. At a minimum, laboratory
services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel (a.k.a.
SMAC 20) and complete blood count (CBC) protocols.
• White Blood Cell Count
• Differential
• Red Blood Cell Count (Hematocrit)
• Platelet Count
Exhibit F - Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Examination
j Page 1 of 4
I
l
• Liver Function Tests
Includes SGOT/AST, SGPT/ALT, LDH, Alkaline Phosphatase, and Bilirubin
• Triglycerides
• Glucose
• Blood Urea Nitrogen
• Creatinine
• Sodium
• Potassium
• Carbon Dioxide
• Total Protein
• Albumin
• Calcium I
• Cholesterol
Includes Total Cholesterol, Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C) level, High
Density Lipoprotein (HDL-C), and Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio.
4. Urinalysis
• Dip Stick Included w/Above
Includes pH, Glucose, Ketones, Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin
• Microscopic Included w/Above
Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals
S. Heavy Metal and Special Exposure Screening $
Baseline testing, for heavy metals may be assessed on the initial physical but is not
required under the Initiative since the utility of such testing has not been medically i
established. However, evaluations are required to be done under special
circumstances, such as following a known exposure, for recurrent exposures, or
where required under Federal, State or Provincial regulations (e.g. OSHA standards).
• Arsenic (urine) $
• Mercury (urine) $
• Lead (urine) $
• Lead (blood) $
• Aluminum $
• Antimony $
• Bismuth $
• Cadmium $
• Chromium $
• Copper $
• Nickel $
• Zinc $
• Organophosphates (RB cholinesterase) $
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (blood) $
Exhibit F - Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Examination
Page 2 of 4 I
6. Vision Tests $
Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance, near, peripheral, and color
vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts, macular
degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy.
7. Hearing (Audiogram) $
S. Pulmonary (Spirogram) $
i
9. Chest X-Ray - Every 5 years - mandatory $
10. EKG (Resting) $
11. Cancer Screening Elements
• May be provided to health care provider by employee's personal physician:
o Clinical Breast Examination $
o Mammogram $
o Pap Smear $
• Prostate Specific Antigen: $
Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of
( prostate cancer or are African-Americans beginning at age 40. All male
uniformed personnel beginning at age 50.
• Digital Rectal Exam N/C
l • Fecal Occult Blood Testing $
• Skin Exam N/C
• Testicular Exam N/C
12. Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening
• Tuberculosis Screen - Annual $
• Tetanus/Diphtheria Vaccine (Booster every 10 yrs) $
• Hepatitis A Vaccine $
Vaccine shall be offered to high risk (HazMat, USAR, and SCUBA) and other
uniformed personnel with frequent or expected frequent contaminated water
exposures.
• Hepatitis B Virus Vaccine Series (mandatory at initial) $
Includes Titre testing
• Hepatitis C Virus Screen (entry baseline) - $
HIV Screening (required that it be offered) $
Exhibit F - Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Examination
Page 3 of 4
HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure t
protocols and as requested by the physician and patient.
• Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine (MMR) Measles Vaccine (entry baseline—verify
or provide. $
Vaccine is required for all uniformed personnel born in or after 1957 if there is f
no medical contraindication and no evidence of at least one dose of live
vaccine on or after one's first birthday.
• Mumps Vaccine (entry baseline - verify or provide) $
Vaccine is required for all uniformed personnel born in or after 1957 if there is
no documentation of physician-diagnosed mumps, no adequate immunization
with live mumps after their first birthday and no evidence of laboratory
immunity.
• Rubella Vaccine (entry baseline - verify or provide) $
Vaccine is required unless proof of immunity is available.
• Polio Vaccine (entry baseline - verify or provide) $
Vaccine shall be given to uniformed personnel if vaccination or disease is not
documented.
• Varicella Vaccine (required to be offered) $
• Influenza Vaccine (required to be offered) $
13. Annual Fitness Evaluation - identified at risk members and any member
over the age of 46.
• Aerobic Capacity I
o Gherkin Protocol (Treadmill) $
o Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $
• Push-up Evaluation $ l
• Leg Strength Evaluation $
• Arm Strength Evaluation $
• Grip Strength Evaluation $
• Curl-Up Evaluation $
• Flexibility Evaluation $
14. Weight and Body Composition $
Body weight shall be measured and recorded. Body composition shall be conducted
solely for the purpose of departmental health surveillance.
Exhibit F - Medical Examination Criteria for Pre-Employment Examination
Page 4 of 4
I
Exhibit G
Follow-up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
1. Follow-up or Consultation by Health Care Provider $
The Wellness-Fitness Initiative as established by the International Association of Fire
Chiefs and International Association of Firefighters Joint Labor Management defines
minimum recommendations for fire agency health and fitness programs. In principal,
j the Kent Fire Department endorses recommendations contained in this report. The
1 Kent Fire Department recognizes the importance of consultation and/or referral to
outside health care providers and/or specialists.
Aspects of the follow-up and referral program include:
a. Abnormal findings on the annual physical must be addressed by follow-up or
referral.
( b. Revaccination or intervention following exposures must be managed by
1 follow-up or referral.
C. Managed care or other provider referrals are appropriate for non-service
connected problems.
d. Return to work determinations for employees require clearance by the fire
department physician or other provider following a consult with an outside
physician or after extended leave.
e. Follow-up findings from an annual physical examination must be reviewed by
the fire department physician.
2. Individualized Health Risk Appraisal $
The health care provider (organization or individual) shall provide written
documentation regarding their follow-up/referral program or procedures.
Written feedback to uniformed personnel concerning health risks and health status is
required following the annual examination. Reporting findings and risks suggesting
plans for modifying risks improve the physician-patient relationship and helps
uniformed personnel claim ownership of their health status. Individualized health risk
appraisals also must include questions that attempt to accurately measure the
uniformed employee's perception of their health. Health perception can be a useful
indicator of potential problems.
i
Exhibit G - Follow-Up Medical Examination and Referral by Health Care Provider
Page 1 of 1
it
Exhibit B to Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Kent and HealthForce Occupational Medicine, Inc.
Weliness Fitness Initiative Services
July 2009
............. ................................
DE
.....................
E*S
...................................... .
flEALTN1` RCE
WORKPLACE HEALTH SOLUTIONS
Please contact Darin Smith, HealthForce Vice President of Sales&Customer Relations
at(425)806-5735 or by E-mail: darins@healthforcepartners.com
11805 North Creek Parkway S.,Suite 113
Bothell, WA 98011
www.HealthForcePartners.com
This document contains confidential and proprietary information belonging to HealthForce Partners,Inc.Any reproduction,
dissemination or other use of this document without the prior written consent of HealthForce Partners,Inc.,is strictly prohibited.
Kont Tiro 0epartmont; Health Services Proposal I
I
f
a Process and Budget Summary
0 Wellness Fitness Initiative Services I
° Phase One: Advance Paperwork f
11 Phase Two: General and Hazmat Team Pre-Screening and
Audlometric Services f
° Phase Three: Diagnostic Testing and Examination
Phase Four. Fitness Assessment
Phase Five: Scheduling and Reporting f
■ New Recruit Physical Exam
n 24-Hour Blood Borne Pathogen Support Services I
N Follow-up Medical Examination and Referral by Healthcare Provider
a Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening
f
I
f
l
I
I
I
HealihFoica Parincis,Inc.0 2009
r
Kent Fire Departtnnnt: health Services Proposal
ME
'=
I
I
HealthForce's approach is to give clients the best value available.We do this by offering
appropriate testing and medical services at the right time in order to minimize costs and
maximize convenience for our customers.
Charge per Test
over Minimum
Phase Timing Tests per Day Daily Charge Minimum
Paperwork Weeks 1 to 3 I n/a Included Included
.............. --
1
Pre-Screening ; Week 4 12(min)to 15(max) $2,400(up to 12) $200(each for over 12)
Diagnostic Testing Week 5 to 6 1 10(min)to 14(max) ( $5,550(up to 10) $555(each for over 10)
and Examination
Fitness Anytime after 8(min)to 10(max) $880(up to 8) $110(each for 8 to 10)
Assessment exam
I Reporting and 3 weeks n/a Included Included
Tracking following exams i
I
HeallhFoice Partners,Inc.0 2009 e
Kont Piro Department: Health Services Proposal
`1
OEM
I
The following service outline is designed to be performed at the station and available to all f
department members including the Hazmat Team.
I
MR`
....._ I
HealthForce will prepare individual packets for each firefighter that contain all of the patient
registration, consent forms, confidential health history, respiratory questionnaires, and it
instruction for the WFI program.
Timing: Packets provided to department three weeks prior to Phase Two
• HealthForce WFI Packet Distribution (hard copy or digital)
Mm
Timing: Approximately three weeks following the advance paperwork distribution
Hours of service: 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
Screening capacity: 15 per day
Staff requirement:
• Phlebotomist(Medical Assistant)
• Hearing Conservationist
Services Include:
• Patient(firefighter) Registration
• Collection of Examination Paperwork
• Blood Draw- 12-hour fasting
• Blood Chemistry Analysis (blood analysis)
• Plaque II Test
•Audiometric Test (six-person test capability every 15 minutes)
Additional Services (Hazmat Team):
• Heavy metal and special exposure screening $130
• Blood lead/ZPP $50
NOTE: Following the blood draws,the firefighters will be provided with a light snack.
- -
Mm�mum - � Mm�mum ;j Each additipnal screen _5
prE scraer�$psr day # day rate Qver the minimum
. 3
�38t7(hazrnat) -
HealthForce Partners,too.0 2009 e
Kent fire Department, Health Services Proposal
MUM
HealthForce will set-up the on-site clinic at a predetermined location within the department.
1 All testing, diagnostic and examinations will be performed in a station-to-station format using
privacy screens and private rooms.
Timing: 7-10 days following pre-screening
Hours of service: Typically 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Testing and examination capacity: 10-14 per day
Staff requirement:
• One Physician
1
• Registered Nurse
•Two Medical Assistants
i •X-Ray Technician
Services include:
• Blood pressure, pulse, respiration, height, weight, temperature, vision, and
1 urinalysis dip
• Computerized body composition testing/waist-to-hip ratio
• Pulmonary function testing
• Chest X-Ray(one view)
• CIMT Carotid Intima-Media Thickness
• EKG (Resting)
l • Medical examination and hands-on physical.*
*In order to comply with the Wellness Fitness Initiative and any grant requirements,the medical exam
and hands-on physical includes review by the department physician of lab work,completed health history
questionnaires and the diagnostic testing described above.This provides the physician with valuable medical
information In advance of the examination and one-on-one consultation regarding wellness and personal health
goals.
WMEMOr _E n
�...._-
•Treadmill—If medically indicated $250
..... ..
...:........... ... ..
- _
— n1 e': ma- .
a h d a st exa.
.:....:. ....: [ im PA s;and�.: :-::,:.. -._:,0
...:.,
_ .p ..;. ._..Y.....:::.
_
_ .. ..-......._.._. :........ .:..................:...: ._..-
i
HealthForco Parinets,Inc,a 1009 e ,
Kent Fire Depart►nont: Hoelth Services Proposal
__ _ __ ___
1
Based on the results of the Screening, Diagnostic and Examination Phase the department
physician determines whether the firefighter is an appropriate candidate for the Fitness
Assessment Phase described below. l
Timing: 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Hours of service: At a time that works for the department/members
Assessment capacity: 12 per day
Staff requirement: j
• Exercise Specialist
Services include:
• Pre-evaluation procedures
• Muscular strength evaluation: Content TBD (Functional) f
• Muscular endurance evaluation: Content TBD (Functional)
• Flexibility: Includes sit-and-reach testing
•Aerobic capacity: FDNY Stairmill Protocol l
• Fitness prescription -individual program detail for each department member {
_ _ _ l
:.. .
:...
s
:. :ass . ...�..1 1
i 1 u Ft s:.:::;,_.::,_ ;::::>:.,:_ M:nmm_:::.::.:
::..:... ....-M... -.r►�...rra....i..n... -
Ases [iiQnts p. r daylaY rate; :, oyerthe mrniriitrii::
:...
_ 7
_ - f
_ g 11III
l
1
e
H001100roo Perineis,Inc.0 2009
Kent Fire Departinent: Hoalth Services Proposal
..........
I
Scheduling:
Our worksite services group partners with department personnel to identify convenient
times for each phase of the service. We design our delivery model around department
i shifts and rotating schedules to optimize our on-site presence at each station. We can
provide reminders and follow-up communication for department administration that makes
compliance and participation easy to manage and track.
Reporting:
The HealthForce worksite services team is highly flexible and able to accommodate complex
reporting requirements. For example, we can provide authorized department personnel with
a confidential report that indicates a firefighter has completed their examination in addition to
privately sending a more detailed report directly to the individual firefighter.
For the majority of the examination services that do not require laboratory analysis,
j HealthForce can provide written examination results soon after the physician's examination
is completed. If a department prefers, results can also be communicated by phone, fax or
e-mail.
1 The turnaround time from our laboratory vendor is typically very efficient with blood test
results usually available within 72 hours. Following review of the examination, diagnostic
and laboratory results, the department physician will generate reporting as defined by
the department. All final clearances and reports are sent within two weeks following the
examination.
1
I
HeallhPoroo Parinors,Ino,4D 2009
I
Kent fire Department; HoWth Services Proposal
I
l
• Examination, respirator clearance,waist-to-hip ratio
• Drug screen (five panel) I
• Pulmonary function testing
• EKG
• Blood draw
• Chemistry panel
•TB test
•Audiogram
• Chest X-Ray I
NOTE: Immunizations will be offered to each new hire In order to be up-to-date, f
_-
I
1
N_KiRkpo ,C ase Coordmat�,:r;< Feet;. . .
• Physician time is billed at an hourly rate $400 per hour
• Minimum fee $200 per case managed (112 hour)
I
_.�► s�� ng lee::�bill 'art 1tpt�t increments) . . : ....;..... .
• Physician consulting rate $400 per hour
i
f
I
I
I
Healfforoe Nation,loo.0 2009
I
i
I
Korn Fire Dopartnront: Health Services Proposal
now
i 1
The Wellness-Fitness Initiative as established by the International Association of Fire
( Chiefs and International Association of Firefighters Joint Labor Management defines
minimum recommendations for fire agency health and fitness programs. Two additional
WFI components that are not part of the annual program are listed below.
_ _-- _ _-_ _ _ _:
as e Mealthcar..:....!'o .d. ........::.:........::. ..
Aspects of the follow-up and referral program Include:
( Abnormal findings on the annual physical must be addressed by follow-up or
referral.
S Revaccination or intervention following exposures must be managed by follow-up
or referral.
• Managed care or other provider referrals are appropriate for non-service connected
problems.
Return to work determinations for employees require clearance by the fire
department physician or other provider following a consult with an outside
Sphysician or after extended leave.
• Follow-up findings from an annual physical examination must be reviewed by the
fire department physician.
Simple - up to 20 minutes $160
Moderate -20 to 40 minutes $300
Complex-40 to 60 minutes $450
Billed in 15-minute increments for consultations over 1 hour $450 per hour
I
I
��ndlu�r��raJ�.:�:__._l�ealf�,.,::.:��:�_:....pp,�......_.._.._..._...... :.-.._.......... .......... _-..... .. . . ... . .....
The healthcare provider(organization or individual) shall provide written documentation
regarding their follow-up/referral program or procedures.
Written feedback to uniformed personnel concerning health risks and health status is
required following the annual examination. Reporting findings and risks suggesting
plans for modifying risks improve the physician-patient relationship and helps uniformed
personnel claim ownership of their health status. Individualized health risk appraisals also
must include questions that attempt to accurately measure the uniformed employee's
perception of their health. Health perception can be a useful indicator of potential
problems.
HRA fee $32
Hoolffoico Patinas,Inc.€2009
Kont Fire Doparttnent: Hoalth Services Proposal
_ _._ fix"=�=_�_�..............:..-:....._..
f
Hepatitis A Virus Vaccine
Hepatitis B Virus Vaccine $7p I
•TDAP (Tetanus/Diphtheria/Pertussis)
• Tetanus Diphtheria Vaccine(Booster)
• Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine(MMR)
• Polio Vaccine
. Hepatitis
A Vaccine
_
•Varicella Vaccine
Influenza Vaccine
• Lead/ZPP-Special Exposure Screening
•Tuberculosis Screen (annual PPD) . $28--`.':'.` _
• 24-hour Heavy Metal-Arsenic, Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium $1.30';: `_; l I
• Repeat Chest X Ray(baseline, every 5 years; mandatory)
• Hemocult $32::. :
• PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) $75-_:_ '_=:_ :.' I
• Hepatitis C Virus Screen r 0 f
• HIV Counseling (required to be offered)
• HIV I Screening (required to be offered) $ -
• HIV I &2 Screening (required to be offered) 8�,
I
1
He•IIAForeo Periners,Ino.�1009
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 6N
1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION RENAMING ARBOR VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD
COUNCIL AND REVISING BOUNDARY - ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. changing the name
of the Arbor Village Neighborhood Council to the Meridian Glen Neighborhood
Council.
After the City's adoption of Resolution No. 1763, the Arbor Village Neighborhood
Council voted to separate the neighborhood council from the homeowners'
association, to elect a separate board for the neighborhood council, and to change
the neighborhood council's name from the Arbor Village Neighborhood Council to
the Meridian Glen Neighborhood Council.
This item is on the September 14th, Planning and Economic Development
Committee agenda.
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning and Economic Development Committee 9/14/09
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
f
I
I
RESOLUTION NO.
1 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, acknowledging the name
1 change of the Arbor Village Neighborhood Council
to the Meridian Glen Neighborhood Council, and
revising the eastern boundary of the neighborhood
( from that formally recognized by the Kent City
Council through its adoption of Resolution No.
1763.
I
1 RECITALS
A. On June 19, 2007, the Kent City Council adopted Resolution
No. 1763 formally recognizing the Arbor Village Neighborhood Council as
an official neighborhood council of the City of Kent, supporting the
1 neighborhood council's community building efforts, and conferring on the
neighborhood council all opportunities offered by the City's neighborhood
program.
B. After the City's adoption of Resolution No. 1763, the Arbor
Village Neighborhood Council voted to separate the neighborhood council
1 from the homeowners' association, to elect a separate board for the
neighborhood council, and to change the neighborhood council's name
from the Arbor Village Neighborhood Council to the Meridian Glen
Neighborhood Council. The neighborhood council also revised its eastern
1 Arbor Village/Meridian Glen
Neighborhood Council - Revise Name
and Change Eastern Boundary
I
boundary from 141St Avenue SE to 140th Avenue SE. The number of
housing units associated with this neighborhood council also needs to be
corrected from 130 housing units as provided for in Resolution No. 1763, to
approximately 197 housing units.
C. With the exception of revising the neighborhood council's
name and its eastern boundary, and correcting the number of housing '
units included within the neighborhood, all other provisions of Resolution
No. 1763 remain unchanged.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. - Name Change. The name of the neighborhood
council recognized by Resolution No. 1763 is changed from the Arbor
Village Neighborhood Council to the Meridian Glen Neighborhood Council.
SECTION 2. - Revised Boundary and Housing Units. The boundary
of the Meridian Glen Neighborhood, provided for in Resolution No. 1763, is
revised from 141s' Avenue SE to 140th Avenue SE. Additionally, the
number of housing units within the neighborhood should be revised from
130 housing units to approximately 197 housing units. The revised
boundary of the Meridian Glen Neighborhood is as depicted in the attached
and incorporated Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. - Remaining Provisions. With the exception of
changing the name of the neighborhood council, revising its eastern
boundary, and correcting the number of housing units included within the
neighborhood, all other provisions of Resolution No. 1763 remain I
unchanged.
2 Arbor /
Villa9 a Meridian Glen
Neighborhood Council - Revise Name
and Change Eastern Boundary
SECTION 4. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION S. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 6. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of September, 2009.
i a CONCURRED n by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
September, 2009.
SUZETTE COOKE MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
3 Arbor /
Villa9 a Meridian Glen
Neighborhood Council - Revise Name
and Change Eastern Boundary
I
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the {
day of September, 2009. I
1
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Resolution\Neigh borhoodCouncilArborVillage-Rename&ReviseBoundary.doc
l
I
f ;
l
I
f
4 Arbor Village/Meridian Glen
Neighborhood Council - Revise Name
and Change Eastern Boundary l
f
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A
I
i
1
1
1
1
I
I
v 11
E 263 ST \� SE 2833T3F 1
H " Lake Meridian
q
N U
C a
ago A
The
Ff W
E 27057' 5E p70.ST] �a
e
Na DI
z Hip
O � n
a SE 271 Si�1 / kg
GSE 2r0 PL—
t .N I , fy�� �J ap
WIL
0 Y 4
N
lye
SE 271 PL� I
SE KENTiKI"OW7
ANGLEYMD
VA X
gE 272 CT k = � N
SE 273 3i - im
Offi a;
II
rSE 213 3T
c � `E�'•li
SE213 § �ti1p a
CSE 274 ST `
c
a
IL
5, � yLNman FD
a
gin
Q q N
SE 275 PL
� ® SE278ST—
tfi-,88%nElemenrySchoo
SE 27$3T �� 1
a - SFi�e'sr� 1
C,
��-3E 280 37—
l
gE21SE 230 PL
N
Meridian Glen Neighborhood W�E «l
Key
s
Single Family Homes(196)
Vacant(Greenbelt) Scale: 1"=300'
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Consent Calendar - 60
1. SUBJECT: SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT -
AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Police Chief to sign an interagency
grant agreement with the Seattle Police Department regarding gang criminal
activity, accept the funds, and amend the budget.
The Seattle Police Department is the recipient of a grant through the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), and will oversee and convene
meetings of the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce. Kent Police Department
officers will work with the multi-jurisdictional task force to implement a
coordinated approach to reducing crime and related activities perpetrated by
identified criminal gangs in hot spot emphasis areas.
The Kent Police Department will receive reimbursement funds for overtime not to
exceed $5,000 from the Seattle Police Department. This amount may be
renewed when exhausted at the discretion of the SPD Gang Lieutenant.
The agreement will remain in effect until June 30, 2010.
3. EXHIBITS: Interagency Agreement 2009 IA-CTED1
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 9/8/09
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? Y Revenue? Y
Currently in the Budget? Yes No X
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
1I
I
f
1
Interagency Agreement
{ 2009 IA-CTEDI
Executed By
The Seattle Police Department(SPD), a department of the
City of Seattle hereinafter referred to as "SPD";
Department Authorized Representative: Lt. Steve Wilske
610 51h Ave.
P.O. Box 34986
Seattle, WA. 98124-4986
1 and
1 The Kent Police Department, an agency of the City of Kent,
hereinafter referred to as "KPD";
Agency Authorized Representative: Lt. Ken Thomas
232 Fourth Ave S
Kent, WA. 98032
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement by having their representatives affix
their signatures below.
( KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
By: By:
(Signature) John Diaz,Interim Chief of Police
Steve Strahan. Chief of Police Date:
(Type or Print Name and Title)
I
Authorized by
Grant Program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)Program, via State of Washington
Community, Trade &Economic Development(CTED)and the Washington Association of Sheriff's and Police Chiefs
(WASPC)
Interagency Agreement
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City submitted an application to the State of Washington Community, Trade& Economic
Development(CTED)via the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) on
June 8, 2009 to request Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant(JAG) Program funds; and
WHEREAS, based on the City's successful application, CTED via WASPC has awarded$870,584 to the
City of Seattle from these JAG funds; and
WHEREAS, the ARRA grant funding constitutes one-time funding for Special Enforcement, Intervention
and Prevention in Targeting Gang Crime; and
WHEREAS, multiple jurisdictions including the Cities of Seattle, Kent, Tukwila, Port of Seattle, Auburn,
Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way and the King County Sheriff's Office(KCSO)have many
prevention, intervention and suppression efforts coming together in 2009. These efforts provide a
comprehensive and meaningful platform from which to respond to the rise in gang violence, while
meeting the intended purpose of the stimulus money provided by the Federal Government. This
unprecedented collaboration brings all of the stakeholders together to provide support,resources and
accountability to those young people, and their families, struggling with the myriad of issues that
often lead youth into gangs; and
WHEREAS, the grant program funding will provide:
❖ Overtime-funding necessary to conduct pro-active and follow-up investigations in identified hot
spot areas.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
This Interagency Agreement contains seven Articles.
ARTICLE I. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Interagency Agreement shall be in effect from the date of execution until June 30,
2010, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions herein.
ARTICLE H. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Under the direction of SPD's Gang Lieutenant, who will function as the Coordinator of the Special
Gang Enforcement Taskforce, SPD officers along with KPD officers will implement a coordinated
approach to reducing crime and related activities perpetrated by identified criminal gangs in hot
spot emphasis areas.
SPD will utilize Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)Program funds provided
via WASPC/CTED to reimburse KDP for participating KPD officers to work on a pre-approved
overtime basis,under the coordination of SPD's Gang Unit Lieutenant, to conduct pro-active and
follow-up investigations in identified hot spot areas. In order to be reimbursable, SPD's Gang
Lieutenant must approve overtime worked by KPD police personnel in advance.
Interagency Agreement
• Page 3 of 5
ARTICLE M. OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
KPD agrees to participate in the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce and attend monthly planning
meetings of the group, and as necessary.
KPD agrees to attend court proceedings relating to cases that arise from working on the Special
Gang Enforcement Taskforce at the employing jurisdiction's expense.
KPD agrees that informants are managed by the jurisdiction that the investigation arises out of.
To ensure timely quarterly statistical reporting to WASPC/CTED, KPD agrees to maintain accurate
records pertaining to gang contacts, investigations and arrests that will be collected and forwarded
by the 25th of each calendar month to Lt. Steve Wilske, Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986,
Seattle, WA. 98124-4986. (A Gang-Crime Data Reporting Form is included as Attachment I to
this Agreement.)
ARTICLE IV. LIABILITY
KPD agrees to indemnify and hold the City of Seattle, its employees, officers and agents and SPD
harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses,judgments, subrogation or other
damages resulting from injury to any person(including injury resulting in death) or damage
(including loss or destruction)to property, of whatsoever nature, of any person arising out of or
incidental to the KPD's participation in the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce.
KPD agrees that any and all work related injury or illness incurred by an KPD employee while
working on this Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce shall be covered by the employee's
employing jurisdiction, the City of Kent.
Each jurisdiction participating as a member of the Taskforce shall assume liability for any and all
personal injury, property damage, third party damage, or other damage resulting from a vehicle
collision that occurs while acting in furtherance of,participation in, or incidental to the Taskforce
and its mission.
Each jurisdiction participating as a member of the Taskforce shall be solely liable for any and all
claims, lawsuits, losses, costs; expenses,judgments, or other damages arising out of that
jurisdiction's employees' actions or inactions while working on the Taskforce. Therefore, liability
of one Taskforce jurisdiction that arises out of acting in furtherance of the Taskforce and its mission
shall not automatically attach to any other participating jurisdiction based upon Taskforce
membership alone.
ARTICLE V. VENUE STIPULATION—DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered between the City of Seattle
and the City of Kent and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction
and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of
this agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Seattle, Washington.
Interagency Agreement
g Y
Page 4 of 5
ARTICLE VI. REIMBURSEMENT
Overtime expenses
Each request for overtime reimbursement under this agreement shall be submitted using the
overtime reporting line on the A-19 Form, and shall include the name, rank, overtime compensation
rate, number of reimbursable hours claimed and dates for each officer for whom reimbursement is
sought. Each reimbursement request must be accoTpanied by a certification signed by an
appropriate supervisor within the KPD that the request has been personally reviewed,that the
information described in this paragraph is accurate, and the personnel for whom reimbursement is 1
claimed were working on an overtime basis with the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce.
Overtime reimbursement for KPD personnel assigned to the Special Enforcement Taskforce will be
calculated at the usual rate for which the individual sworn officer's time would be compensated in
the absence of this agreement, excluding FICA and retirement benefits. f
Requests for reimbursements related to overtime expenses shall be submitted using the A-19 Form
(Attachment 2), and shall be forwarded to SPD within the first week of the month that follows the I
month for which reimbursement is requested. Such requests should be forwarded by KPD's Special
Investigations Unit Lieutenant, or as appropriate,to SPD's Gang Lieutenant Lt. Steve Wilske,
Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986, Seattle, WA 98124-4986 for his review, approval and
submission to the Department's Fiscal Section for payment processing. The maximum amount to
be paid under this section of the agreement shall not exceed five thousand (5,000.00)Dollars per
request. This amount may be renewed when exhausted at the discretion of the SPD Gang
Lieutenant.
ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS 1
No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed
by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to
modify this Agreement, by mutual agreement. i
1
. 1
. l
l
Interagency Agreement
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Gang-Crime Data. Reporting Form
Special Gang Enforcement Targeting Gang Crime
I •
1. Number of arrests related to Gang Crime:
Comments:
2. Number of gang investigations/arrests involving a drug trafficking organization (DTO):
Comments:
3. Number of overtime hours spent on gang-related activity:
Comments:
I
4. Number of officer field contacts made:
Comments:
1
5. Number of gang members and gang affiliates contacted:
Comments:
I
6. Number of gang related crimes in jurisdiction:
Comments:
7. Number of gang related arrests in jurisdiction:
Comments:
8. Number of gang related investigative reports involving weapons:
Comments:
Kent CityCouncil Meeting
9
Date_ September 15, 2009
Category Other Business - 7A
1. SUBJECT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT, ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY, STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance would adopt a new
Shoreline Master Program to be approved by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. The ordinance also amends the City's Comprehensive Plan to include
the goals and policies of the updated Shoreline Master Program and to include
other text amendments needed for consistency with the updated Shoreline Master
Program.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated 9/15/09, Minutes of PEDC meeting of 8/24/09
and Ordinance including Exhibit A, Shoreline Master Program, Exhibit B,
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 13 "Shoreline Element" and Exhibit C, Amendments
to Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 "Land Use Element"
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning & Economic Development Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? No Revenue? No
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. , adopting the Shoreline Master Program update
and the corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendments.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
• Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
K E N T Phone: 253-856-5454
WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 15, 2009
TO: Chair Debbie Raplee and City Council Members
FROM: Erin George, Planner
RE: Shoreline Master Program Update & Comprehensive Plan Amendment
MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. adopting the Shoreline
Master Program Update and the corresponding Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
SUMMARY: The Washington State legislature mandated that the City update its
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) by December 1, 2009, pursuant to the state's
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
(WAC 173-26). The Shoreline Management Act is a cooperative program between local
governments and the state, and is administered by the Department of Ecology. The
policies in the Shoreline Master Program are also considered an element of a local
government's comprehensive plan per the Growth Management Act.
Shorelines subject to the updated SMP include Lake Meridian, Green River, Big Soos
Creek, Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake, Springbrook Creek (small segment near South
180th Street), Green River Natural Resources Area ponds, Jenkins Creek, Green River
floodway near Mill Creek Auburn, and wetlands within the Green River floodplain. At
their August 24 meeting, the Planning & Economic Development Committee
recommended approval of the SMP and corresponding Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
BACKGROUND: The public was extensively involved in the SMP update process via a
Citizens' Advisory Committee, a Lake Meridian community meeting, two public open
houses, posting various drafts on the City's website and two public hearings held before
the Land Use & Planning Board on July 27 and August 10, 2009. At the August 10
hearing, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend adoption of the SMP including the staff-
recommended "Public Access Option C" and an allowance of up to eight new swim
platforms on Lake Meridian. On August 24, the Planning & Economic Development
Committee voted 2-0 to carry forward the Board's recommendation. Five comment
letters were received by the City before the July 27 hearing and staff provided
responses. Please refer to the August 24 PEDC meeting packet materials for further
information and background on this project.
EG\S \Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM END MENTS\2007\CPA-2007-1_SMP-Update\Council\091509_CouncilMemo.doc
cc: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
KENT
WASHINGTON
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 2009
Committee Members: Chair Jamie Danielson, Les Thomas, Deborah Ranniger
Danielson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Thomas MOVED and Ranniger SECONDED to approve the Minutes of
July 13, 2009. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE (CPA-2007-1)
Planner Erin George presented the Shoreline Master Program Update and advised
that the City received comment letters from; Futurewise, Soos Creek Sewer &
Water District, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife and Jerry Whitten to which staff prepared detailed responses. George
stated that several amendments were made to the SMP based on the comment
letters and input received from citizens.
George stated that the Land Use & Planning Board voiced concerns regarding public
access at their July 27th public hearing. George stated that she had previously
presented amended public access requirements at the second public hearing on
August loth. She stated that private community access would be required for
subdivisions more than 4 lots in size and for multi-family developments. George
stated that public access is only required if a public project or property is involved
or if existing access is interfered with.
George stated that staff added a footnote to the SMP regarding building heights to
ensure referral to Kent's Zoning Code.
George stated that staff proposed conditional use permit requirements for in-
stream structures such as dams. She stated that these requirements would apply
to public projects. George explained that these types of structures heavily impact
stream flows so that extra scrutiny is warranted.
George stated that existing swim platforms may be replaced at the same
dimensions as existing platforms, up to a maximum of 150 square feet in size. She
stated that an additional 8 new platforms will be allowed on Lake Meridian at a
maximum size of 150 square feet per platform so linking these platforms with
existing platforms will allow for an increase of the fireworks display in Lake
Meridian's annual fireworks show by 50%.
George stated that if the Committee recommends adoption, staff anticipates
sending this proposal to the full Council on September 15th. She stated that upon
adoption, a final, locally adopted SMP will be submitted to the Department of
l
Ecology (DOE). DOE has the option to hold their own public hearing and
incorporates a 30-day comment period. George stated that staff anticipates an
effective date for the SMP of late fall 2009, meeting the December 1st State
mandated adoption deadline.
Thomas MOVED to recommend adoption of the Shoreline Master Program
Update and Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2007-1 and Ranniger
SECONDED the Motion. Danielson called for the vote. Motion PASSED 2-0
with Chair Danielson recusing herself.
As a clarification of the motion, Ranninger MOVED to recommend adoption
of the Shoreline Master Program Update and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA-2007-1 as presented by staff including Option C related to
Public Access. Thomas SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 2-0 with
Danielson recusing herself.
3. COTTAGE HOUSING DEMONSTRATION ORDINANCE UPDATE(CPA-2008-2)
Planner Katie Heinitz presented the Cottage Housing Demonstration Update and
advised that the City received two proposals by the submittal deadline date of July
31st. The Blueberry Hill Cottages is proposing 30 cottages located on a 4-acre site
located at the corner of 116th and 240th. The Apple Lane Cottages is proposing 8
cottages on a 1.4 acre site (retaining two existing duplexes on the eastern side of
the property) located on 116th just north of Kent Kangley.
Heinitz stated that a neighborhood meeting will be held for the Apple Lane proposal
on August 27th from 7-9 p.m. at the Kent Commons in the Mill Creek Room. The
meeting for the Blueberry Hill proposal is set for August 31st from 6-7 p.m. at the
Kent School District Office on 256th in the Mount Adams Room.
Heinitz stated that once the meetings are held, the applicants have an opportunity
to revise their proposals based on comments obtained from those meetings.
Thereafter, the Cottage Housing Committee will meet to review the proposals and
determine whether or not to accept either of the proposals.
Heinitz stated that a press release was issued last week to solicit interest from
citizens to be on the Cottage Housing Committee. Heinitz stated that two people
have already expressed interest. She stated that staff anticipates the selection of
two citizens to be completed by mid-September by the PEDC Chair Jamie
Danielson. Heinitz stated that the proposal selection should be completed by
October.
This report was for informational purposes only.
Adiournment
Chair Danielson adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Planning & Economic Development
Committee Secretary
P\Planning\PEDC\2009\Minutes\Aug-24-09_PEDC-Min doc
Special PEDC Meeting
August 24,2009
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing Ordinance No.
3458 and adopting a new Shoreline Master
Program to be approved by the Washington State
Department of Ecology; and further amending the
City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan to include the
goals and policies of the updated Shoreline Master
Program as the Shoreline Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and making other
Comprehensive Plan amendments in accord with
the updated Shoreline Master Program.
RECITALS
A. The Washington State Legislature has mandated that the City
of Kent update its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) pursuant to the
jShoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, and the Shoreline Master
Program Guidelines, WAC 173-26.
B. The Shoreline Management Act is a cooperative program
9 p P 9
between local governments and the state, and is administered by the
Washington State Department of Ecology, who must review and approve
all SMPs. SMP's govern properties 200 feet landward of each shoreline's
ordinary high water mark and are intended to balance use and protection
of shorelines. Shorelines consist of lakes greater than 20 acres in size as
1 Shoreline Master Program Update
well as streams and rivers with flows greater than 20 cubic feet per
second.
C. The Growth Management Act in RCW 36.70A.480 provides
that the goals and policies of a local SMP shall be considered an element
of a local government's comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plans are
allowed to be amended outside of the annual amendment process if the
amendment is the adoption or amendment of an SMP, as we have in this
case.
D. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible
official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on July 18, 2009 for this
update to the SMP and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A draft
version of the SMP update was also submitted to the Washington State
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development on May 29,
2009. The 60 day notification period, per RCW 36.70A.106, has now
lapsed.
E. The SMP update has involved extensive public participation.
Such participation included formation of a Citizens' Advisory Committee
that met monthly with staff to review the draft SMP; a Lake Meridian
community meeting on June 9, 2008; two public open houses on October
21 2008 and February 9, 2009; and solicitation of comments from parties
of record, agencies, interest groups, tribes and adjacent jurisdictions. The
Land Use and Planning Board discussed the SMP at its workshops on
February 25, 2008, February 9 and June 22, 2009. The Board also held
public hearings on July 27 and August 10, 2009. The Planning and
Economic Development Committee considered the SMP at meetings on
March 10, 2008; February 9, July 13, and August 24, 2009.
2 Shoreline Master Program Update
F. The Shoreline Management Act authorizes the Department of
Ecology to adopt, approve, amend and adjust the City's SMP.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Repealed. Ordinance No. 3458 of the City of Kent,
enacting a Shoreline Master Program, adopted on May 4, 1999, is hereby
repealed.
SECTION 2. - Adopt. The City hereby approves and adopts the
updated Shoreline Master Program as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3 - Amendment. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.480, the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to replace, in its entirety,
Appendix C, "1999 Kent Shoreline Master Program - Goals & Policies,"
with "Chapter 13, Shoreline Element," containing the policies of the
updated Shoreline Master Program as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached
and incorporated by this reference. The Comprehensive Plan is also
amended as set forth in Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated herein to
reflect provisions in the updated SMP such as the addition of water bodies
to SMP jurisdiction.
SECTION 4. - Savings. The existing Shoreline Master Program,
which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force
and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION S. - Severability. If any one or more sections,
3 Shoreline Master Program Update
subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional
or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 6. - Effective Date. The effective date of the approved
Shoreline Master Program is dependent on approval by the Washington
State Department of Ecology per WAC 173-26-120(7), but shall in no
event be sooner than thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage
of this ordinance.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of September, 2009.
APPROVED: day of September, 2009.
PUBLISHED: day of September, 2009.
4 Shoreline Master Program Update
II hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and
approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
i (SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
i
5 Shoreline Master Program Update
EXHIBIT A
I SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
I
i
i
t
l
i
i
i
L
1
� . � � •
�� rxr� _•�.f pp r r' �e•�v ) `� t i / R :E ". ,�fy 1 a 7"�'"T '-
� .. z,�y��. �` •- �[jI s � .� ,.yam. _
� � -+����.�r,�`��- *„ s Mom,,:»�°•. `�, r,» :�= ,�
f. y�44,y�� ,r r. i a^• FF' '� �'�• 4 k o i f. � f
f,O fi' t" ( r •'•. ,{.
rsyl�+_.y�rr:.ad�"`311sr
�� +4�a.s ?. �.c�"°jJ"�'ti�. t •.irk '',1Y+c. �' ..
TZ
. + '• ��, - +t� 'day` �i�� - _ _ - .
3,4'�. Y`K„3�"'rC.',"j .�_�'. Hwy. '"i`1 - �•�� � a`r�•h: < � ��, r "'�
•a,,.`��.try y.�y�' rS; t r arieP{a �•!'�a ..
1
r
i
Grant No. G00800311
Kent Shoreline
Master Program
September 2009
1
Prepared by:
4^4 City of Kent
Planning Services
400 W Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032
KENT
IW A S H I N G T O N
I L'TA FA I,
1904 3rd Ave, Suite 725
Seattle, Washington 98101
architecture•planning•urban design
1
THE
WATERSHED 750 6th Street South
i Kirkland, WA 98033
COMPANY
ANY
qg This report was
. 5 funded in part
through a grant from
the Washington
Department of
E C 0 I. 0 G Y Ecology.
I
1
l
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................i
Listof Tables................................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the SMP..............................................................................1
A. History of the SMA. .1
B. Implementation of the SMA ........................................................................................2
C. Geographic Applications of the SMA..........................................................................4
1. Applicable Area .............................................................................................................. 5
D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used...............................................................6
1. When Is a Permit Required?........................................................................................... 7
2. The Permit Process........................................................................................................8
3. The Shoreline Permit...................................................................................................... 8
4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other Plans........................................9
Chapter 2: Environment Designation Provisions......................................................10
A. Introduction...............................................................................................................10
B. Shoreline Environment Designation Maps................................................................10
C. Policies and Regulations ..........................................................................................10
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment........................................................................ 10
a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 10
b. Designation Criteria................................................ ................................................. ........ ..... 11
c. Management Policies.......................... ....................... ........................................................... 11
2. "High-Intensity" (H-1) Environment 11
................................................................................
a. Purpose.............................................................................................................. .................... 11
b. Designation Criteria.................. .............................................................................................. 11
c. Management Policies................................................................................... .......................... 12
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 12
3. "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment .......................................... 14
a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 14
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 14
c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 14
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 15
4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment............................................ 17
a. Purpose............ ....................................................... ............................................................. 17
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 17
c. Management Policies....................... ......... ................................................... ........................ 17
d. Specific Environment Designations ................... ................................................... . ...... ....... 19
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment .................................................................... 21
a. Purpose..... . ........................................................................................................................... 21
b. Designation Criteria.................................................................................................... .... ... ... 21
c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 21
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 22
Table of Contents Page i
6. "Aquatic" Environment...................................................................................................23
a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 23
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 23 T
c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 3: General Provisions ...................................................................................25
A. Introduction ..............................................................................................................25
B. Policies and Regulations..........................................................................................25
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations............................................................25 1
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 25
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 25
c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 26
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources.........................................................................27
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 27
b. Policies.. ................................................................................................................................27 I .
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 27
3. Critical Areas.................................................................................................................28
4. Environmental Impacts..................................................................................................29
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 29
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 29 I
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 30
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management ............................................31
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 31
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 31
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 32 f
6. Parking..........................................................................................................................34
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 34
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 34
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 35
7. Public Access................................................................................................................35
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 35
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 36 I
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 37 l .
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance Regulations.......................................................38
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 38
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 38
9. Signage.........................................................................................................................40
a. Applicability.............................................................................................................................40
b. Policies....................................................................................................................................40
c. Regulations .............................................................................................................................40
10. Utilities (Accessory).......................................................................................................41
a. Applicability.............................................................................................................................41
b. Policies 41 -....................................................................................................................................
c. Regulations .............................................................................................................................42
11. Vegetation Conservation...............................................................................................42
a. Applicability.............................................................................................................................42
b. Policies....................................................................................................................................43
c. Regulations .............................................................................................................................43
12. Water Quality and Quantity ...........................................................................................46
a. Applicability.............................................................................................................................46
b. Policies....................................................................................................................................47
c. Regulations .............................................................................................................................47
Page ii Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions...........................................................49
A. Introduction and Applicability....................................................................................49
B. Shoreline Modification Matrix....................................................................................49
C. Policies and Regulations ..........................................................................................51
1. General Policies and Regulations................................................................................. 51
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 51
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 51
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 51
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads) ............................................................... 52
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 52
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 53
c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 54
3. Over-Water Structures - Including Pier and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and Boating
Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 58
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 58
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 58
c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 59
4. Fill................................................................................................................................. 65
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 65
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 65
i c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 66
5. Dredging and Disposal ................................................................................................. 66
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 66
b. Exemptions ............................................................................................................................. 67
c. Policies 67
....................................................................................................................................
Id. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 67
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement..................................................... 69
a. Applicability 69
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 69
c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 69
7. Dikes and Levees......................................................................................................... 70
ia. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 70
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 70
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 70
` Chapter 5: Shoreline Use Provisions.........................................................................72
A. Introduction...............................................................................................................72
B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices 72
C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations...................................................................76
1. General Policies and Regulations................................................................................. 76
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 76
b. Policy....................................................................................................................................... 76
c. Regulations................................................................................................................................ 76
2. Agriculture .................................................................................................................... 77
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 77
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 77
c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 78
3. Boating Facilities .......................................................................................................... 78
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 78
Table of Contents Page iii
i
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 79
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 79
4. Commercial Development.............................................................................................81 i
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 81
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 81
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 81
5. Industry.........................................................................................................................83
a. Applicability 83
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 83
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 83 1
6. In-Stream Structures.....................................................................................................84 l
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 84
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 85 1
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 85 1
7. Recreational Development............................................................................................85
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 85
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 86
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 86
8. Residential Development ..............................................................................................87
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 87
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 88
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 88
9. Transportation...............................................................................................................97
a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 97
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 97
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 97 {
10. Utilities ........................................................................................................................100
a. Applicability 100 `
b. Policies.................................................................................................................................. 100
c. Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 100
1
Chapter 6: Definitions ...............................................................................................103
Chapter 7: Administrative Provisions......................................................................117
A. Purpose and Applicability....................................................................................... 117
B. Substantial Development ....................................................................................... 117
1. Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit...................................................117
2 Substantial Development Permit Process....................................................................117
3. Appeals.......................................................................................................................119
C. Conditional Use Permits.........................................................................................119
1. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits..............................................................................119 d
2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria ...................................................................119 d
D. Variances ............................................................................................................... 120
1. Shoreline Variances....................................................................................................120
2. Shoreline Variance Criteria..........................................................................................120
3. Revisions to Permits........................................................................................ 120
E. Nonconforming Uses..............................................................................................121
Page iv Kent Shoreline Master Program I
i
F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and Changing Conditions in
ShorelineAreas......................................................................................................121
G. Amendments to This Shoreline Master Program....................................................121
H. Severability.............................................................................................................121
I. Enforcement
1. Violations.................................................................................................................. 122
2. Duty to Enforce........................................................................................................... 122
3. Investigation and Notice of Violation........................................................................... 122
Chapter 8: Shoreline Restoration Plan ....................................................................125
IA. Introduction.............................................................................................................125
B. Shoreline Inventory Summary ................................................................................126
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 126
2. Shoreline Boundary.................................................................................................... 126
3. Inventory..................................................................................................................... 127
I a. Land Use and Physical Conditions 127
b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas............................................................................... 130
C. Restoration Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................130
1. System-wide restoration objectives................................................. ..................... 132
2. Green River restoration objectives.............................................................................. 132
3. Lakeshore restoration objectives ................................................................................ 133
D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs..............................................133
1. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation.............................................. 133
2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project....................................................... 139
3. King County Flood Control District 139
..............................................................................
4. Comprehensive Plan Policies ..................................................................................... 140
5. Critical Areas Regulations........................................................................................... 142
6. Stormwater Management and Planning
7. Public Education......................................................................................................... 143
8. Kent Parks Foundation ............................................................................................... 145
9. Other Kent Parks Programs........................................................................................ 145
a. Adopt-A-Park......................................................................................................................... 145
b. Releaf.................................................................................................................................... 145
c. Eagle Scouts......................................................................................................................... 146
d. Make A Difference Day......................................................................................................... 146
e. Youth Tree Education Program ............................................................................................ 146
f. Best Management Practices................................................................................................. 146
10. Public Works Engineering Programs .......................................................................... 147
11. Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects............................................................................... 147
a. Springbrook Creek................................................................................................................ 147
b. GRNRA................................................................................................................................. 148
c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project........................................................................... 148
d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction................................................................................. 149
i
i Table of Contents Page v
13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities .............................................149
1
E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to Achieve Local Restoration Goals.......150
I1. Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects.............................................................................150
2. Other Recommended Projects ....................................................................................151
a. Green River........................................................................................................................... 151
b. Big Soos Creek..................................................................................................................... 154
c. Lake Meridian........................................................................................................................ 154
d. Lake Fenwick........................................................................................................................ 154
e. GRNRA......... ...................................................................................................................... 154
f. Springbrook Creek................................................................................................................ 154
g. Jenkins Creek ....................................................................................................................... 155
h. Panther Lake......................................................................................................................... 155
3. Public Education/Outreach..........................................................................................155 i
4. Other Environmental Organizations....................................................................... .....156
F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods.................................. 156
G. Restoration Priorities..............................................................................................159
1. Priority 1 — Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection....................................160
2. Priority 2 — Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation..............160
3. Priority 3 —Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery.........160 1
4. Priority 4— Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries.................................161
5. Priority 5 — Public Education and Involvement.............................................................161
6. Priority 6 —Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or
Enhancement Purposes..............................................................................................162
7. Priority 7 — Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage.....................162
8. Priority 8 — Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline
and Streambank Conditions........................................................................................162
9. Priority 9— Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures......................................163
10. Priority 10— Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes..............................................163
11. Priority 11 City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies 163
H. References.............................................................................................................165
Appendix A: Shoreline Environment Designation Maps
Appendix B: Council Resolution No. 1714 Ratifying the WRIA Salmon
Habitat Plan
Appendix C: Restoration Plan Map
II
1
1
Page vi Kent Shoreline Master Program
List of Tables
Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions............................................ 13
Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation Descriptions.............. 15
Table 3. Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions.......... 19
Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions................................22
Table 5. Shoreline Modification Matrix................................................................................. 50
Table 6. Shoreline Use Matrix ............................................................................................. 72
Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix.............................................................. 75
Table 8. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes.................................... 88
Table 9. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers
orStreams............................................................................................................. 94
Table 10. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementationin Kent........................................................................................ 134
Table 11. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent
Table 12. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project projects, associated with
Shorelines, in the City of Kent not part of the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making
Our Watershed Fit for a King. .............................................................................. 139
Table 13. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent ...................................... 149
Table 14. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs
Iand Plans............................................................................................................. 157
I
I
I
Table of Contents Page vii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the SMP
A. History of the SMA
In 1969, the Washington State Supreme Court decided in the case of Wilbur v. Gallagher
(77 Wn.2d 302), commonly known as the "Lake Chelan Case," that certain activities along
shorelines were contrary to the public interest. The court findings required that the public
interest be represented in the proper forum for determining the use of shoreline properties.
The ramifications of this decision were significant in that developers, environmentalists,
and other interested parties began to recognize—although probably for different reasons—
the need for a comprehensive planning and regulatory program for shorelines.
Wilbur v. Gallagher was a case primarily involving property rights. It was decided at a
time of heightened environmental awareness. At the same time, Congress was considering
environmental legislation and subsequently passed a number of laws relating to protection
of the environment including the National Environmental Policy Act(1969) and the
Coastal Zone Management Act(1972). "Earth Day" and the concept of"spaceship earth"
were part of the American scene. "Conservationists" had become "environmentalists" and
some had even gone so far as to call themselves "ecologists." Whatever the name or
concept, concern for fragile ecological areas became important, along with the rights
associated with property ownership.
