HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/13/2014 (5)ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING & WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 13, 2014
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Jack Ottini, Chair; Randall Smith, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius,
Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, Katherine Jones and Barbara Phillips
CITY STAFF: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director; Shawn Gilbertson,
Environmental Supervisor; Gloria Gould-Wessen, Planner; David Galazin, Assistant
City Attorney
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public
Hearing followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2014 in Kent
City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA at
7:00 P.M. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an
opportunity to speak at the Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written
comments on the proposed amendments may do so at the hearing or prior to the
hearing by email to Shawn Gilbertson at: smgilbertson@kentwa.gov. No public
testimony is taken at the Workshop, although the public is welcome to attend.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the July 28, 2014 Minutes
4. Added Items
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
[ZCA-2014-4] Illicit Discharge Detection And Elimination (IDDE)
Code Amendments
This is a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter 7.14 of the Kent
City Code, entitled “Illicit Discharges,” to establish penalty provisions that
apply should an individual violate the illicit storm water discharge code
provisions, to clarify existing code provisions, and to make other changes
consistent with federal law.
8. WORKSHOP:
Comprehensive Plan Update
General discussion of the following “Draft” Comprehensive Plan Update
elements: Kent Profile and Vision, Community Design, and Utilities
Elements.
For further information or to obtain copies of the staff report or Agenda for the proposed amendment contact the
Planning Division office at (253) 856-5454. You may access the City’s website for documents pertaining to the Land
Use and Planning Board by depressing the Control Key and left clicking on the following path:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004. Persons requiring a disability accommodation
should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call (800) 833-6388 or
the City of Kent Economic & Community Development directly at (253) 856-5499 (TDD).
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
July 28, 2014
Call to Order Ottini called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Roll Call Land Use & Planning Board Members: Chair Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Randall Smith,
Barbara Phillips, Frank Cornelius, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, and Katherine Jones were in
attendance.
City Staff: Economic & Community Development Director Ben Wolters, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom; Planning Manager Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner Erin George,
Assistant City Attorney David Galazin
3. Approval of Minutes
Board member Smith Moved and Board member Gray Seconded a Motion to
Approve the June 23, 2014 Minutes as corrected to reflect the adjournment time of
9:05 pm rather than 7:05 pm. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications Satterstrom stated that Erin George will introduce three letters,
received by the City, into the record during the public hearing.
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings Not Addressed
7. Public Hearing
Riverbend Surplus Property CPA-2014-1 / CPZ-2014-1
Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that staff would address concerns raised by the
Board at their workshops concerning transitioning this site from a park to a
commercial/urban environment, and associated zoning and economic development issues
between this site and downtown.
Economic and Community Development Director Ben Wolters stated that Kent City Council
deliberated over whether or not to sell the Riverbend Surplus property, formerly described
as the Par 3 Golf Course at the Riverbend Golf complex. Council considered the funding
requirements necessary for the golf complex to continue to serve the community over the
next 20 or 30 years. The decision was made to explore opportunities to sell the portion of
the golf course called Par-3 in order to generate revenue that would sustain the golf course
and allow for needed improvements over the coming years. Council directed the Economic
and Community Development Department to explore market interests in the property.
The Council and Mayor have expressed that they will not sell this property for anything
other than a high quality project that will support the financial needs of the golf enterprise
and be a major positive contributor to this community.
Staff approached Council’s vision for quality development by recommending a mixed use
zoning designation that would allow for a mix of housing, variety of entertainment and other
amenities, with some retail, commercial and office. Staff believes mixed-use development
offers the best opportunity for what Council envisions for this site, with the potential to
create a sense of place, a destination in its own right, and a positive symbiotic relationship
with the golf course across the way.
Wolters spoke about the opportunities for locating a marquee project at this end of Meeker
Street, which is a gateway to Kent, and spoke of the City’s long-term vision of connecting
and anchoring the Meeker St. Corridor with centers on both ends.
1
LUPB Minutes
July 28, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Wolters spoke of additional Meeker St. Corridor projects. Economic Development is in the
process of marketing the vacant eight-acre Naden property owned by the City which is one
site being considered for possible FAA headquarters. The Naden site is located off of Meeker
on the east side of SR 167 and would connect and contribute to the Meeker Street corridor.
Furthermore, significant cosmetic and maintenance improvements are proposed for the
Meeker Street underpass that will create a more attractive and improved pedestrian and
bike connection between downtown east of SR 167 and the downtown area of Washington
Avenue and Meeker Street.
Wolters stated that the Parks and Operations Committees and Full Council heard a
presentation from Oak Point Development (formerly Yarrow Bay), a company with a strong
reputation in South County as a quality developer. Oak Point is moving from strictly single
family residential to mixed use development following a development trend seen throughout
the region. Wolters stated that Oak Point was interested in this site, volunteering their time
to provide some conceptual design drawings of what might be possible for the site.
Economic Development (ED) is preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) and Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for the Riverbend Surplus Property, which will set the stage for a
competitive process in the coming months. Staff talked with two other developers interested
in the site; both have mixed-use and other types of development experience.
Wolters stated that environmental review of a proposal for development of the site will
ultimately determine what mitigation will be needed to support the development. A
preliminary survey determined that Kent has adequate sewer and water capacity to serve
the site. Preliminary analysis of roadway capacities indicate that the road from 64th Avenue
to the bridge will need to be addressed but that the bridge itself should not pose issues, as
there are a number of alternative routes that can be accessed onto and off the site along
Meeker Street.
Senior Planner Erin George stated that the site is located in close proximity to freeways, is
centrally located between I-5 and SR 167, has direct access to Meeker Street and SR-516,
and is located on the Green River. This is a gateway site as one can drop down from I-5 and
proceed down Meeker Street to the downtown area.
In analyzing land use and zoning designations for the site, staff factored in access,
topography, environmental constraints, surrounding zoning and uses. Staff considered the
site’s proximity to the downtown area (with nearby services and entertainment) which by
adoption of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan was extended west to 64th. The Riverbend
Surplus Property consists of 24 acres of flat topography with a lot of potential for mixed-use
development such as retail, office, and multifamily, as well as 1500 feet of frontage along
Meeker street making this site desirable for employees and customers. There is
approximately 2000 feet of river and trail frontage on this site.
Kent’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulates areas within 200 feet of the Green River
wherein residential development is not allowed. Any uses within the 200 feet must be water
related such as a restaurant with views or a boat rental facility.
George stated that the current Comprehensive Plan Designation for most of the Riverbend
Surplus Property is (OS)-Park and Open Space with a current zoning designation of SR-1 for
low density development. The site is a split-zoned site; the eastern half of the site is zoned
MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential.
George described four options for considering zoning and comprehensive plan land use plan
map designations. The first two are mixed use options as envisioned by the City Council:
Option 1 recommends (MCR) Midway Commercial Residential zoning, a zone recently
created by the Midway Subarea Action Plan to allow a variety of uses. The MCR zoning
district prohibits auto-oriented uses, is pedestrian focused and intended for Highway 99 in
the Midway area, but the uses allowed could be appropriate for the subject site. The
comprehensive plan land use map designation would be (MU) Mixed Use or (TOC) Transit
2
LUPB Minutes
July 28, 2014
Page 3 of 5
Oriented Community, with a 200-foot height limitation. Option 2 recommends (GC-MU)
General Commercial-Mixed Use zoning, allowing a broad mix of uses and more commercial
variety. The GC-MU zoning district allows auto-oriented uses, and in a mixed-use residential
development requires a minimum of 5% commercial use. Buildings may be 65 feet in
height. The comprehensive plan designation would be (MU) Mixed Use. Option 3
recommends (MR-M) Medium Density Multifamily Residential zoning which would allow
stand-alone residential. The MR-M designation would be a natural extension of what exists
on the east side of the site. The comprehensive plan designation would be (MDMF) Medium
Density Multifamily. Option 4 recommends ‘No Action’, retaining the existing split zoning
on the site. Staff recommends Option 2 which is consistent with the Council’s goal for mixed
use on the site and is a good first step towards a quality mixed-use development at this
location. Staff believes the 65-foot height limit is reasonable given the market and is
appropriate given the nearby GC-MU zoning which was extended through the recent
adoption of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP).
George submitted three (3) exhibits for the record identified as: Exhibit 1-a letter from
Helen Owen, owner of Colony Park Apartments, requesting that a row of trees bordering the
Par 3 property (buffering the apartments from the Par 3 site) will be retained. Exhibit 2-
Email correspondence from Karen Walter with Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Fisheries
Commission, concerned with protecting tribal fishing access and the River from unnecessary
tree shading. Exhibit 3-a letter from Edward Lee Vargas, Superintendent of the Kent
School District concerned about the impact on schools if housing is built on the site as the
District does not have the capacity to absorb additional students. George noted that Kent
City Code requires school impact fees for all new residential development in the amount of
$3378.00 per multifamily residential dwelling unit.
Smith MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept the Exhibits into the
record. Motion PASSED 7-0.
Ottini MOVED and Smith SECONDED a Motion to Open the Public Hearing. Motion
PASSED 7-0.
The following citizens spoke in opposition to implementing any zoning or comprehensive
plan designation changes, urging the Board to retain current zoning and leave the site as
open space for recreational opportunities: Chris Ulrich, 23850, 43rd Ave S; Richard Burgess
23619 51st Avenue S; Thomas Brice, 6221 S 251st Place; Manuel Espinosa, 4110 S 243rd
Place; Richard Sample, 24725 43rd Avenue S; Robbie Cisney, 615 W Harrison St., Apt 301;
John Bruns, 24815 42nd Avenue S; Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Avenue; and Bruce Merle, 23515
128th Ct SE.
The following citizens spoke in favor of development and implementing zoning and
comprehensive plan designation changes: Charles Silver, 3531 S 263rd and Robert Loeliger,
4126 S 243rd Place.
Seeing no further speakers, Smith MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Close
the Public Hearing. Motion PASSED 7-0.
In response to concerns from the Board members, Satterstrom stated that the Board’s
responsibility is to consider rezoning options for the site were development to occur,
explaining that it is not the act of rezoning that develops the property. He assured the
Board that Parks can exist in any zone. He stated that traffic mitigation will be expensive
and that developers will pay whether it includes bridge repair or replacement. Staff’s vision
is that it is a tremendous gateway location for development that the community will be
proud of. It will front Meeker Street and begin to form a connection with the commercial
center at the other end of the downtown Meeker Street area.
3
LUPB Minutes
July 28, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Jones spoke in support of Option Two, requesting that the city be given some flexibility to
work with the developer; she mentioned she would like to see height restrictions in place.
Phillips stated that she recommends a Board be established to involve citizens in the
development process. She encouraged staff to consider a community center for youth
activities and would like park space to be included as part of any potential development.
Wolters responded to questions and concerns raised by the Board, stating that staff is still
developing a process and retained a brokerage service to help Kent explore what the
market potential is for this site. The analysis will inform, confirm or deny the potential for
development on this site. Based upon the analysis report, staff will craft the type of quality
development Kent envisions. Kent will then move forward with the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ), the first step in a two-step selection process.
Wolters assured the Board that City Council had the difficult decision of trying to balance an
absolute need to generate revenue in order to secure the future of the golf complex for
decades to come. The Council will not accept just any development. It has to be a positive
quality project that will contribute to the city.
Wolters stated that the RFQ is a general invitation for developers to submit information on
whether they have the experience, the financial wherewithal, the staff or the development
team to actually be a successful developer on this site. Those developers who respond to
the RFQ will be reviewed by an advisory group who will winnow the list down to no more
than three contenders from which the City Council will ultimately make their selection. From
that point forward, the City would enter into negotiations with the apparent successor on a
development agreement that would be tied to a purchase and sales agreement.
Wolters added the City collects school impact fees that are redistributed back to the school
district. The Kent School District (KSD) has grown tremendously in their school population
so that it is likely the KSD will have to pursue a bond measure for new construction that
goes beyond their own impact fees.
Concluding deliberations, Ottini MOVED and Jones SECONDED a Motion to recommend
to the City Council Option Two - a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of MU
Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU General Commercial Mixed Use for
the Riverbend Surplus Property. After calling for discussion, Jones asked to add an
amendment recommending inclusion of a citizen’s advisory board with attention to
walkability, human scale design, height restrictions, and public use. Motion Died
for lack of a vote.
After further discussion Ottini MOVED and Cornelius SECONDED a Motion to
recommend to the City Council approval of Option 2 - a Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation of MU, Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU General
Commercial Mixed Use for the Riverbend Surplus Property, with an amendment to
recommend that City Council use a citizen advisory process to address issues such
as walkability, human scale design, height restrictions, and public use spaces.
Motion PASSED unanimously 7-0 as amended.
Green River Corridor District Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-2014-3
George stated that the LUPB discussed the proposed zoning code amendment at their July
14th workshop. This item traces back to the 70’s with the Shoreline Management Act,
followed by the Kent Shoreline Master Program that regulates areas within 200 feet of
shorelines such as the Green River. In 1980 and 1981 a couple of studies were adopted
studying the Valley and the Green River. In 1985 the Green River Corridor District
4
LUPB Minutes
July 28, 2014
Page 5 of 5
Regulations were passed by Kent City Council to regulate areas within 1000 feet of the
Green River.
Building height is regulated by three layers of regulations. The SMP limits height within 200
feet of the river to 35 feet if views are impacted. The zoning code limits building height
according to each zoning district. Most zoning districts within the valley limit height to 35 or
40 feet. Building heights were increased to 65 feet within the GC-MU zone with the adoption
of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. Building heights can be increased by 25 percent in
any zoning district with Administrative Variances. This proposal seeks to eliminate the 35-
foot height limitation in the Green River Corridor District. It is duplicative and staff would
like to streamline and simplify the zoning code related to building heights.
Building length is limited to 200 feet within 1000 feet of the river. Currently there is an
exception in the zoning code for industrial properties so that buildings in the MA, M1, M2,
M3 and M1-C zones may be longer if they provide vegetative screening. The proposal
considers including GC-MU in that exception so that buildings in GC-MU could be potentially
longer than 200 feet if they provide vegetative screening. Mixed Use Design Guidelines are
required in the GC-MU zoning district. Aesthetic treatment is required to break up
appearance of blank walls and bulk buildings. Shoreline regulations require a 15-foot
landscape buffer where blank walls and parking abut the Green River trail.
George described four options: Option 1 eliminates height restriction in the Green River
Corridor District and adds GC-MU to the building length exception. Option 2 retains the
height limit in that 1000 feet corridor, and exempts GC-MU from the height limit, then adds
GC-MU to the building length exception. Option 3 retains the height limit except for GC-MU
but does not change the building length exception. Option 4 is ‘No Action’.
Staff recommends Option 1 which resolves the inconsistency with the DSAP/GC-MU which
allows 65 feet in height and the Green River Corridor District when a portion of that GC-MU
area is within 1000 feet of the Green River. Option One avoids duplication between the
Zoning Code and the SMP. Including GC-MU in the building length exception is appropriate
given the overlapping regulations with shoreline, landscaping and design review.
Ottini Opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no speakers, Ottini Closed the Public Hearing.
Cornelius MOVED and Jones SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council
approval of Option 1 as recommended by staff amending the zoning code to
eliminate the Green River Corridor District height restriction and adding the GC-MU
to the building length exception. Motion PASSED unanimously 7-0.
Adjournment
Ottini adjourned the meeting at 9:25 pm.
________________________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager/Board Secretary
P:\Planning\LUPB\2014\Minutes\07-28-14_final.doc
5
6
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte
Public Works Director
400 West Gowe
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6500
PHONE: 253-856-5500
City of Kent Public Works Department
October 6, 2014
TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Shawn Gilbertson, NPDES Coordinator
RE: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Code Amendments
(ZCA-2014-4)
For October 13th LUPB Hearing
SUMMARY: In 2009, the City of Kent adopted Kent City Code section 7.14 (Illicit
Discharges) in order to meet the requirements of the Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit). KCC 7.14 prohibits illicit discharges and
other pollutant dumping into the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(Stormwater System).
The proposed code amendments establish additional penalty provisions that apply should
an individual violate the illicit discharge code provisions. The amendments also clarify
existing code provisions, and make other changes consistent with federal law. The code
meets the requirements of the Phase II Permit, helps preserve water quality, and
protects fish and wildlife in surface waters within and downstream of the City limits.
BACKGROUND: The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate discharges to waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
administers the NPDES program, but has delegated administrative authority to the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The city of Kent is currently covered under
the 2013 – 2018 Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
The Phase II Permit is intended to reduce sources of pollution common to urbanized
areas. These include pollutants such as fluids and metals from cars, fertilizers and
pesticides from yard care, soaps from car washes, and pet waste. Construction site
discharges and operation and maintenance of the stormwater system are also regulated
under the Permit.
Under the Phase II permit, the City of Kent is required to have an Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program which includes “an ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism to effectively prohibit non-stormwater, illegal discharges, and
dumping into the municipal separate storm sewer system to the maximum extent
allowable under State and Federal Law”. The attached ordinance reflects minor
amendments to the existing code.
The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the proposed code amendments are
procedural in nature and no further SEPA review is required.
S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2014\ZCA-2014-4 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination\LUPB\101314LUPBHearingMemoIDDE.doc
Att: Ordinance
cc: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
7
8
1
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 7.14
of the Kent City Code, entitled “Illicit Discharges,”
to establish penalty provisions that apply should
an individual violate the illicit stormwater
discharge code provisions, to clarify existing code
provisions, and to make other changes consistent
with federal law.
RECITALS
A. Through its adoption of Ordinance No. 3916 on June 2, 2009,
the Kent City Council established an illicit discharge detection and
elimination program related to the City’s stormwater system. This
program is required as part of the City’s coverage under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Western Washington
Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit administered by the Washington
State Department of Ecology. The purpose of the program is to establish a
regulatory mechanism that allows the City to effectively prohibit non-
stormwater, illegal discharges, and dumping into the municipal separate
storm sewer system.
B. When Ordinance No. 3916 was adopted, it enacted a violation
and enforcement provision that was codified at Kent City Code (KCC)
9
2
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
section 7.14.150. As currently enacted, KCC 7.14.150 provides that in the
event a violation occurs, the City may pursue code enforcement
proceedings through Ch. 1.04 KCC. This enforcement provision is different
in form from other violation provisions within the Kent City Code that
provide for either a civil code enforcement proceeding, or in the
alternative, the filing of criminal charges. This departure appears to have
been a drafting oversight and not a deliberate decision by staff or the City
Council.
C. Relying on the enforcement provisions contained in Ch. 1.04
KCC, however, is not effective in every situation. That code chapter
relates to ongoing violations and establishes procedures through which the
City may seek to stop a violation and obtain an order requiring the
property owner or occupant to clean up the property. However, Ch. 1.04
KCC does not grant the City the authority to file criminal charges unless a
repeat violation occurs or the person responsible for the violation fails to
clean up the property after being ordered by the Hearing Examiner to do
so. In some situations, a violator’s conduct is so egregious that criminal
charges are warranted, even if the violator has remedied the violation or
cleaned up the property.
D. Amending KCC 7.14.150 to allow the City to file either civil
code enforcement proceedings or criminal charges will also make this code
section consistent with similar Kent City Code provisions, for example: KCC
6.07.210 regarding violations of the City’s Street Use Permit provisions,
KCC 7.03.110 regarding violations of the City’s Solid Waste Collection
provisions, KCC 7.05.210 regarding violations of the City’s Storm and
Surface Water Utility provisions, KCC 8.01.050 regarding violations of the
City’s Public Nuisance provisions, and KCC 8.04.190 regarding violations to
the City’s Litter Control provisions.
10
3
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
E. Because the enforcement provisions are currently being
revised, it is also appropriate to make further housekeeping changes to
clarify the intent or purpose of some code provisions, while revising others
to make them consistent with recent changes to federal law.
F. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible official
has determined that the proposed Kent City Code amendments are
procedural in nature, and further SEPA analysis is not required for these
local code amendments. A draft version of this ordinance was submitted
to the Washington State Department of Commerce for expedited review on
August 20, 2014. The ordinance was considered by the City Land Use and
Planning Board after a duly noticed public hearing on October 13, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1.– Amendment.Chapter 7.14 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “Illicit Discharges,” is amended as follows:
Sec. 7.14.010. Purpose.The purpose of this chapter is to
prevent pollutants and nonstormwater from entering the city of Kent
municipal separate storm sewer system (the “MS4”)and waters of the
state to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal and state
law. This chapter establishes the minimum methods required for
controlling the introduction of pollutants and preventing their entry into the
MS4 and waters of the state in order to comply with requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.
The objectives of this chapter are:
11
4
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
A. To regulate the contribution of pollutants to the MS4 and waters of
the state;
B. To prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the MS4 and waters
of the state;
C. To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance,
and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this
chapter;and
D. To mitigate impacts to water quality as a result of increased runoff
due to urbanization, correct or mitigate existing water quality problems
related to stormwater, and to help restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the city’s waters for the protection of
beneficial uses, including salmonid habitat and aquifer recharge; and.
E. To establish the reasonable use of best management practices
(BMPs) to prevent pollutants and nonstormwater from entering the MS4
and waters of the state.
Sec. 7.14.020. Definitions.As used in this chapter, the following
words, terms, and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this section, unless a different meaning is plainly required.
A.Best management practices (BMPs)means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution
prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants
directly or indirectly to the MS4 or waters of the state.to stormwater,
receiving waters, or the MS4.BMPs also include treatment practices,
structural methods, and operating procedures,and practices to control site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw
12
5
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
materials storage.BMPs are determined by reference to standard industry
practice or applicable state, county, and local government design and
pollution prevention manuals.
B.Clean Water Act (CWA)means the federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto.
C.Construction activity means land-disturbing operations including
clearing, grading,or excavation which disturbs the surface of the land.
Such activities may include road construction, construction of residential
houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity.
D.Director means the city of Kent public works director, or his or her
designee.
E.Groundwater means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath
the surface of the land or below a surface water body.
F.Hazardous material means any material; including any substance,
waste, or combination thereof; which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics; may
cause or significantly contribute to a substantial present or potential
hazard to human, health, safety, property, or the environment; when
improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed.
G.Hyperchlorinated means water that contains more than ten (10)
mg/liter chlorine. Disinfection of water mains and appurtenances requires
a chlorine residual of ten (10) mg/liter at the end of the disinfection
period.
13
6
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
HI.Illicit connections means any conveyance that is connected to the
MS4 or waters of the state without a permit, excluding roof drains and
foundation drains. Examples include sanitary sewer connections, floor
drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected
directly to the MS4. Illicit connections allow an illicit discharge to enter the
MS4 and include, but are not limited to, any conveyances that which allow
any nonstormwater discharge,including sewage, process wastewater, and
wash water,to enter the MS4 or waters of the state; any connections to
the MS4 from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether such drain or
connection was previously allowed, permitted,or approved by an
authorized enforcement agency; or any drain or conveyance connected
from a commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain system MS4 or
waters of the state that which has not been documented in plans, maps, or
equivalent records and approved by the city or another agency of
government duly authorized to give such approvals.
IH.Illicit discharge means any direct or indirect nonstormwater
discharge, not expressly allowed by this code,to the MS4,waters of the
state, or any other location within the city where the discharge has a
reasonable likelihood of being washed into the MS4 or waters of the state,
except as expressly exempted by this chapter.
J.Industrial activity means activities subject to NPDES industrial
permits as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).
K.Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)means a conveyance,
or system of conveyances; including roads with drainage systems,
municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade
channels,flow controls, treatment facilities,or storm drains:
14
7
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
1. Owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, district,
port, or other public body created by or pursuant to state law having
jurisdiction over disposal of wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including
special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control
district,or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
management agency under Section 208 of the CWA that discharges to
waters of the state;
2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
3.That Which is not a combined sewer; and
4.That Which is not part of a publicly-owned treatment works
(“POTW”) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
L.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)means the
national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating,
monitoring, and enforcing permits;,and imposing and enforcing
pretreatment requirements;,under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the
federal CWA for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state.
These permits are referred to as NPDES permits,and,in the State of
Washington, are administered by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. stormwater discharge permit means a permit issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or by the Washington Department
of Ecology under authority delegated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), that
authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state, whether the
permit is applicable to an individual, group, or general area-wide basis.
M.Nonstormwater discharge means any discharge to the MS4 or
waters of the state that is not composed entirely of stormwater.
15
8
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
N.Owner/operator means any of the following: a person or entity with
an ownership interest in the premises; a person or entity who occupies or
has or control over the premises; or real property on which a violation of
this chapter occurs,any person or entity who participatesing in any activity
on the premises that is regulated by this chapter. , and any person or
entity participating in any violation of this chapter.
O.Person means any individual, firm, business, association,
partnership, corporation, or other legal entity, public or private, however
organized. Because “person” shall include both human and non-human
entities, any of the following pronouns may be used to describe a person:
he, she, or it.
P.Person responsible for the violation means any of the following: a
person who has titled ownership or legal control of the premises that is
subject to the regulation; an occupant or other person in control of the
premises that is subject to the regulation; a developer, builder, business
operator, or owner who is developing, building, or operating a business on
the premises that is subject to the regulation; or any person who created,
caused, or has allowed the violation to occur on the premises.
QO.Pollutant means anything that which causes or contributes to
pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes,
and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; nonhazardous liquid and
solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other
discarded or abandoned objects, and accumulations, so that the same may
cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers; hazardous materials and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform and
pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and
residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious
or offensive matter of any kind.
16
9
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
RP.Premises means any real property or interest in real property and
any improvement upon real property.
SQ.RCW means the state Revised Code of Washington. It is the
compilation of all permanent state laws, now in forceas currently enacted
or as subsequently amended or recodified.
TR.Sanitary sewage means domestic and commercial wastewater
including flushed toilet water, water from dishwashers, clothes washing
machines, and any other used water that generally is disposed of down
interior household drains.
US.Sanitary sewer system means a conveyance, or system of
conveyances,that which is designed to convey domestic and commercial
wastewater.
V.Stormwater system means facilities through which stormwater is
collected, conveyed, or treated,including but not limited to inlets,
conveyance pipes, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins,
bioinfiltration facilities, drainage channels, and other drainage structures.
WT.Stormwater means any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting
entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from
such precipitation.
XU.Stormwater pollution prevention plan means a document that which
describes the BMPs and activities to be implemented by an owner/operator
or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site, and
the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater, the
MS4, and/or waters of the statereceiving waters.
17
10
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
YV.Waters of the state means those waters as defined as “waters of the
United States” in 40 CFR 122.2,within the geographic boundaries of the
State of Washington,and those “waters of the state” as defined in Chapter
90.48 RCW, which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters,
underground watersgroundwater, salt waters, and all other surface waters
and water courses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington.
ZW. Water quality standards means the Water Pollution Control Act, as
defined herein;Surface Water Quality Standards – Chapter 173-201A of
the Washington Administrative Code (“WAC”),;Ground Water Quality
Standards – Chapter 173-200 WAC,;and Sediment Management
Standards – Chapter 173-204 WAC.The water quality standards are
established to sustain public health and public enjoyment of the waters
and the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
AAX.Wastewater means any water or other liquid, other than
uncontaminated stormwater, discharged from any premises.
Sec. 7.14.030. Applicability.This chapter shall apply to all
owners/operators as defined herein.
Sec. 7.14.040. Entry onto premises.With the consent of the
owner/operator of any premises, through permissions granted in a
stormwater facility maintenance covenant,or pursuant to a lawfully issued
warrant, the director may enter any premises at any reasonable time to
perform the duties imposed by this chapter.No consent, warrant, or
permission is required to enter those areas open to the public generally or
to which no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
18
11
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
Sec. 7.14.050. Prohibited discharges.
A. No person owner/operator shall discharge, or cause an illicit
discharge, or fail to utilize reasonable BMPs to protect against a potential
or accidental discharge,of nonstormwater or any other material not
expressly allowed by this codes, including but not limited to pollutants or
waters containing any pollutants, to enter into the MS4 or waters of the
state that may reasonably cause or contribute to a violation of applicable
water quality standards as herein defined, to enter into the MS4 or
watercourses waters of the state.
B. Prohibited discharges include but are not limited to the following list,
provided for informational purposes only,of common substances that
which are illicit discharges when discharged to the MS4 or waters of the
state:
1. Solid waste, trash or debris;
2. Human and animal waste;
3. Petroleum products in quantities that produce a visible sheen,
including but not limited to oil, gasoline, grease, fuel, oil, and
heating oil;
4. Antifreeze and other automotive products;
5. Flammable or explosive materials;
6. Radioactive material;
7. Construction materials;
8. Batteries;
9. Acids, alkalis, or bases;
10. Paints, stains, resins, lacquers, or varnishes;
19
12
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
11. Metals in excess of naturally occurring amounts, whether in
liquid or solid form;
12. Solvents and degreasers;
13. Drain cleaners: commercial and household cleaning materials;
14. Pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers;
15. Ink;
16. Steam-cleaning waste;
17. Laundry waste, soap, detergent, and ammonia;
18. Domestic or sanitary sewage;
19. Animal carcasses;
20. Food and food waste including fats, oils, and grease (FOG);
21. Recreational vehicle waste;
22. Swimming pool or spa filter backwash;
23. Chlorine, bromine, or other disinfectants;
24. Heated water;
25. Yard waste, dirt, sand, and gravel;
26. Bark and other fibrous materials;
27. Collected lawn clippings, leaves, or branches;
28. Silt, sediment, concrete, cement, or gravel;
29. Dyes, except as permitted by KCC 7.14.060;
30. Chemicals not normally found in uncontaminated water;
31. Chlorinated swimming pool or hot tub water except as
permitted by KCC 7.14.070;
20
13
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
32. Discharges from potable water sources which may include but
are not limited to: water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water
line flushing, fire hydrant flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic
test water, except as permitted by KCC 7.14.070;
33. Any other process-associated discharge except as otherwise
allowed in this chapter; or
34. Any hazardous material or waste not listed above.
C. Any person who violates KCC 7.14.050 may be liable, jointly or
severally, in accordance with KCC 7.14.150 and KCC 7.14.160. The City
may pursue enforcement action against any person responsible for the
violation.
Sec. 7.14.060. Allowable discharges.The following types of
discharges shall not be considered illicit discharges for the purposes of this
chapter unless the director determines that the type of discharge, whether
singly or in combination with others, is causing or is likely to cause
pollution a violation of water quality standards inof the MS4 or waters of
the statesurface water or groundwater:
A. Diverted stream flows;
B. Rising groundwaters;
C. Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration,as defined in 40 CFR
35.2005(20);
D. Uncontaminated pumped groundwater water;
E. Foundation drains discharging clean stormwater onlyuncontaminated
groundwater or stormwater;
F. Air conditioning condensation;
G. Irrigation water from agricultural sources that is commingled with
urban stormwater;
21
14
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
H. Springs;
I. Water from crawl space pumps discharging clean stormwater only;
J. Footing drains discharging clean stormwater onlyuncontaminated
groundwater or stormwater;
K. Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
L. Nonstormwater discharges covered by an another NPDES permit;or
M. Discharges from emergency fire fightingfirefighting activities.; or
N.Dye testing using environmental friendly products for the purpose of
testing or tracing source pollution is allowable but requires verbal
notification to the city prior to the time of testing.