Voters of the state, seeing the failure of the Seacoast Management Bill in the state
legislature, validated an initiative petition commonly titled the "Shoreline Protection Act."
The state legislature, choosing between adoption of the people's initiative petition or its
own alternative,passed into law the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971" (SMA)
effective June 1, 1971, which contained the provision for both statutes to be deferred to the
electorate in the November 1972 election. The election issue required that voters respond
to two questions: (1) Did they favor shoreline management? and(2)Which alternative
management program did they prefer? Most Washington voters favored both shoreline
management and the legislature's alternative (providing greater local control),by an
approximately 2-to-1 margin. It is important to keep in mind that the SMA was a response
to a people's initiative and was ratified by the voters, giving the SMA a populist
foundation as well as an environmental justification.
The SMA's paramount objectives are to protect and restore the valuable natural resources
that shorelines represent and to plan for and foster all "reasonable and appropriate uses"
that are dependent upon a waterfront location or that offer opportunities for the public to
enjoy the state's shorelines. With this clear mandate, the SMA established a planning and
regulatory program to be initiated at the local level under State guidance.
This cooperative effort balances local and state-wide interests in the management and
development of shoreline areas by requiring local governments to plan(via shoreline
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 1
master programs) and regulate (via permits) shoreline development within SMA
jurisdiction. (See"Geographic Applications of the SMA"below.) Local government
actions are monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology),which
approves new or amended shoreline master programs (SMPs),reviews substantial
development permits, and approves Conditional Use permits and variances.
After the SMA's passage in 1971,Ecology adopted Chapter 173-18 WAC to serve as a
standard for the implementation of the SMA and to provide direction to local governments
and Ecology in preparing SMPs. Two hundred forty-seven cities and counties have
prepared SMPs based on that WAC chapter. Over the years, local governments, with the 1
help of Ecology, developed a set of practices and methodologies, the best of which were
collected and described in the 1994 Shoreline Management Guidebook.
In 1995,the state legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724,which included I
several RCW amendments to better integrate the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The bill also 11
directed Ecology to review and update the state SMA guidelines every five years. In
response, Ecology undertook a primarily in-house process to prepare a new WAC chapter
(also referred to in this SW as the"Guidelines"). After meeting with a series of advisory
committees and producing a number of informal drafts, Ecology formally proposed a new
WAC rule for the SMA in April 1999. Subsequently, in 2003, the Legislature further
clarified the integration of the SMA and GMA. l
The rule was appealed and then-Governor Gary Locke and former Attorney General i
Christine Gregoire cosponsored a year-long mediation effort in 2002 that culminated in a l
third draft,which was issued for public comment in July 2002. That proposal had the
endorsement of the Association of Washington Business, the Washington Aggregates & I
Concrete Association, the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) and other I
environmental organizations—all of whom were parties to the lawsuit.
Ecology received about 300 comments on the version proposed in 2003. Seventeen I
changes were made in response to those comments, to clarify language and to delete
obsolete or duplicative references. The final version was adopted December 17,2003. I
The City's Shoreline Master Program was most recently amended in 2004, although major
substantive amendments have not occurred since 1999. Areas of the shoreline were
designated as Urban-River Resources (applied to the Green River), Urban-Stream Corridor
(applied to Soos Creek), and Urban-Lake Residential(applied to Lake Meridian).
B. Implementation of the SMA
RCW 90.58.020 clearly states how the Shoreline Management Act shall be implemented in I
the following statement:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and I
fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating
to their utilization,protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever
Page 2 Kent Shoreline Master Program I
iincreasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating
increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state.
! The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands
adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately
owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and
therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest
associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time,recognizing and
protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefore, a
clear and urgent demand for a planned,rational, and concerted effort,jointly performed by
federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and
piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to
insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited
reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters,will promote and enhance the
public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public
health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic
life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental
thereto.
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the
management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting
guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing
master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in
the following order of preference which:
(1)Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2)Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3)Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4)Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7)Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate
or necessary.
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent
feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To
this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and
prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use
of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in
those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family
residences and their appurtenant structures,ports, shoreline recreational uses including but
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 3
i
not limited to parks,marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to
shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly
dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development
that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the
shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands
of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state
shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when
circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through
man-made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural I
condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state no longer meeting the definition of I
"shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." l
C. Geographic Applications of the SMA
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of
the state plus their associated"shorelands." At a minimum, the waterbodies designated as
shorelines of the state are streams whose mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second
(cfs) or greater and lakes whose area is greater than 20 acres. Shorelands are defined as:
"those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as
measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark;
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such
floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams,
lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this
chapter...Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-
hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its SMP as long as such l
portion includes, as a minimum,the floodway and the adjacent land
extending landward two hundred feet therefrom... Any city or county
may also include in its SMP land necessary for buffers for critical areas
(RCW 90.58.030)"
In addition,rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines of l
statewide significance.
The lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined for specific cases based
on the location of the ordinary high water mark(OHWM), floodway, and presence of
associated wetlands.
The City's shoreline boundaries have been updated(subject to City Council and Ecology
approval) concurrent with this assessment. Several changes have been made to the maps
based on new information regarding associated wetlands and waterbody size (area and l
flow). Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA)pond,
Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn floodway are new additions
Page 4 Kent Shoreline Master Program
to shoreline jurisdiction. During the review of aerial photographs, GIS mapping, and a
field visit, it was determined that Lake Fenwick is larger than 20 acres (just over 23). GIS
mapping also shows that the combined area of the two primary GRNRA cells is slightly
more than 50 acres. As part of the shoreline jurisdiction assessment, Springbrook Creels,
Big Soos Creek and Jenkins Creels were reviewed. Recent USGS mapping of the 20 cfs
cut-off points and USGS field notes identified small areas of Springbrook and Jenkins
Creeks that meet shoreline criteria. The extent of Big Soos Creek shoreline jurisdiction
did not change appreciably. While Mill Creek Auburn does not reach 20 cfs, it is located
within the Green River's floodway and is therefore located within shoreline jurisdiction.
The shoreline jurisdiction in Kent is identified in Figure 1. Wetlands are not shown on this
map, however. Chapter 2 Section B.1 designates associated wetlands and those within the
100-year floodplain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland
Inventory Maps identifies all wetlands in the City and the 100-year floodplain is identified
on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
1 . Applicable Area
` The City of Kent'is located in south King County. The City is surrounded by seven
incorporated cities (Des Moines,Auburn, SeaTac, Tukwila,Federal Way,Renton and
Covington),with pockets of unincorporated King County to the northeast, east and
south. Interstate 5 (1-5) and State Route (SR) 167 pass through the City from north to
south.a4the western and central portions of the City.
i The applicable area for this shoreline master program includes all land currently
within the City's proposed shoreline jurisdiction, as well as minimal treatment of
shorelines in the PAA currently regulated under King County's SMP. The latter
includes the south half of Lake Fenwick, all of Panther Lake, and portions of the
I Green River at the south end of the City. The PAA shoreline area, although
minimally discussed in this report, will continue to be regulated by King County's
recently updated SMP until they are annexed by the City of Kent.
I
I
I
I
i
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 5
4
SShoreline Jurisdiction On City Limits) L.- � s; t• Kent Water Resources Jea
A—trong'SpringsS Shoreline Jurisdiction(in PAA) fltkwila } anion
`4� Kent City Limits $ • .�J _--ii Y
Kent PdentlalAnnexetlmArea(PAA) s b6 later del•:--' _��,.
;Not
ST
e too et >� 1oSWa s
r Ki County i .� a 4
A 1E 8T
a I T ar
alac tit T
V\Kln,i County
at778T In
e ar
sn+
O L P let i ..
Des Moines w
t,wres sr erosr : SE No er +1
L. M su TH BT E
� W at lab aF
F
9246 eE 18eT e
ss an w ate I
a � ate vnw � �s
ee -,-
aEp11` SE t aT
areoeT ao
Covington
167
e L_. ET no
Fecle mrEw Ing County 61e 1 1
m
Way +r e IT eE nT er 274
K - N
w s King Coun
/ 1 Sea Inset
NolloScale < — $ above for
' T AuWater
bum. >
Data Source:Kant OIS,King County OIS and WSDOT GIs - aes sr Reswrces
sl.nee.,ania �- Area-a.
Shoreline Management Area
1� City of Kent-Shoreline Master Program Figure 1 f
Figure 1. Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction in the City of Kent. l
l
D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used
The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program is a planning document that outlines goals and
�' p g
policies for the shorelines of the City, and also establishes regulations for development
occurring within shoreline jurisdiction.
In order to preserve and enhance the shorelines of the City of Kent, it is important that all
development proposals relating to the shoreline are evaluated in terms of the City's I
Shoreline Master Program, and the City Shoreline Administrator is consulted. The 1
Shoreline Administrator for the City of Kent is the Planning Director or his/her designee.
The Shoreline Management Act(SMA) defines for local jurisdictions the content and
goals that should be represented in the Shoreline Master Programs developed by each
Page 6 Kent Shoreline Master Program
community; within these guidelines, it is left to each community to develop the specific
regulations appropriate to that community. Pursuant to the Guidelines, shorelines of the
state that meet the criteria established in WAC 173-26-211 are given a shoreline
environment designation. The purpose of the shoreline designation system is to ensure
that land use, development, or other activity occurring within the designated shoreline
jurisdiction is appropriate for that area and that consideration is given to the special
requirements of that environment.
The Kent Shoreline Master Program addresses a broad range of uses that could be
proposed in the shoreline area. This breadth is intended to ensure that the Kent shoreline
area is protected from activities and uses that, if unmonitored, could be developed
inappropriately and could cause damage to the ecological system of the shoreline, displace
"preferred uses" as identified in Chapter 90.58 RCW, or cause the degradation of shoreline
aesthetic values. The Kent Shoreline Master Program provides the regulatory parameters
( within which development may occur. In addition, it identifies those uses deemed
unacceptable within Kent shoreline jurisdiction, as well as those uses which may be
considered through a discretionary permit such as a Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline
1 Variance.
( 1 . When Is a Permit Required?
I A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SSDP)is required when a development
or activity meets the definition of"substantial development" contained within
Chapter 6 of this SMP. Substantial development is discussed in more detail in Section
7.B of this SMP. A development or activity is exempt if it meets the criteria listed in
WAC 173-27-040. Some development may require a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit, if listed as such in the Use Tables contained in Section 5.B of this SMP; or a
Shoreline Variance. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and Shoreline Variances are
discussed in more detail in Sections 7 C and D,respectively. However,ALL new
development,uses, and activities must comply with the policies and regulations set
forth in the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program, including those developments,
uses, and activities that are exempt from permits. Review under the State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) may also be required.
"Development,"is defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as:
A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures;
dredging, drilling; dumping; filling; removal or any sand, gravel, or minerals;
bulkheading; driving of piling;placing of obstructions; or any project of a
permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of
the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter 90.58 RCW at any
state of water level (RCW 90.58.030(3d)).
This definition indicates that the "development"regulated by the Shoreline
Management Act includes not only those activities that most people recognize as
"development,"but also those activities that citizens may do around their own home.
While the impact of these potential"developments"may seem inconsequential at
I
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 7
i
first, they may have unwanted and damaging affects on the river ecology, the I
property of others, and the shoreline aesthetics.
Projects that are identified as "developments,"but not"substantial developments,"do
not require a shoreline Substantial Development Permit; however, they must still
comply with all applicable regulations in the City's Shoreline Master Program,
including Critical Areas Regulations. In addition, some developments may require a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance from the Shoreline Master
Program's provisions, although they do not meet the definition of"substantial
development."
"Substantial development"is any"development"where the total cost or fair market
value exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000), or any development that materially
interferes with the normal public use of the water or shoreline of the state. The five
thousand dollar($5,000) threshold will be adjusted for inflation by the office of
financial management every five years,beginning July 1, 2007,based upon changes
in the consumer price index during that time period. Under the Shoreline
Management Act, some types of development are exempt from the requirement to
apply for and receive a permit before beginning work per RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). A
complete list of developments and uses that are not considered"substantial
development"is found in Chapter 8: Definitions under"substantial development." I
2. The Permit Process
The City's Shoreline Administrator can help determine if a project is classified as a
substantial development, determine if a permit is necessary or if a project is exempt
from permit requirements, and identify which regulations in the SNIP may apply to
the proposed project. The Administrator can also provide information on the permit
application process and how the SMP process relates to, and can coordinate with, the
State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)process.
3. The Shoreline Permit
There are three types of permits: the Substantial Development Permit, the Shoreline i
Conditional Use Permit, and the Shoreline Variance. All of these permits use the
same application form;however, they are processed slightly differently and have
different criteria for approval. Shoreline Exemptions require City review to l
determine whether the proposal is indeed exempt from shoreline permits, and whether
the proposal meets the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program.
Requests for Shoreline Exemption are made on a separate application form.
Requests for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are reviewed by the
Shoreline Administrator. Requests for a Shoreline Variance or Shoreline Conditional l
Use Permit require review by the City of Kent Hearing Examiner(per Section
12.01.040 KCC, as amended). There may be instances where a Shoreline Conditional I
Use Permit or Shoreline Variance may be approved without the need for a Substantial
Development Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on the
proposal and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Hearing
Page 8 Kent Shoreline Master Program I
Examiner's decision is final,unless an appeal is filed pursuant to the procedures
described in Section 7.B.3. Requests for Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and
Shoreline Variances require final approval by DOE.
I
A map of the shoreline jurisdiction is presented in Appendix A and descriptions of the
various shoreline designations are presented in Chapter 2 of this SMP.
4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other
I
Plans
In addition to compliance with the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act of
I
1971, the Kent Shoreline Master Program(SMP) must be mutually consistent with
local plans and policy documents, specifically, the Kent Comprehensive Plan and the
City's Critical Areas Regulations (Section 11.06 KCC). The Kent SMP must also be
mutually consistent with the regulations developed by the City to implement its plans,
such as the zoning code and subdivision code, as well as building construction and
safety requirements.
1 Submitting an application for a shoreline development,use, or activity does not
exempt an applicant from complying with any other local, county, state, regional, or
federal statutes or regulations, which may also be applicable to such development or
use.
I
l
I
i
I
i
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 9
i
CHAPTER 2
Environment Designation Provisions
A. Introduction
The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW) and Shoreline Guidelines (Chapter
173-26 WAC)provide for shoreline environment designations to serve as a tool for
applying and tailoring the general policies of the SMA to local shorelines. Shoreline
environment designations provide a means of adapting broad policies to shoreline sub- I
units while recognizing different conditions and valuable shoreline resources, and a way to
integrate comprehensive planning into SMP regulations. In accordance with WAC 173-
26-211, the following shoreline environment designation provisions apply; including
purpose, designation criteria, and management policies. Where there is a contradiction
between the matrices and another SMP text provision, the text provision shall apply.
All areas not specifically assigned a shoreline environment designation shall be designated
"Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity" (UC-LI). I
B. Shoreline Environment Designation Maps
The Shoreline Environment Designation Maps can be found in Appendix A. Pursuant to
f
RCW 90.58.040, the maps illustrate the shoreline environment designations that apply to r
all shorelines of the state within the City of Kent's jurisdiction. The lateral extent of the `I
shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined for specific cases based on the location of the
ordinary high water mark(OHWM), floodway, and presence of associated wetlands. The
maps should be used in conjunction with the Environment Designation tables in Section C
below. In the event of a mapping error, the City will rely upon the boundary descriptions
and the criteria in Section C below.
C. Policies and Regulations
1 . "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Natural-Wetlands" environment is to protect and restore all
wetlands associated with shoreline areas by applying the City of Kent Critical
Areas Regulations. These systems require development restrictions to maintain
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
f
Page 10 Kent Shoreline Master Program I
b. Designation Criteria
A "Natural-Wetlands" environment designation will be assigned to all wetlands in
shoreline jurisdiction except for those wetlands within the Green River Natural
Resources Area, which are designated"Urban Conservancy-Open Space."
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural
character of the designated wetland area should be prohibited.
2. New land division, development or shoreline modification that would reduce
I the capability of the wetlands to perform normal ecological functions should
not be allowed.
i 3. Uses that are consumptive of physical, visual, and biological resources should
be prohibited.
1 Access and Improvements
4. Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and
low-intensity water-oriented recreational purposes such as nature study that do
not impact ecological functions,provided that no significant ecological impact
on the area will result.
5. Physical alterations should only be considered when they serve to protect or
enhance a significant,unique, or highly valued feature that might otherwise be
degraded or destroyed or for public access where no significant ecological
impacts would occur.
Implementing Regulations
6. The ecological resources in the Natural-Wetlands environment should be
protected through the provisions in the Critical Areas section of this SMP.
2. "High-Intensity" (H-1) Environment
a. Purpose
I
The purpose of the "High-Intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity
water-oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting
existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have
been previously degraded. Because the Green River shoreline has been diked and
offers few, if any, opportunities for water-dependent uses, a"High-Intensity"
i designation is also used for appropriate lands that are either separated from the
shoreline or are not suitable for water-oriented use.
b. Designation Criteria
A "High-Intensity" environment designation will be assigned to shorelands
designated for commercial or industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan if they
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 11
i
i
currently support or are suitable and planned for high-intensity commercial, 1
industrial, or institutional uses that either include, or do not detract from the
potential for water oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or public access.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. In regulating uses in the "High-Intensity" environment, first priority should be
given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Given the fact that commercial
navigation on the Green River is limited by the channel configuration,
nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed on shorelands separated from the
shoreline by other properties, such as the Green River Trail corridor, and
where public access improvements and/or shoreline restoration is included as
part of the development. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be permitted
where water-dependent uses,public access, and shoreline restoration is
infeasible, as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or
public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that
which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the
"High-Intensity"environment.
2. Developments in the"High-Intensity" environment should be managed so that
they enhance and maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban uses, with l
priority given to water-dependent,water-related, and water-enjoyment uses.
Public Access and Aesthetics
3. Existing public access ways should not be blocked or diminished.
4. Aesthetic objectives should be actively implemented by means such as sign 1
control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and
architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. These
objectives may be implemented either through this SMP or other City l
ordinances.
5. In order to make maximum use of the available shoreline resource and to
accommodate future water-oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or public
access,the redevelopment and renewal of substandard, degraded, obsolete
urban shoreline areas should be encouraged.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 1.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a l
"High Intensity" environment. See attached Shoreline Environment Designation
Maps (Appendix A).
l
Page 12 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
i
Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions
i Begins Ends
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
High Intensity with an Urban GR B-1. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge
Conservancy—Open Space north of the river from of 3462800260 of 0006600017
II parallel environment for the trail commercial lot east of (or City
corridor, including the new Central Ave,generally boundary)
section of trail between S 266`h St west and north to Foster
and S 259`h St. Park
!I High Intensity GR B-2. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge
south of the river just of 0004400005 of 0200000110
east of the Valley (or City (or edge of SR
Freeway(SR 167) boundary) 167)
High Intensity with an Urban GR B-3. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge
Conservancy—Open Space north of the river just of 2611000200 of 2611000190
parallel environment for the trail east of the Valley (or SR 167)
corridor Freeway(SR 167)
located between Foster
Park and Riverview
1 Park
High Intensity with a parallel GR B-4. Small mixed Eastern edge Southern edge
environment Urban Conservancy use area north of the 2422049114 of 2422049178
—Open Space for the trail river between the Valley and
corridor. Freeway(SR 167)and 5436200843
SR 181. Western
boundary of
SR 181
High Intensity with a parallel GR B-5. Industrial area Southern edge
environment of Urban located along Russell of 0006200023 Southern edge
Conservancy—Open Space for Rd. north of S.228 St (S 228 St) of 0006200018
the Green River Trail corridor. and south of the
GRNRA
High Intensity with a parallel GR B-5. Small industrial Southern edge Northern edge
environment of Urban area located along of 0006200017 of 1022049016
Conservancy—Open Space for Russell Rd. adjacent to
the Green River Trail corridor. the GRNRA.
High Intensity with a parallel GR B-6. Industrial area Southern edge Western edge
environment of Urban along east side of the of 7888800210 of 7888800090
Conservancy—Open Space for river north of S 2001h St. (Russell Rd S,
the Green River Trail corridor. S 200 St)
High Intensity GR B-7. Industrial and Southern edge Northern edge
commercial area east of of 6407600130 of 0000200017
SR 181 and
St and south of
43 SW (SW 43 St)
High Intensity GR PAA-B-1. Southern edge Western edge
Shorelands in the of 0004400031 of 2522046666
potential annexation
area (PAA)generally
south of the river and
west of the Valley
Freeway(SR 167)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 13
1
Begins Ends 1
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) I (parcel No.)
High Intensity Springbrook Creek— 3623049018 1253710010
this area has a parallel 1
designation of UC-OS
for the Springbrook I
Creek Greenbelt.
3. "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment
a. Purpose I
The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy-Open Space" environment is to protect I
and"restore", as defined in this SMP, ecological functions in urban and
developed settings, while allowing public access and a variety of park and
recreation uses.
b. Designation Criteria
An "Urban Conservancy-Open Space" environment designation will be assigned
to shorelands that are within public and private parks and natural resource areas,
including golf courses, the Green River Natural Resource Area, the Green River
Trail and park lands on Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, and Springbrook Creek.
Lands planned for park uses or resource conservation areas with no other 1
commercial or residential land uses should also be designated"Urban
Conservancy-Open Space."
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented recreational uses should be given priority over nonwater-
oriented uses. Water-dependent recreational uses should be given highest
priority. f
2. Commercial activities enhancing the public's enjoyment of publically
accessible shorelines may be appropriate.
3. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing J
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses,provided significant
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
4. Development that hinders natural channel movement in channel migration
zones should not be allowed (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,
Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
Ecological Restoration and Public Access l
3. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts, as determined
by the City, should be taken to restore ecological functions.
l
Page 14 Kent Shoreline Master Program
4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures,
vegetation conservation,water quality, and shoreline modifications within the
"Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
j 5. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented
whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 2.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as an
"Urban Conservancy—Open Space" environment. See also the attached maps.
Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation
Descriptions
Begins Ends
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
1 Urban Conservancy—Open The Green River Trail NA NA
Space. receives a parallel
designation for much of
the Green River
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-2. Foster Park is 2611000200 2611000200
Space. on the north side of the (includes trail
river generally west of portion of
the railroad line and 2611000190)
east of the Valley
Freeway(SR 167)
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-5.The Riverbend Western edge Northeastern
Space Golf Complex of 2322049011 edge of
(includes 2322049027
portions of
J 2322046666)
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-6. Golf course City limits Southern
Space and open space on the (located in boundary of
south and west side of 2322049029) 2222049176
Sthe river from the city
limits south of W.
Meeker St.to the
industrial area north of
the golf complex
Urban Conservancy—Open GR B5. Part of this Southern edge Southern edge
Space sub-unit is the of 0006200018 of 0006200017
horticultural center and
nursery for the GRNRA
so is designated UC-
Open Space.
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-8. Green River Southern edge Southern edge
Space Natural Resource Area of 1022049196 of 1122049065
I
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 15
1
Begins Ends
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-9.Valley Floor Northern edge Northern edge
Space Community Park of S 212 St of 1122049008
(southern
edge of
1122049008) 1
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-10. Green River Northern edge Southern edge
Space Trail north of S 212`h St of S 212 St of Russell Rd
and south of Russell (southern S
Road edge of
6600210330
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-11. Future North Includes Includes I
Space Green River Park on 0000200044 0000200044
the east shoreline just
south of the City limits.
Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-3. Riverview Park 2522049001 Southern
Space is on the north and east Includes boundary of
side of the riverjust 2522046666 2422049178
west of the Valley I
Freeway(SR 167) l
All areas located in the North GR PAA-A-1. Area On west side On west side
Green River Park are Urban within the PAA and City of river: of river:
Conservancy—Open Space. All Limits north and east of 3022059054 North of S 277
areas that are designated US the river at the eastern St(south edge
are Urban Conservancy—Low most area of the Green of
Intensity River shorelands within
the City and PAA 3122056666)
Urban Conservancy—Open Lake Meridian -Unit A Western edge Northern edge
Space —Open Space -Lake of parcel of parcel
Meridian Park number number
6648500840 2622059044
Urban Conservancy—Open Lake Fenwick—Unit A Eastern edge Southern edge
Space —Open Space of parcel of parcel 11
number number
2722049057 2722049042
(City
boundary)and
Includes:
Parcel number
2622049045
Urban Conservancy—Open Green River Natural Includes those Includes those
Space Resource Area areas of the areas of the
following following
parcels in parcels in
shoreline shoreline
jurisdiction: jurisdiction:
1122049005, 1122049064, l
1122049083, 0006200001, l
1122049015, 0006200018,
1122049017, 1122049026
1122049025, I
Urban Conservancy—Open Jenkins Creek 3622059152 3622059152
Space
l
Page 16 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designation Sub-Unit Begins Ends
(parcel No (parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy—Open Springbrook Creek Western edge The northwest
Space Greenbelt of parcel corner of
number parcel number
1253710060 1253720016
1 Urban Conservancy—Open Lands acquired by the To be To be
Space City of Kent for parks determined determined
and recreation uses
after the adoption of the
SMP.
4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment is to protect
and restore ecological functions in low intensity settings, while allowing a variety
of low impact uses, such as nurseries, low intensity residential and agriculture
support uses.
b. Designation Criteria
An "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment designation will be
assigned to shorelands appropriate and planned for development that are not
y generally suitable for water-dependent uses and that lie in lands designated as
"Urban Separator,""Agricultural Resource," and"Agricultural Support" in the
Comprehensive Plan,with any of the following characteristics:
1. They are suitable for low impact uses;
i
2. They are flood plains or other areas that should not be more intensively
developed;
3. They have potential for ecological restoration;
4. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed;
i
or
5. They are designated for low impact development.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For
shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters,water-dependent
uses should be given highest priority.
2. Uses in the "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" environment should be
limited to those which are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of
the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses that do not
substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 17
the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental
enhancement are preferred uses.
3. Agricultural practices,when consistent with provisions of this chapter,may be
allowed. Except as a Conditional Use, nonwater-oriented commercial and
industrial uses should not be allowed.
4. Where allowed, commercial uses should include substantial shoreline
restoration and public access.
5. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling,wildlife viewing
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses,provided significant I
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
6. Developments and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently
deplete habitat or the physical or biological resources of the area or inhibit
stream movement in channel migration zones should not be allowed. (Refer to
the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
Ecological Management and Restoration
7. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be !
taken to restore ecological functions. Where feasible, restoration should be
required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed
shorelines.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required.
The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
specific circumstances of development in the "Urban Conservancy—Low
Intensity" environment.
8. Regulatory standards should be established for shoreline stabilization
measures, vegetation conservation,water quality, and shoreline modifications +
within the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" designation to ensure that new l
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
9. Where appropriate, standards for landscaping and visual quality should be
included.
Shoreline Modification and Development Impacts f
10. Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works
should not be allowed except where there is a documented need to protect l
public safety, an existing structure or ecological functions and mitigation is l
applied(See Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions). New
development should be designed and located to preclude the need for l
structural shoreline stabilization or flood control. l
Page 18 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
11. Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a
maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area,unless an alternative
standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the
provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions.
12. New shoreline stabilization, flood control measures,vegetation removal, and
other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that
the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time. Shoreline
ecological restoration should be required of new nonwater-dependent
development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological functions have
been degraded.
13. Activities or uses that would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover, cause
substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely affect wildlife or aquatic
life should be prohibited.
14. Preservation of ecological functions should be balanced with public access
and recreation objectives and should have priority over development
Iobjectives whenever a conflict exists.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table(Table 3.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as an
"Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" environment. See also the attached
shoreline designation maps (Appendix A).
Table 3. Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Environment Designation
Descri tions
Begins Ends
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-1. Open space 3122059021 3122059008
Intensity area on the east side of
the river to the north
and south of South
277th Street bounded by
the City limits
i
Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-4. Undeveloped Eastern Northern
Intensity. A portion of this area on south river boundary of boundary of
area is a designated wetland bank with tributary west 2522049023 2522049019
and is therefore protected of Valley Fwy(SR 167) (includes portion
under the Critical Area of 2522046666)
Ordinance.
Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-7. Open space on Eastern edge of Northern edge
Intensity the west side of the 0002000021 of 1022049210
river from Cottonwood
I Grove Park to the
residential area
approximately 2. 00'
north of S 228th Street
i
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 19
Begins Ends l
Environment Designation-F-Sub-Unit I (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
All areas located in the North GR PAA-A-1. Area On west side of On west side of I
Green River Park are Urban within the PAA and City river: river:
Conservancy—Open Space. Limits north and east of 3022059054 North of S 277
All areas that are designated the river at the eastern St(south edge
US are Urban Conservancy— most area of the Green of 3122056666) l
Low Intensity River shorelands within 1
the City and PAA
Urban Conservancy-Low GR D-1. South of the Southern City boundary in
Intensity river just west of Valley boundary of 2422049089
Freeway(SR 167) 2522049014
Urban Conservancy—Low GR D-2. Agricultural Southern Western edge of
Intensity activities on the west boundary 2322049006
side of the river from of2222049176
Riverbend Golf Course {
to Cottonwood Grove I
Park
Urban Conservancy—Low GR D-4. Agricultural Southern edge Northern edge of
Intensity lands north of Valley of 1122049007 0222049017
Floor Community Park (City boundary)
Urban Conservancy—Low Big Soos Creek Unit D
Intensity
Urban Conservancy—Low Panther Lake—Unit A— Southern edge Southern edge
Intensity Open Space of 6623400360 of 0422059023
Urban Conservancy—Low Panther Lake—Unit A— Western edge of Eastern edge of
Intensity Open Space 0422059149 0422059068
Urban Conservancy—Low Green River/Mill Creek As mapped As mapped
Intensity Auburn Floodway based on the based on the
Flood Hazard Flood Hazard
Areas map in Areas map in
the Inventory& the Inventory&
Analysis Report Analysis Report 1
1
l
Page 20 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
r
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate
residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this
chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate community access and
recreational uses.
b. Designation Criteria
A "Shoreline Residential" environment designation will be assigned to City of
Kent's shorelands if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily
I residential development or are planned for residential development.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses and not
conflict with the residential character of lands in the "Shoreline Residential"
environment.
2. Water-oriented recreational uses should be allowed.
3. Adequate land area and services should be provided.
4. Land division and development should be permitted only 1)when adequate
setbacks or buffers are provided to protect ecological functions and 2) where
there is adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and
public services available and 3) where the environment can support the
proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions.
5. Development standards for setbacks or buffers, shoreline stabilization,
vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be
established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has
occurred, restore ecological functions over time.
6. Multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels should provide community access for residents of that development.
7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future
shoreline stabilization is not required.
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 21
i
i
d. Specific Environment Designations l
The following table (Table 4.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a
"Shoreline Residential" environment. See also the attached maps.
Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions
Begins Ends 1
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
Shoreline Residential for the GR C-1. Residential Eastern edge Western edge
residential area and Urban area north and west of 9183706000 of 2890600000
Conservancy—Open Space for side of the Green River
the trail corridor. east of Central Ave
Shoreline Residential with a GR C-2. Residential Eastern edge Western I
parallel designation of Urban area on north side of of edge of
Conservancy—Open Space for the river from SR 181 5436200843 2322046666,
the trail portion of the sub-unit. to the golf course at and 2322049049
Russell Rd 2422049114
Shoreline Residential with a GR C-3. Residential Southern edge Northern edge
parallel designation of Urban area on east side of of 1085670000 of {
Conservancy—Open Space for River from James 00062200016 (l
the trail portion of the sub-unit. Street north to S 228`h
Street
Shoreline Residential GR C-4. Residential Southern edge Northern edge
area on west side of of 1022049206 of 1022049015
River south of S 216 (South of S
Street 216 St)
Shoreline Residential. GR D-3. Agricultural Southern edge Northern edge
area on west side of of 1122049011 of 2632000070
river south of S.212th (S 216 St) (S 212 St)
Street
Shoreline Residential with a GR C-5. RV camp- Southern edge Northern edge
parallel designation of Urban ground (KOA)on east of 1122049065 of 1122049065
Conservancy-Open Space for side of the river south of (S 212 St)
the trail portion. S.212`h St. and north of
the GRNRA.
Shoreline Residential Lake Meridian—Unit C Southern edge Western edge
of parcel of parcel
number number
2622059066 6648500840
Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick—Unit C- Northern Northern
Residential boundary of boundary of
parcel number parcel number 1
4016800009 2622049038
Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick—Unit C- Southern edge Western edge
Residential of parcel of parcel l
number number
2722049071 2722049202 f
Shoreline Residential Panther Lake—Unit C— Eastern edge Southern edge
Residential of 0522059040 of 6623400360
l
Page 22 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
Begins Ends
Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel No.) (parcel No.)
Shoreline Residential Panther Lake—Unit C— Northern edge Eastern edge
Residential of 6624037777 of 0422059068
I
6. "Aquatic" Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect,restore, and manage the
j unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high
water mark.
b. Designation Criteria
l An "Aquatic" environment designation will be assigned to shoreline areas
waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
c. Management Policies
1. New over-water structures should be prohibited except for water-dependent
l uses,public access, or ecological restoration.
{ 2. The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum
necessary to support the structure's intended use.
3. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective
use of water resources, multiple uses of over-water facilities should be
Iencouraged.
4. Provisions for the "Aquatic" environment should be directed towards
maintaining and restoring habitat for aquatic species.
5. Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the
objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to
the sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
6. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
7. Abandoned and neglected structures that cause adverse visual impacts or are a
hazard to public health, safety, and welfare should be removed or restored to a
usable condition consistent with this SMP.
i
I
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 23
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
f
1
1
1
Page 24 Kent Shoreline Master Program
CHAPTER 3
General Provisions
A. Introduction
General policies and regulations are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of
shoreline environment designation) that may occur along the City's shorelines.
jThis chapter is broken up into twelve different topic headings and is arranged
alphabetically. Each topic begins with a discussion of background SMP issues and
considerations, followed by general policy statements and regulations. The intent of these
fprovisions is to be inclusive,making them applicable over a wide range of environments
as well as particular uses and activities.
B. Policies and Regulations
1 . Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
1 The following regulations describe the requirements for all shoreline uses and
modifications in all shoreline environment designations.
I
b. Policies
l. The City should periodically review conditions on the shoreline and conduct
appropriate analysis to determine whether or not other actions are necessary to
protect and restore the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological functions,
protect human health and safety,upgrade the visual qualities, and enhance
residential and recreational uses on the City's shorelines. Specific issues to
address in such evaluations include, but are not limited to:
a. Water quality.
b. Conservation of aquatic vegetation(control of noxious weeds and
enhancement of vegetation that supports more desirable ecological and
recreational conditions).
c. Upland vegetation.
d. Changing visual character as a result of new residential development,
including additions, and individual vegetation conservation practices.
e. Shoreline stabilization and modifications.
2. The City should keep records of all project review actions within shoreline
jurisdiction, including shoreline permits and letters of exemption.
I
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 25
I1
3. Where appropriate,the City should pursue the policies of this SW in other
land use, development permitting, public construction, and public health and
safety activities. Specifically, such activities include,but are not limited to:
a. Water quality and storm water management activities, including those
outside shoreline jurisdiction but affecting the shorelines of the state.
b. Aquatic vegetation management.
c. Health and safety activities, especially those related to sanitary sewage.
d. Public works and utilities development.
4. The City should involve affected federal, state, and tribal governments in the
review process of shoreline applications.
c. Regulations
1. All proposed shoreline uses and development, including those that do not 1
require a shoreline permit,must conform to the Shoreline Management Act,
Chapter 90.58 RCW, and to the policies and regulations of this SMP.
2. All new shoreline modifications must be in support of an allowable shoreline
use that conforms to the provisions of this SMP. Except as otherwise noted,
all shoreline modifications not associated with a legally existing or an 1
approved shoreline use are prohibited.
3. Shoreline uses, modifications, and conditions listed as "prohibited" shall not
be eligible for consideration as a shoreline variance or shoreline Conditional
Use permit. See Chapter 5 for Shoreline Use Regulations, including
exemptions,variances, Conditional Uses, and nonconforming uses.
4. The "policies" listed in this SMP will provide broad guidance and direction
and will be used by the City in applying the "regulations." The policies, taken
together, constitute the Shoreline Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
5. Where provisions of this SMP conflict, the provisions most directly !
implementing the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, as determined
by the City, shall apply unless specifically stated otherwise.
6. The regulations of Chapters 2, 4, 5 and sections 2, and 4 through 12 of
Chapter 3 in this SMP shall not apply to those land areas that are outside 1
shoreline jurisdiction as of the date of adoption of this SMP but which do fall 1
within shoreline jurisdiction due solely to a human-constructed shoreline
restoration project,pursuant to the provisions of Washington State House Bill
2199 Chapter 405, 2009 Laws. That is, if a shoreline restoration project
causes the expansion of shoreline jurisdiction onto a neighboring property or
portion of the subject property, then SMP regulations noted above do not
apply to the area of expanded jurisdiction. However,if the area newly falling
into shoreline jurisdiction is a critical area, then the critical area provisions of
this SMP do apply.
7. All private development along the Green River must be set back from the
Green River OHWM according to the following:
Page 26 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
a. Where there is an existing levee or where flood control measures are
planned(generally on the north and east banks of the river),private
development, including buildings,building additions and pavements shall
be set back sufficiently to allow for the construction of levee
improvements. In most areas, this setback will be 140' from the OHWM.
The City may increase or decrease the required setback according to the
design of the levee improvements at the particular stretch of river in
question. New public development associated with levee construction,
including trail,public access,recreation spaces, and environmental
restoration improvements may be located within this setback.
b. Where there is no levee and no public plans to construct or improve a
levee (generally on the south and west banks of the river), all new private
development shall be set back 150' from the OHWM. New public
} development such as road improvements and environmental restoration
may be constructed within this setback provided they meet the
requirements of this SMP.
1 2. Archaeological and Historic Resources
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to archaeological and historic resources that are
either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by local
Ijurisdictions or have been inadvertently uncovered. Archaeological sites located
both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Chapter 27.44 RCW
(Indian graves and records) and Chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and
records) and shall comply with Chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the provisions of
this chapter.
b. Policies
1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource,public or private
uses, activities, and development should be prevented from destroying or
damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value as
identified by the appropriate authorities and deemed worthy of protection and
preservation.
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline permits shall contain provisions which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify the City if any phenomena of possible
archaeological value are uncovered during excavations. In such cases, the
developer shall be required to provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a
professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological
data are properly salvaged or mapped.
2. Permits issued in areas known to contain archaeological artifacts and data
shall include a requirement that the developer provide for a site inspection and
evaluation by an archaeologist. The permit shall require approval by the City
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 27
I
before work can begin on a project following inspection. Significant 1
archaeological data or artifacts shall be recovered before work begins or
resumes on a project.
3. Significant archaeological and historic resources shall be permanently
preserved for scientific study, education and public observation. When the
City determines that a site has significant archaeological,natural, scientific or
historical value, a Substantial Development Permit shall not be issued which
would pose a threat to the site. The City may require that development be
postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential
and/or retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts.
4. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency as defined in
RCW 90.58.030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or
data identified above, the project may be exempted from the permit
requirement of these regulations. The City shall notify the State Department
of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State Historic
Preservation Office of such a waiver in a timely manner.
5. Archaeological sites located both in and outside the shoreline jurisdiction are
subject to RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) and RCW 2753
(Archaeological Sites and Records) and shall comply with WAC 25-48 as
well as the provisions of this SMP.
6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provisions of this {
program. f
7. Identified historical or archaeological resources shall be included in park,
open space,public access and site planning,with access to such areas
designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and
surrounding environment.
8. Clear interpretation of historical and archaeological features and natural areas
shall be provided when appropriate. I
9. The City will work with affected tribes and other agencies to protect Native
American artifacts and sites of significance and other archaeological and
cultural resources as mandated by Chapter 27.53 RCW.
3. Critical Areas
Critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations,
Ordinance No. 3805 (08/15/06), codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC,which is herein
incorporated into this SMP except as noted below. l
Exceptions to the applicability of the Critical Areas Regulations in shoreline
jurisdiction are provided below.
1. If provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations and other parts of the SMP
conflict, the provisions most protective of the ecological resource shall apply,
as determined by the City.
{
Page 28 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
2. Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations that are not consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.85 RCW, and supporting Washington
Administrative Code chapters shall not apply in shoreline jurisdiction, as
follows:
a. The provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations do not extend shoreline
jurisdiction beyond the limits specified in this SMP. For regulations
addressing critical area buffer areas that are outside shoreline jurisdiction,
see Critical Areas Regulations, Chapter 11.06 KCC.
b. Provisions of the Critical Area Regulations that include a"reasonable use
determination" shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. Specifically,
I
Section 11.06.90 KCC, as amended does not apply.
c. Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations relating to variance
( procedures and criteria do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. Within
( shoreline jurisdiction, the purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to
granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards
( set forth in the SMP where there are extraordinary circumstances relating
to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict
implementation of the SMP will impose unnecessary hardships on the
( applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Specifically,
Section 11.06.100 KCC shall not apply. Variance procedures and criteria
have been established in this SMP, Chapter 7 Section D and in
Washington Administrative Code WAC 173-27-170.4. Environmental
Impacts.
d. Exemption 11, describing exceptions for approved plats and legally
created lots in Section 11.06.040 KCC, shall not apply.
e. The Critical Areas Regulations refer to all shorelines identified in the SMP
as Type 1 Waters and defers all setbacks for Type 1 Waters to the Kent
1� SMP (Section 11.06.680 KCC). Since the Critical Areas Regulations were
adopted,new waterbodies were added to the SMP, including a portion of
both Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek. The portion of Springbrook
Creek that is identified in this SMP shall be a Type 1 water rather than
subject to the valley stream buffer per Section 11.06.680 KCC.
4. Environmental Impacts
a. Applicability
The following policies and regulations apply to all uses and development in
shoreline jurisdiction that are not within the jurisdiction of the Critical Areas
Regulations as addressed in Section B.3 above.
b. Policies
1. In implementing this SMP, the City should take necessary steps to ensure
compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971, and its implementing guidelines.
Chapter 3 -General Provisions Page 29
1
2. All significant adverse impacts to the shoreline should be avoided or, if that is
not possible,minimized to the extent feasible and provide mitigation to ensure
no net loss of ecological function. 1
c. Regulations
1. All project proposals, including those fog which a shoreline permit is not
required, shall comply with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act.
2. Projects that cause significant ecological impacts, as defined in Definitions,
are not allowed unless mitigated according to the sequence in subsection c. 4
below to avoid reduction or damage to ecosystem-wide processes and
ecological functions.
3. Projects that cause significant adverse impacts, other than significant
ecological impacts, shall be mitigated according to the sequence in subsection
c.4 below.
4. The City will set mitigation requirements or permit conditions based on
impacts identified per this SMP. In order to determine acceptable mitigation,
the City Shoreline Administrator may require the applicant to provide the
necessary environmental information and analysis, including a description of
existing conditions/ecological functions and anticipated shoreline impacts,
along with a restoration plan outlining how proposed mitigation measures
would result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
When applying mitigation to avoid or minimize significant adverse effects and
significant ecological impacts,the City will apply the following sequence of
steps in order of priority, with(a) being top priority:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment; j
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 1
maintenance operations; ++
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing l
substitute resources or environments; and
f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects (from subsection e. 1
above) and taking appropriate corrective measures.
5. Exception to the sequencing noted above: The City may provide for or allow
mitigation of an environmental impact through a comprehensive mitigation
program such as a mitigation banking program if such mitigation measures
will result in a greater benefit in terms of ecological functions and values. l
Page 30 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
i
Such a program must be based on a comprehensive analysis of ecological
systems such as provided by the analysis and restoration plan accomplished as
part of this SMP.
6. All shoreline development shall be located and constructed to avoid locally-
specific significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management
a. Applicability
The provisions in this section apply to those areas within shoreline jurisdiction
lying along the Green River floodplain corridor, including rivers, streams,
associated wetlands in the floodplain, and river deltas.
The provisions in this section are intended to address two concerns especially
relevant to river shorelines:
1. Protecting human safety and minimizing flood hazard to human activities and
,I development.
2. Protecting and contributing to the restoration of ecosystem-wide processes
and ecological functions found in the applicable watershed or sub-basin.
b. Policies
1. The City should implement a comprehensive program to manage the City's
riparian corridors that integrates the following City ordinances and activities:
a. Regulations in this SMP.
b. The City's Critical Area Regulations.
c. The City's zoning code.
d. The City's Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual, and
implementing regulations.
e. The City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and
compliance with the State's floodplain management law at Chapter 86.16.
RCW.
f. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including roads,
dikes,utilities,bridges, and other structures.
g. The ecological restoration of selected shoreline areas.
2. In regulating development on shorelines within SMA jurisdiction, the City
should endeavor to achieve the following:
a. Maintenance of human safety.
b. Protection and,where appropriate, the restoration of the physical integrity
of the ecological system processes, including water and sediment transport
and natural channel movement.
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 31
i
c. Protection of water quality and natural groundwater movement.
I
d. Protection of fish,vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat vital to
the aquatic food chain.
e. Protection of existing legal uses and legal development(including
nonconforming development)unless the City determines relocation or J
abandonment of a use or structure is the only feasible option or that there
is a compelling reason to the contrary based on public concern and the
provisions of the SMA.
f. Protection of recreation resources and aesthetic values, such as point and
channel bars, islands, and other shore features and scenery. I
g. When consistent with the provisions a. through f. above,provide for
public access and recreation, consistent with Chapter 3 Section B.7.
3. The City should undertake flood hazard planning, where practical, in a i
coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and
consider entire drainage systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes, or marine
shorelines. This planning should consider the off-site erosion and accretion or
flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or protection
structures or activities. Flood hazard management planning should fully
employ nonstructural approaches to minimizing flood hazard to the extent
feasible.
4. The City should give preference to and use nonstructural solutions over
structural flood control devices wherever feasible, including prohibiting or
limiting development in historically flood-prone areas,regulating structural
design and limiting increases in peak storm water runoff from new upland
development,public education, and land acquisition for additional flood
storage. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline hazard should be allowed
only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to
reduce the hazard. l
Where structural solutions are rebuilt, fish-friendly structures such as setback 1
levees should be used. In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should 1
be taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
5. In designing publicly financed or subsidized works, the City should provide 1
public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-impact outdoor recreation. I
6. The City should encourage the removal or breaching of dikes to provide
greater wetland area for flood water storage and habitat; provided, such an
action does not increase the risk of flood damage to existing human
development.
c. Regulations
1. New development must be consistent with"a"through"d"below in addition
to the provisions of this SMP. In cases of inconsistency, the provisions most
protective of shoreline ecological functions and processes shall apply:
f
Page 32 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
a. The City's Flood Hazard Regulations, Chapter 14.09 KCC.
b. The flood insurance study for King County,Washington,.prepared by
FEMA in accordance with Chapter 86.16 RCW and the National Flood
Insurance Program.
c. The City's Surface Water Utility Regulations, Chapter 7.05 KCC, as
amended.
d. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, which may be incorporated into permits
issued for flood protection.
2. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, including dikes, levees, and
overflow channels,may be allowed only when consistent with Chapter 14.09
KCC and all of the following can be demonstrated:
a. The project does not further restrict natural channel movement, except that
flood hazard reduction measures that protect an existing building,
roadway,bridge, or utility line may be installed,provided the measure is
placed as close to the existing structure as possible;
b. Other,nonstructural measures would not be feasible or adequate;
c. The measures are necessary to protect existing development or new public
development, such as a roadway, that cannot be located further from the
f stream channel; and
I d. Shoreline vegetation necessary to provide ecological functions is protected
or restored.
I3. New flood hazard reduction measures, including dikes and levees,may be
constructed to protect properties as part of a shoreline environmental
restoration project, such as the breaching of a dike to create additional
wetlands.
4. Otherwise allowed shoreline modifications in the 100-year floodplain and
flood hazard reduction measures shall employ the type of construction or
measure that causes the least significant ecological impacts. When
authorizing development within the 100-year floodplain, the City will require
that the construction method with the least negative significant ecological
impacts be used. For example,the City will not allow rock revetments to be
used for erosion control if a"softer" approach using vegetation plantings and
engineered woody debris placement is possible.
5. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as
streams, tributaries,wetlands, and dry channels, shall be maintained. Where
feasible, obstructed channels shall be re-established as a condition of
nonwater-dependent uses, development in the 100-year floodplain, and
structural flood hazard reduction measures.
6. Re-establishment of native vegetation waterward of a new structure on the
Green River is required where feasible. The City Shoreline Administrator
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 33
l
may require re-establishment of vegetation on and landward of the structure if
it determines such vegetation is necessary to protect and restore ecological
functions. S
7. Designs for flood hazard reduction measures and shoreline stabilization
measures in river corridors must be prepared by qualified professional
engineers (or geologists or hydrologists)who have expertise in local riverine
processes.
8. Structural flood hazard reduction projects that are continuous in nature, such j
as dikes or levees, shall provide for public access unless the City determines 1
that such access is not feasible or desirable according to the criteria in Chapter
3.Section B.7., "Public Access."
9. Shoreline modification and development standards shall be as outlined in the
matrices in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 for allowable uses and modification and
development standards such as setbacks and clearing and grading within each J
shoreline environment designation.
10. Bridges, culverts, and other river, stream, and waterway crossings shall be
designed and constructed so they do not restrict flood flows such that flood
elevations are increased. Where a bridge, culvert, or other waterway crossing
replaces an existing crossing, the replacement structure shall not increase
flood heights over those caused by the original structure. 1
11. The removal of gravel for flood control may be allowed only if a biological
and geomorphological study demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood hazard 1
reduction,no net loss of ecological functions, and extraction is part of a
comprehensive flood management solution.
6. Parking
a. Applicability
Parking is the temporary storage of automobiles or other motorized vehicles.
Except as noted the following provisions apply only to parking that is "accessory"
to a permitted shoreline use. Parking as a "primary" use and parking which serves
a use not permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction is prohibited.
b. Policies
1. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible,parking
should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on weekends,
commercial uses on weekdays).
2. Where feasible,parking for shoreline uses should be provided in areas outside
shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Low-impact parking facilities, such as permeable pavements, are encouraged.
Page 34 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
c. Regulations
1. Parking as a primary use or that serves a use not permitted in the applicable
shoreline environment designation shall be prohibited over water and within
shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Parking in shoreline jurisdiction must directly serve a permitted shoreline use.
3. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse
impacts upon the adjacent shoreline and abutting properties. A minimum of
15 feet of Type II landscaping, as defined in Section 15.07.050 KCC, as
amended, between the parking and the shoreline shall be provided.