Sec. 7.14.070. Conditional discharges.The following types of
discharges shall not be considered illicit discharges for the purposes of this
chapter if they meet the following stated conditions, unless the director
determines that the type of discharge, whether singly or in combination
with others, is causing or is likely to cause pollution of surface water or
groundwater:
A. Potable water, including water from water line flushing,
hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and
pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be de-chlorinated
to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted, if necessary, and in
volumes and velocities controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments in
the MS4;
B. Lawn watering and other irrigation runoff are permitted but shall be
minimized;
C. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. These discharges shall be
dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted, if
22
15
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
necessary, and in volumes and velocities controlled to prevent
resuspension of sediments in the MS4;or
D. Street and sidewalk wash water, water used to control dust, and
routine external building wash down that is unheated and does not use
detergents any additives are permitted,if the amount of street wash and
dust control water used is minimized.; or
E. Other nonstormwater discharges. The discharges shall be in
compliance with the requirements of a stormwater pollution prevention
plan reviewed by the city which addresses such discharges.
Sec. 7.14.080. Illicit connections prohibited.
A.No person owner/operator shall connect a conveyance system that
which was not constructed or intended to convey precipitation runoff, or
that which has been converted from such usage to another use, to the MS4
or groundwater infiltration system waters of the state. The construction,
use, maintenance,or continued existence of illicit connections to the storm
drain systemMS4 is prohibited. This prohibition expressly includes, without
limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the
connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing
at the time of connection.An owner/operator is considered to be in
violation of this chapter if the owner/operator connects a line conveying
sanitary sewage to the MS4 or allows such a connection to continue.
B. Any person who violates KCC 7.14.080 may be liable, jointly or
severally, in accordance with KCC 7.14.150 and KCC 7.14.160. The City
may pursue enforcement action against any person responsible for the
violation.
23
16
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
Sec. 7.14.090. Suspension of discharge access to MS4.As
permitted by applicable law, the city may suspend MS4 access to an
owner/operator when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or
threatened discharge that which is or would be prohibited under this
chapter.
Sec. 7.14.100. Inspections.
A. The director may establish inspection programs to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this chapter and to accomplish its
purposes. Inspection programs may be established on any reasonable
basis including, but not limited to, routine inspections, random inspections,
or inspections based upon complaints received or concerns of other notice
of possible code violations,. Additionally, inspection of drainage basins or
areas identified as higher than typical sources of sediment or other
contaminants or pollutants,inspections may be conducted of businesses or
industries with suspicious discharges,a high volume of discharge,or
pollutants that appear to be present in the discharge. of a type associated
with higher than usual discharges of contaminants or pollutants or with
discharges of a type which are more likely than the typical discharge to
cause violations of state or federal water or sediment quality standards or
the city’s NPDES stormwater permit, and joint inspections with other
agencies inspecting under environmental or safety laws.
B. Inspections may include, but are not limited to, reviewing
maintenance and repair records,;sampling discharges,surface water, and
material or water in the MS4;and evaluating the condition of the MS4 and
other BMPs premise’s stormwater system and BMPs.
Sec. 7.14.110. Reinspections.Should a city inspection discover
a violation of this chapter or other applicable federal, state, or local code
provision, Iit shall be the duty of the owner/operator to notify the director
24
17
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
that any noted violations have been corrected, and to request a
reinspection.The director may require that such request for reinspection
be filed one (1) working day before such inspection.It shall be the duty of
the owner/operator to provide safe access to and a means for inspection of
any corrective work.
Sec. 7.14.120. Monitoring of discharges.As permitted by
applicable law, tThe city may shall conduct or cause to be conducted
monitoring and/or sampling of the stormwater discharge from any
premises, and may recover the costs of so doing from the owner/operator
of the premises.
Sec. 7.14.130. Requirements to prevent, control, and reduce
stormwater pollutants by the use of BMPs.TheAll owners/operators
engaging in industrial activity shall provide, at owner/operator’s expense,
reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or
other wastes into the MS4 or watercourseswaters of the state through the
use of these structural, and nonstructural, and operational BMPs. Further,
any owner/operator responsible for premises, that which are, or may be,
the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at
owner/operator’s expense, additional structural, and nonstructural, and
operational BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants illicit
discharges to the MS4 or waters of the state.Compliance with all terms
and conditions of a valid NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of
stormwater associated with industrial activity, to the extent practicable,
shall be deemed compliance with the provisions of this section. These
BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as
necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit.
Sec. 7.14.140. Industrial or construction activity discharges.
Any owner/operator subject to an industrial or construction activity NPDES
25
18
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
stormwater discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of thatsuch
permit.Proof of compliance with such permit may be required in a form
acceptable to the city prior to allowing discharge to the MS4 and failure to
comply with the provisions of such permit will constitute a violation of this
chapter.
Sec. 7.14.150. Violations and enforcement.
A. Any violation of Whenever the city finds that an owner/operator has
violated or failed to meet a requirement in any provision of this chapter
constitutes a civil violation under, the city may pursue the code
enforcement procedures set forth in Ch. 1.04 KCC for which a monetary
penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided
therein.Any violation of this chapter that is deemed by the director to be a
threat or potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare may be
abated as a nuisance or pursuant to any other applicable local, state or
federal law or regulation. Regulation under this chapter shall not serve as a
shield to any action under other applicable laws or regulations of the city,
state, or United States.
B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in
this chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this
chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to KCC 1.01.140.
Sec. 7.14.160. Joint and several responsibility and liability.
Responsibility for violations of this chapter is joint and several, and the city
is not prohibited from taking action against a party where other persons
may also be potentially responsible for a violation, nor is the city required
to take action against all persons potentially responsible for a violation.
SECTION 2.– Severability.If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
26
19
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3.– Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser.Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
SECTION 4.– Effective Date.This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
27
20
Illicit Stormwater Discharges-
Ch. 7.14 KCC
PASSED:day of , 2014.
APPROVED: day of , 2014.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2014.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Ordinance\7.14 Illicit Discharges.doc
28
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
October 7, 2014
TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: Comprehensive Plan Update – Draft Elements
October 13, 2014 Workshop
Summary: As discussed at the August Board meetings, the City is scheduled to
complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) by June 30, 2015.
The update will include all elements in the Plan, refresh the current conditions and
trends, integrate recent planning initiatives, and comply with state, regional and
local mandates. Staff will bring each element to the Board for preliminary review.
At the October 13th workshop, the Board will review the Kent Profile and Vision,
Community Design, and Utilities Elements. This is the second workshop on the Kent
Profile and Vision section.
Background: At the August 11th Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff
introduced the Comprehensive Plan update project, the schedule, and the public
outreach activities that are in progress. The Board will review preliminary drafts of
each section before holding one or several public hearings. The Board first reviewed
the Kent Profile and Vision section at their August 25th meeting. Listed below are
the sections for review at the October 13th meeting.
Kent Profile and Vision: Rearranges tables, adds contextual verbiage for tables,
references location for additional information on race and Hispanic origin data, uses
2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates for data tables
Design Element: Proposes deleting the Community Design Element and transfers
some contextual verbiage, goals and policies to other Elements. Deletes several
goals and policies that are either already covered in other Elements or that are
more regulatory in scope.
Utilities Element: First draft for review. Public utilities are now included in the
Utilities Element rather than the Capital Facilities Element. Existing text has been
replaced with updated information. The Element shows the template to be followed
for subsequent Elements -- includes a summary format with goals and policies in
the Element and a more detailed separate Background Report. Goals and Policies
that are duplicative or covered by codes and ordinances have been deleted; others
have been consolidated. Additional consolidation may occur. Maps are not yet
included in the draft Element.
CA:pm\S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlanUpdate\LUPB\10-13-
14_LUPB_Memo.doc
Enc: Kent Profile and Vision, Community Design, Utilities
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Matt Gilbert, AICP, Principal Planner
David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney
Project File
29
30
Kent Comprehensive Plan
- 1 -
Kent Profile and Vision
“Bringing the World Home” is
the result of a campaign
initiated by the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee to
market Kent. The proposed
branding and marketing
slogan captures the diversity
in Kent businesses, trade,
school districts and residents.
http://downtownkentwa.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/kent-
branding1.jpg
Introduction
Welcome to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan). Citywide, Kent is Bringing the World Home.
What is that place called “home?” The Plan
describes the vision for 2035 and provides goals
and policies for achieving it through the following:
Jobs and services
Economic choices
Locations for categories of land uses
Housing
Parks and recreational opportunities
System for getting around
Ways of communicating
Natural resources
Utilities you depend on
Aesthetic values
Sustainable funding for desired goods and
services
The Plan is used by staff, elected officials and
others in making decisions regarding funding of
capital facilities and projects, implementing
development regulations, and developing future
neighborhood or specific department master plans.
Furthermore, the Plan provides to the community
and other public agencies a clear expression of the
City’s choices for accommodating growth and
implementing the vision for 2035.
What you will find in this chapter:
Introduction to the Plan
How the Plan was developed
Organization of the Plan
Population and Employment Data
Vision and Framework Policies
Purpose Statement:
To introduce the Kent Comprehensive Plan and provide the City’s community
profile, context, and vision for 2035
31
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
http://kentwa.gov/content.aspx?id=119
6&Menu=DropDown
How the Plan was developed
The foundation of the Plan is the City of Kent
Strategic Plan which was developed by the City
Council and describes the vision for Kent in 2025.
The Strategic Plan identifies five goals and several
objectives for supporting the community values.
The Plan also satisfies the requirements of the
State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW
36.70A) which identifies thirteen (13) planning
goals that guide development and adoption of local
comprehensive plans and development regulations.
Furthermore, the Puget Sound Regional Council
adopted Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) as
part of VISION 2040. VISION 2040 uses the
concept of people, prosperity and planet in
presenting the regional strategy for
accommodating the 5 million people expected to
live in the region by 2040. The MPPs are regional
guidelines and principles used in certifying local
policies and plans. Additionally, as required by the
GMA, jurisdictions within King County ratified the
King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) as
a framework for development of consistent county
and city comprehensive plans to meet state and
regional goals.
By completing surveys, sending in comments,
talking to Kent’s elected officials, and participating
in workshops and public hearings, residents of Kent
and other interested parties also contributed
extensively to development of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
Organization of the Plan
The Plan includes 7 elements required by GMA:
Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities,
Transportation, Economic Development, as well as
Parks and Recreation. Kent adds an additional
element related to Human Services. Each element
identifies its purpose and key issues; describes its
systems; and includes goals, policies, maps and
other graphics to tell its story and manner of
achieving the City’s vision. References in the
element and appendices provide additional
analyses and details for the element.
32
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Each element has been reviewed for consistency
with State, regional and countywide goals and
policies, other elements in the Plan, and the plans
of adjacent jurisdictions. Consistency in this
context means that the plan is not in conflict with
these other plans and policies.
Community Profile
History
Kent’s roots stretch back to 1890, the year it was incorporated with a
population of 763 people. Kent was a major grower of hops and berries, and
at one time, it was considered the Lettuce Capital of the World. Dairy
farming was also an important sector of Kent’s early economy. In 1899, the
first can of Carnation Milk was produced in Kent.
In the 1950’s, industrial production began to develop on Kent’s valley floor.
In 1963, completion of the Howard Hanson Dam, a flood-storage facility,
hastened further economic change in the Valley. With the dam, Kent was
transformed from a rural community with farm land that was routinely
flooded by the Green River each winter into the industrial powerhouse it is
today.
Today
Kent is the sixth largest city in Washington and the third largest city in King
County, with an official OFM population estimate of 121,400 as of April 1,
2014 (See Table 1.1).
A culturally rich destination, Kent features captivating neighborhoods, award-
winning parks, exceptional school districts and nationally accredited police
and fire departments. In recent years, Kent has experienced impressive
economic growth, and is nationally known as a prime location for
manufacturing. By the year 2035, Kent is planning for growth to
approximately 54,000 households and 82,000 jobs (See Table 1.2).
The data in this Community Profile highlight population and growth targets,
ethnicity, household character and employment. The data will be used in
drafting each of the individual elements of the Plan, and additional finer-
grained detail also may be incorporated within the individual elements.
33
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Table 1.1
Population Ranking
Seattle 640,500
Spokane 212,300
Tacoma 200,900
Vancouver 167,400
Bellevue 134,400
Kent 121,400
Source: April 1, 2014 OFM official estimate
Table 1.2
Growth Forecasts
Households Jobs
PSRC Forecasts 2035 53,549* 81,854
2010 Baseline
(2010 Census for HH; Jobs are
Calculated from PSRC data)
42,793
61,654
Growth Targets 2035
(Countywide Planning Policies,
as extended for the period
2006 - 2035)
10,858
15,648
Buildable Lands Capacity
(as of 12/31/2011)
53,525**
83,278*
Capacity to Accommodate
PSRC Forecasts 2035
- 24
+ 1,424
*Using an average 2014 OFM population per occupied household of 2.58, the population estimate is 138,156.
**Buildable Lands Capacity applies historic trends to future growth on vacant and redevelopable lands. The capacity numbers do
not include potential additional capacity provided by zoning changes in Midway and Downtown Subarea Plans.
Ethnicity
Kent is an ethnically diverse community (see Table 1.3). Kent School
District students speak over 100 different languages at home (see
Table 1.4). This diversity creates a vibrancy that can be seen in small
businesses and local cultural festivals.
Table 1.3
Race and Ethnicity Characteristics
Subject Kent city, Washington
Estimate Percent
RACE
Total population 120,964 120,964
One race 113,245 93.6%
Two or more races 7,719 6.4%
One race 113,245 93.6%
34
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
White 70,901 58.6%
Black or African American 11,237 9.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 757 0.6%
Asian 20,197 16.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,840 3.2%
Some other race 6,313 5.2%
Two or more races 7,719 6.4%
White and Black or African American 1,595 1.3%
White and American Indian and Alaska Native 911 0.8%
White and Asian 1,410 1.2%
Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 85 0.1%
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races
Total population 120,964 120,964
White 76,526 63.3%
Black or African American 13,976 11.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 1,968 1.6%
Asian 23,817 19.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 5,266 4.4%
Some other race 7,680 6.3%
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total population 120,964 120,964
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 20,354 16.8%
Mexican 16,594 13.7%
Puerto Rican 383 0.3%
Cuban 177 0.1%
Other Hispanic or Latino 3,200 2.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino 100,610 83.2%
White alone 59,035 48.8%
Black or African American alone 10,886 9.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 728 0.6%
Asian alone 19,981 16.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 3,840 3.2%
Some other race alone 269 0.2%
Two or more races 5,871 4.9%
Two races including Some other race 289 0.2%
Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races 5,582 4.6%
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled,
Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March 2011.
35
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Table 1.4
Language Spoken at Home
Subject Kent city, Washington
Estimate Percent
LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
Population 5 years and over 111,120 111,120
English only 66,063 59.5%
Language other than English 45,057 40.5%
Speak English less than "very well" 20,955 18.9%
Spanish 14,488 13.0%
Speak English less than "very well" 6,923 6.2%
Other Indo-European languages 11,121 10.0%
Speak English less than "very well" 5,392 4.9%
Asian and Pacific Islander languages 15,726 14.2%
Speak English less than "very well" 7,408 6.7%
Other languages 3,722 3.3%
Speak English less than "very well" 1,232 1.1%
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Household Character
The age of Kent’s population represents growing families (See Table
1.5). The housing mix is nearly evenly split between single-family and
multiple-family housing (See Table 1.6). Almost 84% of those over 25
years of age in Kent have completed their high school education (See
Table 1.6). Recent household income statistics show a mean
household income level of $67,853 (See Table 1.8).