Landscaping shall consist of native vegetation and plant materials approved
by the City Shoreline Administrator and shall be planted before completion of
the parking area in such a manner that plantings provide effective screening
between parking and the water body within five years of project completion.
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify landscaping requirements to
account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
f 4. Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be located
landward, if feasible, to minimize adverse impacts on the shoreline.
5. Parking facilities for shoreline activities shall provide safe and convenient
pedestrian circulation within the parking area and to the shorelines.
6. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to prevent surface water
runoff from contaminating water bodies, as per the most recent edition of the
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
7. Lighting associated with parking lots shall be beamed,hooded, or directed to
minimize and avoid illumination of the water, setback areas,wetlands, and
other wildlife habitat areas.
i 8. See Chapter 5 Section B. Development Standards Matrix, for setback
requirements.
7. Public Access
a. Applicability
Shoreline public access is the physical ability of the general public to reach and
touch the water's edge and the ability to have a view of the water and the
shoreline from upland locations. Public access facilities may include picnic areas,
pathways and trails, floats and docks, promenades,viewing towers,bridges,boat
launches, and improved street ends. The City of Kent has extensively and
comprehensively planned for and implemented public access plans for its
shorelines.
The City of Kent has numerous and varied public access facilities along its
shorelines. The City and King County have established a regional trail with park
and recreation facilities following nearly the entire Green River, and many
existing developments along the Green River also include public access points.
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 35
i
1
There are public parks and public access facilities including docks, floating I
walkways and boat launches on both Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick. The
Green River Natural Resources Area includes extensive wildlife viewing areas, {
including two view towers and the Interurban Trail along its southern edge.
Along Springbrook Creek two undeveloped City owned park properties connect
to the Springbrook Greenbelt, containing a user-made trail, and Gary Grant Soos
Creek Park is located on Big Soos Creek. A public boat launch and fishing access
is located on Panther Lake as well as an informal street-end access point. These
public access facilities, along with identified future public land acquisition, are I
sufficient to meet public access needs along the shorelines. 1
In addition to the above examples, comprehensive documentation of existing ,
parks and recreation facilities,public access points and trails are identified and
mapped in detail in the Park& Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. This element also identifies future park acquisition and development needs. ,
Similarly, chapter 4 of the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report identifies
existing and potential public access sites for each of the City's shoreline
waterbodies. The City's public access planning process provided by these
documents provides more effective public access than individual project
requirements for public access, as provided for in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii)(A). I
b. Policies
1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public
developments with the exception of the following:
a. One- and two-family dwelling units; or
b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and environmental
concerns.
2. Developments,uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair
or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation.
3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge
without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4. Opportunities for public access should be identified on publicly owned
shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends,public utilities and 1
rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced.
5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and
to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy.
There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating
public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict.
6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and
preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive
removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views.
Page 36 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
i
7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly
funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be
avoided.
8. City parks, trails and public access facilities adjacent to shorelines should be
maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans.
9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to
provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area
wherever feasible.
10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to
I publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged.
i
11. The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in
the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline.
Ic. Regulations
1. Shoreline substantial development(including land division into more than
four lots and PUDs) or conditional uses, either of which fronts directly on the
shoreline, shall provide physical public access where any of the following
conditions are present:
a. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access
way. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or
` discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses.
b. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands
unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety,
security, or impact to the shoreline environment or where more effective
public access is identified in the City's Comprehensive Parks &
Recreation Plan or the Park& Open Space Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The shoreline permit file shall describe the impact, the required public access
conditions, and how the conditions address the impact. Mitigation for public
access impacts shall be in accordance with the definition of mitigation and
mitigation sequencing in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
2. For multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels,public access need not be provided, however, community access for
residents of that development shall be provided.
3. Shoreline substantial development(including land division into more than
four lots and PUDs) or conditional uses shall minimize impact to public views
of shoreline waterbodies from public land or substantial numbers of
residences.
4. Public access provided by shoreline street ends,public utilities and rights-of-
way shall not be diminished(This is a requirement of RCW 35.79.035 and
RCW 36.87.130).
Chapter 3 -General Provisions Page 37
5. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street or
public right-of-way and shall include provisions for physically impaired
persons,where feasible.
6. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public J
use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity.
7. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded as a covenant
against the title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running
contemporaneous with the authorized land use. Said recording with the
County Assessor's Office shall occur prior to permit approval (section
58.17.110 RCW).
8. Minimum width of public access easements shall be 20 feet, unless the City ,
Shoreline Administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such
cases, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary
to relieve the hardship. '
9. The standard state approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the
public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed and 1
maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. l
Signs may control or restrict public access as a condition of permit approval.
10. Future actions by the applicant, successors in interest, or other parties shall not 1
diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided.
11. Public access facilities may be developed over water provided that all
ecological impacts are mitigated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance
a. Applicability
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as
shorelines of state-wide significance. Within the City of Kent's jurisdiction, The
Green River is a shoreline of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated
are important to the entire state. Because these shorelines are major resources 1
from which all people in the state derive benefit, this jurisdiction gives preference
to uses which favor long-range goals and support the overall public interest.
b. Policies
In implementing the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide
significance, the City will base decisions in preparing and administering this SMP
on the following policies in order of priority, 1 being the highest and 6 being
lowest.
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing
state-wide interests by circulating the SMP, and any proposed
amendments affecting shorelines of state-wide significance, to state
Page 38 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's advisory committees and local
officials and state-wide interest groups.
b. Recognize and take into account state agencies'policies,programs and
recommendations in developing and administering use regulations and in
i approving shoreline permits.
c. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in
ecology and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management.
I
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
a. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to
protect and restore the ecology and environment of the shoreline as a
result of man-made intrusions on shorelines.
f b. Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development already
exists in order to reduce adverse impact on the environment and to
accommodate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to
extend into low-intensity use or underdeveloped areas.
c. Protect and restore existing diversity of vegetation and habitat values,
wetlands and riparian corridors associated with shoreline areas.
d. Protect and restore habitats for State-listed"priority species."
3. Support actions that result in long-term benefits over short-term benefits.
Ia. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments
relative to the long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural
shoreline.
b. In general,preserve resources and values of shorelines of state-wide
significance for future generations and restrict or prohibit development
that would irretrievably damage shoreline resources.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
a. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed and
managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to wildlife
resources, including spawning,nesting,rearing and habitat areas and
migratory routes.
b. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new
development,redevelopment of existing facilities or general enhancement
of shoreline areas.
c. Shoreline development should be managed to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.
a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear
access along the shorelines, especially to the maintenance and
Chapter 3 -General Provisions Page 39
enhancement of the Green River Trail, which is a regional recreational and
transportation resource.
b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so that
access is enhanced.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline.
a. Plan for and encourage development of facilities for recreational use of the
shoreline.
b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well away from
the shorelines with provisions for nonmotorized access to the shoreline.
9. Signage
a. Applicability
A sign is defined as a device of any material or medium, including structural
component parts, which is used or intended to be used to attract attention to the
subject matter for advertising, identification or informative purposes. The
following provisions apply to any commercial or advertising sign directing
attention to a business,professional service, community, site, facility, or
entertainment, conducted or sold either on or off premises.
b. Policies
1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the
aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses.
2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the water
or shorelands.
c. Regulations
1. Prohibited Signs: The following types of signs are prohibited:
a. Off-premises detached outdoor advertising signs.
b. Commercial signs for products, services, or facilities located off-site.
c. Spinners, streamers,pennants, flashing lights and other animated signs
used for commercial purposes. Highway and railroad signs are
exceptions.
d. Signs placed on trees or other natural features,unless the City's Shoreline
Administrator finds that these signs are necessary for public safety
reasons.
2. Allowable Signs: The following types of signs may be allowed in all -
shoreline environments:
a. Water navigational signs, and highway and railroad signs necessary for
operation, safety and direction.
Page 40 Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. Public information signs directly relating to a shoreline use or activity.
Public information signs shall include public park signs, public access
identification signs, and warning signs.
c. Off-premise, free-standing signs for community identification,
information, or directional purposes.
d. National, site and institutional flags or temporary decorations customary
for special holidays and similar events of a public nature.
e. Temporary directional signs to public or quasi-public events if removed
within 10 days following the event.
3. All signs shall be located and designed to avoid interference with vistas,
viewpoints and visual access to the shoreline.
4. Over-water signs, signs on floats or pilings, and signs for goods, services, or
businesses not located directly on the site proposed for a sign are prohibited.
5. Lighted signs shall be hooded, shaded, or aimed so that direct light will not
result in glare when viewed from surrounding properties or watercourses.
6. Signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in surface area. On-site freestanding
signs shall not exceed 6 feet in height. When feasible, signs shall be flush-
mounted against existing buildings.
7. Temporary or obsolete signs shall be removed within 10 days of elections,
closures of business, or termination of any other function. Examples of
temporary signs include: real estate signs, directions to events, political
advertisements, event or holiday signs, construction signs, and signs
advertising a sale or promotional event.
8. Signs that do not meet the policies and regulations of this section B.9 shall be
removed or shall conform within two years of the adoption of this SMP.
9. No signs shall be placed in a required view corridor.
10. Utilities (Accessory)
a. Applicability
Accessory utilities are on-site utility features serving a primary use, such as a
water, sewer or gas line connecting to a residence. Accessory utilities do not
carry significant capacity to serve other users and are considered a part of the
primary use. They are addressed in this section because they concern all types of
development and have the potential to impact the quality of the shoreline and its
waters.
b. Policies
1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline
and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 41
1
2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the
shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a
shoreline location, they should be placed underground.
3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which
preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and
functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses.
c. Regulations r
1. In shoreline areas, accessory utility transmission lines,pipelines and cables
shall be placed underground unless demonstrated to be infeasible. Further,
such lines shall utilize existing rights-of-way and/or bridge crossings
whenever possible. Proposals for new corridors in shoreline areas involving {
water crossings must fully substantiate the infeasibility of existing routes.
2. Accessory utility development shall, through coordination with government
agencies, provide for compatible multiple uses of sites and rights-of-way.
Such uses include shoreline access points,trails and other forms of recreation
and transportation systems,providing such uses will not unduly interfere with
utility operations or endanger public health and safety.
3. Sites disturbed for utility installation shall be stabilized during and following
construction to avoid adverse impacts from erosion and,where feasible, L
restored to pre-project configuration and replanted with native vegetation.
4. Utility discharges and outfalls shall be located, designed, constructed, and 1
operated in accordance with best management practices to ensure degradation
to water quality is kept to a minimum.
5. Utilities that need water crossings shall be placed deep enough to avoid the
need for bank stabilization and stream/riverbed filling both during
construction and in the future due to flooding and bank erosion that may occur
over time. Boring is a preferred method of utility water crossing over open
trenching. I
11 .Vegetation Conservation
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to any activity that results in the removal of or
impact to shoreline vegetation,whether or not that activity requires a shoreline
permit. Such activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, and trimming of
vegetation. These provisions also apply to vegetation protection and
enhancement activities. They do not apply to forest practices managed under the
Washington State Forest Practices Act. See Chapter 6 for definitions of
"significant vegetation removal,""ecological functions,""clearing," "grading,"
and"restore."
Page 42 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
b. Policies
1. Vegetation within the City shoreline areas should be enhanced over time to
provide a greater level of ecological functions,human safety, and property
protection. To this end, shoreline management activities, including the
provisions and implementation of this SMP, should be based on a
comprehensive approach that considers the ecological functions currently and
potentially provided by vegetation on different sections of the shoreline, as
described in Chapter 5 of the June 30,2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline
Inventory and Analysis Report.
2. This SMP in conjunction with other City development regulations should
establish a coordinated and effective set of provisions and programs to protect
and restore those functions provided by shoreline vegetation.
3. Aquatic weed management should stress prevention first. Where active
1 removal or destruction is necessary, it should be the minimum to allow water-
dependent activities to continue, minimize negative impacts to native plant
communities, and include appropriate handling or disposal of weed materials.
4. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replacement with native
vegetation should be encouraged. Removal of noxious or invasive weeds
should be conducted using the least-impacting method feasible,with a
preference for mechanical rather than chemical means.
c. Regulations
For All Shoreline Environments:
1. In order to create a new lot partially or wholly within shoreline jurisdiction,
j the applicant must demonstrate that development can be accomplished
without significant vegetation removal within the required SMP setback area.
The City's Shoreline Administrator may make exceptions to this standard for
water dependent development and for development in the High Intensity
environment only.
2. New development, including clearing and grading, shall minimize significant
vegetation removal in shoreline jurisdiction to the extent feasible. In order to
implement this regulation, applicants proposing development that includes
significant vegetation removal, clearing, or grading within shoreline
jurisdiction must provide, as a part of a substantial development permit or a
letter of exemption application, a site plan, drawn to scale, indicating the
extent of proposed clearing and/or grading. The City's Shoreline
Administrator may require that the proposed development or extent of
clearing and grading be modified to reduce the impacts to ecological
functions.
3. Vegetation restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded
shall use native plant materials with a diversity and type similar to that which
originally occurred on-site unless the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that
native plant materials are inappropriate or not hardy in the particular situation.
Chapter 3 -General Provisions Page 43
1
4. In addressing impacts from significant vegetation removal, the City's
Shoreline Administrator will apply the mitigation sequence described in
Chapter 3 Section B.4.
i
5. Where shoreline restoration is required, the vegetation plantings shall adhere
to the following specifications,unless the City's Shoreline Administrator finds
that another method is more appropriate: +,
Property owners must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the J
Shoreline Administrator that:
a. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan;
b. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and
groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions;
c. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect water quality; and
d. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program. j
This plan shall be recorded with the King County assessor's office as a
covenant against the real property and a copy shall be provided to the
Shoreline Administrator.
6. A condition of all development shall be that those areas within the required
SMP setback area that have been cleared or where significant vegetation
removal has occurred and that are not otherwise occupied by approved
structures or uses shall be revegetated with native vegetation. The City's
Shoreline Administrator may require replanting of previously cleared areas or
removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replanting with native vegetation as
part of mitigation of ecological impacts.
7. Snags and living trees (i.e., large cottonwoods) shall not be removed within
the required SMP setback area unless an arborist determines them to be
extreme hazards and likely to fall into a park use area, or unless removal is
part of an approved development that includes mitigation for impacts to 1
ecological functions. Snags and living trees within the setback which do not
present an extreme hazard shall be retained. Selective pruning of trees for
safety and view protection is allowed. The City may make exceptions to this j
standard for water dependent development and for development in the High
Intensity environment, or where the City determines that the removal of such
vegetation is in the public interest and is consistent with the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act as stated in section 90.58.020 RCW.
For Shorelines in the Urban Conservancy-Open Space and Urban Conservancy I
Intensity Environments
8. For properties within areas planned for residential development within the f
Urban Conservancy—Open Space or Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity I
environments, new development that will cause significant vegetation removal
within the required setbacks specified in Chapter 3 Section B.l.c.7 and
Page 44 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
I Chapter 5 Sections B and C.8 shall not be allowed except where the
dimensions of existing lots or parcels are not sufficient to accommodate
permitted primary residential structures outside of the vegetation conservation
area or where the denial of reasonable use would result in a takings. In these
instances the City's Shoreline Administrator will apply the mitigation
sequence in Chapter 3 Section BA to minimize ecological impacts. Generally,
this will mean placing the development away from the shoreline as far as
possible, locating the development to avoid tree cutting, and modifying
building dimensions to reduce vegetation removal.
9. The enhancement of vegetation shall be a condition of all nonwater-dependent
development, dike or levee construction, and shoreline modifications in the
Urban Conservancy environments, except where the City's Shoreline
Administrator finds that:
i a. Vegetation enhancement is not feasible on the project site. In these cases
the City's Shoreline Administrator may require off-site vegetation
enhancement that performs the same ecological functions. Enhancement
opportunities on the same waterbody shall be explored first,prior to
consideration of enhancement opportunities in the same basin or
watershed.
j b. The restoration of ecological processes and functions can be better
achieved through other measures such as the removal of channel
constraints.
c. Sufficient native vegetation already exists.
10. Minor vegetation removal may be done to provide for development and
maintenance of public access and trails on public property provided impacts
are mitigated.
For Shorelines in the High-Intensity Environment
11. The impacts due to significant vegetation removal shall be mitigated
j according to the sequence described in Chapter 3 Section BA.
12. A condition of all development shall be that those shorelands on the site not
occupied by structures, shoreline uses, or human activities shall be
revegetated, in accordance with subsection c.5 above. Vegetation within the
required setbacks specified in Chapter 3 Section B.l.c.7 and Chapter 5 Section
B of the shoreline, to the extent the setback extends onto the subject
development site, must be native vegetation or species approved by the City's
Shoreline Administrator.
For Shorelines in the Shoreline Residential Environment
13. Development is subject to requirements in Chapter 5 Section C.8, "Residential
Development."
e 45
Pa
Chapter 3 - General Provisions g
For Shorelines in the Aquatic Environment !
14. Aquatic weed control shall only occur when native plant communities and J
associated habitats are threatened or where an existing water dependent use is
restricted by the presence of weeds. Aquatic weed control shall occur in
compliance with all other applicable laws and standards.
15. The control of aquatic weeds by hand pulling, mechanical harvesting, or
placement of aqua screens, if proposed to maintain existing water depth for
navigation, shall be considered normal maintenance and repair and therefore
exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development
permit.
16. The control of aquatic weeds by derooting, rotovating or other method which
disturbs the bottom sediment or benthos shall be considered development for
which a substantial development permit is required,unless it will maintain
existing water depth for navigation in an area covered by a previous permit for
such activity, in which case it shall be considered normal maintenance and
repair and therefore exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial
development permit.
17. Where large quantities of plant material are generated by control measures,
they shall be collected and disposed of in an appropriate, identified upland 1
location. 1
18. Use of herbicides to control aquatic weeds shall be prohibited except for those
chemicals specifically approved by the Department of Ecology for use in 1
aquatic situations and where no reasonable alternative exists and weed control
is demonstrated to be in the public's interest. Application of herbicides for the t
control of aquatic weeds requires approval from the Department of Ecology. j
The City's Shoreline Administrator must be notified of all herbicide usage in
aquatic areas and supplied with proof of approval from the Department of 1
Ecology. Additionally, all herbicides shall be applied by a licensed f
professional.
12.Water Qualityand Quantity
Y
a. Applicability
The following section applies to all development and uses in shoreline jurisdiction '
that affect water quality, as defined below.
1. As used in this SMP, "water quality"means the physical characteristics of
water within shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity and hydrological,
physical, chemical, aesthetic,recreation-related, and biological characteristics.
Where used in this SMP,the term"water quantity"refers only to development
and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as
impermeable surfaces and storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for
purposes of this SMP, does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or l
diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
Page 46 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
i
Because the policies of this SMP are also policies of the City's comprehensive
plan, the policies also apply to activities outside shoreline jurisdiction that affect
water quality within shoreline jurisdiction, as determined by the City's Shoreline
Administrator. However, the regulations apply only within shoreline jurisdiction.
b. Policies
1. All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to avoid significant ecological impacts that alter water quality,
quantity, or hydrology.
2. The City should require reasonable setbacks,buffers, and storm water storage
basins and encourage low-impact development techniques and materials to
achieve the objective of lessening negative impacts on water quality.
3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates, or flood waters
through the use of stream control works should be located, designed,
constructed, and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do not
degrade the existing water quality and quantity.
f4. As a general policy, the City should seek to improve water quality, quantity
(the amount of water in a given system,with the objective of providing for
j ecological functions and human use), and flow characteristics in order to
i protect and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
shorelines within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The City should
implement this policy through the regulation of development and activities,
through the design of new public works, such as roads, drainage, and water
treatment facilities, and through coordination with other local, state, and
federal water quality regulations and programs. The City should implement
1 the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as updated and adopted
by City ordinance.
5. All measures to treat runoff in order to maintain or improve water quality
should be conducted on-site before shoreline development creates impacts to
water.
6. Shoreline use and development should minimize the need for chemical
fertilizers,pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent
contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects on
shoreline ecological functions and values.
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline development,both during and after construction, shall avoid or
minimize significant ecological impacts, including any increase in surface
runoff, through control, treatment, and release of surface water runoff so that
water quality and quantity are not adversely affected. Control measures
include,but are not limited to, low impact development techniques, dikes,
catch basins or settling ponds, oil interceptor drains, grassy swales,planted
buffers, and fugitive dust controls.
Chapter 3 -General Provisions Page 47
,1
2. All development shall conform to local, state, and federal water quality 1
regulations,provided the regulations do not conflict with this SMP.
3. Uses and development that require the application of pesticides,herbicides,
fertilizers and other chemicals that could adversely affect water quality
(except for those chemicals specifically approved by the Department of
Ecology for use in aquatic situations) are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
4. The application of pesticides or herbicides in shoreline jurisdiction is
prohibited except for those products specifically approved for use by the j
Department of Ecology in aquatic situations, and then only if used according J
to approved methods of and standards for application.
f
1
1
l
1
d
i ,
1
1
Page 48 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
CHAPTER 4
Shoreline Modification Provisions
i
A. Introduction and Applicability
Shoreline modifications are structures or actions which permanently change the physical
configuration or quality of the shoreline,particularly at the point where land and water
meet. Shoreline modification activities include, but are not limited to, structures such as
revetments,bulkheads, levees,breakwaters, docks, and floats. Actions such as clearing,
grading,landfilling, and dredging are also considered shoreline modifications.
Generally, shoreline modification activities are undertaken for the following reasons:
1. To prepare a site for a shoreline use
1 2. To provide shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection
3. To support an upland use
The policies and regulations in this chapter are intended to prevent or mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts of proposed shoreline modifications. General provisions,which
1 apply to all shoreline modification activities, are followed by provisions tailored to
specific shoreline modification activities. This chapter provides policies and regulations
for shoreline modification features including shoreline stabilization measures and docks
and floats.
If a shoreline development entails more than one shoreline modification, then all of the
regulations pertaining to each type of modification apply.
( Even though a shoreline modification may not require a shoreline substantial development
permit, it must still conform to the regulations and standards in this SMP. The City
requires that a property owner contemplating a shoreline modification contact the City's
Shoreline Administrator and apply for a"letter of exemption". No shoreline modification
shall be undertaken without either a shoreline permit or a letter of exemption.
B. Shoreline Modification Matrix
The following matrix(Table 5) is the shoreline modification matrix. The matrix provides
the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in all shoreline environmental designations.
The numbers in the matrix refer to footnotes which may be found immediately following
the matrix. These footnotes provide additional clarification or conditions applicable to the
associated modification. Where there is a conflict between the matrix and the written
provisions in this Chapter, the written provisions shall apply.
I
i Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 49
I ,
I
Table 5. Shoreline Modification Matrix
l
P = Maybe permitted c c
C = May be permitted as a conditional w �,
use only y �,
a�i oM o � d
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible for U C 0
a variance or conditional use permit a o 6. a ,
Vi
N/A = Not applicable a M a o s o'-
Z O
Shoreline stabilization: I
Environmental restoration/enhancement P P P P P P
Bioengineering C P P P P C i
Revetments X P C C P C f
Bulkheads X P C C P C
Breakwaters/jetties/rock weirs/groins X X X X X X
Dikes, levees X P P P C C
Clearing and Grading X P P P P NA
Dredging N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C 1
Hazardous waste cleanup P P P P P P
Fill' X P P P3 P3 C2
Piers, docks4 X P P P P P
Moorage piles and mooring buoys X X IX X IX X
All shoreline modifications are subject to other provisions in this SMP. See, especially, Section ,
C "Policies and Regulations"below. '
Shoreline Modification Matrix Notes:
1. Fill in the floodplain must meet all federal, state, and local flood hazard reduction
regulations.
2. Fill in aquatic areas for the purposes of shoreline ecological restoration may be allowed as a
permitted use if the Shoreline Administrator determines that there will be an increase in
desired ecological functions.
3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall require a conditional use
permit (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
4. New non-public piers and docks are prohibited on the Green River. 1
4
Page 50 Kent Shoreline Master Program
C. Policies and Regulations
1 . General Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to all shoreline modification activities whether
such proposals address a single property or multiple properties.
b. Policies
1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where they are
demonstrated to be necessary:
I
a. To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing
shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage, or;
b. For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or enhance the
shoreline ecology.
2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as
possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent.
3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of
shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed.
4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually
and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated
in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary
shoreline modifications,by giving preference to those types of shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by
requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline
modifications.
5. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and
technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions
provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231
6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and
appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WAC 173-26-
231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible
measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes.
7. In reviewing shoreline permits,the City should require steps to reduce
significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC
173-26-201(2)(e).
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline modification activities must be in support of a permitted
shoreline use or to provide for human health and safety. Shoreline
modification activities which do not support a permitted shoreline use are
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 51
1
considered"speculative" and are prohibited by this SMP,unless it can be
demonstrated that such activities are necessary to protect human health and
safety, ecological functions, and the public interest.
2. Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if
nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose or are not
feasible (See Chapter 6 for definition of"feasible"). Nonstructural measures
considered shall include alternative site designs, increased setbacks, drainage
improvements,relocation of proposed structures, and vegetation enhancement.
3. Stream channel modification(i.e., realignment) shall be prohibited as a means
of shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection,unless it is the only feasible
alternative and includes environmental enhancement.
4. All new shoreline development shall be located and designed to prevent or
minimize the need for shoreline modification activities.
5. Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable
federal and state permits and shall meet all permit requirements.
6. Shoreline modification materials shall be only those approved by the City J
and applicable state agencies. No toxic (e.g.: creosote) or quickly degradable
materials (e.g.,plastic or fiberglass that deteriorates under ultraviolet
exposure) shall be used.
7. In channel migration zones,natural geomorphic and hydrologic processes
shall not be limited and new development shall not be established where
future shoreline modifications will be required and shall include appropriate
protection of ecological function(refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,
Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads) 1
a. Applicability
Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to
property, dwellings,businesses, or essential structures caused by manmade
processes such as boat wakes and natural processes, such as current, flood, wind,
or wave action. These include structural and nonstructural methods.
Nonstructural methods include building setbacks,relocation of the structure to be
protected, erosion and ground water management, planning and regulatory
measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization.
Structural methods include "hard" and"soft"structural stabilization measures.
Hard Structural Shoreline Stabilization means erosion control practices using f
hardened structures that armor and stabilize the shoreline from further erosion.
Hard structural shoreline stabilization typically uses concrete,boulders,
dimensional lumber or other materials to construct linear,vertical or near-vertical
faces. These include bulkheads,rip-rap, groins, and similar structures.
l
Page 52 Kent Shoreline Master Program
1
Soft Structural Shoreline Stabilization means erosion control and restoration
practices that contribute to restoration,protection or enhancement of shoreline
ecological functions. Soft shoreline stabilization typically includes a mix of
gravels, cobbles,boulders, logs and native vegetation placed to provide stability
in a non-linear, sloping arrangement. On lakes such as Lake Meridian, Lake
Fenwick and Panther Lake,non-structural and"soft" structural stabilization
measures can be cost-effective and practicable solutions.
,I Generally, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on
shoreline processes, including sediment transport, geomorphology, and biological
functions.
i
WAC 173-27-040(2)(b) defines normal maintenance and repair of existing
structures and notes that many maintenance and repair activities are exempt from
the requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit. As indicated in
that section,normal maintenance and repair actions are not exempt from
substantial development permits if they"cause substantial adverse effects to
shoreline resources or the environment." Additions to or increases in size of
existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
Some shoreline stabilization measures for single family residences may be exempt
from a shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with WAC 173-
27-040(2). However, such measures must comply with the provisions of this
SMP.
b. Policies
1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over"soft" structural
`I measures. "Soft" structural shoreline stabilization measures are strongly
preferred over hard structural shoreline stabilization Proposals for hard and
soft structural solutions, including bulkheads, should be allowed only when it
i is demonstrated that nonstructural methods are not"feasible", as defined in
Chapter 6. Hard structural shoreline stabilization measures should be
allowed only when it is demonstrated that soft structural measures are not
feasible.
2. Bulkheads and other structural stabilizations should be located, designed, and
constructed primarily to prevent damage to existing development and
minimize adverse impacts to ecological functions.
3. New development requiring bulkheads and/or similar protection should not be
allowed. Shoreline uses should be located in a manner so that bulkheads and
other structural stabilization are not likely to become necessary in the future.
4. Shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively shall not result in a net
loss of ecological functions. This is to be achieved by giving preference to
those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological
functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from
shoreline modifications.
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 53
I
t
c. Regulations
New Development
1. New development shall, where feasible, be located and designed to eliminate I
the need for concurrent or future shoreline stabilization. New non-water
dependent development that would require shoreline stabilization that would
cause significant adverse impacts to adjacent or down-current properties or
restrict channel migration in Channel Migration Zones is prohibited. (Refer to
the Channel Migration Zone Map,Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
2. New development, including single-family residences, that includes structural
shoreline stabilization will not be allowed unless all of the conditions below are
met:
a. The need to protect the development from damage due to erosion caused
by natural processes, such as currents,waves, and by manmade processes ,
such as boat wakes, is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.
b. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as loss of I
vegetation and drainage.
c. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development farther from the
shoreline,planting vegetation, low impact development measures, or
installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
d. The structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
3. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to
ensure that shoreline stabilization will not be needed during the life of the
structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis by a geotechnical
engineer or related professional licensed and in good standing in the State of
Washington. 1
New or expanded shoreline stabilization measures
4. New stabilization measures are not allowed except to protect or support an
existing or approved development, as necessary for human safety , for the
restoration of ecological functions, or for hazardous substance remediation
pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW. The construction of a bulkhead for the
primary purpose of retaining or creating dry land that is not specifically
authorized as a part of the permit is prohibited.
5. New or replacement structural shoreline stabilization measures are allowed on i
Green River shorelines for necessary flood hazard reduction provided that all h
feasible steps are taken to minimize adverse impacts to the natural
environment. The structures must be in conformance with a City-approved
flood hazard reduction program.
6. New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing
development or residence shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive
evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis (see definition in Chapter 6),
that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents,
Page 54 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
waves, or boat wakes. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline
erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis by a licensed
geotechnical engineer or related licensed professional, is not demonstration of
need. The geotechnical report must include estimates of erosion rates and
damage within three years and must evaluate on-site drainage issues and
address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering
structural shoreline stabilization. The project design and analysis must also
evaluate vegetation enhancement and low impact development measures as a
i
means of reducing undesirable erosion.
7. "Hard" structural shoreline stabilization measures, such as bulkheads, are not
allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate through a geotechnical analysis
that"soft" structural measures such as vegetation or beach enhancement, or
nonstructural measures, such as additional building setbacks, are not feasible.
8. Where structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be
necessary, as described in subsections c.6 and 7 above, the size of stabilization
measures shall be limited to the minimum necessary. The City's Shoreline
Administrator may require that the proposed structure be altered in size or
design or impacts otherwise mitigated. Impacts to sediment transport shall be
avoided or minimized.
I9. The City's Shoreline Administrator will require mitigation of adverse impacts
to shoreline functions in accordance with the mitigation sequence defined in
Chapter 3 Section B.4 of the General Provisions. The City's Shoreline
jAdministrator may require the inclusion of vegetation conservation, as
described in Chapter 3 Section B.11, as part of shoreline stabilization,where
feasible. In order to determine acceptable mitigation, the City's Shoreline
Administrator may require the applicant to provide necessary environmental
information and analysis, including a description of existing
conditions/ecological functions and anticipated shoreline impacts, along with
a restoration plan outlining how proposed mitigation measures would result in
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
10. Shoreline stabilization measures that incorporate ecological restoration
through the placement of rocks, gravel or sand, and native shoreline
vegetation may be allowed. Soft shoreline stabilization that restores
ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the OHWM.
11. Following completion of shoreline modification activities, disturbed shoreline
areas shall be restored to pre-project conditions to the greatest extent possible.
Vegetation conservation measures, including the planting of native vegetation
along the shoreline, are a condition of all new bulkhead and replacement
construction. Plantings shall consist of native grasses, shrubs, and trees as
approved by the City's Shoreline Administrator in keeping with preexisting or
typical naturally occurring bank vegetation. Vegetation shall be fully
reestablished within three years. All revegetation projects shall include a
program for monitoring and maintenance. Areas which fail to adequately
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 55
f
reestablish vegetation shall be replanted with approved plants until the
plantings are viable.
12.New or expanded shoreline stabilization measures in channel migration zones
require a thorough analysis performed by a licensed geologist with an
appropriate specialty license and fluvial geomorphic experience, in addition to i
a professional engineer, to ensure that the measure does not interfere with
fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in
natural conditions. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,Figure No. I
10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
Replacement and Repair
13. An existing shoreline stabilization structure shall not be replaced with a
similar structure unless there is need to protect primary structures from
erosion caused by currents or waves and a nonstructural measure is not
feasible. At the discretion of the City's Shoreline Administrator, the
demonstration of need does not necessarily require a geotechnical report by a
geotechnical engineer or related professional licensed and in good standing in r,
the State of Washington. The replacement structure shall be designed,
located, sized, and constructed to minimize harm to ecological functions.
Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM
or existing structures unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1,
1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such
cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization q
structure. l
14. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired or replaced by construction of a
vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no farther l
waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new
footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been
established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead,
then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM.
Design of Shoreline Stabilization Measures
15. Bulkhead design and development shall conform to all other applicable City `
and state agency policies and regulations,including the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria governing the design of bulkheads. I
16. Gabions (wire mesh filled with concrete or rocks) are prohibited, except as a
Conditional Use where it is determined that gabions are the least
environmentally disruptive method of shoreline stabilization. 1
17. Stairs and other allowed structures may be built as integral to a bulkhead but
shall not extend waterward of the bulkhead or structure unless it is necessary
to access the shoreline or a use or structure is otherwise allowed over water.
18. Bulkheads shall be designed to permit the passage of surface or ground water
without causing ponding or over-saturation of retained soil/materials of lands
above the OHWM.
Page 56 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
19. Adequate toe protection and proper footings shall be provided to ensure
bulkhead stability without relying on additional riprap.
20. Materials and dimensional standards:
a. New bulkheads and other shoreline stabilization structures shall not be
constructed higher than 24 inches (twenty-four inches) above the OHWM
or, if the bulkhead is set back from the shoreline, 24 inches above grade at
the base of the bulkhead or structure. On steep slopes, new bulkheads
imay be built taller than 24 inches high if necessary to meet the existing
slope. Replacement bulkheads may be built to the height of the original
bulkhead.
Exception: The City's Shoreline Administrator may waive this provision
for flood hazard minimization measures conforming to this SMP.
b. While structural materials are not the preferred method of shoreline
stabilization, if structural shoreline measures are allowed according to
subsections c.6 and 7 above, the following are examples of acceptable
materials for shoreline stabilization structures,listed in order of preference
from top to bottom:
i. Large stones, with vegetation planted in the gaps. Stones should not
be stacked steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope.
ii. Timbers or logs. Note the prohibition against toxic wood treatments.
iii. Stacked masonry units (e.g., interlocking cinder block wall units).
iv. Cast-in-place reinforced concrete.
c. The following materials are not acceptable for shoreline stabilization
structures:
i. Degradable plastics and other nonpermanent synthetic materials.
Iii. Sheet materials, including metal,plywood, fiberglass, or plastic.
iii. Broken concrete, asphalt, or rubble.
iv. Car bodies, tires or discarded equipment.
21. Fill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of 1 cubic yard per
running foot of bulkhead. Any filling in excess of this amount shall be
considered landfill and shall be subject to the provisions for landfill and the
requirement for obtaining a shoreline substantial development permit.
Bioengineering
22. Bioengineering projects shall use native trees, shrubs, and grasses or ground
cover,unless such an approach is not feasible.
23. All bioengineering projects shall include a program for monitoring and
maintenance.
f
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 57
I
3. Over-Water Structures - Including Piers and Docks,
Floats, Boardwalks and Boating Facilities
a. Applicability
Over-water structures for moorage,boat-related, and other direct water-dependent
uses or development, including docks,piers,boat launches, and swimming/diving
platforms,public access boardwalks, fishing piers and viewpoints, in shoreline
areas shall be subject to the following policies and regulations.
b. Policies
1. Moorage associated with a single-family residence is considered a water- I
dependent use provided that it is designed and used as a facility to access
watercraft.
2. New moorage, excluding docks accessory to single family residences, should
be permitted only when the applicant/proponent has demonstrated that a
specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent or public access
use.
3. To minimize continued proliferation of individual private moorage,reduce the
amount of over-water and in-water structures, and reduce potential long-term
impacts associated with those structures, shared moorage facilities are i
preferred over single-user moorage.New subdivisions of more than two (2)
lots and new multifamily development of more than two (2) dwelling units
should provide shared moorage.
4. Docks,piers, and other water-dependent use developments including those
accessory to single family residences, should be sited and designed to avoid
adversely impacting shoreline ecological functions or processes, and should
mitigate for any unavoidable impacts to ecological functions.
5. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be spaced and �I
oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to public
navigation rights and corollary rights thereto such as,but not limited to,
fishing, swimming and pleasure boating.
6. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be restricted to
the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use. The
length,width and height of over-water structures and other developments
regulated by this section should be no greater than that required for safety and
practicality for the primary use.
7. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be constructed
of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals in the long term.
i
i
Page 58 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
I
c. Regulations
General Regulations for Private and Public Structures
1. All new,reconstructed,repaired, or modified over-water structures shall be
allowed only in support of an allowed water dependent use and must comply
with all other regulations as stipulated by State and Federal agencies.
I
2. All moorage and other over-water structures shall be designed and located so
as not to constitute a hazard to navigation or other public uses of the water.
3. Proposed private over-water structures which do not comply with the
dimensional standards contained in this chapter may only be approved if they
obtain a variance.
4. No portion of the deck of a pier shall, during the course of the normal
fluctuations of the elevation of the waterbody,protrude more than five (5) feet
above the OHWM.
5. Docks,piers, and other developments for water-dependent uses shall be
located at least ten(10) feet from the extended side property lines, except for
joint-use structures which may abut property lines provided the adjacent
property owners have mutually agreed to the structure location in a contract
recorded with the King County Recorder's Office and provided to the City of
Kent Planning Department with the appropriate applications for the structure.
6. No residential use may occur over water, including houseboats, live-aboards,
or other single- or multi-family dwelling units.
7. Only piers and ramps are permitted in the first 30 feet of the OHWM. All
floats, ells and fingers must be at least 30 feet waterward of the OHWM.
8. All pier and dock dimensions shall be minimized to the maximum extent
feasible. The proposed length must be the minimum necessary to support the
intended use.
9. No skirting is permitted on any structure except to contain or protect floatation
material.
10. All piers, docks,floats, and similar structures shall float at all times on the
surface of the water or shall be of fixed-pile construction. Floating structures
shall at no time rest on the lake substrate.
11. All over-water structures and other water-dependent use developments shall
be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or
unsafe structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner.
12. Lighting associated with overwater structures shall be beamed,hooded or
directed to avoid causing glare on adjacent properties or waterbodies.
Illumination levels shall be the minimum necessary for safety.
13. Piles, floats and other over water structures that are in direct contact with
water or over water shall not be treated or coated with herbicides, fungicides,
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 59
r
paint, or pentachlorophenol. Use of wood members treated with arsenate I
compounds or creosote is prohibited.
14. Temporary moorages shall be permitted for vessels used in the construction of
shoreline facilities. The design and construction of temporary moorages shall
be such that upon termination of the project,the aquatic habitat in the affected f
area can be returned to its original (pre-construction) condition within one (1) I
year at no cost to the environment or the public.
15. Covered moorage,boathouses, or other walled covered moorage are f
prohibited.
16. If a dock is provided with a safety railing, such railing shall not exceed 36
inches in height and shall be an open framework that does not unreasonably
interfere with shoreline views of adjoining properties.
17. Moorage facilities shall be marked with reflectors, or otherwise identified to
prevent unnecessarily hazardous conditions for water surface users during the l
day or night. Exterior finish shall be generally non-reflective.
New Private Piers
18. A new private pier or dock may be permitted on lots owned for residential or `
for private recreational use,provided: !I
a. The applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage.
b. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shoreline f
Administrator that a shared or joint-use pier is not feasible.
i. On lots with less than fifty (50) feet of waterfront,joint-use piers shall F
be required, except when both lots abutting the subject lot have legal
pre-existing piers or docks and the applicant provides written
verification from the owners of the adjacent lots that they will not
consent to a shared use agreement. Only in this case may the lot with
less than fifty(50)feet of waterfront be permitted an individual pier.
ii. On waterfront lots subdivided to create additional waterfront lots,
upland lots with waterfront access rights, or lots with waterfront
multifamily development,joint-use piers shall,be required. One joint-
use pier is allowed per 60 feet of shoreline frontage.
c. No more than one (1)pier for each single-family residence or private l
recreational lot is permitted. I
19. A new,joint-use pier may be permitted on a community recreation lot shared
by a number of waterfront or upland lots provided the applicant has
demonstrated a need for moorage or other allowed water-dependent use.
20. New floating docks located within the first 30 feet of shoreline measured
waterward of the OHWM are prohibited. Piers that terminate in a waterward
float are allowed provided that the landward edge of the float is over water
with a depth of eight(8) feet or more and is at least 30 feet waterward of the
OHWM. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated.
Page 60 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
21. Development Standards for New Piers
a. Length.
i. The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of the pier shall be
the point where water depth reaches 12 feet as measured from the
ordinary high water mark. If the water depth reaches 12 feet within 40
feet of the OHWM, then a 40-foot pier may be allowed. In no case
may a pier be shorter than 40 feet or longer than 100 feet. (Note: The
12-foot depth is to accommodate the 3-to 4-foot fluctuation in water
depth caused by storm water management practices.)
ii. The maximum length of ells, fingers and floats is 20 feet.
Additionally, the maximum extent of all piers, docks and floats as
measured parallel to the shoreline shall not be greater than 50% of the
lot width measured along the shoreline.
b. Width.
i. The maximum width of a pier walkway is four(4) feet for the first 30
feet waterward of the OHWM and six (6) feet for the remainder of the
walkway.
ii. The maximum width of ells and floats is six (6) feet.
iii. Any additional fingers must be no wider than two (2) feet.
iv. The maximum width of a ramp connecting a pier to a float is four(4)
feet.
c. Area. Surface coverage of private residential piers,including all floats,
ramps, ells and fingers, shall be limited to the following:
i. Four hundred twenty(420) square feet for a single property owner;
ii. Six hundred sixty(660) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized by
two residential property owners; or
iii. Seven hundred forty(740) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized
by three or more residential property owners.
d. Decking: All new piers must be fully grated. Decking shall have a
minimum open space of 40%, and shall result in at least 60% ambient
light beneath the pier.
e. Piles. Piles shall be either maximum 5-inch-diameter steel or 5-inch-
diameter untreated wood, and shall be spaced a minimum of 12 feet apart
except when shown not to be feasible for site-specific engineering or
design considerations.
f. Pier Spacing. Piers, including fingers, ells, floats, boatlifts, or canopies,
shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from adjacent piers or 10 feet from
the side yard, whichever distance provides the maximum separation
between piers.
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 61
1
I
max
ell 6'max
width 64 pier width
after 30' ,
4 m.
eIIx20 pier v�
length to '
1 Ook 40'
max. min'.pier len�
length
Max.total surfs
coverage =.420
OHWM
Figure 2. Development dimensional standards for new private piers. I
Replacement of Existing Private Pier or Dock
22. Proposals involving replacement of the entire private pier or dock, or 50
percent or more of the pier-support piles can be replaced up to 100% of the
size of the existing pier or dock and shall comply with the following
standards: l
a. Decking: All replacement piers must be fully grated as described in
subsection c.21.d. above.
b. Replacement piles must be sized as described above under 22.e, and must
achieve the minimum 12-foot spacing to the extent allowed by site-
specific engineering or design considerations.
Additions to Private Pier or Dock
23. Additions to existing piers or docks may be permitted under the following
circumstances:
a. When additional length is required to reach 10 feet of water depth as
measured at the ordinary high water mark(OHWM);
b. When a single-use pier is converted to a joint-use pier; or
c. When the addition of an ell or finger will increase safety and usability.
24. When proposed additions to a private residential pier result in a pier that does
not exceed the maximum total square footage allowances, the addition must
comply with the dimensional and material standards described above in
subsection c.21.
25. When proposed additions to a private residential pier result in a pier that
exceeds the maximum total square footage allowances described above, the
addition may be approved as a Variance and subject to the following
provisions:
a. The applicant must remove any in-water structures rendered obsolete by
the addition;
b. The additional length of walkway or ell must be 4 feet wide;
Page 62 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
c. The decking on any pier element(i.e. pier walkway, ell, float, etc.)
exceeding 8 feet in width must be fully grated as described in subsection
c.21.d. above; and
d. Any proposed new piles must comply with standards under subsection
c.21.e. above.
i
Repair of Existing Private Pier or Dock
26. Repair proposals which replace less than 50 percent of the existing pier-
support piles must comply with the following:
a. If the width of pier element is wider than 8 feet in the area where the piles
will be replaced, the decking that would be removed in order to replace the
piles shall be replaced with grated decking as described in subsection
I� c.21.d. above.
l b. Replacement piles must be sized as described above under subsection
c.2Le. above, and must achieve the minimum 12-foot spacing to the
1 extent allowed by site-specific engineering or design considerations.
27. Repair proposals which replace 50 percent or more of the decking on any pier
element(i.e. pier walkway, ell, float etc.) greater than 8 feet wide must use
grated decking for the entire portion of that element that is wider than 8 feet as
described in subsection c.21.d. above.
28. Other repairs to existing legally established moorage facilities where the
nature of the repair is not described in the above subsections shall be
considered minor repairs and are permitted, consistent with all other
applicable codes and regulations.
29. If the cumulative repair proposed over a three-year period exceeds thresholds
established in subsection c.22 above,the current repair proposal shall be
reviewed under subsection c.22 above.
Boatlifts Boatlift Canopies, and Covered Moorage
30. Boatlifts and boatlift canopies may be permitted as an accessory to residential
development provided that:
i
{ a. Boatlifts are movable equipment employed to temporarily lift boats above
the water for protection and storage. Residential piers may have one
boatlift per single-family lot having legal use of the structure.
b. All lifts are placed as far waterward as feasible and safe,within the limits
of the dimensional standards for docks in this chapter.
c. Boatlift canopies must not be constructed of permanent structural material.
The bottom of a boatlift canopy is elevated above the boatlift to the
maximum extent practicable, the lowest edge of the canopy must be at
least 4 feet above the ordinary high water mark, and the top of the canopy
must not extend more than 4 feet above the adjacent pier.
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 63
i
i
d. Boatlift canopies must be made of translucent fabric material.
e. Any platform lifts are fully grated.
f. The lifts and canopies comply with all other regulations as stipulated by
State and Federal agencies.
g. Covered moorage. No covered pier, covered float, or other covered
structure is permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
Boat Launches f
31. The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of any launching ramp or
lift station shall be the point where the water depth is eight(8) feet below the
ordinary high water mark.
32. Boat ramps are only permitted for public access,public or joint recreational
uses, and emergency access. Any asphalt or concrete launch that solidly
covers the substrate below the ordinary high water mark are not permitted
accessory to private residential uses.
33. Launching rails are prohibited.
Recreational Floats/Swim Platforms
34. A maximum of eight new recreational floats/swim platforms are allowed on
Lake Meridian, as of the date of adoption of this SMP. No new recreational
floats/swim platforms are allowed on Lake Fenwick or Panther Lake. All new
recreational floats on Lake Meridian are subject to the following:
a. New floats/platforms shall be up to a maximum of 150 square feet. I
b. New floats shall be located:
i. In water with a depth of 10 feet or more measured from ordinary high f
water mark at the landward end of the float and may be located up to a 1
maximum waterward distance of 150 feet, whichever is reached first.
ii. So as not to constitute a hazard to navigation or other public use of the l
water. l
c. Floats/platforms shall be designed and intended for swim use or other non-
motorized,but water-oriented,use.
d. Height. Floats/platforms must be built so that the deck surface is one(1)
foot above the water's surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime
visibility.
e. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water. f
f. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated.
35. Existing recreational floats/swim platforms on all lakes may be repaired
and/or replaced subject to the standards in 34.b—f. above in addition to the
following:
Page 64 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
i
a. Replacement floats shall be of the same size as the existing float up to a
maximum of 150 square feet.
Public Over-Water Structures—including Docks and Piers
36. Existing public over-water structures such as docks,piers, or boardwalks may
be repaired and/or replaced in the same location as the existing structure.
37. Public over-water structures may be expanded in size subject to the following:
a. The existing structure is not large enough to support the intended use.
b. The applicant must remove any in-water structures rendered obsolete by
the expansion.
c. Piles. Piles shall be either maximum 6-inch-diameter galvanized steel or
6-inch-diameter untreated wood, and shall be spaced a minimum of 12
feet apart except when shown not to be feasible for site-specific
engineering or design considerations.
1 d. At no point shall any new portion of the pier exceed 12 feet in width.
Areas of pier over 8 feet in width shall provide grating for the remaining
width,up to 12 feet maximum.
e. The length of the pier is the minimum necessary to accommodate the
intended public usage of the pier.
38.New public docks or piers may be permitted if increased public usage of
existing structures has required the need for additional overwater cover.
39.New public over-water structures shall be subject to the standards under 37c.
through 37e.
i 4. Fill
a. Applicability
( Fill is the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure,
or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on
shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Any fill
activity conducted within shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the following
( provisions.
j b. Policies
1. Fills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support
allowed water-dependent or public access uses, cleanup and disposal of
j contaminated sediments, and other water-dependent uses that are consistent
with this SMP.
i 2. Shoreline fill should be designed and located so there will be no significant
ecological impacts and no alteration of local currents, surface water drainage,
channel migration, or flood waters which would result in a hazard to adjacent
i life,property, and natural resource systems.
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 65
I
i
c. Regulations
1. Fill waterward of OHWM requires a Conditional Use Permit and may be
permitted only when:
a. In conjunction with a water-dependent or public use permitted by this
SMP;
b. In conjunction with a levee,bridge, or navigational structure for which
there is a demonstrated public need and where no feasible upland sites,
design solutions, or routes exist; or
c. As part of an approved shoreline restoration project.
2. Waterward of OHWM,pile or pier supports shall be utilized whenever
feasible in preference to fills. Fills for approved road development in
floodways or wetlands shall be permitted only if pile or pier supports are
proven not feasible.
3. Fills are prohibited in floodplains where they would alter the hydrologic
characteristics, flood storage capacity, or inhibit channel migration that would,
in turn, increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Fills are
prohibited in floodway, except when approved by Conditional Use permit
and where required in conjunction with a proposed water-dependent or other
use specified in Regulation No. 2 above.
4. Fill shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the proposed action
will not:
a. Result in significant ecological damage to water quality, fish, shellfish,
and/or wildlife habitat; or
b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents,river
flows or significantly reduce flood water capacities.
c. Alter channel migration, geomorphic, or hydrologic processes.
5. Environmental cleanup action involving excavation/fill, as authorized by the
City's Shoreline Administrator,may be permitted.
6. Sanitary fills shall not be located in shoreline jurisdiction.
7. Fills waterward of the ordinary high water mark that are for the purpose of
restoring ecological functions are a permitted use and do not require a
conditional use permit.
5. Dredging and Disposal
a. Applicability
Dredging is the removal or displacement of earth or sediment(gravel, sand,mud,
silt and/or other material or debris) from a stream,river, lake, marine water body,
or associated marsh,bog or swamp. Activities which may require dredging 1
include the construction and maintenance of navigation channels, levee
construction,recreation facilities,boat access, and ecological restoration.
Page 66 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Dredge material disposal is the depositing of dredged materials on land or into
water bodies for the purpose of either creating new or additional lands for other
uses or disposing of the by-products of dredging.
b. Exemptions
Pursuant to WAC 173-27-040, dredging or dredge disposal actions may be
exempt from the requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit,but
may still require a conditional use or variance permit.
c. Policies
1. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize
interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses,
properties, and values.
2. When allowed, dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the
minimum amount necessary.
3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall be
discouraged. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,Figure No. 10.2 in
the Inventory and Analysis Report).
I d. Regulations
General
1. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated
that the proposed actions will not:
a. Result in significant or ongoing damage to water quality, fish, and
shoreline habitat;
b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river
flows, channel migration processes or significantly reduce flood water
capacities; or
c. Cause other significant ecological impacts.
i
2. Proposals for dredging and dredge disposal shall include all feasible
mitigating measures to protect marine habitats and to minimize adverse
impacts such as turbidity,release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides, organic
material or toxic substances, dissolved oxygen depletion, disruption of food
chains, loss of benthic productivity and disturbance of fish runs and important
localized biological communities.
3. Dredging and dredge disposal shall not occur in wetlands, except as authorized
by Conditional Use permit as a shoreline restoration project.
4. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be carefully scheduled to protect
biological productivity(e.g. fish runs, spawning,benthic productivity, etc.)
and to minimize interference with fishing activities.
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 67
5. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be prohibited on or in archaeological sites
that are listed on the Washington State Register of Historic Places until such
time that they have been released by the State Archaeologist.
6. Dredging shall utilize techniques which cause minimum dispersal and l
broadcast of bottom material.
7. Dredging shall be permitted only:
a. For navigation or navigational access and recreational access;
b. In conjunction with a water-dependent use of water bodies or adjacent
shorelands;
c. As part of an approved habitat improvement project;
d. To improve water quality;
e. In conjunction with a bridge,navigational structure or wastewater
treatment facility for which there is a documented public need and where
other feasible sites or routes do not exist;
f. To improve water flow or manage flooding only when consistent with an f
approved flood/storm water comprehensive management plan; or
g. To clean up contaminated sediments. I
8. When dredging is permitted, the dredging shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate the proposed use.
9. New dredging activity is prohibited:
a. In shoreline areas with bottom materials which are prone to significant f
sloughing and refilling due to currents,resulting in the need for continual
maintenance dredging, except by Conditional Use permit; and
b. In habitats identified as critical to the life cycle of officially designated or
protected fish, shellfish or wildlife.
10. Dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining material for landfill is
prohibited.
11.New development shall be located and designed to avoid or minimize the need
for new or maintenance dredging where feasible.
12. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels,public access
facilities and basins is restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or
existing authorized location, depth, and width.
Regulations -- Dredge Material Disposal
13. Depositing clean dredge materials in water areas shall be allowed only by
Conditional Use permit for one or more of the following reasons:
a. For wildlife habitat improvement or shoreline restoration; or
b. To correct problems of material distribution adversely affecting fish and
wildlife resources. i
Page 68 Kent Shoreline Master Program
14. Where the City's Shoreline Administrator requires,revegetation of land
disposal sites shall occur as soon as feasible in order to retard wind and water
erosion and to restore the wildlife habitat value of the site. Native species and
other compatible plants shall be used in the revegetation.
15. Proposals for disposal in shoreline jurisdiction must show that the site will
ultimately be suitable for a use permitted by this SMP.
16. The City's Shoreline Administrator may impose reasonable limitations on
dredge disposal operating periods and hours and may require provision for
buffers at land disposal or transfer sites in order to protect the public safety
and other lawful interests from unnecessary adverse impacts.
17. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall require a
conditional use permit. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure
No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
I
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement
a. Applicability
Shoreline restoration and ecological enhancement are the improvement of the
natural characteristics of upland or submerged shoreline using native materials.
The materials used are dependent on the intended use of the restored or enhanced
shoreline area. An Ecological Restoration Plan accompanies this SMP and
recommends ecological enhancement and restoration measures.
b. Policies
I 1. The City should consider shoreline enhancement as an alternative to structural
+ shoreline stabilization and protection measures where feasible.
2. All shoreline enhancement projects should protect the integrity of adjacent
natural resources including aquatic habitats and water quality.
3. Where possible, shoreline restoration should use maintenance-free or low-
maintenance designs.
4. The City should pursue the recommendations in the shoreline restoration plan
prepared as part of this SMP update. The City should give priority to projects
consistent with this plan.
5. Shoreline restoration and enhancement should not extend waterward more
than necessary to achieve the intended results.
c. Regulations
1. Shoreline enhancement may be permitted if the project proponent
demonstrates that no significant change to sediment transport or river current
i will result and that the enhancement will not adversely affect ecological
processes,properties, or habitat.
I
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 69
i
i
2. Shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall use best available f
science and management practices.
3. Shoreline restoration and enhancement shall not significantly interfere with ,
the normal public use of the navigable waters of the state without appropriate
mitigation.
4. Shoreline restoration and ecological enhancement projects may be permitted
in all shoreline environments,provided:
a. The project's purpose is the restoration of natural character and ecological
functions of the shoreline, and
b. It is consistent with the implementation of a comprehensive restoration
plan approved by the City's Shoreline Administrator, or the City's I
Shoreline Administrator finds that the project provides an ecological
benefit and is consistent with this SW.
7. Dikes and Levees I
a. Applicability l
Dikes and levees are manmade earthen embankments utilized for the purpose of
flood control,water impoundment projects, or settling basins.
b. Policies
1. Dikes and levees should be constructed or reconstructed only as part of a
comprehensive flood hazard reduction program
2. Environmental enhancement measures should be a part of levee f
improvements.
c. Regulations
1. Dikes and levees shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance 1
with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project f
Approval, federal levee criteria, and in consideration of resource agency l
recommendations.
2. Dikes and levees shall protect the natural processes and resource values
associated with streamways and deltas, including,but not limited to,wildlife
habitat.
3. Dikes and levees shall be limited in size to the minimum height required to
protect adjacent lands from the projected flood stage.
4. Dikes and levees shall not be placed in the floodway, except for current
deflectors necessary for protection of bridges and roads.
5. Public access to shorelines should be an integral component of all levee
improvement projects. Public access shall be provided in accordance with
public access policies and regulations contained herein. New dikes or levees
Page 70 Kent Shoreline Master Program
must not impede or diminish public access on the Green River Trail.
Fisherman access should be combined with levee maintenance access.
6. Dikes and levees shall only be authorized by Conditional Use permit and shall
be consistent with the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan, as
amended.
7. Dikes and levees shall be set back at convex (inside)bends to allow streams to
maintain point bars and associated aquatic habitat through normal accretion, if
I
feasible.
8. Proper diversion of surface discharge shall be provided to maintain the
integrity of the natural streams, wetlands, and drainages.
9. Underground springs and aquifers shall be identified and protected.
10. Where feasible, the construction,repair, or reconstruction of dikes or levees
shall include environmental restoration. The Kent Restoration Plan
accompanying this SMP provides guidance the City's Shoreline Administrator
will use in determining the amount and type of restoration required.
I
l
I
Chapter 4 -Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 71
f
CHAPTER 5
Shoreline Use Provisions
A. Introduction
The provisions in this section apply to specific common uses and types of development to
the extent they occur within shoreline jurisdiction.
B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards
I
Matrices
The following matrices (Table 6 and Table 7) indicate the allowable uses and some of the
standards applicable to those uses and modifications. Where there is a conflict between
the matrices and the written provisions in Chapters 3, 4, or 5 of this SMP, the written
provisions shall apply. The numbers in the matrices refer to footnotes which may be
jfound immediately following the matrix. These footnotes provide additional clarification
' or conditions applicable to the associated use or shoreline environment designation.
Table 6. Shoreline Use Matrix
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a w
conditional use only N
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible �� N
for a variance or conditional use
f permit" d o 0 o c d M
r V 0. V 0 c
N/A= Not applicable _ y S �, :.
1 C L 16
SHORELINE USE z = M o -1 CO Cr
Agriculture X P10 P10 P P10 X
j Aquaculture X X X X X X
Boating facilities14 X P P X P P
Commercial:
Water-dependent X P P1 P9 X X
Water-related, water-enjoyment X P P1 P9 X X
Nonwater-oriented X C4 X C4,9 X X
Flood hazard management X P P P P C
Forest practices X X X X X X
Industrial:
Water-dependent X P X X X X
Water-related, water-enjoyment X P X X X X
Page 72 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a
conditional use only y l
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible T ZN �� ) l
for a variance or conditional use
d W0 v N
permit11 C ao MCL o c d M 11
N/A= Not applicable L
r .n � . 3 0
SHORELINE USE z = D o » N a
Nonwater-oriented X P4 X X X X
In-stream structures C C C C C C
Mining X X X X X X
Parking (accessory) X P P2 P2 P X
Parking (primary, including paid) X X X X X X
Recreation:
Water-dependent P3 P P P P P
Water-enjoyment P3 P P P P X
Nonwater-oriented X P4 P4 C4 P X
Single-family residential X X X Pa P X
Multifamily residential X P X C P X
Land subdivision P P P5 C P X t
Signs: I
On premises X P P6 C X X
Off premise X X X X X X
Public, highway X P P P X X
Solid waste disposal X X X X X X
Transportation:
Water-dependent X P P P C P
Nonwater-oriented X P C C P C
Roads, railroads C P P7 P7 P C
Utilities (primary) C P P7 P7 P C
Use Matrix Notes:
1. Park concessions, such as small food stands, cafes, and restaurants with views and seating oriented
to the water, and uses that enhance the opportunity to enjoy publicly accessible shorelines are
allowed.
2. Accessory parking is allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if there is no other feasible option, as
determined by the City.
3. Passive activities, such as nature watching and trails, that require little development with no
significant adverse impacts may be allowed.
4. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water-
dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the
shoreline and water body or due to the underlying land use classification in the comprehensive plan.
f
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 73
5. Land division is only allowed where the City determines that it is for a public purpose.
6. Signs are allowed for public facilities only.
7. Roadways and public utilities are allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by
the City, and all significant adverse impacts are mitigated.
8. Residences are allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if it is not feasible, as determined by the City, to
locate the building on the portion of the property outside shoreline jurisdiction.
9. Commercial uses are only permitted as part of a residential PUD of at least 100 acres, located within
an SR zone, or at least 10 acres for residential PUDs located in other zones. Commercial uses shall
be limited to those uses permitted by Title 15 KCC, as amended, in the neighborhood convenience
commercial district.
10. Crop and tree farming only. See Section 15.04.130 KCC, as amended.
11. For the treatment of existing nonconforming development, see Chapter 7 Section E.
12. Development in channel migration zones is allowed only by conditional use permit where it can be
shown that such development would not prevent natural channel migration. (Refer to the Channel
Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Report).
13. Uses noted as allowed in the Aquatic environment are allowed only if allowed in the adjacent upland
! environment.
I 14. Marinas are prohibited.
I
1
i
I
Page 74 Kent Shoreline Master Program
1
I
Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix
yti
ti l r d
L) co
_ CU ;� v
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS"' � � .0 m 3 C �
(See also section cited in parentheses) z = O � c Q
Commercial Development (Ch. 5 Sec. C.4)
Water-dependent setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Water-related, water-enjoyment setback N/A 30i2 30'2 50'2 N/A N/A +
Nonwater-oriented setback N/A 70'2 70i2 100'2 N/A N/A
Industrial Development (Ch. 5 Sec, C.5) 1
Water-dependent (Ch. 5. Sec C.5.c.9) N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Water-related and water-enjoyment4 (Ch. 5 N/A 50'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sec.C.5.c.9)
Nonwater-oriented4 (Ch. 5. Sec. C.5.c.9) N/A 100'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Accessory Parking (Ch. 3 Sec. B.6) l
Setbacks4 N/A 70i2 70'2 70'2 N/A3 N/A
Recreational Development
Water-dependent park structures setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Water-related, water enjoyment park structures N/A 20' 20' 20' N/A N/A l
setback
Nonwater-oriented park structures setback4 (Ch. N/A 70'2 70'2 70'2 N/A N/A
5 Sec. C.7.c.4)
Miscellaneous
New agricultural activities setback (Ch. 5 Sec. N/A 20i2 20'2 20i2 20'2 N/A
C.2.c.4)
Residential Development4 See regulations in Ch. 5 Sec. C.8.c
Other provisions in this SMP also apply.
Development Standards Matrix Notes:
1. See Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future Green River levee reconstruction.
2. The City may reduce this dimension if it determines that the type of development allowed within this
SMP and other municipal, state, and federal codes cannot be accommodated within the allowed site
development area by reconfiguring, relocating, or resizing the proposed development. Where the
City reduces a requirement, compensatory mitigation, such as vegetation enhancement or shoreline f
armoring removal, must be provided as determined by the City.
3. See regulation 5.C.8.c for residential development standards.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 75
4. The setback for all development, except water dependent development, on the Green River not
separated from the shoreline by a levee is 150 feet.
5. For height regulations, see Chapter 15.04 KCC, as amended, for the underlying zoning district.
C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations
1 . General Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to all uses in shoreline jurisdiction.
b. Policy
1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the
( control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or
I are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas.
2. The City should ensure that all proposed shoreline development will not
diminish the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land or its
vegetation and wildlife, and should endeavor to protect property rights while
implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
3. The City should reduce use conflicts by prohibiting or applying special
conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or
dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision,
preference should be given first to water-dependent uses,then to water-related
iuses and water-enjoyment uses.
4. The City should encourage the full use of existing urban areas before
expansion of intensive development is allowed.
c. Regulations
1. Developments that include a mix of water-oriented and nonwater-oriented
uses may be considered water-oriented provided the City's Shoreline
Administrator finds that the proposed development does give preference to
ithose uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of
damage to the natural environment, are dependent on a shoreline location, or
enhance the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline.
2. All uses not explicitly covered in the SMP require a conditional use permit.
The City's Shoreline Administrator should impose conditions to ensure that
the proposed development meets the policies of this SMP.
i
3. All development and uses must conform to all of the provisions in the SMP.
4. All development and uses shall conform to the shoreline use matrix and the
development standards matrix in Section B of this chapter unless otherwise
stated in this chapter.
I
I
i
Page 76 Kent Shoreline Master Program
J(
5. In channel migration zones,natural geomorphic and hydrologic processes l
shall not be limited and new development shall not be established where
future stabilization will be required. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone
Map,Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and l
Analysis Report).
6. As described in WAC 173-26-221 (3) (c), appropriate development may be
allowed in areas landward of Green River Road because the road prevents
active channel movement and flooding. This area is therefore not within a
channel migration zone (refer to Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No.
10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
2. Agriculture
a. Applicability
Agriculture includes,but is not limited to, the commercial production of
horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products
or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, or Christmas trees not subject to the l
excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 thorough 84.33.140; finfish in upland 1
hatcheries, or livestock, that has long-term commercial significance.
Uses and shoreline modifications associated with agriculture that are identified as
separate use activities in this program, such as industry, shoreline stabilization,
and flood hazard management, are subject to the regulations established for those
uses in addition to the standards established in this section for agriculture.
b. Policies
1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes,
channel migration zones, and associated marshes,bogs, and swamps should
be prohibited. l
2. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and
water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and
resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality, reduce flood hazard, and
maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
3. Animal feeding operations,retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste and !
manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and constructed +
to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of the adjacent
shoreline environment. f
4. Appropriate farm management techniques should be utilized to prevent
contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant,
fish, and animal life from fertilizer and pesticide use and application.
5. Where ecological functions have been degraded,new development should be
conditioned with the requirement for ecological restoration to ensure no net J
loss of ecological functions.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 77
i
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration. The
extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
specific circumstances of an agricultural development.
c. Regulations
1. Agricultural development shall conform to applicable state and federal
policies and regulations,provided they are consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act and this SMP to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
2. New manure lagoons, confinement lots, feeding operations, lot wastes,
stockpiles of manure solids, aerial spraying, and storage of noxious chemicals
are prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction.
3. A buffer of natural or planted permanent native vegetation not less than 20
feet in width, measured perpendicular to the shoreline, shall be maintained
between areas of new development for crops, grazing, or other agricultural
4 activity and adjacent waters, channel migration zones, and marshes,bogs, and
swamps. The City's Shoreline Administrator shall determine the extent and
composition of the buffer when the permit or letter of exemption is applied
for.
4. Stream banks and water bodies shall be protected from damage caused by
concentration and overgrazing of livestock. Provide fencing or other grazing
controls to prevent bank compaction,bank erosion, or the overgrazing of or
damage to buffer vegetation. Provide suitable bridges, culverts, or ramps for
stock crossing.
5. Agricultural practices shall prevent and control erosion of soils and bank
materials within shoreline areas and minimize siltation, turbidity,pollution,
and other environmental degradation of watercourses and wetlands.
6. Existing and ongoing agricultural uses may be allowed within a channel
migration zone or floodway provided that no new restrictions to channel
movement occur.
7. See Chapter 3 Section B.12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the
use of pesticides,herbicides, and fertilizers.
3. Boating Facilities
a. Applicability
Boating facilities include dry storage and wet-moorage types;boat launch ramps;
covered moorage;boat houses; mooring buoys; and marine travel lifts. See also
Chapter 4 Section C.3for residential and public pier and dock structures.
Accessory uses found in boating facilities may include fuel docks and storage,
boating equipment sales and rental, wash-down facilities, fish cleaning stations,
repair services,public launching,bait and tackle shops,potable water, waste
disposal, administration,parking, groceries, and dry goods.
Page 78 Kent Shoreline Master Program
1
There are uses and activities associated with boating facilities but that are I
identified in this section as separate uses (e.g., Commercial Development and
Industrial Development, including ship and boat building,repair yards,utilities,
and transportation facilities) or as separate shoreline modifications (e.g.,piers, l
docks, bulkheads,breakwaters,jetties and groins, dredging, and fill). These uses
are subject to the regulations established for those uses and modifications in
addition to the standards for boating facilities established in this section.
This section does not apply to residential moorage serving an individual single-
family residence. Chapter 4 Section C.3 does apply to single-family residential
docks and piers.
b. Policies
1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide
maximum feasible protection and restoration of ecological processes and
functions and all forms of aquatic, littoral, or terrestrial life—including
animals, fish, shellfish,birds, and plants—and their habitats and migratory
routes. To the extent possible,boating facilities should be located in areas of l
low biological productivity. 1
2. Boating facilities should be located and designed so their structures and
operations will be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected and
will not unreasonably impair shoreline views. However, the need to protect
and restore ecological functions and to provide for water-dependent uses t
carries higher priority than protection of views.
3. Boat launch facilities should be provided at appropriate public access sites.
4. Existing public moorage and launching facilities should be maintained. [
c. Regulations
1. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all other applicable state
agency policies and regulations, including,but not limited to: the Department
of Fish and Wildlife criteria for the design of bulkheads and landfills; Federal
Marine Sanitation standards (EPA 1972)requiring water quality certification
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 10); U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers dredging standards (Section 404); and state and federal standards
for the storage of fuels and toxic materials.
2. New boating facilities shall not significantly impact the rights of navigation
on the waters of the state.
Location
3. Boating facilities shall not be located where their development would reduce
the quantity or quality of critical aquatic habitat or where significant
ecological impacts would necessarily occur.
4. Public launch ramps shall, where feasible,be located only on stable shorelines
where:
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 79
a. Water depths are adequate to eliminate or minimize the need for offshore
channel construction dredging,maintenance dredging, spoil disposal,
filling,beach enhancement, and other river, lake,harbor, and channel
maintenance activities.
b. There is adequate water mixing and flushing, and the facility is designed
so as not to retard or negatively influence flushing characteristics.
c. Adverse flood channel capacity or flood hazard impacts are avoided.
Design/Renovation/Expansion
5. Boating facilities shall be designed to avoid or minimize significant ecological
impacts. The City's Shoreline Administrator shall apply the mitigation
sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section BA in the review of boating facility
proposals. On degraded shorelines, the City's Shoreline Administrator may
require ecological restoration measures to account for environmental impacts
and risks to the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required.
The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
! specific circumstances of the proposed boating facility.
6. Boating facility design shall:
a. Provide thorough flushing of all enclosed water areas and shall not restrict
the movement of aquatic life requiring shallow water habitat.
b. Minimize interference with geohydraulic processes and disruption of
existing shoreline ecological functions.
7. Dry moorage shall require a Conditional Use permit.
j8. The perimeter of parking, dry moorage, and other storage areas shall be
landscaped to provide a visual and noise buffer between adjoining dissimilar
uses or scenic areas. See Chapter 15.07 KCC, as amended, for landscape
requirements.
9. Moorage of floating homes is prohibited.
10. New covered moorage is prohibited.
Boat Launches
i
11. Launch ramps shall be permitted only on stable,non-erosional banks,where
no or a minimum number of current deflectors or other stabilization structures
will be necessary.
12. Boat ramps shall be placed and kept as flush as possible with the foreshore
slope to permit launch and retrieval and to minimize the interruption of
hydrologic processes.
Page 80 Kent Shoreline Master Program
r
1
4. Commercial Development
a. Applicability {
Commercial development means those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail,
service, and business trade. Examples include hotels,motels, grocery markets,
shopping centers, restaurants, shops, offices, and private or public indoor f
recreation facilities. Commercial nonwater-dependent recreational facilities, such
as sports clubs and amusement parks, are also considered commercial uses. This
category also applies to institutional and public uses such as hospitals, libraries,
schools, churches and government facilities.
Uses and activities associated with commercial development that are identified as
separate uses in this program include Mining, Industry, Boating Facilities,
Transportation Facilities, Utilities (accessory), and Solid Waste Disposal. Piers
and docks,bulkheads, shoreline stabilization, flood protection, and other shoreline
modifications are sometimes associated with commercial development and are
subject to those shoreline modification regulations in Chapter 4 in addition to the
standards for commercial development established herein.
b. Policies
1. Multi-use commercial projects that include some combination of ecological 1
restoration,public access, open space, and recreation should be encouraged in 1
the High-Intensity Environment consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. I
2. Where possible, commercial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
c. Regulations
1. Water-oriented commercial developments may be permitted as indicated in
Chapter 5 Section B, "Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices."
2. Nonwater-oriented commercial developments may be permitted only where
they are either separated from the shoreline by a structural levee designed to 1
minimize flood hazard or where all three (3) of the following can be
demonstrated:
a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the proposed
site due to topography, incompatible surrounding land uses,physical
features, or the site's separation from the water.
b. The proposed development does not usurp or displace land currently
occupied by a water-oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent
water-oriented uses.
c. The proposed development will be of appreciable public benefit by
increasing ecological functions together with public use of or access to the
shoreline.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 81
3. Commercial development shall be designed to avoid or minimize ecological
impacts, to protect human health and safety, and to avoid significant adverse
impacts to surrounding uses and the shoreline's visual qualities, such as views
to the waterfront and the natural appearance of the shoreline. To this end, the
City's Shoreline Administrator may adjust the project dimensions and
setbacks (so long as they are not relaxed below minimum standards without a
shoreline variance permit) or prescribe operation intensity and screening
standards as deemed appropriate.
i 4. All new commercial development proposals will be reviewed by the City's
Shoreline Administrator for ecological restoration and public access
requirements consistent with Chapter 3 Section B.7. When restoration or
public access plans indicate opportunities exist, the City's Shoreline
Administrator may require that those opportunities are either implemented as
part of the development project or that the project design be altered so that
those opportunities are not diminished.
All new water-related and water-enjoyment development shall be conditioned
I with the requirement for ecological restoration and public access unless those
activities are demonstrated to be not feasible. (See definition of"feasible.")
All new nonwater-oriented development, where allowed, shall be conditioned
with the requirement to provide ecological restoration and public access.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SNIP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or
public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that
which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of a commercial
4 development.
5. All commercial loading and service areas shall be located or screened to
I minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline environment(including visual
impacts, such as a view of loading doors or trash receptacles from the Green
River Trail) and public access facilities, including the Green River Trail. At a
1 minimum,parking and service areas shall be screened from the Green River
Trail by a 15' strip of Type II landscaping as defined in Section 15.07.050
KCC, as amended, that is able to provide a full visual screen within 5 years of
planting. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping
requirements to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
6. All new nonwater-oriented commercial development located adjacent to the
Green River Trail shall provide the following:
a. A minimum of 15' of Type II landscaping(as defined in Section
15.07.050 KCC, as amended)between the building and the shoreline. A
sight obscuring fence is not required.
b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of
building fagade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this
standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety
and security.
Master Pro ram
Page 82 Kent Shoreline g
i
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements
to account for legitimate safety and security concerns.
7. Commercial development and accessory uses must conform to the setback and 1
height standards established in Section B "Development Standards Matrix"in
this Chapter.
8. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be incorporated where I
appropriate.
5. Industry
a. Applicability {
Industrial developments and uses are facilities for processing,manufacturing, and 1
storing of finished or semi-finished goods. Included in industry are such activities
as log storage, log rafting,petroleum storage, hazardous waste generation,
transport and storage, ship building, concrete and asphalt batching, construction,
manufacturing, and warehousing. Excluded from this category and covered under
other sections of the SMP are boating facilities,piers and docks, mining
(including on-site processing of raw materials),utilities, solid waste disposal, and
transportation facilities. 1
Shoreline modifications and other uses associated with industrial development are '
described separately in this SMP. These include dredging, fill, transportation
facilities,utilities piers and docks,bulkheads,breakwaters,jetties and groins,
shoreline stabilization and flood protection, and signs. They are subject to their
own regulations in Chapter 4 in addition to the provisions in this chapter.
b. Policies '
1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented
industrial development.
2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
c. Regulations
1. The amount of impervious surface shall be the minimum necessary to provide
for the intended use. The remaining land area shall be landscaped with native
plants according to Chapter 3 Section B.I Le.5.
2. Water-dependent industry shall be located and designed to minimize the need
for initial and/or continual dredging, filling, spoil disposal, and other harbor
and channel maintenance activities.
3. Storage and disposal of industrial wastes is prohibited within shoreline j
jurisdiction; PROVIDED, that wastewater treatment systems may be allowed
in shoreline jurisdiction if alternate, inland areas have been adequately proven
infeasible.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 83
1
4. At new or expanded industrial developments, the best available facilities
practices and procedures shall be employed for the safe handling of fuels and
toxic or hazardous materials to prevent them from entering the water, and
optimum means shall be employed for prompt and effective cleanup of those
spills that do occur. The City's Shoreline Administrator may require specific
facilities to support those activities as well as demonstration of a cleanup/spill
prevention program.
5. Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed, shielded, and operated to
avoid illuminating the water surface.
6. All industrial loading and service areas shall be located or screened to
minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline environment(including visual
impacts) and public access facilities,including the Green River Trail. At a
minimum,parking and service areas shall be screened from the Green River
Trail by a 15' strip of Type II landscaping as defined in Section 15.07.050
KCC, as amended,that is able to provide a full visual screen within 5 years of
planting. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping
Irequirements to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
7. All new industrial development located adjacent to the Green River Trail shall
provide the following:
i
a. A minimum of 15' of Type II landscaping(as defined in Section
15.07.050 KCC, as amended)between the building and the shoreline. A
sight obscuring fence is not required.
b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of
building fagade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this
standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety
and security.
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements
to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
I 8. Low Impact Development(LID) techniques shall be incorporated where
appropriate.
9. Ship and boat building and repair yards shall employ Best Management
1 Practices (BMPs) concerning the various services and activities they perform
and their impacts on the surrounding water quality. Standards for BMPs are
found in the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended.
10. See Section B "Development Standards Matrix" of this Chapter for setback
requirements.. See also setback requirements in Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 to
accommodate levee construction on the Green River.
6. In-Stream Structures
a. Applicability
In-stream structures are constructed waterward of the OHWM and either cause or
i have the potential to cause water impoundment or diversion, obstruction, or
Page 84 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
modification of water flow. They typically are constructed for hydroelectric I
generation and transmission(including both public and private facilities), flood
control, irrigation,water supply(both domestic and industrial),recreational, or
fisheries enhancement.
In Kent, the only in-stream structures applicable are for water treatment or
environmental restoration purposes, such as water treatment at the Green River
Natural Resources Area.
b. Policies
1. In-stream structures should provide for the protection,preservation, and
restoration of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including,but not limited to, fish and fish passage,wildlife and
water resources, shoreline critical areas,hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas. Within the City of Kent, in-stream structures should be 1
allowed only for the purposes of environmental restoration or water quality l
treatment.
c. Regulations
1. In-stream structures are permitted only for the purposes of environmental
restoration, water quality management, or maintenance of water levels.
2. The City's Shoreline Administrator may require that projects with in-stream
structures include public access,provided public access improvements do not
create adverse environmental impacts or create a safety hazard.
7. Recreational Development
a. Applicability
Recreational development includes public and commercial facilities for 1
recreational activities such as hiking,photography, viewing, and fishing, boating,
swimming, bicycling,picnicking, and playing. It also includes facilities for active
or more intensive uses, such as parks, campgrounds, golf courses, and other 1
outdoor recreation areas. This section applies to both publicly and privately
owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club, group,
association or individual. I
Recreational uses and development can be part of a larger mixed-use project. For
example, a resort will probably contain characteristics of, and be reviewed under,
both the "Commercial Development"and the"Recreational Development"
sections. Primary activities such as boating facilities,resorts, subdivisions, and
hotels are not addressed directly in this category. 1
Uses and activities associated with recreational developments that are identified
as separate use activities in this SMP, such as "Boating Facilities,""Piers and
Docks," "Residential Development," and"Commercial Development," are subject 1
Chapter 5 -Shoreline Use Provisions Page 85
to the regulations established for those uses in addition to the standards for
recreation established in this section.
Commercial indoor nonwater-oriented recreation facilities, such as bowling alleys
and fitness clubs, are addressed as commercial uses.
b. Policies
1. The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning should be
encouraged to satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline recreational developments
should be consistent with all adopted park,recreation, and open space plans.
2. Recreational developments and plans should promote the conservation of the
shoreline's natural character, ecological functions, and processes
3. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be
encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs.
4. Water-dependent recreational uses, such as angling,boating, and swimming,
1 should have priority over water-enjoyment uses, such as picnicking and golf.
Water-enjoyment uses should have priority over nonwater-oriented
recreational uses, such as field sports.
5. Recreation facilities should be integrated and linked with linear systems, such
as hiking paths,bicycle paths, easements, and scenic drives.
6. Where appropriate,nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in
floodplain areas. Nonintensive recreational uses include those that do not do
any of the following:
I a. Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems.
b. Create any flood hazards.
c. Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as
structural shoreline stabilization or vegetation removal.
7. Opportunities to expand the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline in public
parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued.
c. Regulations
1. Water-oriented recreational developments and mixed-use developments with
water-oriented recreational activities may be permitted as indicated in Chapter
5 Section B, "Shoreline Use and Development Standard Matrices." In
accordance with this matrix and other provisions of this SMP, nonwater-
oriented recreational developments may be permitted only where it can be
demonstrated that all of the following apply:
a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the proposed
site due to topography, surrounding land uses,physical features, or the
site's separation from the water.
b. The proposed use does not usurp or displace land currently occupied by a
water-oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent water-oriented uses.
Page 86 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
c. The proposed use and development will appreciably increase ecological I
functions or, in the case of public projects,public access.
2. Accessory parking shall not be located in shoreline jurisdiction unless all of
the following conditions are met:
a. The City's Shoreline Administrator determines there is no other feasible )
option,
b. The parking supports a water-oriented use, and
c. All adverse impacts from the parking in the shoreline jurisdiction are
mitigated.
3. All new recreational development proposals will be reviewed by the City's
Shoreline Administrator for ecological restoration and public access
opportunities. When restoration or public access plans indicate opportunities
exist for these improvements, the City's Shoreline Administrator may require
that those opportunities are either implemented as part of the development
project or that the project design be altered so that those opportunities are not
diminished.
All new nonwater-oriented recreational development,where allowed, shall be
conditioned with the requirement to provide ecological restoration and, in the
case of public developments, public access. The City's Shoreline
Administrator shall consult the provisions of this SMP and determine the
applicability and extent of ecological restoration and public access required.
4. Nonwater-oriented structures, such as restrooms,recreation halls and
gymnasiums,recreational buildings and fields, access roads, and parking
areas, shall be set back from the OHWM at least 70 feet unless it can be
shown that there is no feasible alternative.
5. See Chapter 3 Section 12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the use l
of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
8. Residential Development 1
a. Applicability
Residential development means one or more buildings, structures, lots,parcels or
portions thereof which are designed for and used or intended to be used to provide
a place of abode, including single-family residences, duplexes, other detached '
dwellings, floating homes, multi-family residences,mobile home parks,
residential subdivisions,residential short subdivisions, and residential planned
unit development, together with accessory uses and structures normally applicable
to residential uses, including,but not limited to, garages, sheds, tennis courts, J
swimming pools,parking areas, fences, cabanas, saunas, and guest cottages.
Residential development does not include hotels,motels, or any other type of
overnight or transient housing or camping facilities.
Chapter 5 -Shoreline Use Provisions Page 87
I
i
Single family residences are a preferred use under the Shoreline Management Act
when developed in a manner consistent with this Shoreline Master Program.
b. Policies
1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas including,but not limited to,wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, and
buffers.
2. The overall density of development, lot coverage, and height of structures
should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site and consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
j 3. Recognizing the single-purpose, irreversible, and space consumptive nature of
shoreline residential development,new development should provide adequate
setbacks or open space from the water to provide space for community use of
j the shoreline and the water,to provide space for outdoor recreation, to protect
or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to preserve
views, to preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics, to protect the privacy of
nearby residences, and to minimize use conflicts.
4. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of groundwater supplies,
i erosion control, stormwater drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat,
ecosystem-wide processes, and open space.
y 5. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, shall be provided
in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations.
6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring
will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential
lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed
without:
a. Constructing shoreline stabilization structures (such as bulkheads).
b. Causing significant erosion or slope instability.
j c. Removing existing native vegetation within 20 feet of the shoreline.
c. Regulations
Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Lakes
1. A summary of regulations for residential properties within shoreline
jurisdiction is presented in Table 8 below. Refer to written provisions within
this section for exceptions and more detailed explanations. See also Chapter 3
Section B.11 for vegetation conservation provisions.
Table 8. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes
Regulation:
Standard Minimum Building Setback from OHWM 75 feet'
Standard Minimum Deck Setback from OHWM 50 feet
Page 88 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
Maximum Impervious Surface 35%
Standard 2.a.i. discussed below requires the averaging of the setbacks of adjacent
dwelling units with a minimum setback of 75 feet.
2. New residential development, including new structures,new pavement, and
additions, within shoreline jurisdiction on lakes shall adhere to the following
standards:
a. Setbacks:
i. Buildings: Set back all covered or enclosed structures the average of
the setbacks of existing houses on adjacent lots on both sides of the
subject parcel,with a minimum setback of 75 feet from the OHWM.
Where the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that an existing site
does not provide sufficient area to locate the residence entirely
landward of this setback, the City's Shoreline Administrator may
allow the residence to be located closer to the OHWM,provided all
other provisions of this SMP are met and impacts are mitigated.
ii. Patios and decks: Uncovered patios or decks that are no higher than
2' above grade may extend a maximum of 25 feet into the building
setback,up to within 50 feet of the OHWM. See Section d. below for
exception to this requirement. j
Average of the setbacks of existing
adjacent dwelling units with a '
minimum setback of 75'-
m
Ingth
25ax.
eck
AA-
Figure 3. Standard setback from residential development on lakes.
b. Maximum amount of impervious surface: The maximum amount of
impervious surface for each lot, including structures and pavement
(including gravel surfaces) shall be no greater than 35 percent of the total
lot area above OHWM.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 89
i
? In calculating impervious surface,pavers on a sand bed may be counted as
50 percent impervious and wood decks with gaps between deck boards
may be counted as permeable if over bare soil or loose gravel. Pervious
concrete and asphalt may be counted as per manufacturer's specifications.
To calculate the net impervious surface, multiply the area of the pavement
I by the percentage of imperviousness.
I
The City may determine the percentage of imperviousness for pavements,
such as compacted gravel, that are not specified here.
41550 ft' Walkway
combined
impervious
area Patio a wa
m<
1 F36
Driveway
Maximum amount of impervious surface is 35%. With a 13,000 square foot lot(65,x200'),
4,550 square feet of combined impervious surface is allowed.
iFigure 4. Illustration of maximum impervious surface.
c. Incentives to provide shoreline vegetation. The maximum amount of
1 impervious surface area can be increased if native vegetation, including
trees and shrubs, is included along the shoreline. For every five feet of
vegetation depth (measured perpendicular to the shoreline) added along
the OHWM, the percentage of total impervious surface area can increase
by 2 percent,up to a maximum of 50 percent for total impervious surface
area. Twenty-five percent of the native vegetated area may be left open
for views and access.
1 All property owners who obtain approval for increase in the impervious
surface cover in exchange for planting native vegetation must prepare, and
agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation management plan prepared by a
qualified professional and approved by the Shoreline Administrator that:
i. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs
and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
ii. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
iii. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after
approval by the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded covenant
shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
I
d. If there is no bulkhead, or if a bulkhead is removed, a small waterfront
deck or patio can be placed along the shoreline provided:
Page 90 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i. Waterfront deck or patio covers less than 25 percent of the shoreline
frontage (width of lot measured along shoreline) and native vegetation
covers a minimum of 75 percent of the shoreline frontage.
ii. Within 25 feet of the shoreline, for every 1 square foot of waterfront
deck or patio, 3 square feet of vegetated area shall be provided along
the shoreline.
iii. The total area of the waterfront deck or patio along the shoreline shall
not exceed 400 square feet.
iv. The deck or patio is set back 5 feet from the OHWM.
v. The deck or patio is no more than 2 feet above grade and is not
covered
All property owners who obtain approval for a waterfront deck or patio in
exchange for removing a bulkhead and retaining or planting native
vegetation must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by
the Shoreline Administrator that:
i. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan
ii. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs
and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
iii. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
iv. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after
approval by the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded
covenant shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
Lots with no bulkhead or if bulkhead is removed
Deck can cover 25%of frontage
OHWM i if native vegetation covers the
rest of the 75%of frontage
s -- Deck does not exceed 400 ft'
---Vegetated area must equal 3
times the area of the deck or patio
- beck must he set back 5'from OHWM
Figure 5. Waterfront deck bonus for lots with no bulkhead or if bulkhead is removed.
3. For new development on previously undeveloped lots, any existing native
vegetation shall be retained along the shoreline to 20 feet from the OHWM. If
little or no native vegetation exists on the previously undeveloped lot, native
Chapter 5 -Shoreline Use Provisions Page 91
vegetation shall be planted along the shoreline to 20 feet from the OHWM.
25 percent of the required vegetated area can be cleared or thinned for view
maintenance and waterfront access,provided 75 percent of the area remains
vegetated. Invasive species may be removed, vegetation trimmed, and trees
"limbed up" from the bottom to eye level to provide views. In the 25 percent
cleared area, pathways for access to the water are allowed.
Property owners must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the
Shoreline Administrator that:
a. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan
b. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and
groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
c. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
d. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after approval
of the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
Property owners who provide more native vegetation than the minimum
required can apply any additional vegetation over 20 feet to take advantage of
the incentives described in subsection c.2.c above. For example, if 30 feet of
vegetation is provided, 10 feet can be applied to the calculations described in
subsection c.2.c above, for a total increase in impervious surface area of 4%.
New development on previously undeveloped lots
�On previously undeveloped
y lots,retain native vegetation Pathway for access to water and some
` from the OHWM over 75%
OHWM of the area clearing for view maintenance allowed of over 25%of required'vegetated'area
Deck
.�. length: \
Average of the setbacks of existing adjacent
dwelling units with a minimum setback of 75'
Decks,lawn,and landscaping allowed
between native vegetation and house
Figure 6. Standards for new development on previously undeveloped lots.
a. Maximum building footprint area: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
b. Height: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as amended.
Page 92 Kent Shoreline Master Program
c. Also see regulations for"Shoreline Stabilization"and "Docks and Floats"
in Chapter 4 for those structures.
4. For the purposes of maintaining visual access to the waterfront, the following
standards apply to accessory uses, structures, and appurtenances for new and
existing residences.
a. Fences:
i. Fences within 75 feet of the OHWM shall be no more than 4 feet high
when separating two residential lots.
ii. Fences within 75 feet of the OHWM shall be no more than 6 feet high l
when separating a residential lot from public lands or community park.
iii. Fences aligned roughly parallel to the shoreline and within 75 feet of
the OHWM shall be no more than 4 feet high and shall be set back at
least 25 feet from the OWHM. 1
iv. Fences along a property line running roughly perpendicular to the I
shoreline may extend to the OHWM.
v. The opaque portions (e.g.,boards or slats) of a fence must not cover
more than 60 percent of the fence. That is,when looking at a fence,
not more than 60 percent of it may be opaque and at least 40 percent of
the fence must be open. Chain link fences are not permitted within 75
feet of the OHWM.
Park f
1
Fence adjacent to
park may be Agra
up to 6'high—, patio
Fence:4' Residential
high maximum ` ,property
Figure 7. Fence standards for residential development on lakes.
b. Garages and pavements for motorized vehicles (drives and parking areas) _
shall be set back at least 75 feet from the OHWM.
5. Accessory uses and appurtenant structures not addressed in the regulations
above shall be subject to the same conditions as primary residences.
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 93
�Z
i
I
6. The creation of new residential lots within shoreline jurisdiction on lakes shall
be prohibited unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the provisions of
this SMP, including setback and size restrictions, can be met on the proposed
lot. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The residence can be built in conformance with all applicable setbacks and
development standards in this SMP.
b. Adequate water, sewer,road access, and utilities can be provided.
I c. The intensity of development is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan.
d. The development will not cause flood or geological hazard to itself or
other properties.
In addition,new residential development on new lots that contain intact native
1 vegetation shall conform to the regulations of c.3. above. (See also
Vegetation Conservation standards section in Chapter 3 Section 11).
7. The storm water runoff for all new or expanded pavements or other
impervious surfaces shall be directed to infiltration systems in accordance
with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended.
8. See the Chapter 3 Section B.11 for regulations related to clearing, grading,
and conservation of vegetation.
Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers and Streams
9. Table 9 below is a summary of regulations for Residential Properties within
I
shoreline jurisdiction on rivers or streams:
Table 9. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction
on Rivers or Streams
I Regulation:
Standard Minimum Building Setback
i
Green River 140 feet'
Big Soos Creek 200 feet'
Springbrook Creek NA'
Jenkins Creek NA'
Standard Minimum Deck Setback 120 feet
Standard Maximum Height See Kent
Zoning Code
This setback is established on the Green River to allow for levee reconstruction and
accompanying shoreline restoration. Buildings existing prior to the adoption of this
SMP are considered an allowed and conforming use(see 10.a.i below).
' The City's Shoreline Administrator may reduce this setback on lots existing prior to
the adoption of this SMP if it finds that such a setback prevents the development of
a single-family residence(see 10.a.ii below).
3 Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek do not have residential properties along the
shoreline, nor does the zoning allow for future residential structures.
Page 94 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
10. New residential development within shoreline jurisdiction on rivers and
streams shall adhere to the following standards:
a. Setbacks: I
i. Buildings on the Green River: All covered or enclosed structures shall
be set back a minimum of 140 feet to allow for levee reconstruction 1
and environmental restoration. The City's Shoreline Administrator f
may revise this setback in accordance with levee reconstruction
design. (See Chapter 3 Section B.l.c.7)
ii. Buildings on Big Soos Creek: Set back all covered or enclosed
structures a minimum of two hundred(200) feet inland from the
OHWM. Where the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that an
existing site does not provide sufficient area to locate the residence
entirely landward of the setback,the City's Shoreline Administrator
may allow the residence to be located closer to the OHWM, provided
all other provisions of this SMP are met and impacts are mitigated.
iii. Patios and decks: Uncovered patios or decks no.higher than 2 feet
above grade may extend up to within 120 feet of the OHWM.
b. Maximum building footprint area: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
c. Maximum amount of impervious surface: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
d. Height: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as amended.
11. Also see regulations for"Shoreline Stabilization"and"Docks and Floats" in
Chapter 4 for those structures. 1
12. For the purposes of maintaining visual access to the waterfront, the following l
standards apply to accessory uses, structures, and appurtenances for new and i
existing residences.
a. Fences: All streams shall have a wildlife-passable fence installed at the
edge of the required SMP setback. Fencing shall consist of split rail cedar
fencing(or other nonpressure treated materials approved by the City's
Shoreline Administrator). The fencing shall also include sensitive area
signage at a rate of one (1) sign per lot, or one (1) sign per one hundred '
(100) feet and along public right-of-way, whichever is greater.
b. Garages and pavements for motorized vehicles (drives and parking areas)
shall be set back at least 200 feet from the OHWM.
13. The storm water runoff for all new or expanded pavements or other
impervious surfaces shall be directed to infiltration systems in accordance
with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
14. The creation of new residential lots within shoreline jurisdiction on rivers and ,
streams shall be prohibited unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the
L
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 95
provisions of this SMP, including setback and size restrictions, can be met on
the proposed lot. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The residence can be built in conformance with all applicable setbacks and
development standards in this SMP.
b. Adequate water, sewer,road access, and utilities can be provided.
c. The intensity of development is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan.
d. The development will not cause flood or geological hazard to itself or
other properties.
In addition,new residential development on new lots that contain intact native
vegetation shall conform to the regulations of c.3. above. (See also Chapter 3
Section B.11).
15. See Chapter 3 Section B.11 for regulations related to clearing, grading, and
conservation of vegetation.
I
1
i
I
i
Page 96 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
9. Transportation
a. Applicability
Transportation facilities are those structures and developments that aid in land and
water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and
highways, bridges and causeways,bikeways, trails,railroad facilities, airports,
heliports, and other related facilities.
The various transport facilities that can impact the shoreline cut across all
environmental designations and all specific use categories. The policies and
regulations identified in this section pertain to any project, within any
environment, that is effecting some change in present transportation facilities.
b. Policies
1. Circulation system planning on shorelands should include systems for
pedestrian,bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation
planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses that
are consistent with the SMP.
2. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines and should be
constructed in a manner compatible with the natural character, resources, and
ecology of the shoreline.
3. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned, they should be reused
for water-dependent use or public access.
c. Regulations
General
1. Development of all new and expanded transportation facilities in shoreline
jurisdiction shall be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and i
applicable capital improvement plans. 1
2. All development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall be
conditioned with the requirement to mitigate significant adverse impacts 1
consistent with Chapter 3 Section BA of this SMP. Development of new or
expanded transportation facilities that cause significant ecological impacts
shall not be allowed unless the development includes shoreline ,
mitigation/restoration that increases the ecological functions being impacted
to the point where:
a. Significant short- and long-term risks to the shoreline ecology from the 1
development are eliminated.
b. Long-term opportunities to increase the natural ecological functions and i
processes are not diminished.
If physically feasible, the mitigation/restoration shall be in place and
functioning prior to project impacts. The mitigation/restoration shall include a
i
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 97 i
i
monitoring and adaptive management program that describes monitoring and
enhancement measures to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time.
Location
3. New nonwater-dependent transportation facilities shall be located outside
shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. In determining the feasibility of a non-
shoreline location, the City's Shoreline Administrator will apply the definition
of"feasible" in Chapter 6 and weigh the action's relative public costs and
i
benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
4. New transportation facilities shall be located and designed to prevent or to
minimize the need for shoreline protective measures such as riprap or other
i bank stabilization, fill,bulkheads, groins,jetties, or substantial site grading.
Transportation facilities allowed to cross over water bodies and wetlands shall
utilize elevated, open pile, or pier structures whenever feasible. All bridges
must be built high enough to allow the passage of debris and provide three
feet of freeboard above the 100-year flood level.
5. Roads and railroads shall be located to minimize the need for routing surface
waters into and through culverts. Culverts and similar devices shall be
f designed with regard to the 100-year storm frequencies and allow continuous
l fish passage. Culverts shall be located so as to avoid relocation of the stream
channel.
6. Bridge abutments and necessary approach fills shall be located landward of
wetlands or the OHWM for water bodies without wetlands; provided,bridge
piers may be permitted in a water body or wetland as a conditional use.
Design/Construction/Maintenance
7. All roads and railroads, if permitted parallel to shoreline areas, shall provide
J buffer areas of compatible, self-sustaining vegetation. Shoreline scenic drives
and viewpoints may provide breaks periodically in the vegetative buffer to
allow open views of the water.
8. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall include
provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate
as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator. Circulation planning
and projects shall support existing and proposed shoreline uses that are
consistent with the SMP.
9. Transportation and primary utility facilities shall be required to make joint use
of rights-of-way and to consolidate crossings of water bodies if feasible,
where adverse impact to the shoreline can be minimized by doing so.
10. Fills for development of transportation facilities are prohibited in water bodies
and wetlands; except, such fill may be permitted as a Conditional Use when
all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and the
transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with this
SMP.
Page 98 Kent Shoreline Master Program
11. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall not diminish
but may modify public access to the shoreline.
12. Waterway crossings shall be designed to provide minimal disturbance to {
banks.
13. All transportation facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to
contain and control all debris, overburden,runoff, erosion, and sediment I
generated from the affected areas. Relief culverts and diversion ditches shall
not discharge onto erodible soils, fills, or sidecast materials without
appropriate BMPs, as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator.
14. All shoreline areas disturbed by construction and maintenance of
transportation facilities shall be replanted and stabilized with native, drought-
tolerant, self-sustaining vegetation by seeding,mulching, or other effective
means immediately upon completion of the construction or maintenance
activity. Such vegetation shall be maintained by the agency or developer
constructing or maintaining the road until established. The vegetation
restoration/replanting plans shall be as approved by the City's Shoreline
Administrator.
Green River
15.New transportation and utility improvements near the Green River shall be set
back sufficiently, as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator, to
accommodate planned levee and shoreline restoration improvements.
16. Along the Green River shoreline:
a. Roads extending along the shoreline shall be developed as scenic
boulevards for slow-moving traffic;
b. Roads extending along the shoreline shall provide a trail system separated
from the roadway; {
c. All lots and buildings must have road access without using scenic and
recreational roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Plan.
d. Development shall not include street connections to scenic and `
recreational roads;
e. Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed
development to use a scenic or recreational road for access; and
f. Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed 1
development to use a scenic or recreational road for access.
g. Development consistent with this SMP may be allowed landward of Green j
River Road because the road prevents active channel movement and l
flooding and therefore is not within the channel migration zone.