Tables 1.5
Age of Population
Under 5 years 8.1% 5 to 9 years 7.0%
10 to 14 years 7.1% 15 to 19 years 7.2%
20 to 24 years 7.8% 25 to 29 years 7.9%
30 to 34 years 7.0% 35 to 39 years 7.3%
40 to 44 years 6.9% 45 to 49 years 7.5%
50 to 54 years 7.0% 55 to 59 years 4.8%
60 to 64 years 4.8% 65 to 69 years 3.6%
70 to 74 years 1.9% 75 to 79 years 1.5%
80 to 84 years 1.2% 85 years and over 1.3%
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
36
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Table 1.6
Housing Mix
Units in Structure
Total Housing Units
44,932
1-unit detached 47.4%
1-unit, attached 5.3%
2 units 1.4%
3 or more units 41.8%
3 or 4 units 5.2%
5 to 9 units 12.1%
10 to 19 units 12.9%
20 or more units 11.7%
Mobile home 3.8%
Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0.3%
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Table 1.7
Education
Subject Kent city, Washington
Estimate Percent
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Population 3 years and over enrolled in school 31,286 31,286
Nursery school, preschool 1,256 4.0%
Kindergarten 1,586 5.1%
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 13,836 44.2%
High school (grades 9-12) 6,789 21.7%
College or graduate school 7,819 25.0%
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years and over 75,934 75,934
Less than 9th grade 6,350 8.4%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 6,193 8.2%
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 20,136 26.5%
Some college, no degree 17,984 23.7%
Associate's degree 7,062 9.3%
Bachelor's degree 13,317 17.5%
Graduate or professional degree 4,892 6.4%
Percent high school graduate or higher (X) 83.5%
Percent bachelor's degree or higher (X) 24.0%
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
37
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Table 1.8
Household Income
Subject Kent city, Washington
Estimate Percent
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN
2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED
DOLLARS)
Total households 41,854 41,854
Less than $10,000 2,470 5.9%
$10,000 to $14,999 1,757 4.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 4,706 11.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 4,112 9.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 5,815 13.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 8,134 19.4%
$75,000 to $99,999 5,681 13.6%
$100,000 to $149,999 6,138 14.7%
$150,000 to $199,999 2,095 5.0%
$200,000 or more 946 2.3%
Median household income
(dollars)
55,244 (X)
Mean household income
(dollars)
67,853 (X)
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
Employment
Kent is a regional employment center. The current employment trends
and future forecast illustrate the importance of Kent to the economic
health of the region (See Table 1.9).
Table 1.9
Employment Trends (Forecast by Sector)
Employment by Year
Employment Sector 2010 2025 2035
Manufacturing – WTU 29,705 33,069 36,960
Retail – Food Services 9,095 11,036 12,333
FIRE - Services 16,628 22,529 25,178
Government – Higher Education 3,606 3,934 4,191
Education K-12 2,620 2,949 3,192
Total Employment 61,654 73,517 81,854
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council – April 14, 2014 Land Use Targets developed by counties and municipalities to
align with the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy in place as of December 2013.
38
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Vision and Framework Guidance
In preparation for Kent’s first comprehensive plan adopted under the State’s
1990 Growth Management Act, the Kent City Council in September 1992
passed Resolution No. 1325 which adopted local goals to be used as the
policy framework for the Plan. With this update, the Plan uses the following
planning guidance in the development of goals and policies in each element.
The planning guidance is consistent with the State, regional and countywide
goals and policies.
Vision
Kent is a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly
diverse urban centers.
Urban Growth
Foster a growth pattern that accommodates 20 years of projected population
and employment growth in compact, safe, and vibrant neighborhoods and
jobs centers.
Transportation
Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system
which will support current and projected growth using context-sensitive
design.
Public Facilities and Services
Provide a full range of public facilities and services to support the envisioned
urban growth pattern in a sustainable manner.
Housing
Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income
levels and household needs.
Urban Design
Support an urban design strategy and development pattern that create
places that attract people and promote active lifestyles.
Human Services
Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the
community’s growth, vitality and health.
Economic Development
Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods,
growth centers, and the overall community.
Natural Resource Industries
Promote, support and protect natural resource-based industries, such as
agricultural industries that provide local access to healthy foods.
39
Kent Comprehensive Plan October 7, 2014
Open Space and Recreation
Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces,
recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for all persons in the community.
Historic Preservation
Preserve and enhance Kent’s cultural, physical and environmental heritage as
a means of sustaining vibrant and unique places that are the roots of the
community.
Environment
Protect and enhance a sustainable natural environment, including critical
areas, endangered species and aquatic habitat, air and water quality, and
large-scale natural resources.
Property Rights
Protect private property rights from arbitrary and discriminatory actions while
considering the public’s interest.
Permits
Establish a fair, timely, efficient and predictable permit process.
Community Involvement
Provide for public participation in the development and amendment of City
plans and regulatory actions.
40
Community Design Element - Delete from the Comprehensive Plan.
Place relevant sections of the Element into other Elements of the Plan.
Introduction Text for Design Section of Land Use Element or as Background Report in
other elements
Design goals and policies relate to the form, function, and appearance of Kent's built
environment. They seek to express Kent's unique character; to create distinctive,
attractive and vibrant neighborhoods; and to provide pedestrian- and bike-friendly
streets with a clear and coherent circulation pattern for all transportation modes while
being sensitive to the context in which they are located. Design principles, as
expressed by the community, are not only restricted to site-specific development, but
also relate to the layout of the entire city. Design guidelines can facilitate higher
quality development by integrating the Community’s vision of the built environment
with the resources developers bring to the land development process.
From the Visual Preference Survey adopted by the City Council in 1992 (Resolution
No. 1318), through the community feedback from the recent Midway and Downtown
planning efforts, the Create Kent 2035 survey results, and the City Council’s Strategic
Plan, the theme is the same. That theme is that Kent residents desire a community
that is less dominated by automobiles, parking lots, and four-lane arterials and
instead is more accommodating to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. That
theme translates to pedestrian-oriented streets, well-designed buildings, parks, town
squares, convenient circulation of cars and people, the preservation of Kent's
heritage, and the preservation of Kent's rich, natural environment.
To Transportation Element:
Goal XX:
Establish street and circulation patterns and streetscape design that encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Goal XX:
Incorporate amenities and features in street design that provide safe usage by all
modes of travel. (Examples are distinctive crosswalks, easy access to transit stops,
separated lanes for multimodal travel, clear signage, traffic calming, and eliminating
access barriers for bikes and pedestrians.)
To Land Use Element:
Goal XX:
Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
users, and motor vehicles. (Examples are direct access from buildings to sidewalks
and parking areas, awnings and pedestrian shelters along buildings.)
41
Goal XX:
Develop mixed-use areas which are vital and attractive focal points of community
activity.
Goal XX:
Provide scale, layout, and character of commercial and mixed-use development which
is complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood and accommodating to
pedestrians. (Examples are short blocks, architectural features that reduce perceived
building scale, and activities that generate pedestrian interest and comfort.)
Goal XX:
Seel to improve the appearance, function, and appeal of the City. (Examples are
aesthetic improvements to existing buildings and sites, street trees and other
streetscape amenities, and gateways to Kent.)
Goal XX:
Design industrial and bulk retail developments in consideration of human scale.
(Examples are sensitive massing, landscape screening, public art, small-scale and
pedestrian-oriented commercial components, and live-work units.)
Goal XX:
In the site and building design of industrial and bulk retail projects, consider the
context and potential linkages to surrounding areas. (Examples are linkages to Sound
Transit facilities, and sensitivity to environmentally sensitive areas.)
Goal XX:
Look to the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines as the
path to Downtown’s focus as a vital, people-oriented place.
Goal XX:
Create neighborhoods that are oriented to the pedestrian and foster a sense of
community. (Examples are smaller block sizes, connectivity to activity centers and
places of interest, decreasing the visual prominence of garages, diversity in housing
types, building materials and other architectural features, incorporating porches and
other visually interesting architectural features.)
Goal XX:
Design for greater surveillance and visibility of public and semi-public places.
(Examples are incorporating windows and porches for “eyes on the street”.)
Goal XX:
Provide multifamily building architecture and site design that reflects positive features
of single-family home architecture when located within or adjacent to single family
residences.
To Park Element:
Goal XX:
Support an open space system that links parks, greenbelts, waterfront recreation
areas, wildlife habitats, stream corridors, wetlands, and other critical areas.
42
Goal XX:
To the greatest extent practicable, protect the natural landscapes, which characterize
Kent, such as scenic views of Mount Rainier, the Cascades, the Olympics, and the Kent
Valley from public areas and rights-of-way.
To Land Use Element:
Goal XX:
Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in the
design and construction of all projects. (Examples are low-impact development and
environmentally sensitive building programs.)
To Utility Element:
Goal XX:
Promote renewable resource use and energy-efficiency in site and architectural
design.
43
44
Community Design Element 5-1
CHAPTER FIVE
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This element will be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. However, relevant sections of this
element will be placed in other elements of the Plan.
The Community Design Element outlines several goals and policies Design goals and policies
related to the form, function, and appearance of Kent's built environment. The goals and
policies of this element were developed using the results of Kent's community participation
programs. They seek to build on express Kent's unique character,; to create distinctive, and
attractive and vibrant neighborhoods,; and to provide livable, pedestrian- and bike-friendly
streets with a clear and coherent circulation pattern for all transportation modes while being
sensitive to the context in which they are located. Design guidelines can facilitate higher quality
development by integrating the Community’s vision of the built environment with the resources
developers bring to the land development process.
Relationship to State Law
Community design is of critical importance to the decisions that are made regarding general
growth and development, but it is often overlooked in the preparation of comprehensive plans
within Washington. Community design elements are not mandated by the Growth Management
Act and, when included in comprehensive plans, frequently have a limited focus. In Kent, a
slightly different approach has been taken. The energy and focus applied to the Community
Design Element are similar to those applied to other elements, as the Community Design
Element supplements several other elements concerning relevant land development goals and
policies. Community design principles can be implemented in a variety of ways. The goals and
policies of this element provide a basis from which to develop implementation strategies.
Relationship to Other Elements
The Community Design Element addresses issues of growth and development in a holistic
fashion. It is fairly comprehensive in scope and, as noted above, supplements other elements in
the plan, especially Land Use, Housing, Transportation, and Park & Open Space. For instance,
the Land Use Element provides the policies related to the extent of development, the overall
45
Community Design Element 5-2
density, environmental impacts of development, and the creation of mixed-use districts; the
Housing Element considers the policy implications of alternative housing types, such as
accessory dwelling units, clustered housing, cottage housing, and other ownership-structures
including single-family attached housing; the Transportation Element more fully sets forth the
functional characteristics and desired levels of service of the circulation system, and specifically
gives guidance on transit, pedestrian, and bicycle movement, for addressing the interaction and
integration of multiple transportation modes (i.e., motor vehicle, mass transit, bicycle,
pedestrian); and the Park & Open Space Element reinforces policies related to the integration of
natural features within the community and the use of open space in shaping the community.
[c1]Design principles, as expressed by the community, are not only restricted to site specific
development, but also relate to the layout of the entire city. Therefore, the Community Design
Element describes the preferred physical expression of each one of these elements.[c2]
BACKGROUND
When the Town of Kent was incorporated in 1890, it was established as a small commercial
center, which catered to the needs of the surrounding agricultural land uses. After World War II,
Kent was still very rural in character and was predominantly an agricultural region. It wasn't
until the 1960's that Kent experienced its first major influx of industrial development, after the
construction of the Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River reduced the frequency of severe
flooding. Residential development and annexations pushed the population in Kent from 16,275
in 1970 to 23,152 in 1980. The 1980's were another period of intense development and growth
in Kent, as the Green River valley established itself as one of the dominant industrial areas in
the state; the population grew to 37,960 by 1990. The 1990’s were marked by three large-area
annexations to the City of Kent, and population growth within the expanded city limits was
fueled by a strong national, regional, and local economy. By the year 2002, the population of
Kent was estimated to be over 84,000.
With the region's rapid growth over the last three (3) decades, citizens have become increasingly
concerned about the impacts of growth on their communities. As neighborhood densities
continue to rise, issues of privacy and personal space become more urgent. [c3]Under
Resolution #1318, adopted by the City Council on July 22, 1992, results from the community
forum and visioning sessions were used as a basis for creating 1995 goals and policies which
reflect community desires. The Community Design Element summarizes the results of Kent's
Citizen Participation Program and establishes guidelines and specific recommendations for
improving the design of future development.[c4]
46
Community Design Element 5-3
Kent Community Forum
In February of 1992, over 400 people participated in Kent's first growth management forum. A
twenty-minute video and informative materials were prepared by the City, and an open
discussion of issues ensued. After the discussion, citizens were given an Opinionnaire, which
included 61 questions on topics such as Kent's future, how we should plan for growth,
transportation, Kent today, and citizens' visions for Kent. Many Opinionnaire questions had
strong urban design implications. A summary of the forum is presented here.
Most respondents described the quality of life in Kent as good. Kent's positive attributes include
its central location and recreational amenities, while traffic congestion is the biggest problem.
When asked to choose a growth pattern for future residential and commercial growth, most
people favored medium to high-density development in specific areas as opposed to low to
medium-density development throughout the City. Respondents believed that roads and
services should be improved at the same time that new development is permitted. The preferred
growth pattern would allow medium to high-density development in areas that currently have
roads, sewer, water, public transit, and other public services in place. It would restrict
development in areas that are currently undeveloped, in order to preserve their natural or rural
character.
Most participants agreed that Kent should focus more transportation resources on public transit,
and more specifically rail transit. A majority of the participants agreed that the City should plan
for high-density areas of residential and commercial development in order to enhance the
feasibility of public transit. Future development on a grid system clearly was preferred over a
cul-de-sac system for getting around by automobile, foot, or bicycle.
Most participants wanted Kent to be known best for its neighborhoods and sense of community.
Others wanted Kent to be known for its open green spaces and rural character. Few respondents
wanted Kent to be known for its modern industrial and employment centers. Most people
wanted to live within a short walk of public transportation in order to get to work, while people
were split between wanting to live away from where they accommodated their daily shopping
needs and wanted to live within a short walk of shopping areas. Mixed-use development was
ranked highest as a means of providing a diverse supply of affordable housing; however, the
participants did not prefer this type of development for themselves.
47
Community Design Element 5-4
Visual Preference Survey
On March 11, 1992, the City of Kent conducted the Visual Preference Survey (VPS), which was
developed by A. Nelessen Associates of Princeton, New Jersey. The VPS uses slide images to
develop a community vision of desirable urban design and development. Slides were shown of
neighborhoods, buildings, houses, stores, parks, and streetscapes in Kent and other towns and
cities. Subsequent to the VPS survey, A. Nelessen Associates and Kent planning staff analyzed
what characteristics contributed to the positive and negative ratings which participants gave to
the slides. The characteristics included building form, sense of enclosure, scale, massing, style,
texture, materials, landscaping, streetscape elements, types of land use, level of pedestrian
activity, and development density.
The following summary of the vision Kent citizens hold for future growth is presented from the
document Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning. As noted in each of the
topical sections below, the City has responded to some of the issues raised in the Community
Forum on Growth Management and Visioning.
Traffic
The citizens’ worst fear is more traffic congestion. However, the traffic congestion
problem is a symptom of a greater problem that lies in the existing regional land use
pattern, which separates uses and promotes sprawl. The Growth Management Act
strategy is to reduce the number of automobile trips by providing alternative
transportation modes, such as an effective rail and bus system, and by combining land
uses such as housing, jobs and shopping into a more compact street pattern so that
individuals are less automobile-dependent. The Kent City Code has been amended to
include an increased number of mixed-use zoning districts that promote higher density
development and alternative transportation use.
Streets
Streets, including state highways, should be positive elements of the community. They
will continue to move traffic, but also should be made friendlier to pedestrians and
bicyclists. In addition, mass transit will share the public right-of-way. Most streets will
feel safer for pedestrians because of on-street parallel parking and the placement of trees
between the curb and sidewalk. Sidewalks will be broader, and wide streets will become
boulevards with landscaped medians. The Kent City Code has been amended to include
pedestrian-friendly residential class street development standards.