I
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 99
1_
I
I
10. Utilities
a. Applicability
Utilities are services and facilities that produce, transmit, carry, store,process, or
dispose of electric power, gas, water, sewage, communications, oil, and the like.
The provisions in this section apply to primary uses and activities, such as solid
waste handling and disposal, sewage treatment plants and outfalls,public high-
tension utility lines on public property or easements,power generating or transfer
facilities, and gas distribution lines and storage facilities. See Chapter 3 Section
B.10, "Utilities (Accessory)," for on-site accessory use utilities.
Solid waste disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid or hazardous waste on any land area or in the
water.
Solid waste includes solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, rubbish,
ashes, industrial wastes,wood wastes and sort yard wastes associated with
1 commercial logging activities, swill, demolition and construction wastes,
abandoned vehicles and parts of vehicles,household appliances and other
discarded commodities. Solid waste does not include sewage, dredge material,
+ agricultural wastes, auto wrecking yards with salvage and reuse activities, or
wastes not specifically listed above.
b. Policies
l. New utility facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline
protection works.
2. Utility facilities and corridors should be located so as to protect scenic views,
such as views of the Green River from the Green River Trail. Whenever
possible, such facilities should be placed underground, or alongside or under
bridges.
3. Utility facilities and rights-of-way should be designed to preserve the natural
! landscape and to minimize conflicts with present and planned land uses.
i
c. Regulations
1. All utility facilities shall be designed and located to minimize harm to
shoreline ecological functions,preserve the natural landscape, and minimize
conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses while meeting the
needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth. The
City's Shoreline Administrator may require the relocation or redesign of
proposed utility development in order to avoid significant ecological impacts.
2. Utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants or parts of
those facilities that are nonwater-oriented shall not be allowed in shoreline
areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is available.
In such cases, significant ecological impacts shall be avoided.
Page 100 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
3. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines,
cables, and pipelines, shall be located to cause minimum harm to the shoreline
and shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Utilities 3
shall be located in existing rights-of-way and utility easements whenever
possible. New or expanded utilities installed near the Green River shall be set
back and designed to accommodate planned levee and shoreline restoration
improvements.
4. Development of pipelines and cables on shorelines,particularly those running +
roughly parallel to the shoreline, and development of facilities that may
require periodic maintenance or that cause significant ecological impacts shall
not be allowed unless no other feasible option exists. When permitted, those
facilities shall include adequate provisions to protect against significant
ecological impacts.
5. Restoration of ecological functions shall be a condition of new and expanded
nonwater-dependent utility facilities.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required.
The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
specific circumstances of utility development.
6. Utility development shall, through coordination with local government
agencies,provide for compatible,multiple uses of sites and rights-of-way.
Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems and other forms of
recreation and transportation,providing such uses will not unduly interfere
with utility operations, endanger public health and safety or create a
significant liability for the owner.
7. New solid waste disposal sites and facilities are prohibited. Existing solid
waste disposal and transfer facilities in shoreline jurisdiction shall not be j
added to or substantially reconstructed. 1
8. New electricity, communications and fuel lines shall be located underground,
except where the presence of bedrock or other obstructions make such {
placement infeasible or if it is demonstrated that above-ground lines would `
have a lesser impact. Existing above ground lines shall be moved
underground during normal replacement processes.
9. Transmission and distribution facilities shall cross areas of shoreline
jurisdiction by the shortest,most direct route feasible,unless such route would
cause significant environmental damage.
10. Utility developments shall be located and designated so as to avoid or minimize
the use of any structural or artificial shoreline stabilization or flood protection I
works.
11. Utility production and processing facilities shall be located outside shoreline
jurisdiction unless no other feasible option exists. Where major facilities must
be placed in a shoreline area, the location and design shall be chosen so as not J
I
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 101
1
I
to destroy or obstruct scenic views, and shall avoid significant ecological
impacts.
12. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic
life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited,unless no other
feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted by
Conditional Use, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of
the water body.
13. Filling in shoreline jurisdiction for development of utility facility or line
purposes is prohibited, except where no other feasible option exists and the
proposal would avoid or minimize adverse impacts more completely than
other methods. Permitted crossings shall utilize pier or open pile techniques.
l
14. Power-generating facilities shall require a Conditional Use permit.
15. Clearing of vegetation for the installation or maintenance of utilities shall be
! kept to a minimum and upon project completion any disturbed areas shall be
ll restored to their pre-project condition.
,I 16. Telecommunication towers, such as radio and cell phone towers, are
specifically prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
17. Utilities that need water crossings shall be placed deep enough to avoid the
need for bank stabilization and stream/riverbed filling both during
construction and in the future due to flooding and bank erosion that may occur
I over time. Boring, rather than open trenching, is the preferred method of
utility water crossing.
i
I
i
I
Page 102 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
i
CHAPTER 6
Definitions
Accessory use. Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or development.
Adjacent lands. Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline jurisdiction).
Administrator. The City of Kent Planning Director or his/her designee, charged with the
responsibility of administering the Shoreline Master Program.
Anadromous. Fish species, such as salmon,which are born in fresh water, spend a large part of
their lives in the sea, and return to freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Appurtenance. A structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark
and also of the perimeter of any wetland. On a state-wide basis,normal appurtenances include a
garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fences and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty
cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the
ordinary high water mark. (WAC 173-27-040(2)(g))
Aquatic. Pertaining to those areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
IAquaculture. The cultivation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals or plants, including the
incidental preparation of these products for human use.
Archaeological. Having to do with the scientific study of material remains of past human life
and activities.
I
Associated Wetlands. Wetlands that are in proximity to and either influence, or are influenced
by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act. Refer to WAC 173-
22-030(1).
Average grade level. See"base elevation."
Base elevation. The average elevation of the approved topography of a parcel at the midpoint on
each of the four sides of the smallest rectangle that will enclose the proposed structure, excluding
eaves and decks.
Beach. The zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves and wind currents,
extending landward to the shoreline.
I
Beach enhancement/restoration. Process of restoring a beach to a state more closely resembling
a natural beach,using beach feeding, vegetation, drift sills and other nonintrusive means as
applicable.
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 103
I
I
Berm. A linear mound or series of mounds of sand and/or gravel generally paralleling the water -
at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. Also, a linear mound used to screen an adjacent
activity, such as a parking lot, from transmitting excess noise and glare.
Bioengineering. The use of biological elements, such as the planting of vegetation, often in
conjunction with engineered systems, to provide a structural shoreline stabilization measure with j
minimal negative impact to the shoreline ecology. f
Biofiltration system. A stormwater or other drainage treatment system that utilizes as a primary
feature the ability of plant life to screen out and metabolize sediment and pollutants. Typically,
biofiltration systems are designed to include grassy swales,retention ponds and other vegetative
features.
I
Bog. A wet, spongy,poorly drained area which is usually rich in very specialized plants,
contains a high percentage of organic remnants and residues, and frequently is associated with a
spring, seepage area, or other subsurface water source. A bog sometimes represents the final
stage of the natural process of eutrophication by which lakes and other bodies of water are very
slowly transformed into land areas.
i
Buffer or buffer area. See definition in the Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805,
codified as Section 11.06.160 KCC.
Building height. See definition in Section 15.02.065 KCC, as amended.
Building Setback. An area in which structures, including but not limited to sheds,homes
buildings, and awnings shall not be permitted within, or allowed to project into. It is measured
horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark. 4
Bulkhead. A solid wall erected generally parallel to and near the ordinary high water mark for
the purpose of protecting adjacent uplands from waves or current action.
Buoy. An anchored float for the purpose of mooring vessels.
Channel. An open conduit for water, either naturally or artificially created; does not include
artificially created irrigation,return flow, or stockwatering channels.
Channel Migration Zone (CMZ). The area along a river within which the channel(s) can be I
reasonably predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring
hydrological and related processes when considered with the characteristics of the river and its {
surroundings. For locations of CMZ,refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,Figure No. 10.2
in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
City. The City of Kent Washington.
Clearing. The destruction or removal of vegetation ground cover, shrubs and trees including
root material removal and topsoil removal.
Compensatory Mitigation. See definition in the Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805,
codified as Section 11.06.180 KCC.
Page 104 Kent Shoreline Master Program
1
Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive plan means the document,including maps adopted by the
city council, that outlines the City's goals and policies related to management of growth, and
prepared in accordance with RCW 36.70A. The term also includes adopted subarea plans
prepared in accordance with RCW 36.70A.
Conditional use. A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
Conditional Use; or a use development, or substantial development that is not specifically
classified within the SMP and is therefore treated as a Conditional Use.
1 Covered moorage. Boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a roof to protect the vessel.
Critical Areas Regulations. Refers to the City of Kent's Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance
No. 3805, codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC.
( Current deflector. An angled stub-dike, groin, or sheet-pile structure which projects into a stream
channel to divert flood currents from specific areas, or to control downstream current alignment.
Department of Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology.
Development. A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; dumping; filling;removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of
piling;placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter
90.58 RCW at any stage of water level. (RCW 90.58.030(3)(d).)
Development regulations. The controls placed on development or land uses by the City of Kent,
including,but not limited to, zoning ordinances, Critical Areas Regulations, all portions of a
' shoreline master program other than goals and policies approved or adopted under Chapter 90.58
RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan
J ordinances, together with any amendments thereto.
1 Dock. A structure which abuts the shoreline and is used as a landing or moorage place for craft.
1 A dock may be built either on a fixed platform or float on the water. See also "development"
and"substantial development."
Dredging. Excavation or displacement of the bottom or shoreline of a water body.
Ecological functions (or shoreline functions). The work performed or role played by the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and
terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem.
( Ecosystem-wide processes. The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a
specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated
ecological functions.
EIS. Environmental Impact Statement.
IChapter 6—Definitions Page 105
Emergency. An unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment
which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the SMP.
Emergency construction is construed narrowly as that which is necessary to protect property and
facilities from the elements. Emergency construction does not include development of new
permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures
are deemed by the Administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation,
upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit
which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW or this
SMP, shall be obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of
Chapter 90.58 RCW and this SMP. As a general matter, flooding or seasonal events that can be
anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. (RCW
90.58.030(3eiii).)
Enhancement. Alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its characteristics,
functions, or processes without degrading other existing ecological functions.
Environment designation(s). See "shoreline environment designation(s)."
Erosion. The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces.
Exemption. Certain specific developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt from the
definition of substantial developments and are therefore exempt from the substantial
development permit process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial
development provisions of the SMA must still be carried out in compliance with policies and
standards of the SMA and the local SMP. Conditional Use and variance permits may also still be
required even though the activity does not need a substantial development permit. (RCW
90.58.030(3e); WAC 173-27-040.) (See also "development" and "substantial development.")
Fair market value. The open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and
facilities, and purchase of the goods, services, and materials necessary to accomplish the
development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the
development from start to finish, including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility
usage, transportation, and contractor overhead and profit. The fair market value of the
development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found labor,
equipment, or materials.
Feasible. An action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, is
feasible when it meets all of the following conditions:
(a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the
past, or studies or tests have demonstrated that such approaches are currently available and
likely to achieve the intended results.
(b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose.
(c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended use.
In cases where these regulations require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of
proving infeasibility is on the applicant.
Page 106 Kent Shoreline Master Program
In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and
public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
Fill. The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material
to an area waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner
that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
Floats. An anchored, buoyed object.
Floodplain. A term that is synonymous with the one hundred-year floodplain and means that
land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a
reasonable method which meets the objectives of the SMA.
Floodway. Those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of
a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under
normal condition,by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of
vegetative groundcover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can
reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by
or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of
the state.
Gabions. Structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly together
usually by wire mesh so as to form blocks or walls. Sometimes used on heavy erosion areas to
retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties.
Geologically hazardous areas. Lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and
topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of potential risk of
landslides, erosion, or seismic or volcanic activity; and areas characterized by geologic and
hydrologic conditions that make them vulnerable to contamination of groundwater supplies
through infiltration of contaminants to aquifers.
Geotechnical report (or geotechnical analysis). A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a
qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the
affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or
processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development
on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed
development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate
potential site-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed development, including the
potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical reports shall
conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified engineers or
geologists who are knowledgeable about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes.
If the project is in a Channel Migration Zone, then the report must be prepared by a professional
with specialized experience in fluvial geomorphology in addition to a professional engineer.
(Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline
Inventory and Analysis Report).
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 107
+r-
Grade. See"base elevation." I .
Grading. The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand,rock, gravel, sediment, or other j
material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. 1
Grassy Swale. A vegetated drainage channel that is designed to remove various pollutants from
storm water runoff through biofiltration.
Guidelines. Those standards adopted by the Department of Ecology into the Washington r
Administrative Code(WAC) to implement the policy of Chapter 90.58 RCW for regulation of
use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of shoreline master programs. Such standards
also provide criteria for local governments and the Department of Ecology in developing and
amending shoreline master programs. The Guidelines may be found under WAC 173-26.
Habitat. The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.
Height. See"building height."
Hydrological. Referring to the science related to the waters of the earth including surface and
ground water movement, evaporation and precipitation. Hydrological functions in shoreline
include,water movement, storage, flow variability, channel movement and reconfiguration,
recruitment and transport of sediment and large wood, and nutrient and pollutant transport,
removal and deposition.
KCC. Kent City Code, including any amendments thereto.
Letter of exemption. A letter or other official certificate issued by the City to indicate that a
proposed development is exempted from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit as
provided in WAC 173-27-050. Letters of exemption may include conditions or other provisions
placed on the proposal in order to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and
this SMP. l
Littoral. Living on, or occurring on, the shore.
Littoral drift. The mud, sand, or gravel material moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore
zone by waves and currents. I
Low Impact Development (LID)Technique. A stormwater management and land development
strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-
site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely
mimic pre-development hydrologic functions. Additional information may be found in the City
of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended, in addition to the 2005 Puget Sound Action
Team LID Manual, as amended.
May. Refers to actions that are acceptable,provided they conform to the provisions of this SMP
and the SMA.
I_
Page 108 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I� r
Mitigation (or mitigation sequencing). The process of avoiding, reducing, or compensating for
the environmental impact(s) of a proposal, including the following,which are listed in the order
I of sequence priority, with(a)being top priority.
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
I
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation
by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
1 (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
I
(f) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
Moorage facility. Any device or structure used to secure a boat or a vessel, including piers,
docks, piles, lift stations or buoys.
l Moorage pile. A permanent mooring generally located in open waters in which the vessel is tied
up to a vertical column to prevent it from swinging with change of wind.
I
Multi family dwelling (or residence). A building containing two or more dwelling units,
including but not limited to duplexes, apartments and condominiums.
Must. A mandate; the action is required.
r Native Plants or Native Vegetation. These are plant species indigenous to the Puget Sound
region that could occur or could have occurred naturally on the site, which are or were
indigenous to the area in question..
�I
Nonconforming development. A shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of this SMP provision, and which no longer conforms to
the applicable shoreline provisions.
Nonpoint pollution. Pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land-based
or water-based activities,including,but not limited to, atmospheric deposition, surface water
runoff from agricultural lands,urban areas, or forest lands, subsurface or underground sources,
or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System program.
Nonwater-oriented uses. Those uses that are not water-dependent,water-related, or
water-enjoyment.
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 109
Normal maintenance. Those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully
i
established condition. See also "normal repair."
Normal protective bulkhead. Those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or
near, and parallel to,the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing
single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. ;)
Normal repair. To restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, 1
including,but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance,
within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes J
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. (WAC 173-27-040.) See also
"normal maintenance" and"development."
Off-site replacement. To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from
the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity.
OHWM. See "ordinary high water mark."
Ordinary high water mark(OHWM). That mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so
long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the
abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may
naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by
the City or the Department of Ecology. (RCW 90.58.030(2)(b)).
Periodic. Occurring at regular intervals.
Person. An individual,partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative,public or
municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local governmental unit however designated.
(RCW 90.58.030(ld).)
Pier element. Sections of a pier including the pier walkway, the pier float, the ell, etc.
Provisions. Policies,regulations, standards, guideline criteria or designations.
Public Access. Public access is the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the
water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from
adjacent locations. (WAC 173-26-221(4)).
Public interest. The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the
affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected such as an
effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or
development.
RCW. Revised Code of Washington.
h
Residential development. Development which is primarily devoted to or designed for use as a '
dwelling(s).
Page 110 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
Restore. To significantly re-establish or upgrade shoreline ecological functions through
measures such as revegetation,removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or
j treatment of toxic sediments. To restore does not mean returning the shoreline area to aboriginal
or pre-European settlement condition.
Revetment. Facing of stone, concrete, etc.,built to protect a scarp, embankment, or shore
structure against erosion by waves or currents.
Riparian. Of, on, or pertaining to the banks of a river.
Riprap. A layer, facing, or protective mound of stones placed to prevent erosion, scour, or
sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so used.
Riverbank. The upland areas immediately adjacent to the floodway, which confine and conduct
flowing water during non-flooding events. The riverbank, together with the floodway, represents
the river channel capacity at any given point along the river.
Runoff. Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows along the ground surface
following the topography.
Sediment. The fine grained material deposited by water or wind.
SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act). SEPA requires state agencies, local governments and
other lead agencies to consider environmental factors when making most types of permit
decisions, especially for development proposals of a significant scale. As part of the SEPA
process an EIS may be required to be prepared and public comments solicited.
ISetback. A required open space, specified in this SMP,measured horizontally upland from and
perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark.
i� Shall. A mandate; the action must be done.
Shorelands. All lands within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction lying upland or higher in
elevation of the OHWM.
Shoreline Administrator. City of Kent Planning Director or his/her designee charged with the
'l responsibility of administering the Shoreline Master Program.
Shoreline areas (and shoreline jurisdiction). The same as "shorelines of the state" and
"shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030.
Shoreline environment designation(s). The categories of shorelines established to provide a
Iuniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline
areas. Shoreline environment designations include: Aquatic, High Intensity, Urban Conservancy
—Low Intensity, Urban Conservancy—Open Space, and Shoreline Residential.
Shoreline functions. See"ecological functions."
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 111
I
S
Shoreline jurisdiction. The term describing all of the geographic areas covered by the SMA,
related rules and this SMP. See definitions of"shorelines", "shorelines of the state", "shorelines
of state-wide significance" and "wetlands." See also the "Shoreline Management Act Scope"
section in the "Introduction" of this SMP.
Shoreline Management Act(SAM). The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 J
RCW, as amended. 1
Shoreline master program, master program, or SMP. This Shoreline Master Program,as I
adopted by the City of Kent and approved by the Washington Department of Ecology.
Shoreline modifications. Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the ll
shoreline area,usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike,breakwater, I
dock,weir, dredged basin, fill,bulkhead, or other shoreline structures. They can include other
actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals. j
Shoreline permit. A substantial development, Conditional Use,revision, or variance permit or J
any combination thereof. 1
Shoreline property. An individual property wholly or partially within shoreline jurisdiction. 1
Shoreline restoration, or ecological restoration. The re-establishment or upgrading of impaired
ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures
including,but not limited to,revegetation,removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal
or treatment of toxic materials. Shoreline restoration does not imply a requirement for returning
the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.
Shoreline sub-unit. An area of the shoreline that is defined by distinct beginning points and end
points by parcel number or other legal description. These sub-units are assigned environment
designations to recognize different conditions and resources along the shoreline. 1
I �
Shorelines. All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except(i) shorelines of state-wide
significance; (ii) shorelines on areas of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow
is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream areas; and
(iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small
lakes.
Shorelines of the state. The total of all"shorelines" and"shorelines of state-wide significance"
within the state. 1
Shorelines Hearings Board(SHB). A six member quasi-judicial body, created by the SMA,
which hears appeals by any aggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline permit, enforcement
penalty and appeals by local government on Department of Ecology approval of shoreline master
programs,rules, regulations, guidelines or designations under the SMA.
Shorelines of state-wide significance. A select category of shorelines of the state, defined in
RCW 90.58.030(2)(e), where special policies apply.
,I
Page 112 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
Should. The particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason,
based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this SMP, against taking the action.
Sign. A board or other display containing words and/or symbols used to identify or advertise a
place of business or to convey information. Excluded from this definition are signs required by
law and the flags of national and state governments.
Significant ecological impact. An effect or consequence of an action if any of the following
apply:
(a) The action measurably or noticeably reduces or harms an ecological function or ecosystem-
wide process.
(b) Scientific evidence or objective analysis indicates the action could cause reduction or harm to
those ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in(a) of this subsection
under foreseeable conditions.
i (c) Scientific evidence indicates the action could contribute to a measurable or noticeable
reduction or harm to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in (a) of
this subsection as part of cumulative impacts, due to similar actions that are occurring or are
likely to occur.
Significant vegetation removal. The removal or alteration of native trees, shrubs, or ground
cover by clearing, grading, cutting,burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes
significant ecological impacts to functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of
invasive,non-native, or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree
J pruning,not including tree topping,where it does not affect ecological functions, does not
constitute significant vegetation removal.
Single-family residence. A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family
including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal
appurtenance.
I
I SMA. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended.
Storm water. That portion of precipitation that does not normally percolate into the ground or
I evaporate but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels, or pipes into a defined surface water
channel or constructed infiltration facility.
Stream. A naturally occurring body of periodic or continuously flowing water where: a) the
mean annual flow is greater than twenty cubic feet per second and b)the water is contained
within a channel. See also "channel."
I
Structure. That which is built or constructed, or an edifice or building of any kind or any piece
of work composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, and includes posts for fences
and signs,but does not include mounds of earth or debris.
i Chapter 6—Definitions Page 113
r
Subdivision. The division or redivision of land, including short subdivision for the purpose of
sale, lease or conveyance. l
Substantial development. Any development which meets the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e).
See also definition of"development" and "exemption".
I
Substantially degrade. To cause damage or harm to an area's ecological functions. An action is
considered to substantially degrade the environment if: 1
(a) The damaged ecological function or functions significantly affect other related functions or I
the viability of the larger ecosystem; or
(b) The degrading action may cause damage or harm to shoreline ecological functions under 1 I
foreseeable conditions; or
(c) Scientific evidence indicates the action may contribute to damage or harm to ecological l
functions as part of cumulative impacts.
Sub-unit. For the purposes of this SMP, a sub-unit is defined as an area of the shoreline that is ,
defined by distinct beginning points and end points by parcel number or other legal description.
These sub-units are assigned environment designations to recognize different conditions and
resources along the shoreline.
Swamp. A depressed area flooded most of the year to a depth greater than that of a marsh and .
characterized by areas of open water amid soft, wetland masses vegetated with trees and shrubs.
Extensive grass vegetation is not characteristic.
Terrestrial. Of or relating to land as distinct from air or water.
Transportation Facilities. A structure or development(s),which aids in the movement of people,
goods or cargo by land, water, air or rail. They include but are not limited to highways,bridges,
causeways,bikeways, trails,railroad facilities, ferry terminals, float plane—airport or heliport
terminals, and other related facilities.
Upland. Generallydescribed as the dry land area above and landward of the ordinary high water
Y Y g
mark.
Utility. A public or private agency which provides a service that is utilized or available to the
general public (or a locationally specific population thereof). Such services may include,but are
not limited to, storm water detention and management, sewer,water, telecommunications, cable,
electricity, and natural gas.
Utilities (Accessory). Accessory utilities are on-site utility features serving a primary use, such i
as a water, sewer or gas line connecting to a residence. Accessory utilities do not carry
significant capacity to serve other users.
�l
Variance. A means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards
set forth in this SMP and not a means to vary a use of a shoreline. Variance permits must be
I
Page 114 Kent Shoreline Master Program
specifically approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City's Hearing Examiner and
the Department of Ecology.
Vessel. Ships,boats,barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for
navigation and do not interfere with normal public use of the water.
Visual Access. Access with improvements that provide a view of the shoreline or water, but do
not allow physical access to the shoreline.
WAC. Washington Administrative Code.
Water-dependent. A use or a portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is
dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-
dependent uses may include fishing,boat launching, swimming, and storm water discharges.
Water-enjoyment. A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as
a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the
use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the
physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,
the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project
must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary
water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to:
• Parks with activities enhanced by proximity to the water.
• Docks, trails, and other improvements that facilitate public access to shorelines of the
state.
• Restaurants with water views and public access improvements.
• Museums with an orientation to shoreline topics.
• Scientific/ecological reserves.
• Resorts with uses open to the public and public access to the shoreline; and any
combination of those uses listed above.
Water-oriented use. A use that is water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment, or a
combination of such uses.
Water quality. The physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction, including
water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological
characteristics. Where used in this SMP,the term "water quantity" refers only to development
and uses regulated under SMA and affecting water quantity, such as impervious surfaces and
storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this SMP, does not mean the
withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through
90.03.340.
I
Water-related use. A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront
location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 115
f
(a) The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment
f
of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or I
(b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses and the I
proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more
convenient.
Weir: A structure generally built perpendicular to the shoreline for the purpose of diverting
water or trapping sediment of other moving objects transported by water.
Wetland or wetlands. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
3805, codified under Section 11.06.530 KCC. r
Wetland Category. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805, I
codified under Section 11.06.533 KCC.
Wetland Delineation. Identification of a wetland boundary pursuant to the Wetland Delineation I
Manual as defined and described in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
3805, codified under Sections 11.06.230 KCC and 11.06.590 KCC. l
Wetlands Rating System. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. I
3805, codified under Section 11.06.580 KCC.
Zoning. The system of land use and development regulations and related provisions of the Kent
City Code, codified under Title 15 KCC, as amended.
In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030, as amended, and Ir
implementing rules shall also apply as used herein.
1
1
1
Page 116 Kent Shoreline Master Program I
I
CHAPTER 7
Administrative Provisions
l
A. Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an administrative system designed to assign
responsibilities.for implementation of this SMP and to outline the process for review of
proposals and project applications. All proposed shoreline uses and development,
including those that do not require a shoreline permit,must conform to the Shoreline
Management Act and to the policies and regulations of this SMP. Where inconsistencies
or conflicts with other sections of the Kent City Code occur, this section shall apply.
B. Substantial Development
Any person wishing to undertake substantial development within the shoreline shall
submit materials as required under Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended and shall apply to the
Administrator for a shoreline permit, as required in this chapter and Chapter 90.58 RCW.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "development" and"substantial development"
are as defined in RCW 90.58.030 or as subsequently amended.
' 1 . Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit
Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial
I i development permit. Such developments still may require a variance or Conditional
Use permit, and all development within the shoreline is subject to the requirements of
this SMP,regardless of whether a substantial development permit is required.
Developments which are exempt from requirement for a substantial development
permit are identified in WAC 173-27-040 or as subsequently amended.
2 Substantial Development Permit Process
a. Applicants shall apply for shoreline substantial development, variance, and
conditional use permits on forms provided by the City.
b. Shoreline substantial development permits are a Process II application and shall
be processed and subject to the applicable regulations of Chapter 12.01 KCC, as
amended. Shoreline conditional use permits and variances are classified as
Process III applications and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 12.01
KCC, as amended.
c. Public notice. A notice of application shall be issued for all shoreline permit
applications as provided for in Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended, excepting that
Chapter 7 -Administrative Provisions Page 117
{
the public comment period for the notice of application for a shoreline permit
shall be not less than thirty(30) days,per WAC 173-27-1 10(2)(e).
d. Application review. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for j
substantial development permits, and recommendations on applications for
conditional use and variance permits based upon: (1) the policies and procedures
of the Shoreline Management Act and related sections of the Washington
Administrative Code; and(2) this SMP.
e. Hearing Examiner action. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for
a shoreline variance and shoreline conditional use permit and make decisions
based upon: (1) this SMP; (2) the policies and procedures of the Shoreline
Management Act and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; (3) I
written and oral comments from interested persons; (4)reports from the
Administrator; and(5) Chapters 2.32 and 12.01 KCC, as amended.
£ Filing with Department of Ecology. All applications for a permit or permit I
revision shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology, as required by WAC
173-27-130 or as subsequently amended.
After City approval of a Conditional Use or variance permit, the City shall submit
the permit to the Department of Ecology for the Department's approval, approval
with conditions, or denial, as provided in WAC 173-27-200. The Department
shall transmit its final decision to the City and the applicant within thirty(30)
calendar days of the date of submittal by the City.
g. Hold on Construction. Each permit issued by the City shall contain a provision
that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until
twenty-one (2 1) days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology,per a
WAC 173-27-190 or as subsequently amended. "Date of filing" of the City's
final decision on substantial development permits differs from date of filing for a
Conditional Use permit or variance. In the case of a substantial development
permit, the date of filing is the date the City transmits its decision on the permit to I
the Department of Ecology. In the case of a variance or Conditional Use permit,
the "date of filing"means the date the Department of Ecology's final order on the
permit is transmitted to the City.
h. Duration of permits. Construction, or the use or activity, shall commence within
two (2) years after approval of the permits. Authorization to conduct
development activities shall terminate within five (5) years after the effective date
of a shoreline permit. The Administrator may authorize a single extension before
the end of either of these time periods,with prior notice to parties of record and
the Department of Ecology, for up to one(1) year based on reasonable factors.
i. Compliance with permit conditions. When permit approval includes conditions,
such conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior
to commencement of a nonstructural activity.
I
I
Page 118 Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Appeals
a. Shoreline Hearings Board. Any decision made by the Administrator on a
substantial development permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a Conditional Use
or variance permit shall be final unless an appeal is made. Persons aggrieved by
the grant, denial,rescission or modification of a permit may file a request for
review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process
established by RCW 90.5 8.180 or as subsequently amended, and with the
regulations of the Shoreline Hearings Board contained in Chapter 46 1-08 WAC
or as subsequently amended. The request for review must be filed with the
Hearings Board within twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing, as defined in
subsection 2.g above.
C. Conditional Use Permits
1 . Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
j a. Purpose. The purpose of a Conditional Use permit is to allow greater flexibility
in varying the application of the use regulations of this SMP in a manner
consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use,
I special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of
Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure
consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this SMP.
Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized
pursuant to WAC 173-27-160.
b. Process and Application. Shoreline conditional use permits are a Process III
application per Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended.
c. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are (1) specifically designated as
i Conditional Uses elsewhere in this SMP, or(2) are not specifically classified as a
Permitted or Conditional Use in this SMP but the applicant is able to demonstrate
consistency with the requirements of WAC 173-27-160 and the requirements for
conditional uses in section C.2 below.
d. In the granting of all Conditional Use permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example,
if conditional use permits were granted to other developments in the area where
similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain
consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Shoreline Conditional Use permits may be granted,provided the applicant can satisfy
the criteria for granting conditional use permits as set forth in WAC 173-27-160 or as
subsequently amended.
Chapter 7 -Administrative Provisions Page 119
i
D. Variances
1 . Shoreline Variances
a. Purpose. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief
from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this SMP
and where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character
or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this SMP
would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline
Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances where a
variance is granted, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public
interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Variances from the use j
regulations of this SMP are prohibited.
b. Application. Shoreline variances are classified as Process III applications per I
Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended.
2. Shoreline Variance Criteria j
Shoreline variance permits may be authorized, provided the applicant can
demonstrate satisfaction of the criteria for granting shoreline variances as set forth in II
WAC 173-27-170. `
3. Revisions to Permits
I
See WAC 173-27-100 for additional information regarding revisions to permits.
When an applicant seeks to revise a shoreline substantial development, conditional
use, or variance permit, the City shall request from the applicant detailed plans and l
text describing the proposed changes in the permit. If the Administrator determines
that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the
revision may be approved,provided it is consistent with Chapter 173-27 WAC, the
SMA, and this SMP. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit"means the
following:
a. No additional over-water construction will be involved except that pier, dock, or
float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent
from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less.
b. Lot coverage and height may be increased a maximum of 10 percent from
provisions of the original permit,provided that revisions involving new structures
not shown on the original site plan shall require a new permit.
c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an application for a
new permit if consistent with the conditions attached to the original permit and
with this SMP.
d. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed.
e. No additional significant adverse environmental impact will be caused by the
project revision.
Page 120 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
i
f. The revised permit shall not authorize development to exceed height, lot
coverage, setback, or any other requirements of this SMP except as authorized
under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof.
If the revision, or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions, will
violate the criteria specified above, the City shall require the applicant to apply for a
new substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit, as appropriate, in
the manner provided for herein.
E. Nonconforming Uses
Nonconforming development shall be defined and regulated according to the provisions of
WAC 173-27-080; excepting that if a nonconforming development is damaged to the
extent of one hundred percent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may
be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the
development was damaged. In order for this replacement to occur, application must be
made for permits within six months of the date the damage occurred, and all restoration
must be completed within two years of permit issuance.
F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and
Changing Conditions in Shoreline Areas
The City will keep on file documentation of all project review actions, including applicant
submissions and records of decisions,relating to shoreline management provisions in this
SMP.
G. Amendments to This Shoreline Master Program
i If the City or Department of Ecology determines it necessary,the City will review
shoreline conditions and update this SMP within seven years of its adoption.
I
H. Severability
If any provision of this SMP, or its application to any person, legal entity, parcel of land,
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this SMP, or its application to other
persons, legal entities,parcels of land, or circumstances shall not be affected.
I
I . Enforcement
See Chapter 1.04 KCC, as amended for additional information regarding the City's
enforcement regulations.
Chapter 7 -Administrative Provisions Page 121
1 . Violations
a. It is a violation of this SMP for any person to initiate or maintain or cause to be
initiated or maintained the use of any structure, land or property within the
shorelines of the City without first obtaining the permits or authorizations
required for the use by this Chapter.
b. It is a violation of this SMP for any person to use, construct, locate, or demolish
any structure, land or property within shorelines of the City in any manner that is
not permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this
SMP,provided that the terms or conditions are explicitly stated on the permit or
the approved plans.
c. It is a violation of this SMP to remove or deface any sign,notice, or order
required by or posted in accordance with this SMP.
d. It is a violation of this SMP to misrepresent any material fact in any application,
plans or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development
authorization.
e. It is a violation of this SMP for anyone to fail to comply with any other
requirement of this SMP.
2. Duty to Enforce
a. It shall be the duty of the Administrator to enforce this Chapter. The
Administrator may call upon the police, fire,health, or other appropriate City
departments to assist in enforcement.
b. Upon presentation of proper credentials, the Administrator or duly authorized
representative of the Administrator may,with the consent of the owner or
occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to lawfully issued inspection r
warrant, enter at reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent
or warrant to perform the duties imposed by this SMP.
c. This SMP shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the l
general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons. I
d. It is the intent of this SMP to place the obligation of complying with its
requirements upon the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the
condition of the land and buildings within the scope of this SMP.
e. No provision of or term used in the SMP is intended to impose any duty upon the
City or any of its officers or employees which would subject them to damages in a
civil action.
3. Investigation and Notice of Violation
a. The Administrator or his/her representative shall investigate any structure,
premises or use which the Administrator reasonably believes does not comply
with the standards and requirements of this SMP.
Page 122 Kent Shoreline Master Program
II
b. If after investigation the Administrator determines that the SMP's standards or
requirements have been violated, the Administrator shall follow the enforcement
provisions of Chapter 1.04 Kent City Code, as amended.
i
Chapter 7 -Administrative Provisions Page 123
I
i
i
I
{
f
I
I
I
I
f
I
i
I
Page 124 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
CHAPTER 8
Shoreline Restoration Plan
A. Introduction
i A jurisdiction's Shoreline Master Program applies to activities in the jurisdiction's
shoreline area. Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values
of the shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law,the proponent of that
activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the
baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be improved
1 over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally, degraded?
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines says:
"master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify
existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and
` identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to
achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make
real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs
that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately
consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs
under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may
flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards."
However, degraded shorelines are not just a result of pre-Shoreline Master Program
activities,but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines
also require that"[1]ocal master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt
development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the
shoreline." While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the
Shoreline Master Program should clearly state that those actions are not exempt from
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the local Shoreline Master Program.
Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking place outside of a
specific local master program.'s jurisdiction(e.g., outside of city limits, outside of the
shoreline area within the city), assembly of out-of-jurisdiction actions,programs and
policies can be essential for understanding how the City fits into the larger watershed
context. The latter is critical when establishing realistic goals and objectives for dynamic
and highly inter-connected environments.
i
The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines were prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology and codified
as WAC 173-26. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58.020)
into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. See http://ww4v.ecy.wa..,ov/programs/sea/sma/guidelines/index.html
for more background.
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 125
1
As directed by the Guidelines, the following discussions provide a summary of baseline
shoreline conditions, lists restoration goals and objectives, and discusses existing or
potential programs and projects that positively impact the shoreline environment. Finally,
anticipated scheduling, funding, and monitoring of these various comprehensive
restoration elements are provided. In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master
Program(with mitigation of project-related impacts) in combination with this Restoration
Plan(for restoration of lost ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project)
should result in a net improvement in the City of Kent's shoreline environment in the long
term.
In addition to meeting the requirements of the Guidelines, this Restoration Plan is also
intended to support the City's or other non-governmental organizations' applications for
grant funding, and to provide the interested public with contact information for the various
entities working within the City to enhance the environment.
f
B. Shoreline Inventory Summary
1 . Introduction
The City conducted a comprehensive inventory of its shoreline jurisdiction in 2008. I
The purpose of the shoreline inventory was to facilitate the City of Kent's compliance
with the State of Washington's Shoreline Management Act(SMA) and updated
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and 1
biological conditions in the shoreline area within City limits, including
recommendations for restoration of ecological functions where they are degraded.
The full Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report is summarized below.
2. Shoreline Boundary I
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain
waters of the state plus their associated"shorelands." Shorelands are defined as:
"those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and
river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject
to the provisions of this chapter...Any county or city may determine that portion {
of a one-hundred-year-floodplainz to be included in its master program as long as l
such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land
extending landward two hundred feet therefrom(RCW 90.58.030)"
1
2 According to RCW 173-220-030, 100-year floodplain is"that land area susceptible to being inundated by stream
derived waters with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.The limit of this area shall
be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the act;"
Page 126 Kent Shoreline Master Program
In addition,rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines
of statewide significance.
Shorelands in the City of Kent include only areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of shoreline jurisdiction waters and any associated wetlands within
shoreline jurisdiction. Waters identified within jurisdiction include the Green River,
Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), Lake Meridian, Jenkins Creek, Big
Soos Creek, Springbrook Creek and the north half of Lake Fenwick. Panther Lake,
the south half of Lake Fenwick, and portions of the Green River at the south end of
the City, which are all located outside the City limits in the City's Potential
Annexation Area(PAA), are also identified.
3. Inventory
i The shoreline inventory is divided into seven main sections: Introduction, Current
Regulatory Framework Summary,Elements of the Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline-
Specific Conditions,Analysis of Ecological Functions and Ecosystem-wide
i Processes, Land Use Analysis, and Shoreline Management Recommendations.
Several segments were established for each of the waterbodies within jurisdiction,
and have been delineated based on existing land use and current location within either
' the City or the PAA. The areas within the PAA that are currently regulated by King
County's SMP include all of Panther Lake, the south half of Lake Fenwick, and
portions of the Green River at the south of the City limits.
a. Land Use and Physical Conditions
i 1. Existing Land Use: Land uses within the City of Kent shoreline area vary
depending on the location within the city. Generally, land uses are defined by
various intensities,which include open space,high intensity, residential and
agricultural. While it is expected that some of the industrial areas along the
Green River Valley may redevelop over time, a majority of the land use
changes will be limited to new residential development on vacant lands and
infill development.
The City's shoreline is zoned into multiple land use categories, most
predominately industrial along the valley floor and single-family residential in
the upland areas. The Green River's shoreline has a variety of uses,including
parks, trails and open spaces, large scale industrial uses such as warehouses
and office buildings,residential areas consisting of single and multi-family
housing, and agricultural activities. Lands surrounding Lake Meridian, Lake
Fenwick and Panther Lake are primarily residential land uses,with some open
space areas. Big Soos Creek is primarily undeveloped shoreline, as is Jenkins
Creek,which is part of the City's watershed. The shoreline of Springbrook
Creek is entirely surrounded by industrial uses.
2. Parks and Open Space/Public Access: The City provides fairly continuous
public access along the Green River with a network of parks,trails, and open
spaces. The public access sites provide for a number of activities, including
fishing, swimming,boating,biking and picnicking. Although there are a few
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 127
i
gaps in the open space connections to the river, the majority of the corridor is I
well-served by public access opportunities.
The Green River Trail is a substantial element of public recreation and open
space, and runs along 10 miles of the river within shoreline jurisdiction. Parks
located along the trail provide parking and public access for trail users. The
parks along the corridor include: Briscoe Park, Three Friends Fishing Hole,
Valley Floor Community Park,Anderson Park, Green River Natural
Resources Area, Van Doren's Landing Park, BMX Park, Russell Woods Park,
Cottonwood Grove,Riverbend Golf Complex, Old Fishing Hole,Riverview
Park, Foster Park and North Green River Park.
There are also a number of other public access areas within shoreline
jurisdiction. These include Lake Meridian Park, Lake Fenwick, Green River
Natural Resources Area (GRNRA) and Panther Lake. Shoreline areas along
Springbrook,Big Soos, and Jenkins Creeks have no public access.
• Lake Meridian Park is a 16-acre park located on the southeast tip of a
primarily residential lake. The park provides a boat launch, swimming
and fishing areas. Future public access along the lake is limited due to the
residential build-out of shoreline.
• Lake Fenwick Park, located on the northern half of the lake, is 140 acres
and provides a boat launch, swimming,picnic areas, fishing, trails and a
disc golf course.
• The GRNRA is a 304-acre wildlife refuge park that serves both as a
stormwater detention and enhanced wetland facility. The park provides a
trail system, viewing towers, and bike paths.
• Panther Lake, located in King County and within the City's PAA,has one
public boat launch located on the southwestern shoreline. However, the
lake is almost completely covered by water lilies which severely limit
recreational opportunities.
• Big Soos Creek does not have any public access within the shoreline area.
However,upstream of the 20 cfs cutoff point the Gary Grant Soos Creek
Park, owned by King County, surrounds the majority of the creek. This
500-acre park provides access to the 7-mile Soos Creek Trail, and also
provides picnic areas.
• Springbrook Creek does not have public access within the shoreline area
other than a viewing opportunity from SW 43rd Street. Upstream from the
20 cfs cutoff point is the 5-acre Springbrook Greenbelt.
• Jenkins Creek public access is strictly prohibited, as this area is part of the
City's protected watershed,Armstrong Springs.
3. Shoreline Modifications: The Green River shoreline is one of the most heavily
modified river systems in the Puget Sound region. As early as the 1850s,
early settlers altered habitats in the lower river valley. A series of levees,
diversion dams, and bank hardening activities permanently altered and
diverted water from historic flow patterns. Through the City of Kent, over 80
percent of the riverbanks are lined with levees or revetments. These prevent
natural geomorphic processes from occurring.
Page 128 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Big Soos Creek does not have any shoreline modifications within the City of
Kent. However,modifications have occurred at both SR 516 and SR 18
highway crossings, each bordering the City. The SR 516 span, estimated at 80
feet long,has a gravel bar on the east side of the creek under the bridge, and
bridge footings are likely armored to prevent erosion. Two SR 18 bridge
spans modify Soos Creek shoreline areas immediately downstream(south) of
Kent shoreline jurisdiction. Modifications include floodplain clearing,
placement of road embankment fill, armoring, footings,pilings, and the bridge
spans. The south span has no pilings and the stream banks are armored with
quarry spalls. The north span includes some concrete piling supports outside
of the active channel and the banks are lined with only gravelly soils. The
floodplain has also been constricted considerably at the SR 18 crossing
location.
Lake Meridian has been altered with a variety of armoring and alteration
types, including piers,boatlifts,boathouses, and moorage covers. It is
estimated that 50 percent of the shoreline is armored,primarily along the
southwest shore, and 90 percent of private residences have a dock. The
largest pier on the lake is owned by the City at Lake Meridian Park.
Lake Fenwick has very minimal shoreline modification within City
jurisdiction. Approximately 350 linear feet of shoreline is armored,mostly in
scattered short sections associated with a small fishing pier,the boardwalk
trail crossing and a boat launch. Additional armoring is found along the
shoreline adjacent to the parking lot, with vertical timbers and with inset steps
for lake access. Other access points with no vegetation are armored with
either timbers or boulders. Small gravel is found along the boat launch area
with pre-cast concrete slabs in the water. In the PAA portion of the lake,
several of the single-family homes found along the lake have a small floating
dock and/or minor shoreline armoring.
The GRNRA pond complex, which serves as a flood and stormwater facility,
is a constructed facility with weirs and culverts.
Springbrook Creek passes underneath SW 43ra Street in a large corrugated
metal culvert. The banks for a short distance on either side of the culvert inlet
are armored with angular boulders. The channel itself is a deep, excavated,
canal-like feature.
Jenkins Creek does not have any shoreline modifications within Kent's
jurisdiction. However, extensive channel modifications exist less than one-
half mile within the City of Covington at the Bonneville Power
Administration property, as well as culverts and other modifications farther
upstream.
Panther Lake does not appear to have any shoreline modifications, with the
exception of the public boat launch.
'i
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 129
The full shoreline inventory includes a more in-depth of discussion of the above I
topics, as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater
utilities, impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others.
b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas
With the exception of Lake Fenwick,Panther Lake and short stretches of Big
Soos and Jenkins Creeks, the shoreline area itself within the City of Kent is
generally deficient in high-quality biological resources and critical areas,
primarily because of the extensive residential and commercial development and
their associated shoreline modifications. The highest-functioning shoreline area is
the Jenkins Creek segment,which has a natural shoreline and is protected for the
City of Kent's watershed. Landslide hazard areas are located along the East and f
West Hill areas, specifically along short stretches of the Green River, along the
northwest end of Lake Meridian, and entirely around Lake Fenwick. Virtually the
entire valley floor is a seismic hazard area.
Wetlands mapped within shoreline jurisdiction include large wetland areas and
scattered small patches along the Green River corridor,many of which are located
within developed industrial and manufacturing areas. Wetland areas include the
following:
• Over 70 acres of wetland along Big Soos Creek
• Small wetlands located around the Lake Meridian fringe and along the south end
• The western shoreline of Lake Fenwick
• Wetlands of the GRNRA
• Springbrook Greenbelt
• Panther Lake and surrounding fringe areas
Important non-shoreline streams in the City include Mill Creek and Garrison
Creek,both tributaries to the Green River, and a second Mill Creek that is
tributary to Springbrook Creek. These streams are used by salmon,but have been
impacted extensively by basin development,resulting in increased peak flows,
unstable and eroding banks, loss of riparian vegetation, and fish and debris
passage barriers. These changes have altered their contributions of sediment,
organic debris, and invertebrates into the Green River. These systems continue to
be targeted for restoration by one or more local or regional restoration groups.
WDFW mapping of Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2007) also indicates the
presence of other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas within and
adjacent to the shoreline area. These include pileated woodpecker breeding areas,
historic and current bald eagle nest locations,bull trout, Chinook salmon, chum l
salmon, coho salmon,pink salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout,
wetlands,urban natural open space, and riparian zones. I
C. Restoration Goals and Objectives
According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(9WA 9)Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
Page 130 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to major engineering
changes, land use changes which have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon
habitat, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and industrial discharges,
erosion, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides (WRIA 9 Steering Committee
2002). The June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report
provides supporting information that validates these claims specifically in the City's
shoreline jurisdiction. The WRIA 9 Near Term Action Agenda established three high
priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery:
"Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River watershed
and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River,Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves several
types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat, restoring degraded
habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water quality and flows.
�i . Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles)to and
from the Upper Green River subwatershed."
The following recommended policy for the lower Green River subwatershed, including
Kent, is also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005).
ti In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and
revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower
Green River corridor should be included in all new developments and re-developments
that occur within 200 feet of the river.
The WRIA 9 restoration goals, in combination with the results of the City's Final
IShoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, the direction of Ecology's Shoreline Master
Program Guidelines, and the City's commitment to support the Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making our Watershed Fit for a King, are the foundation for the following goals and
objectives of the City of Kent's restoration strategy. Although the GreenlDuwanlish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed(WRIA 9)Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat
Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King are
! salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in ecosystem-wide processes and
ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures those processes and functions
i
that benefit all fish and wildlife.
Goal I —Maintain, restore or enhance watershed processes, including sediment,
water, wood, light and nutrient delivery, movement and loss.
Goal 2—Maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat during all life stages and
maintain functional corridors linking these habitats.
Goal 3 —Contribute to conservation and recovery of chinook salmon and other
anadromous fish, focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat
with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically
diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon.
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 131
i
I
1 . System-wide restoration objectives
a. Improve the health of shoreline waterbodies by managing the quality and quantity
of stormwater runoff, consistent at a minimum with the latest Washington l
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Make additional efforts to meet and maintain state and county water
quality standards in contributing systems.
b. Increase quality,width and diversity of native vegetation in protected corridors
and shorelines adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration
pathways for fish and wildlife, food,nest sites, shade,perches, and organic debris.
Strive to control non-indigenous plants or weeds that are proven harmful to native
vegetation or habitats.
c. Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 9 to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a
King.
d. Base local actions and future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local
government activities on the best available science presented in the WRIA 9
scientific foundation and habitat management strategy.
e. Use the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the Plan,
as a source of potential site-specific projects and land use and public outreach
recommendations.
f. Use the start-list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years of
Plan implementation, and to implement start-list actions through local capital
improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities.
g. Seek federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities for various restoration
actions and programs independently or with other WRIA 9 jurisdictions and
stakeholders.
h. Develop a public education plan to inform private property owners in the
shoreline area and in the remainder of the City about the effects of land
management practices and other unregulated activities (such as vegetation
removal,pesticide/herbicide use, car washing) on fish and wildlife habitats.
i. Develop a chemical reduction plan which focuses on reducing the application of
fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides near shoreline waterbodies or tributary
streams and otherwise emphasizes only their localized use.
j. Where feasible,protect, enhance, and restore riparian areas surrounding wetlands I
where functions have been lost or compromised.
2. Green River restoration objectives
a. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by identifying
hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent feasible with
bioengineered stabilization solutions.
I
Page 132 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
I
b. Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and
erosion control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline
processes. Where levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set
back due to infrastructure considerations,maintain and repair them using design
approaches that maximize the use of native vegetation and large woody debris
(LWD).
c. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing
LWD recruitment potential through plantings of trees,particularly conifers, in the
riparian corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs.
d. Improve the health of the Green River by reestablishing and protecting side
channel habitat.
e. Where feasible,re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
3. Lakeshore restoration objectives
a. Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in-water structures through
minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials.
b. Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce populations of non-native aquatic
vegetation.
c. Where feasible, improve the health of lake shorelines by removing bulkheads and
iutilizing bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to improve
i aquatic conditions.