48
Community Design Element 5-5
Commercial Areas
Commercial areas will become neighborhood focal points with a mix of uses, so that
stores, offices, and housing are in close proximity. The Building Code as applied by the
City of Kent should recognize the functional value of integrating a mix of uses within
individual structures. Parking lots will be located at the sides or rear of buildings,
preferably with convenient, well-marked pedestrian connections between parking lots
and the buildings served directly by those parking lots. Parking should be landscaped
intensively to screen the appearance of automobiles from sidewalks without threatening
the safety of pedestrians. Commercial district design review will allow for the
assessment of these and other site and building design issues to engender development
that positively and consistently responds to the vision of Kent citizens.
Business and Industrial Development
Business services, office and industrial development also will become more pedestrian-
friendly and transit-oriented. Uses will be combined in a more compact, mixed-use
pattern, particularly in the area surrounding the commuter rail station. New buildings
like the Centennial Center, the Regional Justice Center, REI Industrial Campus, and
King County Journal Newspapers Building could provide models for future office and
industrial developments. Parking should be landscaped intensively without
compromising delivery vehicle access or security.
Downtown
The Kent Train Station used by Sound Transit (Sounder) will be an impetus for a more
vibrant urban center. Downtown Kent will have stores and restaurants on the street
level, with housing and offices above. It will be safe because of the presence of a larger
residential population that generates pedestrian activity around the clock. Motor vehicle
traffic and parking will be accommodated in Downtown without compromising the
safety, convenience and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. The Downtown Design
Guidelines, adopted by ordinance in September 2000, provide for appropriate site and
building design standards within the seven (7) distinct Downtown districts as described
in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, as well as the designated Urban Center.
Transit
Kent has a new Sounder commuter rail station located Downtown, with platforms on
either side of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad tracks between James and
Smith Streets. The Kent Train Station has an associated parking structure that
accommodates 869 vehicles and a METRO “Kiss & Ride” lot to facilitate commuters.
49
Community Design Element 5-6
Bus service should link the Kent Train Station with neighborhood and employment
centers throughout Kent. The Kent Train Station will support Kent’s Urban Center
which consists of shopping, housing, and offices.
Redevelopment
Kent has reached a stage in its evolution where redevelopment is ready to occur. As part
of this process, older shopping malls and multifamily areas will be redeveloped. They
will be pedestrian-friendly places containing plazas and buildings of two stories or
greater which contain a mix of housing, retail stores, and other businesses. Design
review shall allow for the assessment of site and building design issues to promote
mixed-use development that positively and consistently responds to the vision of Kent
citizens.
Residential Development
The percentage of home ownership will increase via a concerted effort to build
affordable units for first-time homebuyers. Single-family neighborhoods will follow
more closely a grid pattern, with narrower streets, and alleys placed behind housing
units. Traffic calming measures shall be incorporated where appropriate to protect non-
motorized traffic. Multi-family housing will be built along streets, not in the middle of
parking lots. The attractive architectural characteristics of single-family detached
housing units will be incorporated into the design of multi-family housing and other
types of housing units. New multi-family residential development will vary in size to fit
the general scale of any surrounding buildings. Stores, restaurants and offices should be
located within walking distance of the more compact multi-family residential
neighborhoods.
Open Space and Natural Environment
Kent citizens place a high value on open space and parks. Park enhancements or
acquisition of open space should coincide with new development. Available land
appropriate for open space use should be acquired in under-served neighborhoods. A
balance of active and passive open space uses should be considered during site
acquisition processes. Parks should have more pedestrian connections to surrounding
neighborhoods than presently exist. In addition, portions of the Green River Corridor
will provide recreational opportunities, as will other places located by water, where
recreational uses will not interfere with or degrade the natural environmental functions
of these waterways and waterbodies.
50
Community Design Element 5-7
Summary[c5]
From Tthe Visual Preference Survey (VPS) provided citizens with a tool for developing a
"vision" to guide Kent's future development. The VPS adopted by the City Council in 1992
(Resolution No. 1318), through the community feedback from the recent Midway and
Downtown planning efforts, the Create Kent 2035 survey results, and the City Council’s
Strategic Plan, the theme is the same. results indicated one underlyingThat theme;is that Kent
citizens residents desire a community that is less dominated by automobiles, parking lots, and
four-lane arterials and instead is more accommodating to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
users. By comparing those slides which received positive ratings with those which received
negative ratings, City planners began to understand and identify building, street, and
neighborhood characteristics the community finds desirable. Identified as desirable are That
theme translates to pedestrian-oriented streets, well-designed buildings, parks, town squares,
convenient circulation of cars and people, the preservation of Kent's heritage, and the
preservation of Kent's rich, natural environment. These characteristics are included in the goals
and policies of the Community Design Element, as well as in other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
While the VPS focused on comparative distinctions, what is ‘preferred’ and ‘to be avoided,’ the
Community Design Element will emphasize positive examples in the visualization of policy
preference, the ‘preferred’ approaches and treatments. Furthermore, the Community Design
Element will also reflect more interest in the design of different types of housing – to include a
variety of single-family and multi-family design types. With the passage of time, members of
the development industry are increasingly interested in promoting flexible regulations and
incentives to use environmentally sensitive design and construction principles.
COMMUNITY DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES
STREET GOALS & POLICIES
Streets comprise the majority of the accessible open spaces of cities and can be among the
liveliest and most memorable spaces within the community. In past years, however, street
design focused on accommodating motor vehicles with minimal consideration for other
activities and modes of transportation. Goals, policies and design guidelines provided in this
element are aimed at balancing the need for motor vehicle movement and parking with the need
for using streets to create a sense of community.
To Transportation Element
Goal CD-1:
Establish street and circulation patterns and streetscape design that encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use.
51
Community Design Element 5-8
Policy CD-1.1: Where physically possible, arrange streets in all new neighborhoods,
including in multifamily housing projects, in an interconnected block pattern, so that
local pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic does not have to use arterial streets to
circulate within the neighborhood.
Preferred To Be Avoided
Policy CD-1.2: Encourage major neighborhood streets (e.g., collectors) to serve
neighborhood centers, parks, landmarks, and schools so that people may conveniently
reach these destinations by foot, bicycle, car, or bus.
Policy CD-1.3: Ensure that sufficient right-of-way is reserved to provide street and trail
connections between new residential developments and established neighborhoods.
Policy CD-1.4: Encourage the construction of alleys in new neighborhoods to serve
residential garages and waste collection services, except where site configuration or
other features impede their use.[c6]
Goal CD-2:
Incorporate amenities and features along neighborhood residential and commercial in streets
design that provide accommodate safe usage by all modes of travel.motor vehicle pedestrian,
bicycle , and transit use. (Examples are distinctive crosswalks, easy access to transit stops,
separated lanes for multimodal travel, clear signage, traffic calming, and eliminating access
barriers for bikes and pedestrians.)
Policy CD-2.1: Establish, particularly in conjunction with new development, distinctive
crosswalks at major street intersections in neighborhood mixed-use centers, commercial
corridors, transit stops, in proximity to parks, and school sites.
Policy CD-2.2: Where feasible, separate motorized vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian
traffic along busy streets.
52
Community Design Element 5-9
Preferred To Be Avoided
Policy CD-2.3: Design intersections with appropriate signage and traffic control
devices to safely accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic. Construct
intersections with the minimum dimensions and turning radii necessary to maintain
established levels of service per the concurrency requirements of the Growth
Management Act.
Policy CD-2.4: Provide visually attractive streetscapes with street trees and sidewalks
on both sides of streets, planting strips, attractive transit shelters, benches, and
pedestrian-scale streetlights in appropriate locations that ensures continuity of design,
with consideration of existing building features.
Policy CD-2.5: Design streetscaping that makes use of traffic calming techniques on
residential local access streets, Downtown, mixed-use areas, and near schools and
parks, to reduce vehicular speed and thereby provide a safer and more comfortable
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Traffic Circle Mid-block Chokers
Policy CD-2.6: Where appropriate opportunities and sufficient right-of-way exists,
modify wide streets into boulevards with landscaped medians or landscaped strips
between the roadway and sidewalks to visually and functionally enhance streets for
pedestrian use.
53
Community Design Element 5-10
Preferred To Be Avoided[c7]
Policy CD-2.7: In general, construct sidewalks on both sides of all new streets.
Goal CD-3:
Establish site design standards that encourage pedestrian and bicycle use. Consider equally
during site design all modes of transportation access, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
motor vehicle.
Policy CD-3.1: Establish design standards which ensure that commercial, industrial,
residential, and public building sites provide convenient, direct access for pedestrians
and bicyclists.[c8]
Policy CD-3.2: Except where they are necessary to reduce noise or to create private
rear yards, discourage fences, walls, and other impermeable barriers which inhibit
pedestrian traffic, isolate neighborhoods, or separate neighborhoods from main roads.
Where screening, buffering, or noise reduction are necessary between adjacent uses,
promote permeable barriers that allow safe access for pedestrians.
Preferred To Be Avoided
54
Community Design Element 5-11
Policy CD-3.3: Encourage development to orient around existing and proposed transit
stops and to provide pedestrian amenities and convenient access to the transit stops.
Policy CD-3.4: Encourage amenities for alternative transportation modes at transit
facilities (e.g. bike racks and lockers, pedestrian landing pads, or transit shelters). [c9]
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS & POLICIES
Many of our commercial areas are motor vehicle-oriented with few pedestrian amenities. To
become more inviting for pedestrian and transit users, the commercial areas need wider
sidewalks and pedestrian ways furnished with benches and street trees; well-marked crosswalks
and transit stops; buildings that are oriented to the streets rather than to parking lots; and
compact development patterns which decrease walking distances between retail outlets. [c10]
To Land Use Element
Goal CD-4:
Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
motor vehicles. (Examples are direct access from buildings to sidewalks and parking areas,
awnings and pedestrian shelters along buildings.)
Policy CD-4.1: Encourage site and building access that considers the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists by providing the most direct pedestrian access from sidewalks
and parking areas to building entrances while minimizing conflicts with motor vehicle
traffic.
Policy CD-4.2: Provide sheltered seating areas at heavily used transit stops, plazas,
and other appropriate locations along the pedestrian walkway.
Policy CD-4.3: Encourage awnings and other forms of pedestrian shelter along
building faces which front on sidewalks in mixed-use and pedestrian districts.
Policy CD-4.4 – Encourage incorporation of architectural and landscape features that
allow for secure locking of bicycles in locations easily observed from indoors. These
features should be located to minimize interference with pedestrian areas, evacuation
routes, cargo loading areas, and utilities accesses.
55
Community Design Element 5-12
Policy CD-4.5: Locate motor vehicle parking at the rear of buildings to help block the
view of the parking from the street and to enable more convenient access to the front of
the buildings. Where it is not possible to provide parking behind a building, parking
may be located along the side. Signage for parking should be a recognized standard to
be distinguishable for motorists, unless otherwise specified in district design guidelines.
Front Side Entry and Rear Parking
Policy CD-4.6 – Screen utilities, air conditioning units (HVAC), and waste collection
service areas from street frontage using appropriate design and building materials
consistent with the development being served.
Policy CD-4.7 – Business identification signage should be located to maximize visibility
for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, while remaining consistent with the design
theme and scale of the development, and any appropriate design guidelines of the
City.[c11]
Goal CD-5:
Develop mixed-use areas which are vital and attractive focal points of community activity.
Policy CD-5.1: Enhance sidewalk activity by reducing front-yard setback requirements
and encouraging developers to site retail uses facing and opening up onto sidewalks and
plazas. When this is not possible, encourage building walls along sidewalks to contain
windows or decorative wall treatments in order to maintain the pedestrian's interest.
Preferred To Be Avoided
56
Community Design Element 5-13
Policy CD-5.2: Where possible, encourage developers to infill buildings along vacant
sections of the street edge to improve the environment for pedestrians.[c12]
Policy CD-5.3: Encourage the development of seating areas, such as plazas, within
major commercial projects.
Policy CD-5.4: Encourage the development of public facilities such as museums,
theaters, libraries, and recreational facilities within mixed-use areas in order to
establish these places as community destinations.
Policy CD-5.5: Encourage transit agencies to provide attractive and distinctive shelters
and seating for transit stops serving mixed-use areas.
Policy CD-5.6: Encourage activity around transit stops by surrounding them with
retail, office, and residential uses. Locate parking areas within short walking distance of
transit stops and other uses.[c13]
Goal CD-6:
Provide scale, layout, and character of commercial and mixed-use development which is
complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood and accommodating to pedestrians.
(Examples are short blocks, architectural features that reduce perceived building scale, and
activities that generate pedestrian interest and comfort.)
Policy CD-6.1: Establish connecting streets with short blocks in pedestrian-oriented
commercial areas in order to create a pedestrian-scale street environment. Where
economically feasible, retrofit existing development into a pattern of small streets and
short blocks (i.e., around two hundred feet) at the time of redevelopment.
Policy CD-6.2: Encourage developers of large-scale retail stores to provide smaller-
scale retail shops with separate entrances along the perimeter of the building to provide
interest, easy access, and more diverse shopping opportunities.
Policy CD-6.3: Encourage the appropriate use of balconies, bay windows, pitched
roofs, arcades, upper story setbacks, and other architectural features to reduce the
perceived building scale.
57
Community Design Element 5-14
Policy CD-6.4: Encourage ground floor building façade treatments and activities that
generate pedestrian interest and comfort. Large windows, canopies, arcades, plazas
and outdoor seating are examples of such amenities.[c14]
Goal CD-7:
Work Seek to improve the appearance, function, and appeal of commercial areas the City.
(Examples are aesthetic improvements to existing buildings and sites, street trees and other
streetscape amenities, and gateways to Kent.)
Policy CD-7.1: Work with the business community and neighborhood residents to make
aesthetic and functional improvements to commercial areas. Improved image and
appeal will increase sales potential and enhance the character of the City.
Policy CD-7.2: Prepare comprehensive streetscape plans for each commercial area.
Include, for consideration in these plans, elements such as street trees, distinctive
crosswalks and sidewalks, street lighting, benches, shelters, fountains, bike racks, trash
receptacles, and public art.
Policy CD-7.3: Establish additional gateways to Kent, similar to the gateway on the
corner of Meeker and Highway 516, which include significant or special landscaping.
[c15]
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS & POLICIES
Existing industrial development on the valley floor is highly dispersed, separated by vast
expanses of paving and landscaping. These industrial areas are often forbidding to pedestrians;
designed for auto access and site security, they create long walking distances, few shortcuts, and
little in the way of amenities. Industrial projects have increased in size and scale over time, with
buildings in some projects exceeding several acres. Bulk retail projects also require large
parcels to accommodate large buildings, site access and parking facilities. These large-scale,
single-use projects present special challenges to design. Complexes of small live-work spaces
could provide an alternative to single-use large-scale industrial buildings. Qualifying industrial
sites and buildings with historic value to the community should be considered as candidates for
historic preservation programs. The following policies encourage the development or
redevelopment of industrial projects that relate more positively to the surroundings and are of a
scale and character that are attractive and accessible to freight vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and motor vehicles.[c16]
Goal CD-8:
Design industrial and bulk retail developments in consideration of human scale. ( Examples are
sensitive massing, landscape screening, public art, small-scale and pedestrian-oriented
commercial components, and live-work units.)
Policy CD-8.1: Mitigate the overall size and scale of large projects through such means
as sensitive massing, articulation, and organization of buildings; the use of color and
materials; and the use of landscaped screening.
58
Community Design Element 5-15
Screening
Policy CD-8.2: Encourage the use of public art, in particular murals, to add visual
interest and to break up the monotony of unarticulated walls of large industrial
buildings.
Policy CD-8.3: Encourage small-scale, pedestrian-oriented commercial uses which
serve the industrial district's employee population, with sensitivity to potential conflicts
between truck and automobile transportation modes.