D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and
Programs
The following series of existing projects and programs are generally organized from the
larger watershed scale to the City-scale, including City projects and programs and finally
non-profit organizations that are also active in the City of Kent area. Many of these site-
specific projects are mapped in Appendix C.
1 . Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation
The City was one of 16 members of the WRIA 9 Forum, which participated in
financing and developing the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making Our Watershed Fit for a
King. The Plan includes the City of Kent's implementation commitment in the form
of City Council Resolution 1714, approved November 15,2005 (Appendix B).
The City's preparation of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for City of
Kent's Shorelines: Green River,Big Soos Creek, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick,
Green River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and Jenkins Creek
(The Watershed Company 2008) and this Shoreline Restoration Plan are important
steps toward furthering the goals and objectives of the WRIA 9 Plan. In its
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 133
Resolution,the City committed to, among other things, "using the scientific I
foundation and the habitat management strategy as the basis for local actions
recommended in the plan for future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local
government activities." The City's Resolution also states that the City will use the l
"Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population, and other
actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site specific projects and land
use and public outreach recommendations." The City's Shoreline Master Program
update relies heavily on the science included in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making Our Watershed Fit for a King report and related documents, and incorporates
recommended projects and actions from the WRIA 9 documents. 1
The Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering
Committee 2005), which was adopted by the City, lists a number of programs that can
and do occur in Kent, as well as across the entire watershed, and that would
contribute to the recovery of habitat basin-wide. The 16 WRIA-wide(WW) actions
listed in the Plan and in Table 10 below are programmatic in nature and range from
public education and stewardship to incentives to regulations and regulatory
enforcement. The status of the City's projects and programs that support each of
these actions is provided in Table 10. j
Table 10. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementation in Kent I
Program Program Kent Implementation
WW-No.
1 Conduct Shoreline Stewardship Ongoing. The City has recently discussed
Workshops and Outreach soft shoreline stabilization and shoreline
planting with local residents around Lake
Meridian during a community meeting and
city-wide open houses related to the Shoreline
Master Program update.
2 Increase/Expand Water Conservation The City provides rebates for water-efficient
Incentive Programs washing machines and toilets. Water
conservation education includes: a water
festival targeting 4th and 5th grade students,
ad campaigns, pamphlets,free aerators and
shower timers. Improvements to the City's
website for water conservation are planned.
3 Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care Homeowners have been the City's initial
(NYC) Programs for Landscapers target efforts - no progress to date on
landscapers.
4 Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care The City currently targets two neighborhoods/
Program for Single Family year(-2,000 -4,000 homeowners)for a series I
Homeowners of three, 2-hour workshops on NYC. Over 400
households attended workshops in 2008.
5 Promote the Planting of Native Trees City sponsoring "2009 Trees in 2009" native
plant education program targeting grade l
school kids for 10th consecutive year. Kids
are taught the importance of trees,then given
native bare-root plants to take care of for 6
months and then plant in a City park or at
home.Also, Parks and Public Works sponsor
numerous volunteer native planting events on
Page 134 Kent Shoreline Master Program 1
i
Program Program Kent Implementation
WW-No.
City property and require native plant
landscaping on all restoration projects.
6 Promote Better Volunteer Carwash The City encourages the use of car-wash kits
Practices (inserts in storm drains with pump to direct
effluent to sanitary sewer)during charity
carwash events. City staff supplies the car-
wash kits and also assist with setup and
operation.
7 Increase Public Awareness about What The City is a partner in an annual Water
Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like Festival for elementary students which
i and How to Enjoy Recreating on Them presents a diverse amount of topics related to
water resources. Salmon habitat and
resource protection topics are included.
8 Increase Involvement of Volunteers in Parks and Public Works actively recruit
Habitat Stewardship volunteers for native plant revegetation and
maintenance projects and are considering
implementing volunteer habitat steward
I training program.
1 9 Green/Duwamish Volunteer King County led effort
Revegetation Program
10 Support/Expand the Natural King County led effort. The City of Kent works
Resource/Basin Steward Programs with the Green River Steward on restoration
projects as well as other programs.
l 11 Expand existing incentives and develop The proposed SMP includes incentives for
new incentives for property owners to homeowners to plant along the shoreline of
protect salmon habitat. Lake Meridian, which contains kokanee
salmon.
12 Improve Enforcement of Existing Land The City updated code enforcement
Use and Other Regulations regulations in May 2008 (Ordinance 3881)
increasing efficiency and prompt resolution of
i
code violations.
13 Increase Use of Low Impact The City is anticipating updating its Surface
Development(LID)and Porous Water Design Manual in 2009 to comply with
Concrete DOE's manual. The update will include LID
techniques, the extent of which is unknown at
this time.
Policy 12.b(2) in Chapter 3 of the proposed
SMP encourages the use of LID techniques.
i The City also recently adopted a Cottage
Housing Demonstration Ordinance which
offers a density bonus in exchange for using
LID techniques, including porous concrete.
This will only allow up to two cottage
developments, but will likely lead to adoption
of a permanent ordinance. While it's only one
type of development, it's a first step in
demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of
LID techniques in Kent.
14 Provide Incentives for Developers to The City does not yet provide incentives for
Follow Built GreenTm Checklist Sections Built Green, but will be pursuing development
Benefiting Salmon of a program and policies as budget and staff
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 135
1
Program Program Kent Implementation
WW-No. g p
availability allow in the future. The City offers
discounts on its stormwater utility fee for sites l
that operate infiltration facilities to manage
stormwater runoff.
15 Develop a Coordinated Acquisition The City has targeted parcels for acquisition in
Program for Natural Areas the Drainage Master Plan and WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan that will improve habitat
conditions as well as drainage and flood
storage.
16 Develop Salmon Restoration Tools King County administered program
Consistent with Agricultural Land Uses f
The following recommended project actions are taken from the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan: 1
Making Our Watershed Fit for a King for the lower Green River subwatershed, including Kent.
Table 11. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent
WRIA 9 Project I Kent Implementation Status
Project(s) LG-7- Lower Mill Creek, Riverview(Formerly Green River) Park, Hawley Road Levee, 1
Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24(Both Banks): This
suite of projects would be coordinated on lands that are adjacent to and/or share a floodplain. Overall goals
are to restore habitat along the mainstem and lower sections of Mill Creek and Mullen Slough by:
• Creating off-channel habitat for rearing and flood refugia and over-wintering habitat;
• Reconnecting mainstem and tributaries with portions of the floodplain;
• Setting back levees to improve bank conditions and create shallow water vegetated benches;
• Installing anchored large woody debris; and
• Controlling invasive plant species and planting with native plants.
These projects are being coordinated by the City of Kent, King County, and the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers. Sub-projects include:
Lower Mill Creek Floodplain Wetland and The City is currently completing a feasibility study and
Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation -This 30%design for floodplain wetlands and off channel
project includes restoration of the lower 0.3 habitat restoration. The original side channel design
miles of Mill Creek and adjacent segments of proved to not be feasible. The current feasibility 1
the currently armored riverbank. The project report is analyzing an alternative that will provide off-
would include excavation of off-channel habitat channel habitat during high river flows, enhance
on the right bank of Mill Creek and reshaping riparian habitat, increase low flow rearing habitat for
the stream banks and the mainstem left bank juvenile salmonids, increase wetland areas and
of the Green River. This would create a more increase floodplain storage. The 30% design and
complex channel and aquatic edge habitat that feasibility report will be completed in February 2009.
includes off-channel habitat and large woody l
debris. Nine acres of off-channel and riparian See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
habitat would be created adjacent to lower Mill implementation/SRFB-mill-creek.aspx)
Creek and approximately 1,600 lineal feet of I
lower Mill Creek would be restored. [Note:this Project No. 1 on the Restoration Opportunities map
project originated from the Green/Duwamish (Appendix C)
Ecosystem Restoration Project list]
Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park- In 2008,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed
This project is located opposite from the mouth a design evaluation report which provided a
of Mill Creek, on the right bank of the Green background on the project history, evaluated
River. The project would provide summer alternatives and designs, and provided
Page 136 Kent Shoreline Master Program i
i
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge recommendations on the selected alternatives based
through excavation of an off channel area on cost and habitat value. From this report, design
combined with placement of large woody plans will be completed in 2009 with construction
debris and revegetation. Land is in public anticipated in 2010.
ownership and belongs to the City of Kent.
[Note: this project is also identified as No. 12 See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
by the Duwamish/Green River Ecosystem implementation/SRFB-riverview-park.aspx
Restoration Project)
Project No. 2 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C
Hawley Revetment-This project would set This project is part of the City's long-range plan—no
back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment progress to date.
between river miles 23.5 and 23.3, in order to
achieve a more stable slope angle, create a Project No. 3 on the Restoration Opportunities map
low, vegetated bench, and allow the placement (Appendix C)
of large woody debris. Land is in public
ownership and is immediately downstream of
Riverview Park.
Lower Mullen Slough (Prentice Nursery King County is leading this effort.
Reach) at RM 21.4(Left Bank) -This project
t would improve fish passage and create a Project No. 4 on the Restoration Opportunities map
natural habitat for rearing and refuge from high (Appendix C)
flows in the Green River mainstem by restoring
the mouth of Mullen Slough and connecting it
with a nearby pond to create a new flatter-
gradient meandering outlet. Actions include
improving the channel to eliminate a summer
low flow fish passage blockage, clearing the
site of unnatural debris and Himalayan
i blackberry, planting riparian vegetation, placing
large woody debris, and constructing dendritic,
branched channels for improved water
circulation and habitat diversity.
j Mullen Slough (Slough Mile 1.8-0.3) - Habitat King County is leading this effort.
for rearing and providing refuge from high flows
in the Green River mainstem would be created Project No. 5 on the Restoration Opportunities map
by this project. Restoration along the slough (Appendix C)
would include channel meandering, large
woody debris placement, and riparian
plantings. This project site is upstream from the
Prentice Nursery Reach project(previous sub-
project)and includes about 90 acres from
Highway 516 to the head of the slough.
Lower Mill Creek Future Project-The City of This project is part of the City's long-range plan.
Kent has proposed an additional setback of the
levee near the mouth of Mill Creek and four Project No. 6 on the Restoration Opportunities map
acres of riparian planting. (Appendix C
Project LG-9 -Rosso Nursery Off-Channel The City of Kent received a Salmon Recovery
Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration Funding Board grant to acquire the LG-9 site, but has
Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank): This since transferred those allocated funds to the Lower
project would rehabilitate habitat at the Rosso Green River Property Acquisition (described below).
Nursery site between river miles 20.8 and 20.0 by
constructing an outlet at RM 20.1.Actions would Project No. 7 on the Restoration Opportunities map
include removing fill, excavating off-channel flood (Appendix C
i
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 137
I
I
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status 1
refugium for juvenile rearing habitat, and planting
native wetland and riparian vegetation.
Lower Green River Property Acquisition: The Two of the three parcels were purchased in 2008.
City of Kent transferred funds allocated to purchase The third will be purchased in 2009. Additional grant
of the LG-9 site to purchase of three different funds have been awarded for the next phase which
parcels located north of SR 516 on the south side will include a feasibility study and 30% design. The
of the Green River. While this project is not project will be called Downey Farmstead Restoration. l
technically a numbered project identified in the
WRIA plan, it is consistent with the objectives of the Project No. 8 on the Restoration Opportunities map
WRIA 9 plan. (Appendix C 1
Proiect LG-10 -Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee Setback and Habitat
Rehabilitation) Between RM 20.5 and 16.3: Fish habitat along the Lower Green River would be improved
by these projects, while providing stable bank and levee conditions to protect significant human
infrastructure and development. These projects are being coordinated by local jurisdictions, the Green River
Flood Control Zone District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The majority of the banks in this portion
of the river have been hardened, and trees and other fish-friendly features have been removed to make the
river flow without impediment. Riprap or rock bank protections have reduced fish habitat along this stretch of
the river. Sub-projects in the City of Kent or its UGA include:
Boeing Setback and Restoration Between King County Flood Control District project
RM 18 and 17.1 (Right Bank) -Actions
include reshaping the bankline between the Project No. 9 on the Restoration Opportunities map
upstream end of the Christian Brothers (Appendix C)
Revetment and South 212th Street, widening
the channel cross-section, restoring channel
complexity and meanders, creating a two stage
channel, excavating low benches and alcoves,
installing large woody debris, and planting
native riparian vegetation. The proposed
project is within City of Kent open space, which
has a 200-foot buffer with restricted
development.
Russell Road Upper, Lower and Lowest The City has begun analyzing right-of-way needs for
Setback and Restorations: Implement fish the project and is in the process of identifying funding
friendly, bio-engineered solutions to levee sources. ,
maintenance problems. Set back the levee to l
enable habitat rehabilitation, including Projects No. 10-12 on the Restoration Opportunities
reshaping the bankline, widening the channel map(Appendix C)
cross-section, restoring the channel complexity
and meanders, excavating low benches and
installing large woody debris, and planting
native vegetation.
Project LG-12: -Briscoe Off-Channel Habitat With cooperation from the City of Kent,this project
Rehabilitation Between RM 16.1 and 15.8 (Right would involve removing the armoring on the Briscoe
Bank) meander shoreline, excavating a flood refugium for
juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, installing large
woody debris, and planting native riparian vegetation.
An existing (landlocked) levee on the eastern
boundary of the park would provide continued flood
protection.
Project LG-13: -Acquisition, Levee Setback, King County Flood Control District project—partially
and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and completed.
14.7 (Right Bank): Actions include acquiring
additional right of way along the river-ward edge of Project No. 13 on the Restoration Opportunities map
the business park parking lot between River Miles (Appendix C)
15.3 and14.7 right bank); setting back the I I
Page 138 Kent Shoreline Master Program
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
oversteepened levee; creating bench habitat,
installing large woody debris; and planting native
riparian vegetation. This project would extend
downstream from a levee setback project
completed in the early 2000s.
I
2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
A couple of the projects above in Table 11 were originally identified by the Green-
Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project(ERP), a cooperative effort between 16
local governments, Indian Tribes, the State of Washington,NOAA Fisheries Service,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many
other organizations and private citizens. The ERP generated a list of 45 projects, 29
of which were ultimately incorporated into the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
r Watershed Fit for a King. Funding for ERP implementation comes from a federal
authorization of$113 million under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Two projects related to Meridian Creek and the Lake Meridian outlet were part of the
ERP and have already been implemented (see discussion in Chapter 8 Section D.12
below). One ERP project in shoreline jurisdiction that was not identified in the
WRIA 9 report is described below in Table 12. Another ERP project is the
restoration and enhancement of salmonid rearing and refuge habitat in Garrison Creek
(a tributary of Springbrook Creek), which indirectly is an enhancement of the
Springbrook Creek shoreline.
I
Table 12. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project projects, associated with
Shorelines, in the City of Kent not part of the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King.
I
ERP Project Kent Implementation Status
Project No. 21 - Lake Meridian Outlet Phase I of the project is complete. Phase II will
Relocation: The project goal is to improve construct 2,100 feet of stream channel connecting
instream habitat and anadromous fish habitat Lake Meridian to Soos Creek. Phase III will
between Lake Meridian and Soos Creek. The restore approximately 3 acres of wetlands
project would construct a channel through a associated with the current stream channel.
forested area. The current outlet is located Phase II and III are anticipated to be complete in
adjacent to a two lane road. 2009.
Project No. 14 on the Restoration Opportunities
ma (Appendix C
i
3. King County Flood Control District
The King County Flood Control District(District) was established in 2007 and
expanded on the functions of the former Green River Flood Control Zone District.
The District's main function is to improve flood protection within the County and it
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 139
(1
has a significant list of proposed capital improvement projects aimed at maintaining 1
and improving that protection.
The City of Kent participates in the District through the Advisory and Technical
Committees, which provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, which is
the King County Council. The Mayor of the City of Kent has a permanent seat on the
Advisory Committee, and staff represent the City on the Technical Committee.
In the Green River watershed,many of the proposed projects are located along the
banks of the Green and overlap with projects that are listed within the WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan as well as the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
These overlapping projects, which are named by their historical levee names in the
King County Flood Control District list of Capital Improvement Projects, are located
within the areas designated as Mainstem Maintenance Projects in the Salmon Habitat
Plan and Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Other District Green River levee projects in Kent proposed to be constructed within 1
the next six years include the Briscoe Levee Setback and the Horseshoe Bend Levee
Improvements. These projects, although not included in the programs listed above,
can provide significant improvement to the shoreline of the Green River. These
projects will provide for additional floodplain function and storage as well as salmon
and other fish habitat. The projects can also allow for removal of invasive non-native
plant species along the riverbanks and replanting with native species. The native
species can provide additional shade for the river,which, in the long term,will help to
decrease summertime river water temperatures.
4. Comprehensive Plan Policies
The City of Kent adopted a major update to its Comprehensive Plan on 4 May 2006
pursuant to Growth Management Act requirements. The updated Comprehensive
Plan contains a number of general and specific goals and policies that direct the City !
to permit and condition development in such a way that the natural environment is
preserved and enhanced. Specific relevant goals include (see the Comprehensive
Plan for policies associated with each goal):
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green
River; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention
Page 140 Kent Shoreline Master Program
of the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's
natural features.
Goal LU-23 Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption
of City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land
use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development. Use
such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities
and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural
features such as large wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas,
and forests.
Goal LU-24 Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce
dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water
quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use
commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot and bicycle
Goal LU-25 Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply
I with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding
air and water quality, hazardous materials, noise and wildlife and
fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement
programs, code enforcement, implementation programs, development
j regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use
management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource
goals.
Goal LU-26 Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including
recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection,
water supply, and open space.
Goal LU-27 Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent
to the shorelines of the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses
and resource values, and support the goals and policies of the City of
Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
i Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
Goal LU-28 Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent
harm, to protect public health and safety, to preserve remaining critical
areas, and enhance degraded critical areas in the City.
Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas
such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and
between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 141
i
landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique 1
areas.
Goal CD-18 Provide adequate, safe, well-located public open spaces,parks
facilities, and access to features of the natural environment.
Goal-CD-19 Protect the natural landscapes,which characterize Kent.
Goal CD-20 Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development
principles in the design and construction of all projects.
Goal CD-21 Promote renewable resource use and energy-efficiency in site and
architectural design.
Goal CD-22 Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural 1
hydrological systems, so that water quantity and quality are protected 1
throughout the development process and occupation of the site.
Goal P&OS-1 Designate critical wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Goal P&OS-2 Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features,
where such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions
associated with the features.
Techniques suggested by the various policies to protect the natural environment
include requiring setbacks from sensitive areas,preserving habitats for sensitive
species,preventing adverse alterations to water quality and quantity,promoting low
impact development,preserving existing native vegetation, educating the public, and
mitigating necessary sensitive area impacts, among others.
5. Critical Areas Regulations
The City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations can be found in Kent City Code Chapter
11.06. The City adopted a revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in August 2006
consistent with best available science and all other requirements of the GMA. The
updated regulations are based on"best available science," and provide a high level of +
protection to critical areas in the City,particularly for streams and wetlands. The l
updated regulations categorize streams into three types based on documented
salmonid fish use and size(for lakes and ponds), with standard buffers ranging from
40 feet for Type 3 waters to 100 feet for Type 2 waters. The code refers to the SMP l
for buffers of Type 1 streams (shorelines). A standard buffer width of 50 feet is set
for valley streams in "industrialized areas adjacent to portions of Mill Creek,
Garrison Creek, and Springbrook Creek on the valley floor." Standard wetland
buffers now range from 50 to 225 feet and are classified using the Department of
Ecology's latest Washington State Rating System for Western Washington.
Management of the City's critical areas using these regulations should help insure
that ecological functions and values are not degraded, and impacts to critical areas are
mitigated. These Critical Areas Regulations are one important tool that will help the
Page 142 Kent Shoreline Master Program i
City meet its restoration goals. The City's Critical Areas Regulations are adopted by
reference into the Shoreline Master Program to regulate critical areas found within the
shoreline area.
6. Stormwater Management and Planning
The City of Kent 2002 Sui face Water Design Manual, Chapter 5 of the Kent
Construction Standards, adopts by reference the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. In the future,the City will update its Surface Water Design Manual
as part of the NPDES Phase II permit requirement. Both Ecology's 2005 Stornnvater
Management Manual for Western Washington and King County's 2005 Surface
j Water Design Manual will be evaluated as the NPDES Phase II permit requires that
the City use minimum requirements that are equivalent to Ecology's manual.
Some of the goals identified in the City's Drainage Master Plan, include:
1 • Identify opportunities for habitat restoration along the City's stream and river
corridors including potential land acquisition or easement needs to implement
those actions
Define drainage problems and recommend solutions that will reduce planning
area flood hazards and associated public safety risks, provide economic incentives
for continued growth, improve water quality, improve or restore fish passage, and
enhance stream and wetland habitats; integrate Low Impact Development (LID)
components into implementation of those solutions where technically feasible
1 In January 2007,Ecology approved the City's NPDES Phase II permit. The NPDES
Phase II permit is required to cover the City's stormwater discharges into regulated
i lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit,the City must protect and
I, improve water quality through public education and outreach, detection and
elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (e.g., spills,illegal dumping,
wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff, management and
i regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and pollution
prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
l
7. Public Education
The City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan identifies four policy statements based on the
goals of environmental public involvement (excerpted below). These items help
guide City staff and local citizen groups in developing mechanisms to educate the
public and broaden the interest in protecting and enhancing local environmental
resources.
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
I
I
i Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 143
i
Pol 21.1 Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the interaction
between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and
geologically hazardous areas, and human activities.
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources;protection j
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green 1
River;provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property,water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention l
of the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's
natural features.
Pol 22.1 Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance with
environmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education
among City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the
effectiveness of incentives by establishing monitoring programs.
Goal LU-25 Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply
with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding
air and water quality,hazardous materials,noise and wildlife and 1
fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement
programs, code enforcement, implementation programs, development
regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use l
management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource
goals.
Pol 25.2 Provide to property owners and prospective property owners general
information concerning natural resources, critical areas, and associated
regulations. Ensure developers provide site-specific environmental 1
information to identify possible on- and off-site constraints and special
development procedures.
Pol 25.10 Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local jurisdictions, as
well as major stakeholders,to conserve and work towards recovery of `
ESA-listed threatened and endangered species. f
As part of the City of Kent's efforts to abide by these goals and l
policies, the City supports several volunteer efforts, such as the Kent
Parks Foundation, Adopt-A-Park, Releaf, Eagle Scout Projects, Make
A Difference Day, Youth Tree Program, and other programs in
cooperation with non-profit groups and agencies (discussed in greater
detail below). The City also has developed many educational
Page 144 Kent Shoreline Master Program i
brochures that discuss conservation, sustainability, and Green Building
practices.
8. Kent Parks Foundation
According to the City of Kent website, the Kent Parks Foundation"provides an
opportunity to ensure that Kent remains a beautiful,healthy, and caring place to raise
our children and enjoy our lives." The Foundation is a 501(c)(3)non-profit public
charity which purpose is "to develop assets for the community that the Parks
Department serves," including by"preserving our environment." The Foundation has
an annual Gift Catalog that includes a list of needs in individual parks with the
associated cost. Individuals can select a specific need in a specific park and make a
tax-deductible donation to address that need. For a few of the parks in the 2008 Gift
Catalog, listed items include interpretive signs and native plants. In future years, the
iFoundation could include additional items for parks that address shoreline restoration
opportunities outlined in this Restoration Plan.
iContact Information: http://www.ei.kent.wa.us/parks/index.aspx?id=1448
i
9. Other Kent Parks Programs
The City's Parks, Recreation& Community Services Department have several other
programs that could be leveraged to enact additional restoration projects to benefit
I shoreline conditions, including Adopt-A-Park, Eagle Scout and Girl Scout Gold
Award Projects, and the Youth Tree Education Program. All of these programs
enable volunteers to donate time and energy to improving the park system.
Contact Information: Jeff Watling,Director of Parks &Recreation, Kent Parks,
Recreation and Community Services, 'wl atling(cDci.kent.wa.us
a. Adopt-A-Park
The City's Adopt-A-Park program, developed in the mid-1980s, is a program that
encourages environmental stewardship and maintenance of the City's park, trails
and open space system through a community partnership program of volunteer
groups, local businesses, individuals and Parks staff. Projects developed through
the Adopt-A-Park program include park beautification efforts, litter control, trail
development and maintenance and other special City-initiated projects. These
efforts ensure that the City's parks, trails and open spaces remain safe and
enjoyable for all Kent residents and park users.
b. Releaf
Releaf is a community volunteer event sponsored by Kent Parks,Recreation and
Community Services that focuses on the reforestation and re-vegetation of parks,
open spaces and wildlife habitat throughout the City. Releaf 2008 was located at
Clark Lake Park, in which the goal was to enhance the buffer areas around the
lake through re-vegetation,which in-turn will provide for riparian habitat
enhancement for salmon, as well as the removal of invasive species around the
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 145
(J
lake. The City's past Releaf efforts have been held along the Green River, as well 1
as Lake Fenwick. 1
c. Eagle Scouts
Eagle Scouts, the highest advancement rank in Scouting,have provided many
services to the City's parks system. To date, over 130 projects have been
completed within the City by Eagle Scouts. The Parks,Recreation& Community {
Services Department maintains a list of project ideas that Eagle Scout candidates
may chose from. Potential projects include the installation of park benches,
fencing,boardwalks, trail improvements, and landscaping improvements. Some
specific projects along waterbodies include along Clark Lake Park(invasive plant
removal) and Lake Fenwick(fencing, gravel installation,kiosk for environmental
signs).
d. Make A Difference Day 1
Make A Difference Day,held on the fourth Saturday in October every year, is a
national event of volunteerism in which community volunteers of all ages work
on projects within their community. The City of Kent has participated in the 1
program for 13 years and each year the project varies. Projects may include
planting trees and shrubs,resurfacing trails and playgrounds, installing
playground equipment, or enhancing riparian areas. In 2008, the event was held
at Clark Lake Park.
e. Youth Tree Education Program
The City's Youth Tree Education Program, developed in 2000, involves the
City's youth and Parks and Public Works staff in planting trees throughout the
City's parks. Each year, City staff members visit local Kent schools and teach I
students the proper way to plant trees. The students are then given a native tree or
shrub to plant at their school and then monitor the growth. At the end of the
school year, many of the plants and trees end up at a local park or along the Green
River.
f. Best Management Practices +
The City of Kent incorporates a series of best management practices (BMPs) for
weed and pest control, water management,plant installation and care, turf care
and aquatic area maintenance and invasive control. Primarily, BMPs are used for
parks, trails and open spaces along the Green River. BMPs include hand-pulling
weeds when practicable and removing underwater invasives using mechanical
methods. Chemical applications are applied only as needed and consistent with a
permit from the Washington Department of Ecology.
The City's Surface Water Design Manual adopts King County's Surface Water
Design Manual, which includes both permanent and temporary BMPs for
stormwater collection and control methods.
Page 146 Kent Shoreline Master Program 1
10. Public Works Engineering Programs
The Public Works Engineering Department holds two or three volunteer events per
year that organize groups, organizations and individuals to dedicate their time in
restoring riparian,wetland and open space areas throughout the City. Volunteer
groups from Puget Sound businesses include REI and Starbucks and the Eagle Scouts
are regularly involved. Past restoration efforts have been organized along the Green
River, the GRNRA,Lake Fenwick and Lake Meridian.
The Public Works Engineering Department sponsors Natural Yard Care Workshops
that are held two times per year in two different neighborhoods. These workshops
educate residents about natural gardening and lawn care techniques that promote
! chemical and pesticide-free methods.
The Department also sponsors the Water Festival,held annually in March at a local
community college campus, in which approximately 1,600-1,800 4ch to 6`h grade
students are taught by professionals about water conservation,watersheds,wetlands,
salmon habitats,wildlife, and other related topics. Many of the topics are done
through hands-on activities. This event involves five school districts in South King
I County and typically involves presenters from several local agencies. Special
presenters have included the Seattle Aquarium, local weathermen,NASA officials,
and the Governor.
Contact Information: City of Kent Public Works Engineering, (253) 856-5500
11 .Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
y During a two-year period in the 1990s,the City of Kent contracted with the Adopt-A-
Stream Foundation(AASF) to conduct Streamkeeper Field Training workshops for
local educators and area residents interested in local streams. AASF's task was to
educate the audience how to conduct watershed inventories and how to monitor
physical,biological and chemical characteristics of local streams. The City's Public
Works Department was responsible for tracking students and providing them with
y long-term support.
Contact Information: Tom Murdoch, tomm@streamkeeper.org,
i http://www.streamkeWer.orw,/
12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects
i
a. Springbrook Creek
In 2004, the City restored approximately 6,200 LF (3,100 LF each side) of habitat
along both banks of the creek and another 1,240 LF along the west bank just north
of S. 1881h Street(Project No. 15 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix
( Q. Restoration along the lower 3,100 LF enhanced a minimum of 30'-width of
stream-bank and included 28 multi-trunked woody debris structures installed with
anchors along both sides of the stream. Over 11,000 shrubs and trees were
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 147
1
l
11
planted within these areas. Additional restoration upstream of S. 188`h Street was I
completed as mitigation during construction of businesses along the creek channel
in 2005-06. Native trees and shrubs are dominant between S. 180th Street I
upstream to E. Valley Highway, although some reed canarygrass and blackberry
are still present.
b. GRNRA
Created in 1996, this complex serves as a stormwater detention facility, flood
control,public education and wildlife habitat project in the Green River Valley.
Over 800,000 CY of material was excavated and moved to the western portion of
the site during construction. Most of the excavated area became the large, 35-acre
detention lagoon, sized to completely control a 100-year flood event in Mill
Creek. The eastern, 18-acre pond was primarily designed to naturally treat
stormwater by forcing the water to slow down and take a long, circuitous path
around the central peninsula where the water could naturally be filtered by
thousands of wetland plants.
Native trees, shrubs,wetland emergents and some herbaceous plants have been
planted per the GRNRA Landscape Master Plan to improve onsite habitat
conditions. The landscape plan has been adaptively managed over the course of
several years. To date, approximately 250,000 native plants have been installed
on the site, including approximately equal numbers of wetland emergents and
trees/shrubs. Onsite habitat conditions have improved greatly during this planting
effort (Project No. 16 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix Q.
c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project
This project involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian through a
forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek(Project No. 14
on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix Q.,The current outlet creek
flows through a series of wetland and detention basins within a highly developed
commercial and residential neighborhood.
This realignment, also known as Cow Creek, is funded through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers,WRIA 9 funding and the City of Kent as part of the 1
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program. The project is broken up into
three phases. Phase 1,which was completed in 2007, included improvements
such as a weir for flow control, a box culvert, a new pedestrian bridge, and
enhancement of the existing outlet of Lake Meridian. Phase 2 consists of a 2,500-
foot new channel that will meander through open space and existing wetlands on
its way to Big Soos Creek. Large woody debris,riparian plantings, spawning
gravel and backwater areas will be created to provide habitat for fish and other
wildlife. An access road for BPA will also be constructed at the eastern edge of
the new channel. Phase 3 includes installation of a flow splitter that will allow
water to be diverted to the new channel as well as allow some of the water to
continue to the existing wetlands and detention areas to the south. Three acres of
wetlands along this channel will be enhanced with native plantings, soil
amendments, and addition of woody debris. Phase 2 is fully funded and is
{
Page 148 Kent Shoreline Master Program
expected to begin in 2009. Phase 3, if funded,would begin in 2009-10,with full
project completion in 2010.
d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction
In June 2009, the City will introduce triploid grass carp to Lake Fenwick to
control a Brazilian elodea infestation(Project No. 17 on the Restoration
Opportunities map (Appendix Q. In all, approximately 77 percent of the
surveyed shallow areas were affected by this invasive species. Brazilian elodea
can be so dense that fish movement is limited; forage areas are reduced; and
predators and prey have reduced visibility, hampering foraging and escape from
predators. Dense stands of elodea can also uptake dissolved oxygen,reducing
dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish(Tetra Tech 2002). The effectiveness of
the grass carp at controlling elodea, a preferred food plan,will be monitored by
the City. A weed rake will be used to sample along predetermined aquatic
transects with the results compared to 2001 diver surveys along these same
transects.
i
13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities
Many of the projects and programs listed above in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.12 are
i site-specific and are included on the map located in Appendix C. Each of these
projects is given an identifying map number indicated on the following table (Table
13),with a corresponding reference as appropriate to the originating Green-
Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP)number or WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat
Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King project number(Steering Committee
2005). In some cases, these are overlapping projects with each other or the King
County Flood Control District.
1 Table 13. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent
Map Name ERP WRIA 9 KCFCD Comments
No. Plan
1 Lower Mill Creek Restoration LG-7
f -
2 Riverview Park P-17 LG-7
3 Hawley Road Levee LG-7
I
Lower Mullen Slough King County Taking
4 (Prentice Nursery) P-11 LG-7 the Lead per WRIA 9
Ian
5 Mullen Slough P-12 LG-7 King County Taking
the Lead
6 Lower Mill Creek Future LG-7
Project
I
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 149
i
I
Map Name ERP WRIA 9 KCFCD Comments
No. Plan
7 Rosso Nurser LG-9
8 Lower Green River objectives .
Acquisition
9 Boeing Levee Setback LG-10 X
i
I
10 Russell Road Upper Setback LG-10 X
and Restoration
11 Russell Road Lower Setback LG-10 X
and Restoration 1
12 Russell Road Lowest LG-10 X
Setback and Restoration y
13 Acquisition, Levee Setback LG-13 X
and Rehabilitation
14 Lake Meridian Outlet P-21 Recent Kent Project
Relocation
15 S ringbrook Creek Recent Kent Project
16 Green River Natural Recent Kent Project
Resource Area To 17 Lake Fenwick Grass Car be completed in
p June 2009 I
I
E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to
9
Achieve Local Restoration Goals
The following additional projects and programs are generally organized from the larger
watershed scale to the City-scale, including City projects and programs and finally non-
profit organizations that are also active in the City of Kent area.
1 . Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects i
The Hawley Revetment project(LG-7), listed in Table 11, is currently part of the
City's long range plan,but is not yet funded. Per the Salmon Habitat Plan,this project
would set back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment between river miles 23.5 and
23.3, in order to achieve a more stable slope angle, create a low,vegetated bench, and j
I
Page 150 Kent Shoreline Master Program
allow the placement of large woody debris. Land is in public ownership and is
immediately downstream of Riverview Park.
Several of the ERP projects are currently unfunded or underfunded and the City
continues to identify funding sources.
2. Other Recommended Projects
The following is partially developed from a list of opportunity areas identified within
the Final Shoreline Analysis Report,with additional expansion of the Green River
discussion. The list of potential projects was created after assessing field conditions,
and is intended to contribute to improvement of impaired functions.
i
a. Green River
The following summary of factors for decline in the lower Green River
subwatershed is excerpted from The Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005):
I
Urbanization, water diversions, levees, and revetments on the mainstem have
gradually lowered the floodplain and resulted in disconnection of off-channel
habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands from the mainstem. Juvenile
fish migrating downstream have few places to take refuge from high flows.
The river is starved of large woody debris and consequently lacks associated
instream habitat complexity, such as pools and riffles. Low flows, associated
with water withdrawals and the diversion of the White River, have
exacerbated low flow conditions and contributed to adult salmon migration
problems. The loss of mature native riparian vegetation has been
accompanied by extensive amounts of non-native plants. These same human
I activities and developments have caused chronic water quality problems,
particularly in the tributary streams.
Additional factors of decline related to harvest,hatchery operations, and the
Howard A. Hanson Dam are,not within the City's sphere of influence.
As mentioned previously, the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit
for a King(Steering Committee 2005) includes the following specific policy for
the lower Green River.
In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back
levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat
rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river.
Given the City's commitment to implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan and
recent events related to the Corps' and FEMA's assessment of the Green River
levee, the City is now in a position to effect or enable the above policy on a large
scale over a 10- to 20-year period. The Salmon Habitat Plan references King
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 151
11
County's Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects in the Riverine Environments 1
offing County (King County 1993),which includes the following generic
graphic of a possible levee setback with riparian vegetation.
1
Ling
Rge {
1
PROPOSED •_ { �� EXIS'
-SETBACK LEVEE'' .'.. TO BE. - -
reduction
.OHW
BENCH
.::.
(vegetation on
bench not shown) -
CHANNEL'
BED-.'.-
Figure 8. Potential levee cross-section. Image modified by The Watershed Company
Implementation of levee upgrades for the entire stretch of the Green River in the
City is likely to be implemented by one or more entities, either led by or
collaborating with the City, including King County and the Corps. A key barrier
to rapid implementation is funding, which will need to be supplied by the City, ,
the Corps,King County, and possibly other state or federal funding sources. A
second impediment is space. The City of Kent contains a mix of land uses along
the river, including agricultural, industrial,residential, and commercial. Many of
these are set back more than 200 feet from the river's ordinary high water mark,
but others are as close as 60 feet. The following figure is a potential cross-section
for the City of Kent levee that requires a minimum of 140 feet to implement. The
cross-section includes space for a"floodplain bench," sloped levee face, 16-foot-
wide levee top to accommodate the Green River Trail, and the sloped upland face
of the levee.
I
Page 152 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Existing levee
and trail
New planting-
rdinary High Water Mark
i6' 12' 20' 20' 16' Varies 15'
Figure 9. Illustration of proposed new levee design with plantings and trail.
r The proposed floodplain bench has several purposes, including increasing the
I) flood storage capacity(and reducing the flood elevation), increasing levee
stability, and providing improved riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. The
r national Corps policy limits vegetation to grasses on and adjacent to levees.
However,the Seattle District has obtained a Regional Variance that provides a
great deal of flexibility. The floodplain bench and the streambank below the
bench provide opportunities for establishment of traditional riparian vegetation
and placement of large woody debris. Much of the current levee structure is
vegetated with grasses and invasive weeds,primarily Himalayan blackberry.
There are scattered pockets of trees and shrubs (cottonwoods,willows, some
conifers) on and landward of the levee, which provide some shade depending on
size and orientation.
Under the Regional Variance and per Doug Weber at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, any standard native riparian vegetation may be installed on the
i floodplain bench, including cottonwoods, alders, willows, and conifers, limited
only by suitability of the species to hydrologic and soil conditions of the bench.
Rows of willows, dogwoods, or other suitable species can be incorporated into the
levee from the OHWM and upwards, concentrated at the water's edge. Grasses
and small shrubs can be on the face of the levee above the bench. Large woody
debris is allowed, so long as it is on the benches or engineered into the base of the
levee. The toe of the levee needs to still remain inspectable,but the Corps
indicated that is a judgment call. Where an upgraded levee does not have
sufficient room for installing a floodplain bench, the willow lifts are generally
kept near the water's edge,where hydrology conditions are suitable.
1
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) issued a Biological
Opinion(BiOp) on 22 September 2008 on FEMA's implementation of the
INational Flood Insurance Program in Washington state. This BiOp has
implications for alteration of the existing levee system along the Green River, and
possibly development of upland areas landward of the levee. Any improvements
I
l Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 153
i
to the levee system must be conducted in such a way that listed fish species and
their habitats are not adversely affected through further degradation of the current
baseline condition. During phone conversations in Fall 2008, Ryan Ike of FEMA
indicated that FEMA is not planning to issue any vegetation standards or establish
prescriptive setbacks in reaction to the BiOp, and the Corps indicated that it
would not be changing its policies in the short term either. All of the agencies
will continue to discuss the issues and the application of the BiOp.
b. Big Soos Creek
The Kent stretch of Big Soos Creek could be enhanced by vegetation planting
with a buffer of native trees and shrubs,particularly conifer species, as well as
placement of large woody debris to enhance in-stream fish habitat. L
c. Lake Meridian
General: Investigate potential for control of Eurasian watermilfoil through
chemical, mechanical or biological control methods. The City's IAPMP (Tetra
Tech 2002) recommended placement of bottom barriers (burlap sheets) in
localized areas. This work has not yet been conducted.
Residential: Many residential shoreline properties on Lake Meridian have the
potential for improvement of ecological functions through: 1)reduction or
modification of shoreline armoring, 2) reduction of overwater cover and in-water
structures (grated pier decking,pier size reduction,pile size and quantity
reduction, moorage cover removal), 3) improvements to nearshore native
vegetative cover, or 4) reductions in impervious surface coverage.
Lake Meridian Park: Several opportunities exist to improve habitat conditions
along the shoreline. These include: reduction of overwater cover by the existing
pier through the installation of deck grating, removing or minimizing the impacts
of shoreline armoring; and supplementation of nearshore native vegetation to
improve habitat conditions.
d. Lake Fenwick
Lake Fenwick's shoreline armoring could be modified to support public access
while stabilizing the banks using bioengineering techniques. Additionally, the
Brazilian elodea problem should be addressed through the use of grass carp,
which will be introduced in June 2009 (see Chapter 8 Section D.12.d above).
This should significantly reduce, or eliminate, the noxious weed in the lake.
e. GRNRA
The Public Works Department should continue to manage the GRNRA and
implement the Landscape Master Plan for the site.
f. Springbrook Creek
Some enhancement of the buffer has occurred on both banks of Springbrook
Creek within the shoreline area; several small conifer plantings were noted during
December 2007 and February 2008 site visits (see Chapter 8 Section D.12.c).
Page 154 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Additional plantings of native trees and shrubs would improve the wildlife
corridor, and provide additional shade and organic debris to the stream.
Landscape debris was noted in the buffer as well; adjacent businesses could be
educated regarding appropriate disposal of lawn clippings and other landscape
items.
g. Jenkins Creek
The Jenkins Creek shoreline area will benefit most from continued preservation
and protection of the remaining functions. As previously mentioned, the City has
installed some riparian enhancement plantings in the buffer.
h. Panther Lake
Panther Lake was assigned a Category H restoration designation based on King
County's shoreline inventory and characterization model. Category H applies to
those shorelines with a"Low"basin function and a"Medium" reach function
The appropriate restoration strategy according to this methodology is to focus on
enhancement and creation.
The non-native lily infestation in Panther Lake is adversely affecting lake habitat
by creating a monoculture and excluding native plants, and is limiting lake access
even by canoes. One shoreline property owner also noticed a"rotten" smell
(Johnson 2007), which is likely caused by decomposition of large volumes of
organic material, reduced circulation in the lake resulting from the dense lily
cover, and breakdown of muck soils. Some mechanical or chemical control of the
lily problem may be necessary
Residential shoreline properties on Panther Lake have the potential to provide
improvement of ecological functions through improvements to nearshore native
vegetative cover.
3. Public Education/Outreach
Chapter 7 of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005) identifies 17 WRIA-wide ("watershed-wide") actions that
could contribute to the recovery of ecosystem health. These actions range from
public education and stewardship to incentives to regulations and regulatory
enforcement. Specific public education and stewardship efforts listed in the report
include
• Conduct Shoreline Stewardship Workshops and Outreach
• Increase/Expand Water Conservation Incentive Programs
Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care Programs for Landscapers
• Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care Program for Single Family Homeowners
• Promote the Planting of Native Trees
• Promote Better Volunteer Carwash Practices
• Increase Public Awareness about What Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like
and How to Enjoy Recreating on Them
• Increase Involvement of Volunteers in Habitat Stewardship
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 155
• Green/Duwamish Volunteer Revegetation Program
• Support/Expand the Natural Resource/Basin Steward Programs
• Expand/Improve Incentives Programs
• Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations
• Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Pourous Concrete
• Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built Green Checklist Sections
Benefiting Salmon
• Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas
Specific details about these public education, outreach and stewardship programs may
be found at ftp://dnr.metroke.gov/dnr/library/2005/kcrl876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-
Actions.pdf.
4. Other Environmental Organizations 1
Although the following organizations include Kent in their general service areas, they
have indicated that they are not currently actively engaged in specific activities or
programs that affect Kent's shorelines, nor do they have any plans in the area.
However,that does not preclude them from playing an active role in the future,
particularly if any of the City's residents or business owners solicit assistance from or
become members in these organizations. 1
• Washington Trout
• Rainier Audubon Society
F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring
Methods
As previously noted, the City's shoreline area is occupied by industrial, commercial, 1
agricultural, multi- and single-family residences, and public recreation/open space areas.
Therefore, efforts should be made to improve shoreline ecological function through the
promotion of restoration and healthy practices at all levels, from large-scale industrial
users to single-family property owners. The City of Kent already has a very active {
environmental community with a restoration and education focus. Continued
improvement of shoreline ecological functions on the shoreline requires a more
comprehensive watershed approach, which combines the upstream projects and programs
along the City's lakefronts. i
The following table (Table 14) outlines a possible schedule and funding sources for
implementation of a variety of efforts that could improve shoreline ecological function,
and are described in previous sections of this report. j
1
Page 156 Kent Shoreline Master Program
I
Table 14. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs and
Plans.
Restoration Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
Project/Program
The City is an active member of the WRIA 9 Forum.
4.1 WRIA 9 Participation Ongoing Membership at this time entails a commitment of staff
time.
The City of Kent participates in the Green-Duwamish
4.2 ERP Implementation Ongoing ERP Committee to identify projects to be programmed
each year.
i
4.3 King County Flood Ongoing City of Kent participates in the District through the
Control District Advisory and Technical Committees
The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time
4.4 Comprehensive Plan Revised in in the course of project and program reviews to
Policies May 2006 determine consistency and compliance with the
recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The next
Comprehensive Plan update will occur in 2012.
The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time
4.5 Critical Areas Revised in in the course of project and program reviews to
Regulations August 2006 determine consistency and compliance with their
recently updated Critical Areas Regulations.
Currently, staff time and materials are the only City
resource commitments. The City currently follows its
2002 Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which is an
addendum to the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. In the future,the City will update its
i Surface Water Design Manual as part of the NPDES
4.6 Stormwater Planning Ongoing Phase II permit requirement. The City is also involved
in the update of their Drainage Master Plan, which
goals includes flood reduction, water quality
improvements and aquatic habitat improvements.
Work is ongoing as part of a five-year compliance plan
for mandatory activities prescribed by the NPDES
phase II municipal stormwater permit.
Currently, staff time and materials are provided in
developing public education and outreach efforts,
which are highlighted in Comprehensive Plan policy
statements based on the goals of environmental public
4.7 Public Education Ongoing involvement. These items help guide City staff and
local citizen groups in developing mechanisms to
educate the public and broaden the interest in
protecting and enhancing local environmental
resources.
4.8 Kent Parks Foundation I Ongoing The Kent Parks Foundation is a 501(c)(3)public
charity that subsists on donations.
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 157
J
I
Restoration Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
Project/Program
4.9 Other Kent Parks
Programs Currently, staff time, materials and an unspecified
Ongoing 4.10 Public Works amount of funding support these programs.
Engineering Programs
The City does not have authority over or a formal
relationship with this organization. This organization is
As funds and either a source of grant funds for restoration projects, I
4.11 Adopt-A-Stream opportunity is an advocate for specific restoration projects,
allow independently obtains grants for restoration projects,
or is a partner in implementing restoration or education
Projects.
5.1 Unfunded WRIA 9 or As funds and The City Council passed a resolution in 2005 )
ERP Projects opportunity expressing its approval and support for the Salmon
allow Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005). Projects will be funded by
the City, partnering agencies and non-profit
organizations, and grants as projects and funding
opportunities arise. The City continues to identify
funds for the implementation of the WRIA 9 and ERP
projects in the City of Kent
5.2 Recommended Projects As funds and Projects identified in this section would likely be
opportunity implemented either when grant funds are obtained,
allow when partnerships are formed between the City and
other agencies or non-profit groups, or as may be
required by the Critical Areas Regulations and the
Shoreline Master Program during project-level reviews
by the City.
5.3 Public Education/ As funds and On-going and future education efforts should be
Outreach opportunity coordinated with the City and partnering agencies,
allow including funding sources (grant funding, monetary
donations, volunteer hours)
City planning staff will track all land use and development activity, including exemptions, S
within shoreline jurisdiction, and will incorporate actions and programs of the Parks and
Public Works departments as well. A report will be assembled that provides basic project
information, including location,permit type issued,project description, impacts, mitigation
(if any), and monitoring outcomes as appropriate. Examples of data categories might
include square feet of non-native vegetation removed, square feet of native vegetation
planted or maintained, reductions in chemical usage to maintain turf, linear feet of eroding
stream bank stabilized through plantings, linear feet of shoreline armoring removed or
modified levees, or number of fish passage barriers corrected. The report would also i
I
Page 158 Kent Shoreline Master Program
update Tables 10, 11 and 12 above, and outline implementation of various programs and
restoration actions (by the City or other groups) that relate to watershed health.
The staff report will be assembled to coincide with Comprehensive Plan updates and will
be used, in light of the goals and objectives of the Shoreline Master Program, to determine
whether implementation of the SMP is meeting the basic goal of no net loss of ecological
functions relative to the baseline condition established in the Shoreline Analysis Report
(The Watershed Company 2008). In the long term, the City should be able to demonstrate
a net improvement in the City of Kent's shoreline environment.
Based on the results of this assessment, the City may make recommendations for changes
to the SMP.
i G. Restoration Priorities
The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of the City's
shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific
constraints. Briefly restated, the City's environmental protection and restoration goals
include 1)protecting watershed processes,2)protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)
contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include
a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline
along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial
development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good
ecological functions (Big Soos Creek,Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA),
they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals and
constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different types
of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic actions, like
1 continuing WRIA 9 involvement and conducting outreach programs to local residents,
tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to restoration actions involving private
landowners. Other factors that influenced the hierarchy are based on scientific
recommendations specific to WRIA 9,potential funding sources, and the projected level of
public benefit.
Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section
(Table 14), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the priority
level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety of
obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their
perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are
relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and
intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving extensive
shoreline restoration or large-scale capital improvement projects. Straightforward projects
with available funding should be initiated immediately for the worthwhile benefits they
provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while permitting, design, site access
authorization, and funding for the larger,more complicated, and more expensive projects
are under way.
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 159
1
r
1 . Priority 1 — Levee Modifications and Floodplain
Reconnection S
Because of the isolation of the Green River floodplain from the Green River by the 1
levee, floodplain habitats, including off-channel and side channel habitats, are
typically described as the most diminished types of salmonid fish habitat relative to j
the pristine condition. The lack of these habitat types is a limiting factor for chinook
salmon recovery. As discussed above, the historic use and prevalence of levees has
greatly diminished the habitat value of extended floodplains. Restoration of these
areas has been found to be one of the most beneficial of all types of stream and river
enhancements. Projects in this category include the WRIA 9 recommended projects
listed in Table 11: f
• Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park,
Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek Restoration
Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
• Project LG-9 - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation and Riparian
Restoration Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank) [being implemented by City
as"Lower Green River Property Acquisition" in nearby locations]
• Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee Setback
and Habitat Rehabilitation)Between RM 20.5 and 16.3
• Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
2. Priority 2 — Continue Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 9 Participation
Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin-wide
programs and initiatives such as the WRIA 9 Forum. Continue to work 1
collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 9 to implement the
2005 Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Habitat Plan).
This process provides an opportunity for the City to keep in touch with its role on a
basin-wide scale and to influence habitat conditions beyond its borders, which, in
turn, come back to influence water quality and quantity and habitat issues within the
City.
3. Priority 3 —Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment
and Pollutant Delivery
Although most of the streams and their basins located within the City are outside of
shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted.
Many of these streams have the potential to provide fish and wildlife habitat. They
are also a common receiving body for non-point source pollution,which in turn S
delivers those contaminants to shoreline waterbodies.
I
Page 160 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include four actions
focused on addressing water quality and stormwater controls:
Program WW-11: Expand/Improve incentives Programs
• Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
• Program WW-13: Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Porous
Concrete
• Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built GreenTM
Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
These recommendations emphasize the use of low impact development techniques,
,I on-site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and control of point
sources that discharge directly into surface waters. They involve protecting and
restoring forest cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths by revising and
enforcing Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and
flexible development tools.
4. Priority 4 — Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River
Tributaries
Expanding available fish habitat and rearing opportunities for anadromous fish is a
high priority for the City. One of the key mechanisms is to improve fish passage by
reconnecting mainstem river habitat to local tributaries.
The City is currently involved with improving fish habitat within the outlet from Lake
Meridian (Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project). This project involves
realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian, otherwise known as Cow Creek,
through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek. This
project currently is funded through Phase 2 of 3, with Phase 2 expected to begin in
2009.
Recommended projects from the Habitat Plan include:
• Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park,
Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek Restoration
Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
I
I
5. Priority 5 — Public Education and Involvement
Public education and involvement has a high priority in the City. While this is
especially important for areas directly affected by residential development(i.e. Lake
Meridian) or floodplain and levee management(i.e. Green River), it has already
resulted in vast improvements to the GRNRA and Green River projects.
Opportunities for restoration outside of residential property are extensive along most
shoreline areas in the City. Only Lake Meridian is highly impacted b residential
� Y Y g Y p Y
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 161
I
development. Therefore, in order to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this
Chapter 8, "Restoration Plan," most of the restoration projects (except for those on
Lake Meridian)would likely occur on public property. Thus, providing education
opportunities and involving the public is key to success, and would possibly entail
coordinating the development of a long-term Public Education and Outreach Plan to
gain public support.
6. Priority 6 — Acquisition of Shoreline Property for
Preservation, Restoration, or Enhancement Purposes
The City should explore opportunities to protect natural areas or other areas with high
ecological value via property acquisition. Mechanisms to purchase property would
likely include collaboration with other stakeholder groups including representatives
from local government, businesses and the general public in order to develop a
prioritized list of actions. Such a coordinated effort is listed as a watershed-wide
programmatic action in the Habitat Plan:
• Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural
Areas
The Habitat Plan also includes the following specific acquisition project:
t
• Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
7. Priority7 — Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce
p p g ,
Impervious Coverage
Similar to Priority 3, Section G.3 above,to improve water quality and reduce 1
sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in
impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Habitat Plan. All of the specific
projects listed in Table 11 (LG No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13)include some form of
protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide programmatic actions
also described in the Habitat Plan include many references to improving vegetative
conditions and reducing impervious surface coverage. Specific reference to planting
vegetation is listed in Program WW-5: Promote the Planting of Native Trees.
In addition to the items listed in the Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many areas
where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in impervious
surfaces are warranted.
8. Priority 8 — Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create
or Enhance Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions
The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat
conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of the 1
key limiting factors along the Green River(Kerwin and Nelson 2000). While it is
recognized that levees and revetments cannot practically be removed in all
Page 162 Kent Shoreline Master Program
circumstances, considerations should be made to maintain and repair them using
design approaches that incorporate native vegetation and large woody debris.
Improvements to levees and revetments are discussed in Priority 1, Section G.1
above.
It is also recognized that reduction in shoreline armoring along lakes is also important
(i.e. Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick). While no specific lake project sites have
been identified under this restoration priority, emphasis should be given to future
project proposals that involve or have the potential to restore shoreline areas to more
natural conditions. The City should explore ways in which to team with local
property owners,whether through financial assistance,permit expedition, or
guidance, to restore multiple contiguous lots.
9. Priority 9 — Reduction of In-water and Over-water
1, Structures
Reduction of in- and over-water cover by piers, docks, and other boat-related
I structures is one mechanism to improve shoreline ecological functions. While not
necessarily prevalent along the Green River,pier and docks are extensive along Lake
Meridian with nearly 90 percent of all parcels having a pier or dock. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife already regulates the size and materials for in- and
over-water structures throughout the State and generally recommends finding ways to
reduce both the size and density of these structures. Although no specific project
sites to reduce in-water and over-water structures within residential areas are
identified here, future project proposals involving reductions in the size and/or
quantity of such structures should be emphasized. Such future projects may involve
joint-use pier proposals or pier reconstruction and may be provided with an expedited
permit process.
i
10. Priority 10 — Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes
While not specifically listed in the Habitat Plan,reduction of aquatic invasive weeds
from the City's lakes is emphasized in Section E.2. All three lakes (Lake Fenwick,
Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake)have experienced growth of non-native and often
invasive aquatic vegetation. Problem species include Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian
elodea and water lily. Future mechanisms to control weed growth range from
possible substrate blankets (Lake Meridian) to introduction of grass carp (Lake
Fenwick). Not only are aquatic weeds a problem for boats and swimmers, but they
also tend to reduce dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish,hampering foraging
opportunities.
11 . Priority 11 — City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning
Policies
City policies and development regulations are listed as being of lower priority in this
case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and have
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 163
I
recently been updated accordingly. Notably, the City's Critical Areas Ordinance was
recently updated (August 2006) consistent with the Best Available Science for critical
areas, including those within the shoreline area.
The City received its final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)Phase II permit in January 2007 from Department of Ecology. The NPDES
Phase II permit is required to include the City's stormwater discharges into regulated
lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit,the City must protect and
improve water quality through public education and outreach, detection and
elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal dumping,
wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff, management and
regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and pollution
prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include three actions
focused on regulatory mechanisms to restore ecological functions:
• Program WW-11: Expand/Improve Incentives Programs
• Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
• Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built GreenTM
Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
I
l
II
Page 164 Kent Shoreline Master Program
i
H. References
City of Kent. 2006 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
City of Kent. 2002. City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson (Eds.). December 2000. "Habitat Limiting Factors and
Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds
(WRIA 9 and Vashon Island)." Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/Recon.aspx
The Watershed Company. June 9, 2009. Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for the City
of Kent's Shorelines: Green River,Big Soos Creek, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Green
River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and Jenkins Creek. Prepared for
City of Kent.
i
WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a
King. August,2005. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/HabitatPlan.htm.
WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2002. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
(WRIA 9)Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation. May 2002.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/NTAA.htm
Email correspondence. Tom Murdoch, Director, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. June 2, 2008.
Email correspondence. Lori Flemm, Superintendent of Parks & Open Space, Kent Parks,
Recreation and Community Services. November 2008
Personal interview. Beth Tan, P.E., Environmental Engineer III, City of Kent Public Works
Environmental Engineering,November 6, 2008
Personal interview. Matt Knox,Environmental Biologist, City of Kent Public Works
Environmental Engineering. November 6,2008
Personal interview. Shawn M. Gilbertson,Environmental Engineer II,NPDES, City of Kent
Public Works Engineering,November 6, 2008.
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 165
APPENDIX A:
Shoreline Environment Designation
Maps
- -
I
---- � it
.:. a "��• .` �I
J �
ro ■
r l � ',ILA.-.rn■ mP��• t 1� 3
��SS1nn1n
CD
CD
CD
Nis
---�=
'�1■11 IIII1rn1111uR' -
ANN.. _4' ran JI.Tp.,�r�y.�r Y�i mural Ylu ilo, sal�i■�uri.�1
u■�11 ■ 7■1'Jim! ■�I:�iJ1-II�IY ■1■�Y■1■I
Eli Imi
Ism ■ r ���*� � ` — N n■■a
11111
,, , �an.a Inrr n■■io�
■ .�■J11fa�•�.■■1■11■ cr
1■11IRM1 -■•. �'
-�_�,7fi. i■I�C■■ 1■ I■ Yam.■1■Ir�1■�
a■-1�1■rl
111 ■ .1, ■
73
R � s
III s$ 91 F a �y m 111
00
q�¢gggm _S�a B, oo c c c 0 = 3 c A m _ s O 0
— �. . 8 E G 1D m chi ° eo tY 0
_ � g 4 b�&g� y 7 7 fD ,�,m N
°1 9 3 N y D ."11 N N (� w r
M m 3 m m � � to � d 3
6 m a N cD
p a 0 P.
CD
'" e.tt}ewa 2 cn 9mY� am33� 1 S 'G
2 m v M
=a35�
Y
24CD
y N
{
ti — N ^I I
tn— 3A v5 y �^ l
J4v S
^ Li11ID'
[L �-- -
f/1 / \ BOP PAV$
Ji 1 rJ1�'
32,
�- L L
rs P y �
_ a � _ J
•[��P-j-- 7.
PhS�
OAtT" I `i I8
63'44'
nd SV
N 6R5 IIf 8
4"s
Ill �rl 7�'Y m
-14
�c
III N //
83P
co
� CD
I
I
'�8 C 9
Z Z CC
ehl D
rt` BOgvS N®w C �-
'I 1',61 Av5 Q m
W �- m
em �
m ^ NN zezwy a qzw y
N a
�. li� 6Pv,S � A•n v S� � P^ rS Av W
I � 67 Av
w.eS. III/ co
W V
191 PI
51
I N
h e' I Vj Av N f r i W
pp--
!
4
a
w
Y;� T
.Imo'"..�� � =;% 93+1-9 xN•
JAN
lot
v el OEM
.w Mugu
NJ
WIN
oRE mm &'m a d C 7 C C pl 2 = ^y]. T� .� m S UOl
8 Qom o' m .mom m� m s
a m S O
52
C m
a �+3
®~ - —_ a �8 m'•Pm� > > m stCD
tag M CD
•,a, I d o y 10 N 3
0 a)
r
� v _
a _$—
a„ �s ON
m m m
N
pm��i �1,2-Av-S
531P_1Q
V V N
--� r"E •1 156 A jS co A�
Creek
N� 160 Av SE./
m '
Lm 1 A1SE `/
i �•c , ✓r .z •� � o �o �
E
m @O m
165-P-i_S Creek ^� r
r' —
C.
rq
I
1-8 gv-SE
16R,P�-SE
i
1 Av
-__'as `♦ 171 P, SE
17A.P_LS 7�J`�;s�•• 'c' �'-yp`d`, u!
i
I 17 v
` 3
tM CD
IZZAV-SE � � VI - _ �� rn m �
—o Cto m
rTO
r1—v SE ro 9IN "�CA
\
��Av SE ��� •� °m'
180-AvISE
—
m
AW
1 Q1_gv 3E ti�l�
a� \ N
CD
ID
Uri
LA
CD
n�y
soon.OW
I ���•11 .IP��J 1:P
■■■1■1■■■■■■■ Itl►� ����r1■ry
� ��-�,,1/ �1 fir■ � � �11 _
Jig
FA
one
- � .Ord. 1� G •.'��: �� rid.I.
j
�_ 1_ � �IIIIIIN�� �•f � u���� �
I.
1 L�wN■��
uu � ti �■ �r
iSIMON
_� 1■�, + I_- �ram .......
o
■
~� --s
I_
z
fib
32
6 If
it R
CL
= ■■n11�� � 111 11 1:. 11 1 ��1 1. ���11111111 cn
IN
le
Imigro
.� Bill
�O1IFUlm
�I • I� AIL\
NNW
� �� 1 11��� ` �� .. �1/III;■��■. �'
MINE
Olson
IN
ROME
MEN
■ ��■■ii.1r\■ram ��. �,�- �� � r
\ t
�= = -
q
�r0 0CD
- _
. -
p02 3
0 -
20
sq-
ED
I In
''
MEN
■� ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ 701-9.11
�■ .��i■■■�■■ . � ■■ ■� ■ ..1 i1t 1� � ■ —
� �i■.��� .•■� 11►� IIu111111111 �■ � ■N�'�
■n. ■ ► ��nIn111 ■i■■■ 111
■1■, � NII■1111■I -�
■■■ ter ..���� Ili� ��1��u! ■►����1��1111 ■i i11 � i ■u
�.0 n��� ���� i'11111111111r NNii■IIi■ ,� .• �,
.■-n n-�I,■■, ■aC ter_ �`■N = .wom
elm
i�■..I� flit■11■ �■ �i'wA■
'� � .���rl _ - ����•�Imo■ �- � � �_
CAI� � �nm=-== �■
1 mn a
1 �:: ■�" limn nlomn -- -
nnnu
� innamnnm 111111ni1u1� r
. MINE ___■ o mil"
� 11 1111111■1� _
1
= ■_'_ dIll = ■■=I _ =
■
�•Imo.
.���� : o .■■ �■L, ■■�`�� _ ,• - ■� . ■1 �■ - .. �i �in . If-■I■goes
fin/
� •_i ■■= ■•-tan■ ��1 . 11/111111 •
a �
t�
6 9c = 6
$_ � m bn w rn m R1
C m yCy y Cy S x 3 .
sCD
g�®� sa €3 m N N ZJ y7 a C r 4
se
CL 3 I N
siniCD
ffi� v > O
CD
Ila up
3-P_l-S /
N 44 PI S"a 0 46 Av S
$ 44 ctSN45 '
v A s 47q�
y rn Ct 6 46 PI m Ct s
N
N �" 410 co
6 A ce 46 I SI
U aS S m 46 tS
n`d 6
u �a oN
ssg9l
o
9 rd"�
$0 PIS / / C 5 qp S Ny
N eery N
52 Av S $��
N
N S Atl ES � �1
54 AwS
N
56 AvSllll L
N 5 nd�15
q�
bm g5 , 56 PIS 1
®�sA 59PI5
ID
0PI y Z-CD
Dt tD
561
2 AvS D CD
CD ^'
2 PI Si 01
3fl5
W
N 84 AV S
O
N
N
N f/
N
N
to 6 Av S
r 67 JS, w m
— m
I y
N
A co
to N
cii
7 Av S N!
O
72 Av S N
6th Av N
A4 S ;
i
APPENDIX B
Council Resolution No. 1714
Ratifying the WRIA Salmon Habitat
Plan
i
I
Resolution No . 1714
["Beginning August 1 , 2004"]
CFN= 1038—Public Works
Passed— 11/15/05
WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
i
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. I
I
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of
Kent, Washington, ratifying, with conditions, the Water
Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)9 Salmon Habitat Plan.
REC-
A. In March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration j
(NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant f
unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA).
B. Under ESA Section 4(f), NOAA Fisheries (for Chinook salmon) and
USFWS (for Bull Trout) are required to develop and implement recovery plans to
address the recovery of the species.
C. An essential ingredient for the development and implementation of an
effective recovery program is coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and
local agencies, tribes, businesses, researchers, non-governmental organizations, f
landowners,citizens,and other stakeholders as required.
D. Shared Strategy Puget et Sound,a regional non-profit organization,has
g
assumed a lead role in the Puget .Sound response to develop a recovery plan for f
submittal to NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS. I
1 R'RL4 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
I
i .
i
i
E. Shared Strategy intends that its recovery plan will include commitments
from participating jurisdictions and stakeholders.
F. Local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of
Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and
tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for
addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 9.
j G. In WRIA 9, habitat actions to significantly increase Chinook
1 productivity trends are advisable and may be necessary, in conjunction with other
recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook to
viability in the long term.
I
r H. As it balances the complexity of accommodating and encouraging
growth as it addresses protection of critical areas, the city values ecosystem health;
water quality improvement; flood hazard reduction; open space protection; and
maintaining a legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport
fishing,quality of life,and cultural heritage.
I. The city supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common
priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and
distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures.
J. Seventeen (17) local governments in WRIA 9 jointly funded
development of The WRL4 9 Steering Committee Proposed Green / Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (the Plan),published August 10,
2005,following public input and review.
I
2 WRM 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
I
i
f
K. While the Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort,it
focuses on the next 10 years and includes a scientific framework, a start-list of priority
actions and comprehensive action lists,an adaptive management approach, and a 1
funding strategy.
L. The city has consistently implemented habitat restoration and protection j
projects,and addressed salmon habitat through its land use and public outreach policies
and programs over the past five years.
M. It is important to provide jurisdictions,the private sector, and the public
with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions that l
the region will be taking in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound I
Watershed.
N. If insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is
possible that the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an
endangered species,thereby decreasing local flexibility.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, i
WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
►S'P T_10N L —Rail c The city hereby conditionally ratifies The WRIA 9 i
C athQn. ty y
Steering Committee Proposed Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
Salmon Habitat Plan, dated August 10, 2005 (the Plan). The Plan is incorporated into l
this resolution by this reference, and the city clerk will keep a copy of this ordinance
and the Plan in his or her files and make it available for review. Ratification is intended
to convey the city's approval and support for the following:
3 MA 9 i
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
i
i
II
1. Purpose: The purpose of the Plan is to restore habitat used by Chinook
salmon, bull trout, and other salmonids in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget
i
Sound Watershed.
2. Goals: The goals of the Plan are to:
a. Protect and restore physical, chemical, and biological processes
and the freshwater, marine, and estuarine habitats on which
i salmonids depend;
b. Protect and restore habitat connectivity where feasible;
C. Protect and improve water quality and quantity conditions to
support healthy salmonid populations; and
j d. Provide an implementation plan that supports salmon recovery.
3. Continuing to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
stakeholders in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)
to implement the Plan.
4 4. Using the scientific foundation and the habitat management strategy as
the basis for local actions recommended in the plan for future projects, ordinances, and
other appropriate local government activities.
5. Adopting an adaptive management approach to Plan implementation
i
and funding to address uncertainties and ensure cost-effectiveness by tracking actions,
assessing action effectiveness,learning from results of actions, reviewing assumptions
and strategies, making corrections where needed, and communicating progress.
Developing and implementing a cost-effective regional monitoring program as part of
the adaptive management approach.
6. Using the Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid
Population, and other actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site
4 WRL4 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
specific projects and land use and public outreach recommendations. Jurisdictions,
agencies,and stakeholders can implement these actions at any time.
7. Using the Watershed-Wide Programs and Subwatershed-specific
Policies, Programs and Priority Projects list to guide priorities for regional funding in
the first ten years of Plan implementation, and implementing these actions through
local capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. The list of
policies, programs and projects will be revised over time, as new opportunities arise
and as more is learned through adaptive management. l
8. Using an adaptive approach to funding the Plan through both local
sources and by working together (within WRIA 9 and Puget Sound) to seek federal,
state,grant,and other funding opportunities.
9. Forwarding the Plan to appropriate federal and state agencies through
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound,to be included in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
recovery plan. l
SECTION 2. — Implementation. The city recognizes that negotiation of l
commitments and assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and state agencies
will be an iterative process. Full implementation of this Plan is dependent on the
following:
1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan,as an operative element of its ESA
Section 4(f)recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will:
a. take no direct enforcement actions against the City under the ESA {
for implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the Plan;
b. endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend the City against legal
challenges by third parties;and
5 JVRM 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
l
I ,
c. reduce the regulatory burden for City activities recommended in or
consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation.
3. Federal and state governments will:
a. provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan
actions and monitoring activities;
b. streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to restore
salmonid habitat or where the actions are mitigation that further Plan implementation;
c. offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that are
consistent with the Plan;
I
d. support the monitoring and evaluation framework;
e. incorporate, to the best of the government's ability, actions and
I
guidance from the Plan in future federal and state transportation and infrastructure
planning and improvement projects;and
f. to the extent feasible, direct mitigation resources toward Plan
priorities.
SECTION3. —Obligation. This resolution does not obligate the city council to
future appropriations beyond current authority. Although the city is committed to
furthering the work of WRIA 9 and the Plan, it also must balance its other goals and
priorities, beyond funding limitations, under the state Growth Management Act to
further economic development, enhance and accommodate growth., and protect
property rights. As a result, this council action to ratify the Plan is conditioned on the
city's fulfillment of these other needs and demands as well.
In particular,the city maintains a primarily aquifer-based water supply system,
i and the city will not implement any Plan requirement or goal if doing so would
I
threaten or harm the city's ability to provide a safe,secure, and adequate water supply
to its citizens, including future population increases, whether due to annexation or
additional growth through inf 1.
6 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
r
SWZON 4. — Sev r 'li If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, I
clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any
reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution.
SECTIQN 5. —Rats 'on. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to
the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION&-B ectiye Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage. J
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent,
Washington,this.lam day of r,let,,2005.
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this day of
f
YO
ATTEST: I
BRENDA JACOBER,CITY CLERK _
c_
APPROVED AS 1
1
bEP CITY A Y
7 WRL4 9
l
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
1
I
i
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the IS day of
2005.
BRENDA JACOBER, ITY CLERK
I
I
I
II�
ll
I
8 Hwu 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
I
APPENDIX C
Restoration Plan Map
i
33
y*yp
all 3 �;
:�. a
30$g$r�gpE� �.t�C�T ID•Tcy,�.� r"`F�°y.'"'e� _ �..__"�*u�'-n:• '_..-^' _.^.�_'�=x {,: ..
('w
CD
sz ``,k�;r�;b c-f __ �� ._i :„z:�moat's zp •OT``'�� " -- ,,,-F
a a g s
ki-
gZ
S.
C
C !I.j7 O
� } C
- I �
. I 9
7,
r
,-.q°;X
ell +. _ t< < 3'.'_•--+'E`�` �,g'i, 4
m-
EXHIBIT B
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 13 ""SHORELINE ELEMENT"
i
i
,I
�i
i
I
i
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
SHORELINE ELEMENT
The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is a planning document that outlines
goals and policies for the shorelines of the City, pursuant to the Shoreline Management
Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA) and the Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173-26) and also
establishes regulations for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. The
goals and policies associated with the SMP are summarized below.
I
The SMP addresses a broad range of uses that could be proposed in the shoreline area.
r
This breadth is intended to ensure that the Kent shoreline area is protected from activities
and uses that, if unmonitored, could be developed inappropriately and could cause
( damage to the ecological system of the shoreline, displace "preferred uses" as identified
in Chapter 90.58 RCW, or cause the degradation of shoreline aesthetic values.
r
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION POLICIES
i
Pursuant to the Shoreline Guidelines, shorelines of the state that meet the criteria
established in WAC 173-26-211 are given a shoreline environment designation. The
purpose of the shoreline designation system is to ensure that land use, development, or
other activity occurring within the designated shoreline jurisdiction is appropriate for that
area and that consideration is given to the special requirements of that environment.
Policies related to each environment designation are found below. The policies are
numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP.
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
I
1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural
character of the designated wetland area should be prohibited.
Shoreline Element 13-1
i
2. New land division, development or shoreline modification that would reduce
the capability of the wetlands to perform normal ecological functions should
not be allowed. {
3. Uses that are consumptive of physical, visual, and biological resources should f
be prohibited.
Access and Improvements
4. Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and
low-intensity water-oriented recreational purposes such as nature study that
do not impact ecological functions, provided that no significant ecological
impact on the area will result.
S. Physical alterations should only be considered when they serve to protect or
enhance a significant, unique, or highly valued feature that might otherwise
be degraded or destroyed or for public access where no significant ecological
impacts would occur. 1
Implementing Regulations
6. The ecological resources in the Natural-Wetlands environment should be
protected through the provisions in the Critical Areas section of this SMP.
2. "High-Intensity" (H-I) Environment
c. Management Policies 1
Uses
1. In regulating uses in the "High-Intensity"environment,first priority should be
given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Given the fact that commercial
navigation on the Green River is limited by the channel configuration,
nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed on shorelands separated from the
shoreline by other properties, such as the Green River Trail corridor, and
where public access improvements and/or shoreline restoration is included as
part of the development. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be permitted
where water-dependent uses, public access, and shoreline restoration is
infeasible, as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator. I
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP I
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or
public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that
which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the l
"High-Intensity"environment.
I
Shoreline Element 13-2
i
2. Developments in the "High-Intensity" environment should be managed so
that they enhance and maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban uses, with
priority given to water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses.
Public Access and Aesthetics
3. Existing public access ways should not be blocked or diminished.
4. Aesthetic objectives should be actively implemented by means such as sign
control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and
architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. These
objectives may be implemented either through this SW or other City
ordinances.
S. In order to make maximum use of the available shoreline resource and to
accommodate future water-oriented uses, shoreline restoration andlor public
access, the redevelopment and renewal of substandard, degraded, obsolete
urban shoreline areas should be encouraged.
I3. "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" (UC-OS)Environment
c. Management Policies
I
Uses
1. Water-oriented recreational uses should be given priority over nonwater-
oriented uses. Water-dependent recreational uses should be given highest
priority.
2. Commercial activities enhancing the public's enjoyment of publically
,I accessible shorelines may be appropriate.
3. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
4. Development that hinders natural channel movement in channel migration
zones should not be allowed (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,
Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
Ecological Restoration and Public Access
3. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts, as determined
by the City, should be taken to restore ecological functions.
I
Shoreline Element 13-3
i
i
4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures,
vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the y
"Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
I
S. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented
whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. '
4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI)Environment l
c. Management Policies l
Uses 1
1. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. l
For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, 1
water-dependent uses should be given highest priority. {
2. Uses in the "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" environment should be
limited to those which are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of 1
the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses that do not
substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of
the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental
enhancement are preferred uses.
3. Agricultural practices, when consistent with provisions of this chapter, may be
allowed. Except as a Conditional Use, nonwater-oriented commercial and
industrial uses should not be allowed.
4. Where allowed, commercial uses should include substantial shoreline
restoration and public access.
S. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
6. Developments and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently
deplete habitat or the physical or biological resources of the area or inhibit
stream movement in channel migration zones should not be allowed. (Refer to
the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and +
Analysis Report).
l
Shoreline Elemen! 13-4
1
i
Ecological Management and Restoration
7. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be
taken to restore ecological functions. Where feasible, restoration should be
required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed
shorelines.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required.
The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given
the specific circumstances of development in the "Urban Conservancy —Low
Intensity"environment.
i
8. Regulatory standards should be established for shoreline stabilization
! measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications
within the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity"designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
l
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
9. Where appropriate, standards for landscaping and visual quality should be
included.
Shoreline Modification and Development Impacts
10. Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works
should not be allowed except where there is a documented need to protect
public safety, an existing structure or ecological functions and mitigation is
applied (See Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions). New
development should be designed and located to preclude the need for
structural shoreline stabilization or flood control.
IL Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a
maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area, unless an alternative
standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the
provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions.
12. New shoreline stabilization,flood control measures, vegetation removal, and
other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that
the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time.
Shoreline ecological restoration should be required of new nonwater-
dependent development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological
functions have been degraded.
13. Activities or uses that would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover, cause
substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely affect wildlife or aquatic
life should be prohibited.
I
Shoreline Element 13-5
l
14. Preservation of ecological functions should be balanced with public access
and recreation objectives and should have priority over development
objectives whenever a conflict exists.
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR)Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses and not I
conflict with the residential character of lands in the "Shoreline Residential"
environment. I
2. Water-oriented recreational uses should be allowed. `
3. Adequate land area and services should be provided.
4. Land division and development should be permitted only 1) when adequate
setbacks or buffers are provided to protect ecological functions and 2) where
there is adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and
public services available and 3) where the environment can support the
proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions.
5. Development standards for setbacks or buffers, shoreline stabilization, I
vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be
established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has
occurred, restore ecological functions over time.
6. Multi family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels should provide community access for residents of that development.
7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future
shoreline stabilization is not required.
6. "Aquatic" Environment
c. Management Policies
1. New over-water structures should be prohibited except for water-dependent
uses,public access, or ecological restoration. +
2. The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum
necessary to support the structure's intended use.
I
Shoreline Element 13-6
3. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective
use of water resources, multiple uses of over-water facilities should be
encouraged.
4. Provisions for the "Aquatic" environment should be directed towards
maintaining and restoring habitat for aquatic species.
5. Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the
objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to
the sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
6. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water , quality and alteration of natural hydrographic
conditions.
7. Abandoned and neglected structures that cause adverse visual impacts or are
a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare should be removed or restored
to a usable condition consistent with this SMP.
GENERAL POLICIES
General policies are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of shoreline
environment designation) that may occur along the City's shorelines. General Provisions
j policies are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the
SNIP.
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations
b. Policies
i
1. The City should periodically review conditions on the shoreline and conduct
appropriate analysis to determine whether or not other actions are necessary
to protect and restore the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions, protect human health and safety, upgrade the visual qualities, and
enhance residential and recreational uses on the City's shorelines. Specific
issues to address in such evaluations include, but are not limited to:
a. Water quality.
b. Conservation of aquatic vegetation (control of noxious weeds and
enhancement of vegetation that supports more desirable ecological
and recreational conditions).
c. Upland vegetation.
Shoreline Element 13-7
l
d. Changing visual character as a result of new residential
development, including additions, and individual vegetation
conservation practices.
e. Shoreline stabilization and modifications.
2. The City should keep records of all project review actions within shoreline
jurisdiction, including shoreline permits and letters of exemption.
3. Where appropriate, the City should pursue the policies of this SMP in other
land use, development permitting, public construction, and public health and
safety activities. Specifically, such activities include, but are not limited to:
a. Water quality and storm water management activities, including
those outside shoreline jurisdiction but affecting the shorelines of
the state.
b. Aquatic vegetation management.
c. Health and safety activities, especially those related to sanitary
sewage.
d. Public works and utilities development. {
4. The City should involve affected federal, state, and tribal governments in the
review process of shoreline applications.
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources I,
b. Policies
1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource, public or private
uses, activities, and development should be prevented from destroying or
damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value as
identified by the appropriate authorities and deemed worthy of protection and
preservation.
3. Critical Areas
Critical Areas in SW jurisdiction are regulated under Kent's Critical Areas
Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805 (08115106), codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC.
The policies and goals for critical areas are found in section 11.06.020 KCC and in
the Land Use Element: LU-21, LU-22 LU-25, LU-26, LU-27, and LU-28.
4. Environmental Impacts )
b. Policies
1. In implementing this SMP, the City should take necessary steps to ensure
t
Shoreline Element 13-8
compliance with Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971, and its implementing guidelines.
2. All significant adverse impacts to the shoreline should be avoided or, if that is
not possible, minimized to the extent feasible and provide mitigation to ensure
no net loss of ecological function.
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management
1 b. Policies
1. The City should implement a comprehensive program to manage the City's
riparian corridors that integrates the following City ordinances and activities:
Sa. Regulations in this SMP.
b. The City's Critical Area Regulations.
c. The City's zoning code.
d. The City's Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual,
and implementing regulations.
e. The City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
and compliance with the State's floodplain management law at
Chapter 86.16. RCW.
f. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including
roads, dikes, utilities, bridges, and other structures.
g. The ecological restoration of selected shoreline areas.
2. In regulating development on shorelines within SMA jurisdiction, the City
should endeavor to achieve the following:
L
} a. Maintenance of human safety.
b. Protection and, where appropriate, the restoration of the physical
I integrity of the ecological system processes, including water and
sediment transport and natural channel movement.
c. Protection of water quality and natural groundwater movement.
d. Protection offish, vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat
vital to the aquatic food chain.
e. Protection of existing legal uses and legal development (including
i nonconforming development) unless the City determines relocation
or abandonment of a use or structure is the only feasible option or
that there is a compelling reason to the contrary based on public
i concern and the provisions of the SMA.
f. Protection of recreation resources and aesthetic values, such as
point and channel bars, islands, and other shore features and
scenery.
1
1 Shoreline Element 13-9
l
g. When consistent with the provisions a. through f. above, provide
for public access and recreation, consistent with Chapter 3 Section
B.7.
3. The City should undertake flood hazard planning, where practical, in a
coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and
consider entire drainage systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes, or
marine shorelines. This planning should consider the off-site erosion and
accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or
protection structures or activities. Flood hazard management planning -
should fully employ nonstructural approaches to minimizing flood hazard to
the extent feasible.
4. The City should give preference to and use nonstructural solutions over
structural flood control devices wherever feasible, including prohibiting or
limiting development in historically flood-prone areas, regulating structural
design and limiting increases in peak storm water runoff from new upland
development, public education, and land acquisition for additional flood
storage. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline hazard should be allowed
only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to
reduce the hazard.
Where structural solutions are rebuilt,fish friendly structures such as setback
levees should be used. In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be
taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
S. In designing publicly financed or subsidized works, the City should provide
public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-impact outdoor recreation.
6. The City should encourage the removal or breaching of dikes to provide
greater wetland area for flood water storage and habitat; provided, such an
action does not increase the risk of flood damage to existing human
development.
6. Parking
b. Policies
1. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible, parking
should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on weekends,
commercial uses on weekdays).
2. Where feasible,parking for shoreline uses should be provided in areas outside
shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Low-impact parking facilities, such as permeable pavements, are encouraged.
Shoreline Element 13-10
7. Public Access
b. Policies
1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public
developments with the exception of the following:
a. One-and two-family dwelling units; or
b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and
environmental concerns.
2. Developments, uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair
or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation.
3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge
without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4. Opportunities or public access should be identified on ublicl owned
PP .T Ppublicly
shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities
and rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced.
S. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and
to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy.
There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating
public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict.
6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and
preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive
removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views.
7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly
funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be
avoided.
8. City parks, trails and public access facilities adjacent to shorelines should be
maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans.
9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to
provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area
wherever feasible.
10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to
publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged.
Shoreline Element 13-11
�1
IL The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in I
the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline.
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance
b. Policies
In implementing the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide
significance, the City will base decisions in preparing and administering this SW jf
on the following policies in order of priority, 1 being the highest and 6 being
lowest.
I(
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. I
a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals
representing state-wide interests by circulating the SW, and any
proposed amendments affecting shorelines of state-wide
significance, to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's
advisory committees and local officials and state-wide interest
groups.
b. Recognize and take into account state agencies'policies,programs
and recommendations in developing and administering use
regulations and in approving shoreline permits.
c. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with
expertise in ecology and other scientific fields pertinent to
shoreline management.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
a. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use I
regulations to protect and restore the ecology and environment of
the shoreline as a result of man-made intrusions on shorelines. 1
b. Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development I
already exists in order to reduce adverse impact on the
environment and to accommodate future growth rather than
allowing high intensity uses to extend into low-intensity use or
underdeveloped areas.
c. Protect and restore existing diversity of vegetation and habitat
values, wetlands and riparian corridors associated with shoreline
areas.
d. Protect and restore habitats for State-listed `priority species. "
3. Support actions that result in long-term benefits over short-term benefits.
l
L
Shoreline Element 13-12
1_
a. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of
developments relative to the long-term and potentially costly
impairments to the natural shoreline.
b. In general, preserve resources and values of shorelines of state-
wide significance for future generations and restrict or prohibit
development that would irretrievably damage shoreline resources.
J
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
a. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed
and managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse
f impacts to wildlife resources, including spawning, nesting, rearing
and habitat areas and migratory routes.
b. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new
development, redevelopment of existing facilities or general
enhancement of shoreline areas.
c. Shoreline development should be managed to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
S. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.
a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas,
linear access along the shorelines, especially to the maintenance
and enhancement of the Green River Trail, which is a regional
recreational and transportation resource.
f b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so
that access is enhanced.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline.
I
a. Plan for and encourage development of facilities for recreational
use of the shoreline.
b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well
away from the shorelines with provisions for nonmotorized access
to the shoreline.
9. Signage
b. Policies
1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the
f aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses.
2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the water
or shorelands.
Shoreline Element 13-13
10. Utilities (Accessory)
b. Policies
i
1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline
and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the I
shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a I
shoreline location, they should be placed underground.
3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which
preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and
functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses.
11. Vegetation Conservation
b. Policies
1. Vegetation within the City shoreline areas should be enhanced over time to
provide a greater level of ecological functions, human safety, and property
protection. To this end, shoreline management activities, including the
provisions and implementation of this SMP, should be based on a
comprehensive approach that considers the ecological functions currently and
potentially provided by vegetation on different sections of the shoreline, as
described in Chapter S of the June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline
Inventory and Analysis Report.
2. This SMP in conjunction with other City development regulations should
establish a coordinated and effective set of provisions and programs to
protect and restore those functions provided by shoreline vegetation.
3. Aquatic weed management should stress prevention first. Where active
removal or destruction is necessary, it should be the minimum to allow water-
dependent activities to continue, minimize negative impacts to native plant
communities, and include appropriate handling or disposal of weed materials.
4. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replacement with native
vegetation should be encouraged. Removal of noxious or invasive weeds
should be conducted using the least-impacting method feasible, with a i
preference for mechanical rather than chemical means.
1
i
t
Shoreline Element 13-14
l
I
12.Water Quality and Quantity
i b. Policies
1. All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed, and
I maintained to avoid significant ecological impacts that alter water quality,
quantity, or hydrology.
1 2. The City should require reasonable setbacks, buffers, and storm water storage
basins and encourage low-impact development techniques and materials to
achieve the objective of lessening negative impacts on water quality.
1 3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates, or flood waters
through the use of stream control works should be located, designed,
constnicted, and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do
not degrade the existing water quality and quantity.
4. As a general policy, the City should seek to improve water quality, quantity
(the amount of water in a given system, with the objective of providing for
ecological functions and human use), and flow characteristics in order to
protect and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
shorelines within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The City should
{ implement this policy through the regulation of development and activities,
1I through the design of new public works, such as roads, drainage, and water
treatment facilities, and through coordination with other local, state, and
federal water quality regulations and programs. The City should implement
the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as updated and adopted
by City ordinance.
5. All measures to treat runoff in order to maintain or improve water quality
should be conducted on-site before shoreline development creates impacts to
water.
6. Shoreline use and development should minimize the need for chemical
l` fertilizers, pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent
I contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects
on shoreline ecological functions and values.
SHORELINE MODIFICATION POLICIES
f ,
l Shoreline modifications are structures or actions which permanently change the physical
configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water
meet. Shoreline modification activities include, but are not limited to, structures such as
i
l
Shoreline Element 13-15
revetments, bulkheads, levees, breakwaters, docks, and floats. Actions such as clearing, !
grading, landfilling, and dredging are also considered shoreline modifications.
Generally, shoreline modification activities are undertaken for the following reasons:
g
1. To prepare a site for a shoreline use
2. To provide shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection
3. To support an upland use
The policies in this section are intended to prevent or mitigate the adverse environmental
impacts of proposed shoreline modifications. Policies related to each shoreline
modification are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the
SNIP.
1. General Policies and Regulations
b. Policies
1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where the are
Y y
demonstrated to be necessary:
a. To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally
existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial
damage, or;
b. For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or
enhance the shoreline ecology.
2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as
possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent.
3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of
shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed.
4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually
and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated
in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary
shoreline modifications, by giving preference to those types of shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by
requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline
modifications.
S. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and
technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions
provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231.
Shoreline Element 13-16
6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and
appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WA 173-26-
231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible
measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes.
7. In reviewing shoreline permits, the City should require steps to reduce
significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in RAC
173-26-201(2)(e).
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads)
b. Policies
1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over "soft" structural
measures. "Soft" structural shoreline stabilization measures are strongly
preferred over hard structural shoreline stabilization Proposals for hard
and soft structural solutions, including bulkheads, should be allowed only
when it is demonstrated that nonstructural methods are not `feasible", as
defined in Chapter 6. Hard structural shoreline stabilization measures
should be allowed only when it is demonstrated that soft structural measures
are not feasible.
2. Bulkheads and other structural stabilizations should be located, designed,
and constructed primarily to prevent damage to existing development and
minimize adverse impacts to ecological functions.
3. New development requiring bulkheads and/or similar protection should not be
allowed. Shoreline uses should be located in a manner so that bulkheads and
other structural stabilization are not likely to become necessary in the future.
4. Shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively shall not result in a net
loss of ecological functions. This is to be achieved by giving preference to
those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological
functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from
shoreline modifications.
3. Over-Water Structures — Including Piers and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and
Boating Facilities
b. Policies
1. Moorage associated with a single-family residence is considered a water-
dependent use provided that it is designed and used as a facility to access
watercraft.
Shorehne Element 13-17
2. New moorage, excluding docks accessory to single family residences, should
be permitted only when the applicant/proponent has demonstrated that a
specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent or public access
use.
3. To minimize continued proliferation of individual private moorage, reduce the
amount of over-water and in-water structures, and reduce potential long-term
impacts associated with those structures, shared moorage facilities are
preferred over single-user moorage. New subdivisions of more than two (2)
lots and new multifamily development of more than two (2) dwelling units
should provide shared moorage.
4. Docks, piers, and other water-dependent use developments including those
accessory to single family residences, should be sited and designed to avoid
adversely impacting shoreline ecological functions or processes, and should
mitigate for any unavoidable impacts to ecological functions.
S. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be spaced and
g P P P
oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to public
navigation rights and corollary rights thereto such as, but not limited to,
fishing, swimming and pleasure boating.
6. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be restricted to
the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use. The length,
width and height of over-water structures and other developments regulated
by this section should be no greater than that required for safety and
practicality for the primary use.
7. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be constructed
of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals in the long term.
4. Fill
b. Policies
1. Fills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support
allowed water-dependent or public access uses, cleanup and disposal of
contaminated sediments, and other water-dependent uses that are consistent
with this SMP.
2. Shoreline fill should be designed and located so there will be no significant
ecological impacts and no alteration of local currents, surface water
drainage, channel migration, or flood waters which would result in a hazard
to adjacent life,property, and natural resource systems.
Shoreline Element 13-18
5. Dredging and Disposal
b. Policies
1. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize
interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses,
properties, and values.
2. When allowed, dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the
minimum amount necessary.
3. .� dredge ration zone shall be Disposal o material within a channel migration p e g g
discouraged. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in
the Inventory and Analysis Report).
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement
b. Policies
1. The City should consider shoreline enhancement as an alternative to
structural shoreline stabilization and protection measures where feasible.
2. All shoreline enhancement projects should protect the integrity of adjacent
natural resources including aquatic habitats and water quality.
3. Where possible, shoreline restoration should use maintenance free or low-
maintenance designs.
4. The City should pursue the recommendations in the shoreline restoration plan
prepared as part of this SW update. The City should give priority to projects
consistent with this plan.
5. Shoreline restoration and enhancement should not extend waterward more
than necessary to achieve the intended results.
7. Dikes and Levees
b. Policies
1. Dikes and levees should be constructed or reconstructed only as part of a
comprehensive flood hazard reduction program
2. Environmental enhancement measures should be a part of levee
improvements.
Shoreline Element 13-19
SHORELINE USE POLICIES
The provisions in this section apply to specific common uses and types of development to
the extent they occur within shoreline jurisdiction. Policies related to each shoreline use
are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP.
1. General Policies
b. Policies
1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or
are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas.
2. The City should ensure that all proposed shoreline development will not
diminish the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land or its
vegetation and wildlife, and should endeavor to protect property rights while
implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
3. The City should reduce use conflicts by prohibiting or applying special
conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or
dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision,
preference should be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-
related uses and water-enjoyment uses.
4. The City should encourage the full use of existing urban areas before
expansion of intensive development is allowed.
2. Agriculture
b. Policies
1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes,
channel migration zones, and associated marshes, bogs, and swamps should
be prohibited.
2. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and
water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and
resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality, reduce flood hazard, and
maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
3. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste
and manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and
Shoreline Element 13-20
constructed to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of the
adjacent shoreline environment.
4. Appropriate farm management techniques should be utilized to prevent
contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant,
fish, and animal life from fertilizer and pesticide use and application.
S. Where ecological functions have been degraded, new development should be
conditioned with the requirement for ecological restoration to ensure no net
loss of ecological functions.
The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration. The
extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
specific circumstances of an agricultural development.
3. Boating Facilities
b. Policies
1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide
maximum feasible protection and restoration of ecological processes and
functions and all forms of aquatic, littoral, or terrestrial life—including
animals, fish, shellfish, birds, and plants—and their habitats and migratory
routes. To the extent possible, boating facilities should be located in areas of
low biological productivity.
2. Boating facilities should be located and designed so their structures and
operations will be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected and
will not unreasonably impair shoreline views. However, the need to protect
and restore ecological functions and to provide for water-dependent uses
carries higher priority than protection of views.
3. Boat launch facilities should be provided at appropriate public access sites.
4. Existing public moorage and launching facilities should be maintained.
4. Commercial Development
b. Policies
1. Multi-use commercial projects that include some combination of ecological
restoration, public access, open space, and recreation should be encouraged
in the High-Intensity Environment consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Shoreline Element 13-21
2. Where possible, commercial developments are encouraged to incorporate
Low Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
5. Industry I
b. Policies
1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented
industrial development. I
2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
6. In-Stream Structures
b. Policies —
1. In-stream structures should provide for the protection, preservation, and
restoration of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological unctions, and cultural
Y P g f
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and
water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and I,
natural scenic vistas. Within the City of Kent, in-stream structures should be
allowed only for the purposes of environmental restoration or water quality
I
treatment.
7. Recreational Development
{ I
b. Policies
1. The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning should be 1
encouraged to satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline recreational
developments should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open
space plans.
2. Recreational developments and plans should promote the conservation of the
shoreline's natural character, ecological functions, and processes. 1 '.
3. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be
encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs.
4. Water-dependent recreational uses, such as angling, boating, and swimming, 1
should have priority over water-enjoyment uses, such as picnicking and golf.
Water-enjoyment uses should have priority over nonwater-oriented
recreational uses, such as field sports.
Shoreline Element 13-22
f
S. Recreation facilities should be integrated and linked with linear systems, such
as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements, and scenic drives.
I6. Where appropriate, nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in
floodplain areas. Nonintensive recreational uses include those that do not do
4 any of the following:
a. Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems.
b. Create any flood hazards.
+ c. Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as
structural shoreline stabilization or vegetation removal.
7. Opportunities to expand the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline in public
parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued.
f
8. Residential Development
b. Policies
1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas including, but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, and
buffers.
2. The overall density of development, lot coverage, and height of structures
should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site and consistent
t with the comprehensive plan.
3. Recognizing the single purpose, irreversible, and space consumptive nature of
shoreline residential development, new development should provide adequate
setbacks or open space from the water to provide space for community use of
the shoreline and the water, to provide space for outdoor recreation, to
protect or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to
preserve views, to preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics, to protect the
privacy of nearby residences, and to minimize use conflicts.
4. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of groundwater supplies,
erosion control, stormwater drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat,
ecosystem-wide processes, and open space.
i
S. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, shall be provided
in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations.
6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring
will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential
t lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed
without:
Shoreline Element 13-23
l
a. Constructing shoreline stabilization structures (such as
bulkheads).
b. Causing significant erosion or slope instability.
c. Removing existing native vegetation within 20 feet of the shoreline.
9. Transportation
b. Policies t
1. Circulation system planning on shorelands should include systems for
pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation
planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses
that are consistent with the SMP.
2. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines and should be
Y P g g
constructed in a manner compatible with the natural character, resources,
and ecology of the shoreline.
3. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned, they should be reused
for water-dependent use or public access.
10. Utilities
b. Policies
1. New utility facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline
protection works.
2. Utility facilities and corridors should be located so as to protect scenic views,
such as views of the Green River from the Green River Trail. Whenever
possible, such facilities should be placed underground, or alongside or under
bridges.
3. Utility facilities and rights-of-way should be designed to preserve the natural
landscape and to minimize conflicts with present and planned land uses.
SHORELINE RESTORATION
Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values of the
shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the proponent of that
activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the
baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be
improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally,
degraded?
Shoreline Element 13-24
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines says:
"master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing
policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any
additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its
goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and
meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that
contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the
direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local,
state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from
shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards."
In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master Program (with mitigation of project-
related impacts) in combination with this Restoration Plan (for restoration of lost
ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project) should result in a net
improvement in the City of Kent's shoreline environment in the long term.
RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(MA 9)Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to major engineering
changes, land use changes which have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon
habitat, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and industrial discharges,
erosion, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides (WRIA 9 Steering Committee
2002). The June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report
provides supporting information that validates these claims specifically in the City's
shoreline jurisdiction. The WRIA 9 Near Term Action Agenda established three high
priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery.
• "Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River
watershed and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
• Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds Meeting this goal involves
several types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat,
restoring degraded habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water
quality and flows.
Shoreline Element 13-25
J
• Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles)
to and from the Upper Green River subwatershed."
The following recommended policy for the lower Green River subwatershed, including
Kent, is also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005).
• In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back 1
levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat
rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the
river.
The WRIA 9 restoration goals, in combination with the results of the City's Final
Shoreline Imventoty and Analysis Report, the direction of Ecology's Shoreline Master
Program Guidelines, and the City's commitment to support the Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making our Watershed Fit for a King, are the foundation for the following goals and [
objectives of the City of Kent's restoration strategy. Although the Green/Duwanrish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon
Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a
King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in ecosystem-wide processes
and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures those processes and
functions that benefit all fish and wildlife.
Goal 1: Maintain, restore or enhance watershed processes, including sediment, water,
p g
wood, light and nutrient delivery, movement and loss.
Goal 2: Maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat during all life stages and maintain 1
functional corridors linking these habitats. 1
Goal3: Contribute to conservation and recovery of chinook salmon and other
anadromous fish,focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat with
the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse,
harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon.
t
1. System-Wide Restoration Objectives
a. Improve the health of shoreline waterbodies by managing the quality and
quantity of stornnvater runoff, consistent at a minimum with the latest
Washington Department of Ecology Stornnvater Management Manual for
Shoreline Elentent 13-26
Western Washington. Make additional efforts to meet and maintain state and
county water quality standards in contributing systems.
i
b. Increase quality, width and diversity of native vegetation in protected
corridors and shorelines adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe
migration pathways for fish and wildlife,food, nest sites, shade, perches, and
organic debris. Strive to control non-indigenous plants or weeds that are
proven harmful to native vegetation or habitats.
c. Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 9 to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for
a King.
I
d. Base local actions and future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate
'i local government activities on the best available science presented in the
WRIA 9 scientific foundation and habitat management strategy.
e. Use the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the
Plan, as a source of potential site-specific projects and land use and public
,I
outreach recommendations.
f. Use the start-list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years
of Plan implementation, and to implement start-list actions through local
capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities.
g. Seek federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities for various
I restoration actions and programs independently or with other WRIA 9
jurisdictions and stakeholders.
h. Develop a public education plan to inform private property owners in the
shoreline area and in the remainder of the City about the effects of land
management practices and other unregulated activities (such as vegetation
removal,pesticide/herbicide use, car washing) on fish and wildlife habitats.
i. Develop a chemical reduction plan which focuses on reducing the application
of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides near shoreline waterbodies or
tributary streams and otherwise emphasizes only their localized use.
j. Where feasible, protect, enhance, and restore riparian areas surrounding
wetlands where functions have been lost or compromised.
2. Green River Restoration Objectives
a. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by identifying
hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent feasible with
bioengineered stabilization solutions.