Policy CD-8.4: Encourage developments to incorporate innovative site design and
treatment of surface parking areas in order to avoid the appearance of a sea of asphalt.
Policy CD-8.5: Where appropriate, encourage context-sensitive design for the
development or redevelopment of live-work units on smaller parcels within or adjacent
to industrial districts.
Live-work units
[c17]
59
Community Design Element 5-16
Goal CD-9:
In the site and building design of industrial and bulk retail projects, consider the context and
potential linkages to surrounding areas. (Examples are linkages to Sound Transit facilities, and
sensitivity to environmentally sensitive areas.)
Policy CD-9.1: Avoid designing industrial projects exclusively for the convenience of
motorists; rather, also consider the needs of freight rail, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
mass transit users.
Policy CD-9.2: Arrange streets in industrial districts as an interconnecting network
that facilitates rail and road freight, automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
Policy CD-9.3: Where appropriate, consider alternative arrangement or design of
buildings to respect the scale of neighboring non-industrial buildings.
Policy CD-9.4: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial
and bulk retail complexes occurs adjacent to the Sounder Corridor, require aesthetic
and landscaping improvements of façades oriented toward the corridor that will
strengthen the identity of Kent.
Policy CD-9.5: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial
and bulk retail complexes occurs adjacent to environmentally-sensitive areas, require
landscaping improvements that will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities
and environmental functions.[c18]
Goal CD-10:
Design industrial and bulk retail complexes to be more sensitive to the unique natural
environment of Kent's valley floor.
Policy CD-10.1: Maintain high standards for natural environmental quality through
sensitive and flexible environmental review that protects the functions of natural
environmental systems.
Policy CD-10.2: Encourage infill and intensification of industrial development over
time to achieve a greater density of uses and to create focal points of activity, as with
developments containing live-work spaces.
Policy CD-10.3: Discourage development near critical areas, environmentally sensitive
features, such as wetlands, rivers, and steep slopes. Where industrial and bulk retail
development is permissible, ensure that environmentally sensitive features are protected
by the design and development regulations of the City.[c19]
DOWNTOWN GOALS & POLICIES
Downtown Kent deserves special attention because it is the heart of the City. A city with a
thriving downtown has the potential for bolstering community spirit and providing a healthy
60
Community Design Element 5-17
local economy. Today, many of Downtown Kent's buildings are low-rise and single-story;
despite architectural character, they often are underutilized or vacant. Through innovative urban
design programs, Downtown Kent will be an attractive place for businesses to locate. By
encouraging increased development intensity, promoting urban design which enhances the
public realm, improving streets and sidewalks, and encouraging better building and site design,
Downtown Kent will be reestablished as the cultural, social, and economic center of the Kent
area. [c20]
Goal CD-11 :
Look to the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines as the path to
Reinforce the role of people-oriented Downtown’s as the focus of community life and as a vital,
people-oriented place.
Policy CD-11.1: Support the development of new buildings that have a commonality in
scale, treatment, and character with the traditional urban buildings that have given
Downtown its special character.
Policy CD-11.2: Maintain and enhance a strong pedestrian orientation within
Downtown through the design of buildings, streets and sidewalks. Establish continuous
building facades with attractive window treatments and minimal or no setback distance
from sidewalks.
Policy CD-11.3: Discourage drive-thru features in new development, redevelopment, or
for a remodel within Downtown.
Policy CD-11.4: Provide for buildings which are more vertical than horizontal in
relationship to the width of adjacent streets. Encourage a minimum building height of
thirty feet to provide a better scale relationship to the street and a greater potential for a
vital urban environment.
Preferred To Be Avoided
Policy CD-11.5: Encourage ground floor building façade treatments and activities that
generate pedestrian interest and comfort. Large windows, canopies, arcades, plazas
and outdoor seating are examples of such amenities.
61
Community Design Element 5-18
Policy CD-11.6: Reduce the perceived scale of Downtown streets in relationship to
building height and bulk while allowing for through movement. Encourage wider
sidewalks and additional landscaping.
Policy CD-11.7: Design streets and other public spaces within Downtown that can
otherwise be utilized for seasonal celebrations and special events.
Policy CD-11.8: Support connectivity between public spaces and semi-public spaces on
private land in Downtown Kent.
Policy CD-11.9: Reduce the visual impact of surface parking, particularly along
streets.[c21]
Goal CD-12:
Promote urban design in the Urban Center which further defines and enhances the character of
the City and the established and emerging special activity districts within the Urban Center, as
described in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, and specified in the Kent Downtown Design
Guidelines.
Policy CD-12.1: Define the edges, focal points, and landmarks of the Urban Center
and the special districts.
Policy CD-12.2: Support urban design programs which incorporate public
improvements to enhance the identity of the Urban Center and the special districts.
Policy CD-12.3: Support urban design programs which incorporate public and semi-
public improvements to enhance the connections among special activity districts.
Improvements may include, but should not be limited to, public spaces, parks and
plazas, pedestrian walkways, and crosswalk definition.
Policy CD-12.4: Encourage the use of durable, high quality building materials to lower
maintenance and replacement needs and ensure the aesthetic appeal of new
development in the Urban Center.
62
Community Design Element 5-19
Policy CD-12.5: Define the special character of the Urban Center along the Sounder
Corridor, and support the design of buildings and activity spaces adjacent to the
corridor that will be consistent with or enhance this special character.
Goal CD-13:
Promote urban design in the Urban Center which expresses the character of Kent's historical
quality buildings and sites. Encourage historic preservation in the Urban Center. Buildings or
sites listed on a national, state, regional, or local historical registers should not have their status
jeopardized by any form of modification without due consideration of the consequences of such
actions.
Policy CD-13.1: Retain as many historic features as possible in the restoration or
renovation of historical quality buildings. Wherever possible, maintain or restore
original proportions, dimensions, and elements. Where applicable, follow historic
preservation techniques appropriate to maintain historic registry status of subject
buildings.
Policy CD-13.2: New buildings in the Urban Center shall be compatible with
neighboring buildings of historical quality or significance.
Policy CD-13.3: Preserve and upgrade the physical appearance and usability of
buildings and sites with special historic and/or architectural interest, insofar as these
actions do not jeopardize the historical registry status of subject buildings and sites.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS & POLICIES
Kent's residential areas are most easily described in terms of older, more traditional residential
neighborhoods in the central area and newer, more auto-oriented development on East and West
Hill. The central area's older neighborhoods, primarily in the Downtown area, have tree-lined
streets with sidewalks and detached garages served by alley access, resulting in pedestrian-
oriented buildings. This contrasts with the newer single-family neighborhoods, which feature a
wide, discontinuous cul-de-sac street pattern and homes with garage doors that face the street.
63
Community Design Element 5-20
Newer two to four-story multi-family complexes usually are large and are surrounded by big
parking lots and fencing, which isolate them from the surrounding community. The bulk and
coverage of these complexes are dominating, particularly because they comprise a large amount
of Kent's housing stock. The following policies are aimed at creating neighborhoods that are
oriented toward pedestrians, foster social interaction, and create a sense of community.[c22]
Goal CD-14:
Lay ou Createt neighborhoods that are oriented to the pedestrian and foster a sense of
community. (Examplesa are smaller block sizes, connectivity to activity centers and places of
interest, decreasing the visual prominence of garages, diversity in housing types, building
materials and other architectural features, incorporating porches and other visually interesting
architectural features.)
Policy CD-14.1: Limit block lengths and encourage continuity of streets among
neighborhoods to facilitate access, increase connectivity, and support safe pedestrian,
bicyclist and vehicular movement in residential neighborhoods.
Policy CD-14.2: Encourage residential site and building design that contributes to an
attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment along neighborhood streets. Decreasing the
visual prominence of garages and incorporating porches, stoops, and functionally-
opening windows which face the street foster community interaction.
Preferred To Be Avoided
Goal CD-15:
Encourage creativity and high quality of residential site design and architecture.
Policy CD-15.1: Establish design standards for cottage, cluster, and attached single-
family housing to ensure development of such housing does not overwhelm the existing
neighborhood context.
Policy CD-15.2: Limit the repetitive character of new development by encouraging
diversity among dwelling units in the use of color, building materials, floor plan layouts
and roof lines. Maintain continuity of a few design features to provide context between
individual units and the neighborhood.
64
Community Design Element 5-21
Preferred Examples
Policy CD-15.3: Individually-owned garages could be clustered together or placed
beneath units with common driveway access to maximize efficient use of the overall site
area.
Policy CD-15.4: Reduce front-yard setbacks in single-family residential districts to
allow for greater design flexibility while ensuring an inviting human scale.
Policy CD-15.5: Provide flexible back-yard setbacks to encourage placement of
garages oriented to alleys.
Policy CD-15.6: Cluster, cottage, and attached single-family residential housing types
could include common ownership of parking, courtyard gardens, recreational facilities
or open space.
Policy CD-15.7: Establish design standards for cluster, cottage, attached single-family
and multifamily housing types to ensure the housing is complimentary to neighborhood
context.
65
Community Design Element 5-22
Policy CD-15.8: Limit height and specify roof pitch for cluster and cottage housing
types to ensure an inviting human scale.
Policy CD-15.9: Establish design standards and parking requirements for accessory
dwelling units to ensure that the neighborhood character is maintained.
Policy CD-15.10: Require that the architecture, window style and spacing, exterior
materials, roof form, and other design features of accessory dwelling units are
compatible with the primary structure.
Policy CD-15.11 : Utilize the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process where
appropriate to realize the benefits of desirable community design.[c23]
Goal CD-16:
Design for greater surveillance and visibility of public and semi-public places. (Examples are
incorporating windows and porches for “eyes on the street”.)
Policy CD-16.1: Encourage the placement of windows so that they view onto yards,
corridors, entrances, streets, and other public and semi-public places.
Policy CD-16.2: Encourage the use of porches, stoops, and other elements that provide
a place to comfortably linger and thereby provide "eyes on the street", helping to
maintain a sense of security within neighborhoods.
[c24]
Goal CD-17:
Provide multifamily building architecture and site design that reflects positive features of single-
family home architecture when located within or adjacent to single family residences.
Policy CD-17.1: Establish development standards which prohibit large expanses of
uniform multifamily structures.
Policy CD-17.2: Encourage multifamily housing to incorporate building forms and
architectural features common to adjacent single-family houses.
66
Community Design Element 5-23
Policy CD-17.3: Where appropriate, maintain neighborhood scale and density in new
multifamily buildings.
Preferred To Be Avoided
Policy CD-17.4: Accommodate convenient vehicular access and parking in a manner
that neither limits pedestrian access nor endangers pedestrian safety.
Policy CD-17.5: Integrate new multifamily development with the surrounding
neighborhood, through site design, pedestrian connectivity, and landscaping.
Preferred To Be Avoided
Policy CD-17.6: Provide open spaces which will accommodate a wide variety of
activities, both semi-public and private, to include plazas, courtyards, small parks, and
other open spaces in which residents can interact with one another or the community-at-
large.
67
Community Design Element 5-24
Examples of Residential Open Space[c25]
OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
GOALS & POLICIES
The preservation and enhancement of the natural environment is of vital importance because
Kent will continue to experience periods of sustained growth. Citizens place a high priority on
preserving the rural character and believe it is a major component of Kent's identity. The City
will continue to protect sensitive environments and habitats as well as provide open spaces for
passive and active recreation. The following goals and policies will strengthen and reaffirm
Kent's commitment to a healthy and accessible system of natural and urban open spaces.[c26]
To Park Element
Goal CD-18:
Provide adequate, safe, well-located public open spaces, parks facilities, and access to features
of the natural environment.
Policy CD-18.1: Where appropriate, identify and acquire Support an open space
system that links, parks, greenbelts, waterfront recreation areas, wildlife habitats, stream
corridors, wetlands, and other critical areas. Impacts on the environmental functions of
critical areas shall be considered in the development of open space system links.
Policy CD-18.2: Provide town squares, plazas, and small parks, and frame them by
commercial, residential, and civic buildings, to allow pedestrians to rest and interact,
and to improve the appearance of the city.
Policy CD-18.3: Preserve public accesses to waterfront recreation areas.
Goal CD-19:
To the greatest extent practicable, Pprotect the natural landscapes, which characterize Kent,
such as scenic views of Mount Rainier, the Cascades, the Olympics, and the Kent Valley from
public areas and rights-of-way.
68
Community Design Element 5-25
Policy CD-19.1: To the greatest extent practicable, retain scenic views of Mount
Rainier, the Cascades, the Olympics, and the Kent Valley from public rights-of-way and
public areas.
Policy CD-19.2: Encourage the preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation
during land development. Where this is not possible, encourage site landscaping which
uses appropriate native plant materials.[c27]
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
GOALS & POLICIES
As noted in the previous section, development in the Puget Sound will continue to consume
natural resources, land, and generate waste and pollution. Without mitigating the impacts of
conventional development patterns, use of environmentally harmful construction materials and
practices, the natural environment both proximate and distant from Kent can be expected to
diminish in its life-sustaining and enriching functions. Many developers and construction
industry professionals have moved forward with the sponsorship of their professional
associations to adopt market-driven incentive programs to reduce the immediate and long-term
impacts of development. Built Green, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, and
Low Impact Development are but a few examples of such programs.
The goals and policies that follow address the desired relationship between the natural
environment, development practices, and the impacts of construction and occupation of built
forms. [c28]
To Land Use Element
Goal CD-20:
Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in the design and
construction of all projects. (Examples are low-impact development and environmentally
sensitive building programs.)
Policy CD-20.1: Encourage participation in low-impact development and
environmentally sensitive builder programs. The Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties-sponsored Built Green program provides guidance and
incentives for local home builders; King County sponsors training for general
development through the nationally recognized LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) program. King County also promotes job-site recycling through
its Construction Works program.
Policy CD-20.2: The City should adopt development standards that minimize
environmental impacts of development through an appropriate balance of regulations
and incentives. Incentives could be tied to compliance with criteria applied throughout
the development process.[c29]
To Utility Element
69
Community Design Element 5-26
Goal CD-21:
Promote renewable resource use and energy-efficiency in site and architectural design.
Policy CD-21.1: Promote safe and sustainable energy collection and distribution
systems that draw from renewable energy sources.
Policy CD-21.2: Promote passive and natural lighting systems in architectural design
to conserve electricity.
Policy CD-21.3: Promote building-site orientation, articulated windows, roof
overhangs, appropriate insulation materials and techniques, and other architectural
features that allow for improved passive interior climate control.[c30]
Goal CD-22:
Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural hydrological systems, so
that water quantity and quality are protected throughout the development process and
occupation of the site.
Policy CD-22.1: Establish site design criteria for allowing natural hydrological
systems to function with minimum or no modification.
Policy CD-22.2: Promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or swales, and
pervious driveways and parking areas in site design to maximize infiltration of
stormwater and minimize runoff into environmentally critical areas.
Policy CD-22.3: Promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection systems in site and
architectural design for non-potable water (gray-water) storage and use, thereby saving
potable (drinking) water for ingestion.[c31]
70
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 1
Utilities Element
Purpose
Utility facilities and services that are addressed in this element include
electricity, natural gas, domestic water, storm, sewer, solid waste, and
telecommunications. Availability of these facilities and services affects the
health, safety and general welfare of the Kent community, as well as
whether, how and when growth occurs.
Both City and non-City-owned utilities operating within Kent are described in
this element, and relevant comprehensive utility plans are adopted by
reference. These comprehensive utility plans provide additional details on
the availability of services to meet the growth strategy, forecasts and targets
adopted under the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040 and the King
County Countywide Planning Policies.
Kent Utility Providers:
Water
City of Kent
City of Auburn
City of Renton
Highline Water District
King County Water District
No. 111
Lakehaven Utility District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer
District
Issues
Coordination of Service Providers
The City-managed utilities must coordinate
with providers of utility services outside of
the City service areas.
Concurrency and Implications for
Growth
Utility projects and other capital facilities
must be in place to accommodate growth.