Shoreline Element 13-27
J
b. Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and
erosion control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline
processes. Where levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set
back due to infrastructure considerations, maintain and repair them using
design approaches that maximize the use of native vegetation and large
woody debris (LWD).
c. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing I
LWD recruitment potential through plantings of trees,particularly conifers, in
the riparian corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs.
d. Improve the health of the Green River by reestablishing and protecting side
channel habitat.
e. Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
3. Lakeshore Restoration Objectives
a. Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in-water structures
through minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials.
b. Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce populations of non-native aquatic
vegetation. II
c. Where feasible, improve the health of lake shorelines by removing bulkheads
and utilizing bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to j
improve aquatic conditions.
RESTORATION PRIORITIES
The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of the City's
shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific
constraints. Briefly restated, the City's environmental protection and restoration goals
include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)
contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include
a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline
along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial
development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good
ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA),
they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals
and constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different
types of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic
Shoreline Element 13-28
1
1
actions, like continuing WRIA 9 involvement and conducting outreach programs to local
residents, tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to restoration actions involving
private landowners. Other factors that influenced the hierarchy are based on scientific
recommendations specific to WRIA 9, potential funding sources, and the projected level
of public benefit.
Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section
(Table 14), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the
priority level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety of
obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their
i
perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are
f relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and
l intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving
extensive shoreline restoration or large-scale capital improvement projects.
Straightforward projects with available funding should be initiated immediately for the
worthwhile benefits they provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while permitting,
design, site access authorization, and funding for the larger, more complicated, and more
I expensive projects are underway.
1. Priority 1: Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection
Because of the isolation of the Green River floodplain from the Green River by
the levee, floodplain habitats, including off-channel and side channel habitats, are
j typically described as the most diminished types of salmonid fish habitat relative
to the pristine condition. The lack of these habitat types is a limiting factor for
chinook salmon recovery. As discussed above, the historic use and prevalence of
'4 levees has greatly diminished the habitat value of extended floodplains.
Restoration of these areas has been found to be one of the most beneficial of all
types of stream and river enhancements. Projects in this category include the
WRIA 9 recommended projects listed in Table 11 in Chapter 8 of the SMP:
• Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River)
Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek
Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
Project LG-9 - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation and Riparian
Restoration Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank) [being implemented by
iCity as"Lower Green River Property Acquisition" in nearby locations]
• Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee
Setback and Habitat Rehabilitation)Between RM 20.5 and 16.3
I
Shoreline Element 13-29
• Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
2, Priority 2: Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation
Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin-wide
programs and initiatives such as the WRIA 9 Forum. Continue to work
collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 9 to implement
the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fat for a King (Habitat
Plan). This process provides an opportunity for the City to keep in touch with its
role on a basin-wide scale and to influence habitat conditions beyond its borders,
which, in turn, come back to influence water quality and quantity and habitat
issues within the City.
3. Priority 3: Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant
Delivery
Although most of the streams and their basins located within the City are outside i
of shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted.
Many of these streams have the potential to provide fish and wildlife habitat.
They are also a common receiving body for non-point source pollution, which in
turn delivers those contaminants to shoreline waterbodies.
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include four
actions focused on addressing water quality and stormwater controls:
• Program WWA 1: Expand/Improve incentives Programs
• Program WW-12• Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
• Program WW-13: Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Porous
Concrete
• Program WW-14. Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built
GreenTM Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
These recommendations emphasize the use of low impact development
techniques, on-site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and
control of point sources that discharge directly into surface waters. They involve
protecting and restoring forest cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths
Shorehne Element 13-30
by revising and enforcing Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools.
4. Priority 4: Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries
Expanding available fish habitat and rearing opportunities for anadromous fish is
a high priority for the City. One of the key mechanisms is to improve fish
passage by reconnecting mainstem river habitat to local tributaries.
The City is currently involved with improving fish habitat within the outlet from
Lake Meridian (Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project). This project
involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian, otherwise known as Cow
Creek, through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos
Creek. This project currently is funded through Phase 2 of 3, with Phase 2
expected to begin in 2009.
Recommended projects from the Habitat Plan include:
• Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River)
Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek
Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
5. Priority 5: Public Education and Involvement
Public education and involvement has a high priority in the City. While this is
especially important for areas directly affected by residential development (i.e.
Lake Meridian) or floodplain and levee management (i.e. Green River), it has
already resulted in vast improvements to the GRNRA and Green River projects
Opportunities for restoration outside of residential property are extensive along
most shoreline areas in the City. Only Lake Meridian is highly impacted by
residential development. Therefore, in order to achieve the goals and objectives
set forth in this Chapter 8, "Restoration Plan," most of the restoration projects
(except for those on Lake Meridian) would likely occur on public property. Thus,
providing education opportunities and involving the public is key to success, and
would possibly entail coordinating the development of a long-term Public
Education and Outreach Plan to gain public support.
Shoreline Element 13-31
6. Priority 6: Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration,
or Enhancement Purposes ( _
I
The City should explore opportunities to protect natural areas or other areas with
high ecological value via property acquisition. Mechanisms to purchase property
would likelyinclude collaboration with other stakeholder groups including
�' p g
representatives from local government, businesses and the general public in order
i
to develop a prioritized list of actions. Such a coordinated effort is listed as a
watershed-wide programmatic action in the Habitat Plan:
• Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural
Areas I
The Habitat Plan also includes the following specific acquisition project:
• Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
7. Priority 7: Improve Riparian Vegetation,Reduce Impervious Coverage
Similar to Priority 3, Section G.3 above, to improve water quality and reduce
sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in
impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Habitat Plan. All of the
specific projects listed in Table 11 (LG No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13) include some
form of protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide
programmatic actions also described in the Habitat Plan include many references
to improving vegetative conditions and reducing impervious surface coverage.
Specific reference to planting vegetation is listed in Program WW-5: Promote the
Planting of Native Trees. 1
In addition to the items listed in the Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many
areas where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in
impervious surfaces are warranted.
8. Priority 8: Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance
Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions ,
f .
The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat
conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of
the key limiting factors along the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). While
it is recognized that levees and revetments cannot practically be removed in all
Shoreline Element 13-32
i
circumstances, considerations should be made to maintain and repair them using
design approaches that incorporate native vegetation and large woody debris.
j Improvements to levees and revetments are discussed in Priority 1, Section G.1
above.
It is also recognized that reduction in shoreline armoring along lakes is also
i important (i.e. Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick). While no specific lake project
sites have been identified under this restoration priority, emphasis should be given
to future project proposals that involve or have the potential to restore shoreline
�1
areas to more natural conditions. The City should explore ways in which to team
with local property owners, whether through financial assistance, permit
expedition, or guidance, to restore multiple contiguous lots.
9. Priority 9: Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures
Reduction of in- and over-water cover by piers, docks, and other boat-related
structures is one mechanism to improve shoreline ecological functions. While not
necessarily prevalent along the Green River, pier and docks are extensive along
Lake Meridian with nearly 90 percent of all parcels having a pier or dock. The
II Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife already regulates the size and
materials for in- and over-water structures throughout the State and generally
recommends finding ways to reduce both the size and density of these structures.
Although no specific project sites to reduce in-water and over-water structures
within residential areas are identified here, future project proposals involving
reductions in the size and/or quantity of such structures should be emphasized.
Such future projects may involve joint-use pier proposals or pier reconstruction
and may be provided with an expedited permit process.
10. Priority 10: Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes
While not specifically listed in the Habitat Plan, reduction of aquatic invasive
weeds from the City's lakes is emphasized in Section E.2. All three lakes (Lake
Fenwick, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake) have experienced growth of non-
native and often invasive aquatic vegetation. Problem species include Eurasian
watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea and water lily. Future mechanisms to control weed
growth range from possible substrate blankets (Lake Meridian) to introduction of
grass carp (Lake Fenwick). Not only are aquatic weeds a problem for boats and
Shoreline Element 13-33
swimmers, but they also tend to reduce dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish,
hampering foraging opportunities.
l
11. Priority 11: City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies
,I City policies and development regulations are listed as being of lower priority in
this case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and
have recently been updated accordingly. Notably, the City's Critical Areas 1
Ordinance was recently updated (August 2006) consistent with the Best Available
Science for critical areas, including those within the shoreline area.
The City received its final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 1
(NPDES) Phase II permit in January 2007 from Department of Ecology. The
NPDES Phase II permit is required to include the City's stormwater discharges
into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit, the City
must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach,
detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal
dumping, wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff,
management and regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment,
and pollution prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include three
actions focused on regulatory mechanisms to restore ecological functions:
• Program WW-11: Expand/Improve Incentives Programs
• Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
• Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built ,
Green"' Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
1
Shoreline Element 13-34
1
EXHIBIT C
i
REVISIONS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 4 ""LAND USE ELEMENT"
I
i
I�
i
i
i
i,
i
GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) and Countywide Planning Policies (LU-2 and LU-7) prohibit
urban expansion through annexation into designated rural areas. The 2002/2004 Update
reflects the new Potential Annexation Area(PAA)for Kent(see Figure 4.1). Kent city limits
and the PAA together form the Planning Area for the City's Land Use Map and for all the
elements in the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Zoning Pattern
The City of Kent has five general categories of zoning districts: agricultural, single-family
residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial. Within each of these
general categories, there are several zoning districts,which allow varying levels of land uses
and bulk and scale of development. Table 4.1 shows the land area of each of these zoning
categories and Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of these zoning districts.
to the unincorporated area within the northeastern portion of the Potential Annexation Area
(PAA), the predominant land use is single-family residential. Most of the residential land is
zoned either R-6 or R-8, which are generally comparable to the City's SR-6 and SR-8 zones.
There is one (1) commercial and multi-family residential node in the unincorporated area,
located at SE 208th and 108th Avenue SE. The zoning for the unincorporated area was
adopted in 1991 as part of the Soos Creek Community Plan, and was amended on
November 5, 2001, by Ordinance #14241 as part of King County's process to update their
comprehensive plan. The southern portion of Kent's PAA is located adjacent to King
County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District. King County's land use for
the area to the west is R-4 (i.e., single-family 4 dwelling units per acre) and to the east is I
(industrial) where an existing wrecking yard is located and R-1 where steep slopes dominate
the landscape.
Inventory of Critical Areas & Resource Lands
The Growth Management Act requires cities to inventory, designate and protect through
development regulations all critical areas and designated resource lands. "Critical areas" are
defined as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
frequently flooded areas, and geologic hazard areas. Designated "Resource Lands" within
Kent are agricultural in nature and are considered to have long-term commercial
significance. The development rights for the Agricultural Resource Lands in Kent were
purchased under King County's Agricultural Preservation Program during the 1980's,
ensuring they will remain in agricultural land use in perpetuity.
Land Use Element 4-4
Figure 4.1 "Potential Annexation Area,"Figure 4.2 "Zoning Districts"and Table 4.1 "2004
ICity of Kent Land Use Designations"were intentionally omitted from this exhibit.
i
1
1
I
The City already has adopted policies and development regulations to protect critical areas.
Because critical areas have a major effect on how land uses are distributed throughout the
City and the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), their general location will be described in
this section. There are many notable natural features in Kent. Kent is distinguished by the
Green River Valley, which runs north to south through the center of the City. To the east and i
west of the valley are East Hill and West Hill, respectively. One of the most significant
natural features is the Green River, which extends through a major portion of the City. The
Green River is considered a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and falls under the
jurisdiction of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP)T, gteita* oie�i
Management Art (SMA), which places restrictions on shoreline development. Lake
Meridian located on East Hi111 Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area, and
within the PAA,Panther Lake are is-also a Shereline of Statewide Signifie subject to the
SW with similar restrictions. Thorn e t, a additional s ,.,,;f;,an4 . ,,,tor bodies 1.,e to i �
K-ffl# eity limits. Qar4Lake and Lake wiek.A4leClark Lake is another significant
natural resource located within city limits, but and Take >ao,,, iek due to its smaller size,
does not meet the parameters for protection under the Shoreline Master Program_,
rigni fioa .t natural 7„ the A A' rr.
Pan+he f Take is also a ;..,,fiea r natural ro r
e� o
hut-deR�e�thP-fill�para�t�f9�pret€�tie —However, Clark Lake those t4ee (Z)
smaller lake will be protected by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Due to the natural drainage r
patterns of the valley and upland, and the amount of development that has taken place over
the past thirty (30) years, there are a significant number of wetlands located in the City of
Kent. These wetlands have been inventoried and encompass over 2,414 acres of the
planning area. The hydrology of Kent also includes several major creeks, including Mill
Creek, Garrison Creek, Springbrook Creek, and-Big Soos Creek and its tributaries, and 1
Jenkins Creek, located on the City's water resources area. Big Soos Creek serves as the
eastern boundary of the planning area and the City of Kent, and a portion of this creek is l
provided protection under the SMPA. Portions of Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek are
also protected under the SMP. Many of these creeks,wetlands and the Green River corridor
are fish and wildlife habitat areas. Two notable habitat sites are publicly owned: The Green l
River Natural Resources Area(304 acres) and Clark Lake Park(125 acres).
i
In addition to the water-related natural constraints to development, the other predominant
natural feature in Kent is steep slopes. Slopes in excess of 25% are found along both East
Hill and West Hill. There also are several ravines that typically are associated with creek
beds. These hillsides along East Hill and West Hill provide a natural, wooded border to the
more developed Green River Valley area, and they are a distinct part of the City's natural
landscape.
J
Land Use Element 4-10
Figure 4.3 "Inventoried Wetlands"was intentionally omitted from this exhibit.
I
I
I
I
I
1 �
i
i '
1
Environmentally Critical Areas are shown on Figure 4.3 (i.e. Inventoried Wetlands). These
1
natural features are valued by the community and must be protected as part of the
comprehensive planning process. The protection of these areas will constrain development.
Therefore, it is important to note their location and consider their influence on the location
and density of future land uses.
Additional constraints are placed on Agricultural Resource Land. When the development 1
Y
rights are purchased from Agricultural Resource Land, covenants dictate uses and some
development standards. Because Agricultural Resource Land is protected for farming only,
the GMA requires that adjacent property owners who propose development must be notified
of the Agricultural Resource Land protected status to ensure there are no conflicts between
land uses. Kent's Agricultural Resource Land and the County's Lower Green River 1
Agricultural Production District are illustrated in Figure 4.5. j
l
Analysis of Development Capacity
A final, but critical measure of existing conditions and future development potential is the
analysis of development capacity. Development capacity refers to an estimate of the amount
of development,which could be accommodated on vacant and redevelopable land in Kent if
it were developed. The level of development, which could occur on a particular parcel of
land is influenced by the size of the parcel, the zoning district in which the parcel is located, /
and any environmental constraints that restrict development. Development capacity shows
the estimated amount of development, which could be accommodated under existing
zoning, considering recent market activity. It serves as a benchmark from which to gauge to I
what extent current land use and zoning policies can accommodate growth.
In 1991,the City estimated capacity for residential,commercial, and industrial development.
1
The City updated the information in 1993, 1997, and again in 2001. King County estimated
capacity for the unincorporated area located within the City's Potential Annexation Area. A
detailed explanation of the 1993 and 1997 methodology and assumptions used for
estimating capacity can be found in the supporting documents. In brief, vacant land and
land deemed appropriate for redevelopment were aggregated for each zoning district. The
overall development potential of each zone then was calculated, taking into consideration
reductions for critical areas, land which was unlikely to develop or redevelop (such as parks
and churches), and right-of-way and other public purpose dedications. q
The 2001 methodology to estimate capacity was based on the Buildable Lands Program and
Land Use Element 4-13 �(
i
Policy LU-20.1: Develop parking ratios which take into account existing parking
supply, minimums and maximums, land use intensity, and transit and ride-sharing
goals.
Policy LU-20.2: Incorporate ground-level retail and/or service facilities into any
parking structures that are constructed within the downtown Urban Center.
Policy LU-20.3: Provide an option for developers to construct the minimum
number of parking spaces on-site or pay an in-lieu fee to cover the cost of the City's
{ construction and operation of parking at an off-site location.
Policy LU-20.4: Evaluate the parking requirements for all uses within the DC and
DCE zones on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the following factors:
i
I a) the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to the site;
b) the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and type of
1 employees and the anticipated shifts;
c) the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual site
parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within concentrated
areas;
d) the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation report and
other publications which provide parking generation indices; and
e) any studies of similar specific uses conducted either by the City of Kent or
the applicant. The City of Kent parking coordinator, with the Planning
Manager's concurrence, will prepare a report recommending specific
parking requirements.
Policy LU-20.5: Require reduced allowable parking ratios for development projects
I that are in close proximity to intermodal transit/commuter rail facilities. A
development project may provide up to 50% of the applicable maximum parking
standard if the development is located within five hundred(500)feet of a designated
'I intermodal transit/commuter rail facility. Such project may provide up to 75%of the
applicable parking standard if the development is located between 500 and 800 feet
of an intermodal facility.
Policy LU-20.6: Develop bicycle parking standards for remodel and new
commercial, office, or industrial development.
SO NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
The natural environment of the Green River Valley, and adjacent hillsides and plateaus,
provide a unique and distinctive character to the City of Kent. The major hydrologic feature
is the Green River which encompasses a system that consists of associated creeks and
Land Use Element 4-40
I
wetlands. Some of the creeks in the Green River system, such as Mill Creek and Garrison
Creek, flow through steep ravines into the valley floor. While Big Soos Creek, Springbrook
Creek and Meridian Valley Creek flow at lower grades, they also contribute habitat.
Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within this system support local and regional fish
and wildlife resources. These include smaller streams and their associated wetlands, and
several small lakes, namely Fenwick, Clark and Panther. While thee— Those l
waterbodies or portions of waterbodies not regulated by the State Shefeliftes Aet,-they
Shoreline Master Program are protected through local Critical Areas regulations.
In 2002, the City of Kent began revising Critical Areas regulations as required by the GMA,
using best available science standards tailored specifically for Kent. Once complete, the
final regulations will guide future development in and near sensitive areas that will protect I the ecological functions and values of critical areas from cumulative adverse environmental
impacts. Designated critical areas include aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,
geologic hazard areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. In {
addition to protecting and preserving critical areas through regulations, a number of other
programs work cooperatively to form a systematic approach toward Kent's natural resource
policies. These other programs include: stormwater regulation, environmental capital t�
improvement projects, inter jurisdictional collaborative efforts, and the support of the
adjacent King County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District and the
"Agricultural Resource"land within Kent.
As a complement to n Critical Areas regulations, Kent's 1999 Shoreline Master Program
provides for the management and protection of local shoreline resources by planning for 1
reasonable and appropriate uses. The goals, policies, and regulations in the Shoreline 1
Master Program apply to activities in all lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). The goals and policies of Kent's 11
Shoreline Master Program are incorporated herein (see Chapter 13 "Shoreline Element"
appendiees Z
Kent is home to four watersheds namely Big Soos Creek, Mill Creek/Springbrook, Green
River, and Puget Sound Watersheds, each with major creek systems, all with varying
degrees of urban development. The Big Soos Creek Watershed is a region of approximately
70 square miles, and within the Kent City limits, includes the Soosette, Lake Meridian, and
Meridian Valley Creek subbasins, as depicted in Figure 4.7, as well as areas draining directly
to Big Soos Creek located outside Kent's Planning Area. The system has nearly ninety(90)
miles of streams flowing into the Green River, and the basin includes many wetlands and
lakes. The Soos Creek Basin Plan, adopted by King County in January 1992,recommended
a combination of tools for basin management aimed at correcting surface water problems
Land Use Element 4-41
i
and providing protection for the basin's water resources. One of the tools recommended
was to maintain rural densities, especially in areas of the Soosette Creek subbasin.
Big Soos Creek is a major creek lying within the Green River Basin. The creek meanders in
and out of the easterly city limits of Kent and provides a natural open space corridor
between the cities of Kent and Covington and between Urban Growth Areas and Rural
Areas of unincorporated King County. Big Soos Creek provides significant habitat for fish
and wildlife, and it is an area of natural beauty that provides recreational and educational
opportunities throughout the region. The Soos Creek Trail, which runs for four (4) miles
j from Gary Grant Park at SE 208`h and 137`h Avenue SE to Lake Meridian Park, provides
opportunities for walking,bicycling and horseback riding.
The east and west banks of the Green River Valley and other unique natural features such as
the Olsen Creek Canyon provide natural opportunities for Urban Separators. The eastern
plateau in particular provides a natural separation between the cities of Kent and Covington,
and between the urban and rural areas of unincorporated King County.
I '
The Olsen Creek Canyon provides separation between a portion of Kent and Auburn. This
separation continues as a result of both natural features and existing land use preservation
within the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District of King County. In addition,
the wetlands and floodplains of the Northeast Auburn drainage ditch, Mill Creek (Auburn)
and Mullen Slough limit development potential. The result is a complete east-west corridor
of environmental,visual,recreational, and wildlife benefits.
In 1985, the City of Kent, in conjunction with the establishment of the City stormwater
drainage utility, adopted the following water quality goal: "Reduce the environmentally
detrimental effects of present and future runoff in order to maintain or improve stream
i
habitat, wetlands,particularly water quality, and protected water-related uses." Beginning in
1986, the City worked with Green River Community College to analyze samples each
month from eleven (11) stream locations in Kent for twenty-four (24) water quality
parameters. In recent years, the City of Kent has been monitoring water quality.
Documentation of water quality conditions within Kent may be found in the 1999 — 2000
Ambient Monitoring "Draft" Final Report. The data collected indicate that water quality
problems continue to exist.
To address water quality problems within the City, a number of capital improvement
projects have been constructed and are being designed. Non-point source pollution is
Land Use Element 4-42
I
Figure 4.6"Watersheds"was intentionally omitted from this exhibit.
I
I
J
I
( I
I
i
4
I
E
I
I�
6
i
treated at numerous public and private stormwater treatment facilities throughout the City.
One example may be found at the 304-acre Green River Natural Resources Area(GRNRA).
The GRNRA provides regional treatment of surface water runoff from an 832-acre area on
the valley floor, flood control of 100-year flood events in the valley, wildlife habitat, and
public education opportunities. Since 1980, Kent has completed several projects to protect
the water quality of Lake Fenwick. In 1995, the City installed an aeration system to
improve Lake Fenwick's water quality. Water quality monitoring continues for all lakes
within the City.
The principal sources of water supply for the City's water system, Clark Springs, Kent
Springs, and Armstrong Springs, are located outside Kent city limits, adjacent to the
jurisdictions of unincorporated King County and the cities of Black Diamond, Covington
and Maple Valley. A Wellhead Protection Plan (Resolution #1563) has been prepared in
cooperation with Covington Water District and King County Water District#111. This plan
identifies aquifer recharge areas, potential containment sources, and management strategies
for protection of aquifers. Today these management strategies are being implemented in
cooperation with Covington Water District and King County Water District#111.
Native plants, trees and shrubs are found throughout the City. Preservation and planting of
native trees and shrubs, particularly near streams and wetlands on individual properties, in
parks, schools, and other public spaces protect and enhance environmental quality for fish
and wildlife habitat. Today preservation of open space, fish and wildlife habitat, and other
critical areas occurs through the development process using"Sensitive Area Easements".
It is the City of Kent's goal to participate in regional efforts to ensure long-term protection
of our salmonid resources to harvestable levels for today and future generations. Successful
restoration and maintenance of healthy salmon populations will require time, money, and
collaboration with tribal governments, federal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as
private citizens,businesses, and environmental groups.
In March 1999,the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)listed the Chinook salmon as
"threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In December 1999, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Puget Sound and Coastal Bull trout as threatened
I under the ESA. In the future, additional salmonid species such as Coho may also be listed
under the ESA. In accordance with the ESA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the USFWS issued regulations deemed necessary to provide
for the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and other salmonids. Commonly
Land Use Element 4-45
i
referred to as the 4(d) rule, the rule legally establishes the protective measures deemed
necessary to conserve the species. Local governments will be required to comply with these
protective measures.
hi cooperation with federal, state, and tribal governments, and other major stakeholders, y
local governments in the Puget Sound region have begun to identify early actions and
develop long-range strategies for the permanent conservation of the species. These
strategies are developed at the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA), which include the
boundaries of multiple jurisdictions. Kent has interest in two WRIA's: WRIA 9 (the
Green/Duwamish Watershed) and WRIA 8 (the Cedar/Sammamish Watershed).
Historically, the commercial agricultural lands in the Green River Valley have added to the
City's economic support. Today, the majority of protected agricultural resource lands in the
Valley are located south of Kent's municipal limits within King County's Lower Green
River Agricultural Production District. There are a few designated "Agricultural Resource" {
lands within Kent whose development rights have been purchased and protected from
conversion to a more intensive land use. Activities within the land use designation
"Agricultural Support" (i.e. AG-S) will help sustain the agricultural community by
providing land dedicated to the processing and retailing of local agricultural production.
Kent is committed to a multi-faceted approach toward the protection and enhancement of
local and regional natural resources. As such, the City will continue to protect natural
resources through the promulgation of development standards, enhancement of natural
resources through a variety of capital improvement programs, and looking for opportunities `
to support regional efforts to preserve our resources for future generations.
Goal LU21: I
Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in
determining the overall environmental quality and livability of the community.
Policy 21.1: Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the interaction
between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and geologically
hazardous areas, and human activities.
Goal LU-22:
Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-term, sustainable
relationship among local and regional natural resource protection entities,for future growth
and economic development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and recreational
Land Use Element 4-46
1
I
opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection of water quality in wetlands,
aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green River; provision of open space and screening to
reduce impacts of development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention of the unique
character and sense of place provided by the City's natural features.
Policy LU-22.1: Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance
with environmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education among
City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the effectiveness of incentives
by establishing monitoring programs.
Policy LU-22.2: Continue to evaluate programs and regulations to determine their
effectiveness in contributing to the conservation and recovery of ESA listed species.
Policy LU-22.3: Continue to participate in regional and KWA planning efforts to
support the conservation of listed species.
Goal LU-23:
Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of City regulations
and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as clustering and
planned unit development. Use such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use
densities and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural features such as
large wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, and forests.
Policy LU-23.1: Create development regulations for clustering single and
multifamily residential developments that are constrained by critical areas.
Policy LU-23.2: Where practical, allow planned unit developments in single-family
neighborhoods.
Goal LU-24:
Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce dependency on the
automobile, and thereby improve air and water quality and conserve energy resources.
Establish mixed-use commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit,foot, and bicycle.
i
Policy LU-24.1: Incorporate bike lanes in designated roadway designs, ensure that
sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities are provided in conjunction with private
and public development, and incorporate convenient transit stations in designs for
mixed-use development.
Goal LU-25:
Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply with state and federal
environmental protection regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous materials,
Land Use Element 4-47
l
noise and wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement programs, code enforcement,
implementation programs, development regulations, and site plan review to ensure that f
local land use management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals.
Policy LU-25.1: Protect and enhance environmental quality via maintenance of
accurate and up-to-date environmental data, and by City support of environmental
management programs, park master programs, and environmental education and
incentive programs. 1
Policy LU-25.2: Provide to property owners and prospective property owners
general information concerning natural resources, critical areas, and associated
regulations. Ensure developers provide site-specific environmental information to
identify possible on and off-site constraints and special development procedures.
Policy LU-25.3: Indemnify the City from damages resulting from development in
naturally constrained areas. To the extent possible or feasible, require that
developers provide to the City accurate and valid environmental information.
Policy LU-25.4: Continue a periodic storm drainage%nvironmental inspection
program to ensure constant maintenance and upkeep of storm systems and on-going
compliance with general environmental processes.
Policy LU-25.5: Ensure that decisions regarding fundamental site design are made
prior to the initiation of land surface modifications. Grade and fill permits, which
do not include site development plans, may be issued by the City where such
activities do not disturb sensitive areas, such as wetlands.
Policy LU-25.6: Require site restoration if land surface modification violates
adopted policy or if development does not ensue within a reasonable period
of time.
Policy LU-25.7: Adopt a clearing and grading code to protect upland habitat, as
well as site designations and special restrictions relevant to Kent's construction
standards and detention criteria.
Policy LU-25.8: As additional land is annexed to the City, assign zoning
designations, which will protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive
areas.
Policy LU-25.9: Continue to support waste reduction and recycling programs in
City facilities, and in the City at large, to meet State and County waste reduction and
recycling goals.
Land Use Element 4-48
1
i
Policy LU-25.10: Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local
jurisdictions, as well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work towards recovery
of ESA listed threatened and endangered species.
Goal LU-26:
Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including recreation,fish and
wildlife resources and habitat,flood protection, water supply, and open space.
Policy LU-26.1: Maintain the quantity and quality of wetlands via current land use
regulation and review, and increase the quality and quantity of the City's wetlands
resource base via incentives and advance planning.
Policy LU-26.2: Protect wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and
essential elements of watersheds. Base protection measures on wetland functions
and values, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities.
Policy LU-26.3: When jurisdictional boundaries are involved coordinate wetland
protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent jurisdictions and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Policy LU-26.4: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate
degraded channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with proposed
l new development.
Policy LU-26.5: On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the existing building
setback and stream buffer requirements in relation to goals for water resource and
fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessary, mods the requirements
to achieve goals.
Policy LU-26.6: Coordinate with King County to produce critical area maps of the
Potential Annexation Area which are consistent with the City of Kent Critical Areas
Maps.
Policy LU-26.7: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for water
supply in accordance with the City of Kent Water Quality Program
recommendations.
Policy LU-26.8: Update the City of Kent Critical Areas Maps as new information
about aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas becomes available.
Policy LU-26.9: In accordance with GMA regulations, update critical areas
development regulations to identify,protect, and preserve wildlife species and areas
of local significance.
Land Use Element 4-49
i
Policy LU-26.10: Protect the habitat of native and migratory wildlife by
encouraging open space conservation of beneficial habitat through public capital
improvement projects and private development.
Policy LU-26.11: Provide incentives for on-going water conservation activities and
practices, in accordance with the City of Kent Water System Plan.
Goal LU-27:
Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent to the shorelines of
the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values, and support the
goals and policies of the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
Policy LU-27.1: Reserve appropriate shoreline areas for water-oriented uses. 1
Policy LU-27.2: Minimize the loss of vegetation as new development occurs. l
Continue to recognize the value of trees and other vegetation in increasing the
livability of Kent. !
Policy LU-27.3: Promote and support a systematic approach to enhancing the City l
through carefully planned plantings and ongoing maintenance of street trees,public
landscaping, and greenbelts. Require the use of native and low water use l
vegetation.
Policy LU-27.4: Require protection of ecologically valuable vegetation, when
possible, during all phases of land use development. In cases where development
necessitates the removal of vegetation, require an appropriate amount of native or 1
low water use landscaping to replace trees, shrubs, and ground cover, which were 1
removed during development.
Policy LU-27.5: Record and protect established greenbelts to preserve existing
natural vegetation in geologically hazardous areas, along stream banks, wetlands,
and other habitat areas, and where visual buffers between uses or activities are
desirable.
Goal LU-28:
Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent harm, to protect public
health and safety, to preserve remaining critical areas, and enhance degraded critical areas
in the City.
Policy LU-28.1: Encourage enhancement of existing environmental features such
as rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.
1
Land Use Element 4-50
Policy LU-28.2: Promote the creation and preservation of natural corridors
adjacent to areas such as the Green River, Soos Creek, and other streams and
wetlands within the City of Kentforfish and wildlife habitat, open space and passive
recreation. Whenever possible, preservation of these lands should link other
properties with similar features to create a natural corridor
Goal LU-29:
Include provisions in the City's land use regulations to preserve reasonable access to solar
energy for all lots in the City where access or potential access exists.
Goal LU-30:
Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation,
! acquisition, or other methods.
I Policy LU-30.1: Establish a notification process as specified by the GMA to ensure
incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands are aware of adjacent
agricultural resource land.
i
Goal LU-31:
Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes,
( streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open
space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within
and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such
as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas.
Policy LU-31.1: Establish Urban Separators as low-density areas of no greater
than one dwelling unit per acre.
Policy LU-31.2: Only allow amendments to the Urban Separator policy at the time
coinciding with King County twenty (20)year review of its 1994 Policy Update of
the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending
danger or public safety.
Policy LU-31.3: Require subdivisions within or adjacent to Urban Separators to
provide open space linkages within or to the Urban Separator.
Policy LU-31.4: Establish Urban Separators as links between, and for protection
of, sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces or trails, critical aquifer recharge
areas, floodplains, high value wetlands, unstable slopes, regionally or locally
significant resource areas,fish and wildlife habitat and other unique environmental
features.
Policy LU-31.5: Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies,
adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach to
Urban Separators.
Land Use Element 4-51
I
Policy LU-31.6: Link Urban Separators within the City of Kent to those of adjacent
cities and unincorporated King County.
Policy LU-31.7: Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering f
of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot lines and other techniques
to protect and enhance urban separators.
Policy LU-31.8: Consider funding options, land trusts, purchase of development
rights, and other methods for public acquisition of Urban Separators. f
LAND USE MAP
Along with the Goals and Policies listed above, the Land Use Element also includes the l
Land Use Map. This map is a vital part of the Land Use Element and the Comprehensive
Plan as a whole, because it establishes the framework for amendments to the City's official
zoning map. It also establishes the land use and zoning framework to be used as land
currently in the Potential Annexation Area is annexed into the City.
DEFINITION OF MAP DESIGNATIONS
There are several different land use designations. They relate to various types of land uses,
such as residential, commercial,industrial, and the like. These designations are found on the
Land Use Map (Figure 4.8) and are explained below. One needs to bear in mind, however,
that there are certain types of land uses that need relative freedom of location and, thus,
should not be restricted to certain districts. These types of uses may be allowed via general
conditional use permit in many of the listed districts, whether residential, commercial or
industrial. The uses include utility, transportation, and communication facilities; schools;
public facilities; open space uses such as cemeteries, golf course, and so forth; and
retirement homes, convalescent facilities and certain other welfare facilities.
Single-Family Residential (SF)
The Single-family Residential designation allows single-family residential development at
varying densities and housing forms (e.g. cottage and cluster). In the city limits, there are
four single-family designations: SF-3, SF-04.5, SF-6, and SF-8. These designations allow
development of up to 3, 4.5, 6, and 8 dwelling units per acre, respectively. It should be
stressed that these designations represent a range of densities,with the designation being the I
I
Land Use Element 4-52
r
' Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Other Business - 7B
r 1. SU137ECT: PREEMPTIVE EMERGENCY REGARDING DIMINISHED RESERVOIR
CAPACITY OF HOWARD HANSON DAM - RESOLUTION - ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As Council is aware, the reservoir capacity and
associated flood control capabilities of the Howard Hanson Dam have been
diminished until necessary repairs can be made. Because the dam may not be
fully operational, the potential for downstream flooding is increased if the area
experiences heavy rains over a prolonged period.
In response to the flood damage potential, the King County Council, the Auburn
City Council, the Renton City Council, and the Tukwila City Council have each
declared preemptive emergencies giving authority to waive bidding and
purchasing procedural requirements in advance of actual flooding. The benefit of
declaring a preemptive emergency is that the Mayor will be able to make
purchases and enter into contracts swiftly in time to prepare for the upcoming
rainy season.
r
1
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
S. FISCAL IMPACT
' Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
' 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember r moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Resolution No. / proclaiming a preemptive emergency relating to
the Howard Hanson Dam and potential downstream flooding.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
r
RESOLUTION NO.
I
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, proclaiming a preemptive
i emergency relating to the Howard Hanson Dam
and potential downstream flooding.
RECITALS
A. State law and the Kent City Code empower the Kent City
Council and the Mayor to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of
a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a
major emergency or natural disaster. The United States Army Corps of
Engineers ("Corps") has declared that the reservoir capacity and the
associated flood control capabilities of the Howard Hanson Dam have been
�. diminished, and as a result, local communities downstream should plan for
the potential that the Green River may overtop its levees increasing the
risk for flooding in the Green River Valley during the 2009 and subsequent
I
flood seasons, until the Corps has completed repairs to the dam.
i
B. Should heavy rains occur within the watershed of the Howard
Hanson Dam while the dam operates at a diminished capacity, the floor of
the Green River Valley could experience flooding that might cause
infrastructure damage in Kent, interference with public health and safety,
disruption to business operations, and other economic impacts.
i
Anticipating the potential harm that faces Kent and other cities, the
1 Howard Hanson Dam -
Preemptive Emergency
i
Governor requested on July 20, 2009, that the Corps provide advance
measures to King County. Similarly, in response to the flood damage f
potential, the King County Council, the Auburn City Council, the Renton
City Council, and the Tukwila City Council have each issued emergency
proclamations, resolutions, or ordinances giving authority to waive bidding
and purchasing procedural requirements to act in advance of actual
flooding.
C. The Emergency Management Division of the City of Kent's Fire
Department, the City's Public Works Department, and its Economic and
Community Development Department recommend that the Kent City
Council declare an emergency in anticipation of the flooding potential
caused by the diminished capacity of the Howard Hanson Dam. This
emergency declaration will enable the Mayor to make preparations in
advance of any possible flooding and to respond swiftly should the Green
River levees fail to contain rising flood waters.
D. Accordingly, the Kent City Council finds that the threat posed
by the Howard Hanson Dam is genuine and that conditions of peril to the
safety of persons and property are threatened within the City, caused by
the current condition of the Howard Hanson Dam.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, l
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. - Emergency Finding and Declaration. The above I
recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects and are adopted by
the Kent City Council as its findings. Further, based on the representations 1
made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that flooding is possible in the
Green River Valley because of the diminished operating capacity of the
2 Howard Hanson Dam -
Preemptive Emergency
i
i
Howard Hanson Dam, the Kent City Council finds and declares that an
emergency exists that presents a real, immediate threat to the proper
performance of essential public and private functions, and that this
emergency may likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily
injury, or loss of life if immediate action is not taken to temporarily raise or
reinforce portions of the Green River levees, and to protect key public and
I
private infrastructure within the potential floodplain.
jSECTION 2. - Length of Emergency. The emergency proclaimed
and powers granted by this resolution shall be deemed to continue to exist
until the Corps determines that the current weaknesses in the Howard
Hanson Dam are fully repaired and the dam is operating at full capacity,
and until such time as essential public functions are substantially restored.
I
SECTION 3, - Mayor's Authority During Emergency. During the
existence of this emergency, and pursuant to the authority provided for in
sections 35A.40.210(1), 35.22.620(6), 39.04.280, and 38.52.070(2) of the
Revised Code of Washington, and section 3.70.090 of the Kent City Code,
the Mayor may exercise the powers, functions, and duties necessary to
prepare for, to stabilize, and to control potential flooding within Kent.
i
These emergency powers specifically include, without limitation, the power
to waive all competitive bid requirements for purchases of goods, services,
or supplies and for all public works contracts, but only to the extent the
Mayor determines these purchases or contracts are necessary to react to
the emergency declared in this resolution.
SECTION 4. - Written Finding. Pursuant to RCW 39.04.280(2)(b),
this resolution constitutes the City Council's written finding of the existence
of an emergency, which upon passage, shall be entered of record with the
City Clerk in the same manner as other Council resolutions, and which
allows the Mayor to award contracts without competitive bidding.
3 Howard Hanson Dam -
Preemptive Emergency
I
SECTIONS. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or J
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 6. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority f
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and 1
affirmed.
SECTION 7. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of September, 2009.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2009.
f
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK J
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f
l
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
l
4 Howard Hanson Dam -
Preemptive Emergency
I
i
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the
day of September, 2009.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
i
P:\Civil\Resolution\HowardHanson-PreEmptiveEmergencyDeclaration.doc
I
S
l
l
1
it
it
5 Howard Hanson Dam -
1 Preemptive Emergency
i
l
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 15, 2009
Category Other Business - X
1. SUB]ECT: PERMITTING WAIVER FOR TEMPORARY FLOOD PROTECTION
STRUCTURES - ORDINANCE - ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Concurrently with this ordinance, Council will
consider whether to adopt a r solution declaring a preemptive emergency due to
the diminished reservoir capacity and flood control capabilities of the Howard
Hanson Dam.
Because flood protection measures are often taken when the threat of flooding is
imminent, staff recommends the Council waive certain permitting requirements
for temporary flood protection structures, so long as the structure is removed
from the property by July 1, 2010. The temporary structure, however, will still be
required to comply with the substantive requirements of all applicable federal,
state and local regulations, including SEPA, the Shoreline Master Program, the
Kent Zoning Code, and the Kent Construction Standards.
If the structure is not removed by July 1, 2010, it will automatically be deemed a
permanent flood control structure, will be subject to all applicable regulatory .and
permitting requirements, will be deemed in violation of the Kent City Code, and
will be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. FISCAL IMPACT
Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A
Currently in the Budget? Yes No
b. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. temporarily waiving certain permitting
requirements for certain temporary structures constructed for flood protection
purposes due to the threat posed by the diminished flood control capabilities of
the Howard Hanson Dam.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
ORDINANCE NO.
I
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, temporarily waiving
certain permitting requirements for temporary
structures constructed for flood protection
purposes due to the threat posed by the
f diminished flood control capabilities of the Howard
Hanson Dam.
I
RECITALS
A. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has declared that
f
the flood control capabilities of the Howard Hanson Dam have been
diminished, and as a result, local communities downstream should prepare
for potential flooding on the Green River during the 2009-2010 flood
season. In response, the City of Kent, the King County Council, and
several South King County cities have adopted proclamations, resolutions,
and ordinances declaring a preemptive emergency. Consistent with the
passage of its emergency resolution regarding potential flooding of the
Green River, the Kent City Council adopts this ordinance intended to
expedite property owners' ability to erect temporary flood control
structures in order to protect their lives and property.
B. Flood protection measures are often taken when the threat of
flooding is imminent. Regulatory review and permit approval are typically
1
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures
1
impractical to apply for if floodwaters rise. Staff recommends that council
waive certain permitting requirements for temporary flood protection
structures installed to protect critical facilities, as those facilities and
structures are defined in this ordinance and if the structure is removed
from the property by July 1, 2010. Any flood protection structure that
remains beyond that date will automatically be deemed a permanent flood
control structure, will automatically be deemed subject to all applicable
regulatory and permitting requirements, and will automatically be deemed +
in violation of the Kent City Code, subject to civil and criminal penalties. f
While the procedural permitting requirements are waived, the temporary
structure must still comply with the substantive requirements of all
applicable federal, state, and local regulations, specifically including,
without limitation, the State Environmental Policy Act, the Shoreline
Master Program, the Kent Zoning Code, and the Kent Construction
Standards.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, f
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE I
SECTION 1. - Recitals Ado ted as Findings. The City Council finds
P 4 Y
the recitals listed above to be true and correct in all respects and adopts {
them as its findings for the purposes of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. - Definitions. The following definitions apply to the
words and phrases used in this ordinance: {
A. Temporary Flood Protection Structure. "Temporary Flood Protection
Structure" means any sandbag, water-filled sack, earthen berm, concrete
block, or similar material, or any combination of these materials, placed or
2 !
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures
I
II
installed within ten feet (10') of the outside perimeter of any critical facility
for the sole purpose of keeping potential Green River floodwaters from
invading the critical facility.
B. Critical Facility. "Critical Facility" means any permanent building
primarily used as a business or residence that is regularly staffed or is
lived in on a daily basis, and also includes any structure used to store bulk
fuel or bulk hazardous or dangerous wastes, or any structure or building
I
owned or operated by a public entity whose preservation is necessary for
public safety purposes. Garages, sheds, or other outbuildings, parking
areas, landscaping areas, and other similar areas or structures are
specifically excluded from this definition.
1
I
SECTION 3. — Scope, Purpose, & Applicability.
A. The Kent City Council has declared a preemptive public emergency
because of the potential for flooding in the Green River Valley caused by
structural deficiencies in the Howard Hansen Dam that may result in
decreased storage capacity in the dam and excess flows in the river that
could overtop the river's levees during unusually heavy rainfall events.
!� This is an unanticipated emergency that poses an imminent threat to
public health, safety, and the environment within the Green River Valley
that requires immediate action within a time too short to follow established
permit application and approval procedures.
B. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide property owners the
ability to protect life and property in advance of any flood, should one
occur, while making best efforts to control the placement of these
structures in a manner that attempts to maintain adequate protection for
flood storage, erosion and sedimentation control, and other environmental
and regulatory controls.
3
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures
I
I
C. Temporary Flood Protection Structures placed or installed to protect
critical facilities located within the Green River Valley are exempt from the '
City's permitting application and approval process for those structures if
the Temporary Flood Protection Structure is removed no later than July 1, 1
2010. While the permitting procedural requirements for Temporary Flood
Protection Structures are waived, these structures must still comply with
the substantive requirements of all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations, specifically including, without limitation, the State
Environmental Policy Act, the Shoreline Master Program, the International
Building and Residential Codes, or other International and Uniform Codes, 1
the Kent Zoning Code, and the Kent Design and Construction Standards. y
D. Temporary Flood Protection Structures must be both maintainable
1
and removable; structures subject to degradation, deterioration, abnormal
wear and tear, or damage (for example and without limitation, from
deficient design, inappropriate fabrics, ultraviolet light, or excessive
erosion from flood waters or flood debris) are not Temporary Flood
Protection Structures for the purposes of this ordinance.
E. All temporary flood protection structures must be removed and all I
materials used to place or install the structures must be properly and
legally disposed of no later than July 1, 2010. Any Temporary Flood
Protection Structure that remains on site beyond July 1, 2010, will
automatically be deemed a permanent flood protection device, structure,
or installation, will automatically be deemed subject to this ordinance and
to all applicable regulatory and permitting requirements, and will
automatically be deemed in violation of this ordinance and the Kent City
Code for failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals, enforceable
under chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code and subject to civil and criminal i
penalties.
4
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures f
f
I
SECTION 4. - Severability. If any one or more section,
I subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional
or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This is an emergency ordinance
enacted to preserve the public health, public safety, and public peace in
the city of Kent, and will take effect immediately upon passage.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
I
ATTEST:
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
l
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
5
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures
1
I
PASSED: day of September, 2009.
APPROVED: day of September, 2009.
PUBLISHED: day of September, 2009.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. 1
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I
P:\Civ11\0rdlnance\F1ood Protection Measures-TempPermittingRequl rements.doc
f
I
r
1
l
1
6 I
Permitting Requirements for
Temporary Flood Protection Measures I
l
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. MAYOR
C. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
D. PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
E. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
F. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
G. PUBLIC WORKS
«� H. ADMINISTRATION
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
KEN T
W43HINGTON
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 2009
Committee Members Present: Debbie Raplee, Tim Clark, and Les Thomas
The meeting was called to order by Tim Clark at 4:01 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 4, 2009
Thomas moved to,`approve the minutes of the .August 4, 2009 Operations
Committee meeting. Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.
2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED JULY 31, 2009
j Finance Director Bob Nachlin.ger presented the vouchers for July 31, 2009.
Raplee moved to approve the vouchers.dated July 31, 2009. Thomas seconded
the. motion, which passed 3-0.
S 3. MOVE;TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL,APPROVE THE. CONSOLIDATING BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT 1.ORDINANCE:FOR ADJUSTMENTS MADE BETWEEN JANUARY 1,
2009 AND.JUNE.30, 2009 TOTALING $(8,315,020).
Finance Director Bob Nachlinger_advised that authorization is requested to approve
the.:technical gross budget adjustment ordinance:totaling $(8,315,020) for budget
l adjustments made between January 1, 2009 and June°°30, 2009. The net amount,
excluding transfers and internal ervice charges,:is $(2,841,078). Please note that
$(3,773,269) was previously,approved,by.Counci.l.. Nachlinger-further noted that
these were.pnmarily for street projects. The decrease in the budget relates to.the
2008 LTGO bond issue.. Orlginally the.-budget put the entire bond issue into other
capital.projects with transfers..out to:.,,treet projects. This`entry moves the bond
proceeds budget to street projects and reduces it from other.capital projects. `The
net amount of$(4,541751) not yet approved by Council, ;is_for the allocation of
dedicated revenues and authorizing expenditures as well.as to reduce the general
fund budget to reflect.the economic forecast assertion for 2.009. This includes
decreases in the following areas: sales tax of $2,000,000, building.and permits of
$21500,000, intergovernmental services of $900.,000, interest of $500,000 and
1 admissions tax of $100,000 for a total of $6,000,000.
Thomas moved to recommend Council approve the consolidating budget
i adjustment ordinance for adjustments made between-January 1, 2009 and
June 30,. 2009 totaling $(8,315,020). Raplee seconded -the motion', which
passed 3-0.
Operations Committee Minutes j
August 18, 2009
Page: 2
4, AGENDA ITEM ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF FINANCE DIRECTOR BOB NACHLINGER
(INFORMATIONAL ONLY)
Finance Director Bob Nachlinger provided a handout from Standard & Poor's
Corporation that shows our bond rating on the utility system revenue bonds
(approved at the last meeting) coming back as a solid AA rating.
Nachlinger.noted that to have the revenue bond rated as an A.A is higher than
was expected and will..cut the cost of issuance down substantially, which means
more money available for projects. The committee raised questions, which Nachlinger
responded to.
I
The meeting. dour at 4:08 p.m. 1
WAN-
Nancy Cla
Operation Commit Secretary
. 1
1
1
i
KENT
WAS HINOTON
CITY OF KENT
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
August 11, 2009
i
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Les Thomas, Jamie Danielson, and Ron Harmon, Chair
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair L. Thomas at 5:02 PM.
• R. Harmon had an excused absence. D. Raplee was unable to attend in his place.
�r
• L .Thomas asked for changes or additions to the agenda, there were none.
1. Approval of Minutes
J. Danielson moved to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2009 meeting.
The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 2-0.
2. U.S. Department of Justice grant award — ACCEPT and Establish the budget
( Chief of Police Steve Strachan and Research and Development Analyst Debra LeRoy
explained the grant will fund two new hire entry level police officers for 3 years.
J. Danielson moved to recommend Council accept the U.S. Department of Justice
grant in the amount of $572,374 and establish the budget.
yThe motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 2-0.
3. FY 2009 Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial grant award — ACCEPT and
1 Establish the budget
Chief Strachan and Debra LeRoy explained the proposed used of funds would hire a jail
Population Manager, provide Correction Officer overtime for work crews and fund one
police commander's attendance to the Senior management Institute for police.
J. Danielson moved to recommend that Council accept the FY 2009 Recovery Act:
Edward Byrne Memorial competitive Grant in the amount of $307,485 and
establish the budget.
The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 2-0.
4. National Night Out After-Action Report — INFO ONLY
f Chief Strachan spoke about the success of the annual event which was held on August 4cn
I S. Vehicle Impoundment — INFO ONLY
Chief Strachan spoke about a recent"John" sting during which ten arrests were made for
patronizing a prostitute and five vehicles were impounded with an administrative fee of
$500 each. The fees are submitted to the state to be used for a social services program
for prostitutes.
6. Back to School — Walking and Traffic Safety — INFO ONLY
Chief Strachan reviewed the procedures for safety and travel in school zones and around
school buses stopped in the roadway.
The meeting adjourned at 5:34 PM.
Jo Thompson,
Public Safety Committee Secretary
i
i
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
i
1
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
I