What you will find in this chapter:
A description of the utility systems and providers in the City of Kent;
Goals and Policies for providing utility services to Kent’s residents; and
Strategies for implementing the City’s policies and working with private
utility providers.
Purpose Statement:
Provide utility services and facilities to support the envisioned urban growth
pattern.
71
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 2
Sewer
City of Kent
City of Auburn
City of Tukwila
Lakehaven Utility District
Midway Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer
District
Surface Water
City of Kent
Electricity
Puget Sound Energy
Natural Gas
Puget Sound Energy
Telecommunications
AT&T Broadband
CenturyLinkR
Comcast
Keeping the Telecommunications System
Current
Telecommunication systems and services
change rapidly. The City needs to keep pace
with the technical and electronic expectations
of public service users.
System Sustainability, Rehabilitation,
Replacement and Retrofit
To maintain sustainable utilities, it is
necessary to plan and implement
maintenance and replacement of utility
infrastructure. Utility system improvements
are designed to meet federal, state and local
requirements.
Regional Coordination for Landfill
The city participates in a regional effort to
divert waste from the landfill, with an intent
to keep the Cedar Hills operational to 2030.
Environmental Sustainability
Utility planning and operations require
environmental protection efforts to preserve
the quality of the natural environment
including preservation and enhancement of
fish habitat.
Climate Change
As additional scientific information is
identified regarding climate change, the City
will evaluate the potential impacts to its
existing utilities. Kent’s primary sources of
municipal water supply are not snow pack
dependent. Utilities will follow Greenhouse
Gas Reduction policies adopted by the City.
Funding
Public utilities are funded by the rate payers.
When applicable, the City will apply for grants
to help offset the cost of large capital
projects.
72
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 3
System Descriptions
Water
The service area of the City of Kent Water Utility encompasses twenty-four (24)
square miles and serves most of the incorporated City, as well as small areas of
unincorporated King County and the City of Auburn. Adjacent franchise areas
of neighboring water purveyors serve the remainder of Kent and the PAA.
Current and near future peak day demands for water are met through Kent
Springs, Clark Springs, and supplemental well facilities. To meet long-term
demands, the City executed a partnership agreement for an additional water
source. Although existing water supply can meet the needs of projected
growth to 2030 as outlined in the Comprehensive Water System Plan adopted
by the City Council in 2011, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to
deliver this water to customers. A Comprehensive Water System Plan update
is required by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) every six
(6) years. The Plan is adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Proposed water system projects include development of a new 640 pressure
zone on the East Hill to improve water pressures at high elevations, a new
reservoir on the West Hill to meet increasing storage demands, and water main
replacements, including upsizing older portions of the distribution system to
improve capacity. The costs of improvements to the water system range from
$150-million to $160 million in 2008 dollars, and funding of these projects will
be accomplished through a combination of water rate increases and bonding.
Sewer
The service area of the City of Kent Sewer Utility encompasses approximately
twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as
well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the
existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area,
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which
will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
improvement districts.
The City’s sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance with
the growing needs of the City. Because Kent’s sewer service area is not
coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future saturated population for
the actual area served by Kent sewer. Population forecasts are based on the
Land Use Plan for ultimate build out in accordance with Department of Ecology
requirements. The City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, which is
adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan, has identified various
undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitation.
73
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 4
King County Wastewater Treatment is responsible for interception, treatment,
and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and communities throughout
south and north King County. King County is providing additional wastewater
capacity to serve a growing population in the Puget Sound area through its
Brightwater Treatment Plant and is also expanding the South Treatment Plant
to handle additional flow from south and east King County. The city of Kent
does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs
for sanitary sewer treatment.
Service connections and interlocal agreements ensuring continuous service
exists between the City of Kent and adjacent sewer utilities providing service to
Kent homes and businesses.
Surface Water Management
The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed,
with stormwater flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River
via a tributary creek. A smaller portion of the City, generally located west of I-
5, flows either to Bingamon, Massey, or McSorley Creeks, which drain directly
to Puget Sound.
The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches,
pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect
individual parcels with the City’s surface water systems. The City also owns,
operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities.
The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments
of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements
before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after
increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes
within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum
requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted
within the DMP.
The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) evaluated watersheds and drainage basins,
analyzed open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity,
determined and prioritized projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water
quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats, efficiently serve
planned growth, determine alternative solutions to alleviate potential flooding,
and determine cost–effective solutions to the identified needs. Further details
on each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project
costs range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars.
Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater
management and stream protection are contained in the City’s 2002 Surface
Water Design Manual, which is a modified version of the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater system are improved
to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed.
74
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 5
These standards have been adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency
requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington.
Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE)-mandated National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Programs. The DMP included recommendations to meet the required
elements of the Lake Fenwick TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for tracking,
monitoring, maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary
resources to meet these needs.
As a result of the 1998 listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout and the 2007
listing of Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the City has
been participating in various regional salmon restoration efforts, including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Program and the Salmon Habitat Forums for Watershed Resource Inventory
Areas (WRIA) 8 (Cedar/Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish) and 9 (Green
Duwamish).
Solid Waste
Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by
State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and
collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi-
year contract with the City, Republic Services provides comprehensive
garbage, recyclables and yard and food waste collection services to
residential, multifamily and commercial customers.
Kent has implemented mandatory garbage collection to curb illegal dumping,
litter and accumulation of trash/garbage on private property.
The City’s solid waste is ultimately taken to King County’s Cedar Hills Landfill
for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King
County, Kent and other parties will develop plans and alternatives to waste
disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advance of its closure in 2025; the
information will be incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan.
Kent has entered into an interlocal agreement with King County Solid Waste
and most other municipalities in the county to collectively manage solid
waste. At the current rate, Cedar Hills, which is the last remaining landfill in
the county, will last until 2030. Alternatives are identified in the King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Municipalities operating
under this plan strive to divert as much waste from the landfill as possible.
The residential sector in Kent is currently diverting just over 50% of the solid
waste from the landfill through recycling and yard and food waste collection.
75
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 6
Since 2010, participation in the yard and food waste collection program has
increased from 36% to over 95%.
Kent residents are able to participate in the countywide Hazardous Waste
Management program adopted by the King County Board of Health in
2010. Its mission is “to protect and enhance public health and
environmental quality in King county by reducing the threat posed by the
production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.”
Electricity
Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a private electric utility whose
operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Electricity is
produced elsewhere and transported to switching stations in Kent and Renton
through high-voltage transmission lines, then reduced and redistributed
through lower-voltage transmission lines, distribution substations, and
smaller transformers.
PSE provides electrical service to approximately 57,300 electric customers in
Kent. There are 230 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage transmission lines running
north and south within the city of Kent that move bulk power from
transmission stations in Renton and Kent. Also within the city are several 115
kV transmission lines and a number of neighborhood distribution substations.
PSE also has its own hydro, thermal, wind and solar power-generating
facilities. Additionally, there are about 1,500 small, customer-owned
generation facilities that are interconnected with PSE’s system and can
export surplus energy into the grid. The vast majority of these are solar
panel installations.
PSE’s 2013 Integrated Resource Plan forecasted that PSE would have to
acquire approximately 4,900 megawatts of new power-supply capacity by
2033. Roughly half of the need can be met by energy efficiency and the
renewal of transmission contracts. The rest is likely to be met most
economically with added natural gas-fired resources.
Some new transmission lines and substations will need to be constructed, as
well as existing ones rebuilt or maintained. Specific construction that is
anticipated includes the following:
Autumn Glen neighborhood substation and the reconfiguration
of the 115kV lines near the intersection of 104th Ave SE and SE
272nd St.
New 115kV line from the existing O’Brien substation north along
the PSE right-of-way to S. 204th St and then west to 68th Ave
SE.
76
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 7
Briscoe Park neighborhood substation located just outside the
city limits of Kent in Tukwila. Although located in Tukwila this
substation will eventually serve customers in Kent.
Natural Gas
Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to more than 750,000
customers in six Western Washington counties. It is estimated that PSE
currently serves over 26,800 gas customers within the City of Kent.
Natural gas is transported through interstate pipelines to Puget Sound
Energy’s gate stations. From the gate stations, the natural gas is transported
through supply mains and district regulators to distribution mains which feed
individual residential service lines.
PSE Gas System Integrity-Maintenance Planning has several DuPont
manufactured main and service piping and STW main replacements planned
for 2015. There will be several pipe investigations throughout the city to
determine the exact location of the DuPont manufactured pipe. Identified
DuPont manufactured piping in PSE’s entire system will be ranked and
replaced accordingly.
New projects can be developed in the future at any time due to:
1. New or replacement of existing facilities to increased capacity
requirements due to new building construction and conversion from
alternate fuels.
2. Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities.
3. Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state projects.
Telecommunications
As telecommunications technologies have evolved, convergence of these
technologies has occurred, resulting in multiple communication services
migrating into consolidated networks.
Telecommunications in Kent include both wired and wireless telephone
services, cable and satellite television, and high-speed broadband
technology. Through partnerships with franchised telecommunications
companies, internal public works projects and completion of capital projects,
the City has a robust conduit infrastructure that would enable and facilitate
future fiber optic connectivity projects benefitting the City, its residents and
businesses, and project partners. The City has jointed a connectivity
consortium of cities and other public partners that would construct and
maintain a regional fiber-optic telecommunications system. This fiber-optic
system would provide redundancies, enhance communications networks, and
emergency operations.
77
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 8
Cable and Satellite Television
The city of Kent has a non-exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast
Corporation to construct, operate and maintain a cable system in compliance
with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Comcast’s
network provides high-definition television capacity and high-speed internet
access through cable modems, and includes coaxial and fiber optic cabling
systems deployed both underground and overhead using utility poles leased
from power and telephone companies. Comcast has provided the City of Kent
with the capability to broadcast live from City Hall on the Government Access
Channel (i.e., Kent TV21).
Satellite television competes directly with cable television by delivering
hundreds of channels directly to mini-dishes installed in homes and businesses
throughout Kent.
Wireline and Wireless Communications
Many companies offer telecommunications services including integrated voice
and data, and voice over internet telephony (VoiP) technology. CenturyLink,
the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC), is now joined by several
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) in providing more
communications service options to Kent residents and businesses.
With expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, new technologies and
competition, telecommunications utilities are expected to meet voice, video
and broadband demands during the planning period.
Goals and Policies
Water and Sewer
Goal U-1:
Ensure that public utilities services throughout the City, and other areas
receiving such services are adequate to accommodate anticipated growth
without significantly degrading the levels-of-service for existing customers.
Policy U-1.1: Coordinate the planning and provision of public utilities
services and facilities with other agencies providing such services to Kent
homes and businesses.
Policy U-1.2: Consider existing demand units in assessing levels-of-
service for future provision of services and facilities.
78
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 9
Goal U-2:
Provide water to the City’s existing customers and for future development
consistent with the short and long range goals of the City.
Policy U-2.1: Identify capital improvement projects needed to meet
the potable water supply and fire protection needs of current customers
and the forecast for future demand within the areas served by the City
of Kent Water System.
Policy U-2.2: Ensure system capacity (i.e. sources, pump stations
transmission mains, etc.) is sufficient to meet current and projected
peak day demand and fire flow conditions.
Goal U-3:
Protect public health and safety by providing an adequate supply of water to
the City’s customers.
Policy U-3.1: Maintain a stringent water quality monitoring and cross-
connection control program consistent with current federal and state
drinking water regulations.
Policy U-3.2: Ensure staff is continuously available to respond to water
system issues and emergencies.
Goal U-4:
The City of Kent recognizes a clean water supply as a critical and finite resource
and will secure the health and safety of the customers through protection of
existing and future groundwater resources from contamination.
Policy U-4.1: Track and provide comments on land use applications
within wellhead protection areas. Follow up on all of those identified as
creating potential risk to the water supply until protections are in place
or are determined to not affect the water system.
Policy U-4.2: Identify land uses within the Wellhead Protection Area
that identified as potential contaminant sources in the Wellhead
Protection Program. Provide comments to applicable regulatory
79
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 10
agencies related to the protection and sustainability of the City’s
groundwater resources.
Policy U-4.3: Educate residents, businesses and the owners of
identified potential contaminant sources in wellhead protection areas
about aquifer protection.
Policy U-4.4: Encourage the use of Best Management Practices in land
management activities to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Policy U-4.5: Promote the use of native landscaping to reduce the
need for pesticide and fertilizer application.
Goal U-5: Maintain the economic vitality of the City by ensuring ample water
supply is available to meet existing and future customer needs, and future
development as projected to meet the short and long range goals of the City.
Goal U-6: Meet Water Use Efficiency Goals and implement additional water
conservation measures to ensure the efficient use of water resources.
Policy U-6.1: Implement, evaluate and monitor measures to meet
the City’s adopted Water Use Efficiency Goals.
Policy U-6.2: Develop and implement on-going educational activities
regarding water conservation as identified in the Water System Plan.
This includes but is not limited to the annual Water Festival, speaking
at public forums and classrooms, booths at fairs and theme shows,
utility billing inserts, natural yard care programs and utilizing the City’s
website.
Policy U-6.3: Provide rebates for low water use toilets and washing
machines as they apply to the Water Use Efficiency Goals.
Policy U-6.4: Promote the use of native and drought resistant plants
in landscaping in public and private projects to reduce the need for
irrigation.
Policy U-6.5: Include consumptive water use data on customer bills
to encourage water conservation.
Policy U-6.6: Develop and implement a water rate structure that
promotes the efficient use of water.
80
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 11
Surface Water Management
Goal U-7:
Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems
in the appropriate siting, design and provision of public utility services.
Policy U-7.1: Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the
interaction between natural features and systems, such as wetlands,
streams, and geologically hazardous areas, and the provision of public
utility services.
Goal U-8:
Coordinate with individuals and organizations to create a long-term,
sustainable strategy for local and regional natural resource protection.
Policy U-8.1: Continue to participate in regional and Water Resource
Inventory Area planning efforts to support the conservation of listed
species.
Policy U 8.2: Continue to participate in local and county wide flood
control efforts to support the improvement, repair and maintenance of
flood control facilities.
Goal U-9:
Support environmental quality in capital improvement programs,
implementation programs, and public facility designs to ensure that local land
use management and public service provision is consistent with the City's
overall natural resource goals.
Policy U-9.1: Continue a periodic storm drainage/environmental
inspection program to ensure constant maintenance and upkeep of
storm systems and on-going protection of general environmental
processes and compliance with local, state, and federal regulation.
Policy U-9.2: Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local
jurisdictions, as well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work
towards recovery of ESA listed threatened and endangered species.
81
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 12
Policy U-9.3: Promote LEED certified construction and use of recycled
or recyclable materials in public utility provision, public facilities, and
capital improvements.
Goal U-10:
Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including
recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water
supply, and open space.
Policy U-10.1: Maintain the quantity and quality of wetlands and other
natural resources.
Policy U-10.2: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state.
Rehabilitate degraded channels and banks via public programs and in
conjunction with proposed new development.
Policy U-10.3: On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the
existing public facilities operating plans, regulations and maintenance
practices in relation to goals for water resource and fisheries and wildlife
resource protection. When necessary, modify these plans, regulations
and practices to achieve resource protection goals.
Policy U-10.4: Protect the habitat of native and migratory wildlife by
encouraging open space conservation of beneficial habitat through public
capital improvement projects.
Goal U-11:
Implement and maintain a stormwater management program that assures
compliance with the requirements of the Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit which is part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Program administered by the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Policy U-11.1: Use all known, available, and reasonable methods of
prevention, control and treatment to prevent and control pollution of
waters of the state of Washington.
Policy U-11.2: Implement an education program aimed at residents,
businesses, industries, elected officials, policy makers, planning staff and
82
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 13
other employees of the City. The goal of the education program is to
reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to
adverse stormwater impacts.
Policy U-11.3: Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement
through advisory councils, watershed committees, participation in
developing rate-structures, stewardship programs, environmental
activities or other similar activities.
Policy U-11.4: Develop and implement an operations and maintenance
program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of
preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations.
Policy U-11.5: Develop a comprehensive long-term stormwater
monitoring program. The monitoring program will include two
components: stormwater monitoring and targeted Stormwater
Management Program effectiveness monitoring.
Goal U-12:
Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in
the design and construction of all projects where feasible.
Policy U-11.1: Encourage participation in low-impact development and
environmentally sensitive builder programs.
Policy U-11.2: Adopt development standards that minimize
environmental impacts of development through an appropriate balance
of regulations and incentives. Incentives could be tied to compliance with
criteria applied throughout the development process.
Policy U-11.3: Set public facility projects of the City as an example by
incorporating techniques of low-impact development design,
construction, operation and maintenance.
Goal U-12:
Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural
hydrological systems, so that water quantity and quality are protected
throughout the development process and occupation of the site.
83
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 14
Policy U-12.1: Establish site design criteria so natural hydrological
systems will function with minimum or no modification.
Policy U-12.2: Promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or
swales, and pervious driveways and parking areas in site design to
maximize infiltration of stormwater and minimize runoff into
environmentally critical areas.
Policy U-12.3: Promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection
systems in site and architectural design for non-potable water (gray-
water) storage and use, thereby saving potable (drinking) water for
ingestion.
Solid Waste
Goal U-13:
Reduce the solid waste stream, encouraging and increasing reuse, recycling,
yard and food waste diversion.
Policy U-13.1: Continue comprehensive public education and
outreach programs that promote recycling, composting, purchase and
use of environmentally preferable products and other waste diversion
and prevention measures.
Policy U-13.2: Support and promote product stewardship to divert
waste from the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Goal U-14:
Maintain a comprehensive solid waste management program that includes
environmental responsibility and sustainability, competitive rates and
customer service excellence for Kent’s residential, multifamily and
commercial customers.
Policy U-14.1: Continue to competitively bid solid waste and
recycling collection services and technical assistance contracts when
current contracts expire.
Policy U-14.2: Consider innovative solid waste and recycling
programs to reduce carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas
emissions and limit accumulation of garbage in Kent’s residential
neighborhoods.
84
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 15
Policy U-14.3: Monitor solid waste providers for adequacy of service
and compliance with the service contracts.
Goal U-15
Encourage and actively participate in a uniform regional approach to solid
waste management.
Policy U-15.1: Continue to participate in the Metropolitan Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC).
Policy U-15.2: Continue to support waste reduction and recycling
programs in City facilities, and in the City at large, to meet State and
County waste reduction and recycling goals.
Electricity
Goal U-16:
Promote electrical service on demand within the Kent Planning Area
consistent with a utility’s public service obligations.
Policy U-16.1: Underground new electrical transmission and
distribution lines, and where feasible existing transmission and
distribution lines.
Policy U-16.2: Cooperate with private enterprise, the City and utility
providers to provide electric utility facilities sufficient to support
economic development and regional service needs.
Natural Gas
Goal U-17:
Promote expansion and delivery of natural gas service within the Kent
Planning Area by allowing access to alternative sources of fuel.
Policy U-17.1: Coordinate land use and facility planning to allow
eventual siting and construction of natural gas distribution lines within
new or reconstructed rights-of-way.
Policy U-17.2: Utilize system design practices that minimize the number
and duration of interruptions to customer service.
Telecommunications
Goal U-18:
Provide telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and development
in a manner consistent with Kent’s vision, as outlined in the Vision and
Framework Guidance and the City Council’s Strategic Plan.
85
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 16
Goal U-19:
Complement private sector incumbent fiber build-out initiatives to support
continued connectivity build-out in underserved locations throughout Kent.
Goal U-20:
Continue to participate in and provide support to public sector collaborations
like the Connected Community Consortium in an effort to support the
continued proliferation of last-mile fiber distribution.
86
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 17
Related Information
Need Links
City of Kent 2009 Drainage Master Plan
City of Kent 2011 Water System Plan
City of Kent 2000 Comprehensive Sewer
Plan
City of Auburn 1983 Comprehensive
Water Plan
City of Auburn ____ Comprehensive
Sewer Plan
City of Renton 2005 Water System Plan
City of Renton ______ Sewer Plan
City of Tukwila ______ Sewer Plan
Highline Water District 2008
Comprehensive Water System Plan
King County Water District No. 111
2007 Water Comprehensive Plan
Lakehaven Utility District 2009
Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan
Lakehaven Utility District 2008
Comprehensive Water System Plan
Lakehaven Utility District _____
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Midway Sewer District 2008
Comprehensive Sewer System Plan
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 2012
Water Comprehensive Plan
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 2012
Sewer Compehensive Plan
Making our Watershed Fit for a King,
WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan 2005
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish
(SRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation
Plan 2005
King County 2001 Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan
87
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 18
Utilities Element Background Report
Water
The service area of the City of Kent Water Utility encompasses twenty-four (24)
square miles and serves most of the incorporated City. Some small areas of
unincorporated King County and the City of Auburn are also served by the City
of Kent Water Utility. Adjacent franchise areas of neighboring water purveyors
serve the remainder of Kent and the PAA. To the east, the service area
boundary coincides with the boundary of Water District No. 111 and the Soos
Creek Sewer and Water District. To the north, the service area boundary
coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and Kent/Tukwila city limits. To the
west, it coincides with Highline Water District's boundary, and to the south, the
City's service area boundary coincides with the City of Auburn, and Lakehaven
Utility District.
The principal sources of water supply for the City's municipal water system are
Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, supplemental
well facilities are activated. These sources meet current and near future peak
day demands. To meet long-term demands, the City executed an agreement in
2002 to partner with Tacoma Water Utility, Covington Water District and
Lakehaven Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water Project. This
additional water source will meet the City’s long-term peak day demand
projections identified in the Water System Plan.
In 2013, the Kent water system annual consumption was roughly 2.6 billion
gallons, with average day demands of 6.2 million gallons per day and peak day
usage of approximately 12.2 million gallons per day. Utilizing current land use
and population projections for 2030, annual use would rise to approximately
3.6 billion gallons, or 9.9 million gallons per day. Existing water supply can
produce roughly three times this amount, or 30 million gallons per day;
however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to deliver this water to
customers.
Water system interties are presently available with the Highline Water District,
the City of Tukwila, the City of Renton, the Soos Creek Sewer and Water
District, Water District No. 111, and the City of Auburn. However, based on
water use projections developed for the Water System Plan, these interties
would only be required to serve as emergency back-up if problems with
existing sources were to arise.
88
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 19
The water distribution system exists throughout the City's service area.
Expansion will take place almost entirely through infill development, which will
be accomplished primarily through developer extensions. Most of the
remaining projects identified in the City's Comprehensive Water System Plan
would be constructed to provide water service at existing levels of service.
However, several key improvements to the system have been identified.
Proposed projects include development of a new 640 pressure zone on the East
Hill to improve water pressures at high elevations, a new reservoir on the West
Hill to meet increasing storage demands, and water main replacements,
including upsizing older portions of the distribution system to improve capacity.
The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list developed for the Comprehensive
Water System Plan was based on identifying: 1) system deficiencies via a
hydraulic modeling analysis, 2) long-term maintenance and operations needs,
and 3) projects that are required to meet local, state and federal requirements.
The existing water system has and continues to provide clean, safe, and
reliable water; however, improvements to the system are needed to improve it
for future development and meet existing requirements. The costs of
improvements to the water system range from $150-million to $160 million in
2008 dollars, and funding of these projects will be accomplished through a
combination of water rate increases and bonding.
A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington
State Department of Health (DOH) every six (6) years. The City's most
recent Water System Plan was submitted to DOH in 2008, and adopted by
the City Council in 2011. Adjacent water utilities providing service to Kent
homes and businesses include Soos Creek Water & Sewer, the City of
Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District, King County Water
District #111 and the City of Renton. Service connections exist between the
City of Kent and these service purveyors, and interlocal agreements ensure
continuous service. Water supply service area and facilities serving Kent’s
Planning Area are illustrated on Figure XX. A detailed inventory of current
water system facilities, City water rights records, and operating plans of
adjacent service agencies are on file with the City of Kent Public Works
Department.
Sewer
The service area of the City of Kent Sewer Utility encompasses approximately
twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as
well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the
existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area,
89
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 20
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which
will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
improvement districts. In general, the existing sewer system is sized based on
standards which will carry peak flows generated by the service area for
ultimate development. However, the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage
Plan has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require
rehabilitation. King County Wastewater Treatment is responsible for
interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and
communities throughout south and north King County. Wastewater from Kent
is conveyed to the South Treatment Plant located in Renton. The city of Kent
does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs
for sanitary sewer treatment. King County pump stations in Pacific, Black
Diamond, and three (3) in the vicinity of the South Treatment Plant (Interurban
and New Interurban) serve South King County.
King County is providing additional wastewater capacity to serve a growing
population in the Puget Sound area through its Brightwater Treatment Plant.
This plant is located near SR 9 and SR 522 just north of Woodinville. King
County is also expanding the South Treatment Plant to handle additional flow
from south and east King County. The Brightwater Treatment Plant is providing
a capacity of thirty-six (36) million gallons per day (mgd), and by 2040
treatment capacity will be expanded to 54 mgd. Expansion of the South
Treatment Plant in the year 2029 will increase system capacity from one
hundred fifteen (115) mgd to one hundred thirty-five (135) mgd. Two
conveyance improvements serving the South Treatment Plant are scheduled for
completion both in the near-term and long-term. The improvements of
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Parallel Auburn Interceptor were completed, and the
planned three (3) to five (5) mgd expansion of effluent storage capacity is
projected to be completed by 2029.
Adjacent sewer utilities providing service to Kent homes and businesses include
Soos Creek Water & Sewer, the City of Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District,
Midway Sewer District, the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton. Service
connections exist between the City of Kent and these service purveyors, and
interlocal agreements ensure continuous service. The City’s sewer system has
been designed and constructed in accordance with the growing needs of the
City. Because Kent’s sewer service area is not coincident with the City limits,
the City uses the future saturated population for the actual area served by Kent
sewer. Population forecasts are based on the Land Use Plan for ultimate build
out in accordance with Department of Ecology requirements. The City of Kent
Comprehensive Sewer Plan is on file with the Public Works Department. Figure
XX illustrates the locations of the sanitary sewer service areas and facilities.
90
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 21
Surface Water Management
The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed,
with stormwater flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River
via a tributary creek. A smaller portion of the City, generally located west of I-
5, flows either to Bingamon, Massey, or McSorley Creeks, which drain directly
to Puget Sound. Significant creek systems draining to the Green River are:
Johnson Creek;
Midway Creek;
Mullen Slough;
Mill Creek (Auburn);
Mill Creek (Kent);
Springbrook Creek;
Garrison Creek;
Panther Creek;
Soos Creek;
Soosette Creek;
Meridian Valley Creek; and
The “Lake Meridian Outlet” Creek.
The last three creeks listed are tributary to Big Soos Creek, which in turn drains
to the Green River east of Auburn. Figure XX illustrates the drainage basins of
Kent’s storm drainage service area.
The stormwater system is comprised of an extensive network of ditches, pipes,
and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect individual
parcels with the City’s surface water systems. The City also owns, operates
and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities. These are
the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), the Upper and Lower Mill
Creek Detention Facilities, the 98th Avenue Garrison Creek Detention Facility,
the Meridian Meadows Detention Facility, the South 259th Street Detention
Facility, White Horse Crossing Detention Facility, Massey Creek Detention
Facility, the Horseshoe Acres Pump Station and the constructed wetland at Lake
Fenwick.
The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) evaluated watersheds and drainage basins,
analyzed open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity,
determined and prioritized projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water
quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats, efficiently serve
planned growth, determine alternative solutions to alleviate potential flooding,
and determine cost–effective solutions to the identified needs. Each project
91
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 22
within the DMP was reviewed for multiple benefits then given a “High, Medium,
or Low” ranking. Further details on each project are located in Chapter 7, Table
7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs range from $52 million to $ 67 million in
2008 dollars.
Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater
management and stream protection are contained in the City’s 2002 Surface
Water Design Manual, which is a modified version of the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater system are improved
to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed.
These standards have been adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency
requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington.
The DMP encompasses Capital Improvement Program (CIP)-related projects for
stormwater systems within the city limits. The 2008 DMP replaces the 1985
DMP and the Capital Improvement Programs completed individually for the Mill,
Garrison, Springbrook Creek and Soos Creek Basin CIP in the 1990s. The 2008
DMP has incorporated elements of the CIP, such as flood conveyance needs for
open channels, determination of replacement needs of the City’s stormwater
pipe system, drainage facility requirements of the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and levee repair and replacement needs for flood protection
along the Green River. The DMP further recommends specific projects for
enhancing critical areas and fish passage and addresses engineering staff
needs to oversee such projects.
Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE)-mandated National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Programs. These federally mandated programs were included in the
DMP to determine if there were deficiencies in the City’s current operation and
maintenance and monitoring programs and identify subsequent additional
workload and staff requirements needed to fully meet the permit requirements.
The DMP included recommendations to meet the required elements of the Lake
Fenwick TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for tracking, monitoring,
maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary resources to
meet these needs.
Critical area habitat protection is an important aspect of water quality, habitat
protection and flood protection. To be successful in improving the water quality
of the streams and open channel systems within the City, there is a continuing
priority of protecting buffers along the main stream corridors. Section 8 of the
92
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 23
DMP further discusses the needs of this program and provides areas of
potential expansion of habitat protection. As properties become available, the
City will continue to pursue grant funding and work toward the protection of
habitat and water quality.
The nearly 325 miles of existing storm drainage pipelines form a connection of
pipes, catch basins, and manholes under the public right of ways with the
ability to alleviate the surface flooding that would occur on the city streets. As
these pipes age and reach the end of their service life, a replacement program
has been established by the Public Works Operations and Maintenance staff to
repair or replace segments of the pipes each year. During the life of the pipe
system, segments may be targeted also for improvements before the end of
the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after increases in
development. An analysis was completed of the existing storm drainage pipes
within the City. A total length of 135,000 feet of 18” or larger diameter pipe
was analyzed for capacity and 55,350 feet or 41% have failed to meet the
minimum requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are
noted within the DMP.
As a result of the 1998 listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout and the 2007
listing of Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the City has
been participating in various regional salmon restoration efforts, including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Program and the Salmon Habitat Forums for Watershed Resource Inventory
Areas (WRIA) 8 (Cedar/Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish) and 9 (Green
Duwamish).
Solid Waste
Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by
State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and
collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi-
year contract with the City, Republic Services provides comprehensive
garbage, recyclables and yard and food waste collection services to
residential, multifamily and commercial customers.
Kent has implemented mandatory garbage collection to curb illegal dumping,
litter and accumulation of trash/garbage on private property.
The City’s solid waste is ultimately taken to King County’s Cedar Hills Landfill
for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King
County, Kent and other parties will develop plans and alternatives to waste
disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advance of its closure in 2025; the
93
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 24
information will be incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan.
Kent has entered into an interlocal agreement with King County Solid Waste
and most other municipalities in the county to collectively manage solid
waste. At the current rate, Cedar Hills, which is the last remaining landfill in
the county, will last until 2030. Alternatives are identified in the King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Municipalities operating
under this plan strive to divert as much waste from the landfill as possible.
The residential sector in Kent is currently diverting just over 50% of the solid
waste from the landfill through recycling and yard and food waste collection.
Since 2010, participation in the yard and food waste collection program has
increased from 36% to over 95%.
Kent residents are able to participate in the countywide Hazardous Waste
Management program adopted by the King County Board of Health in
2010. Its mission is “to protect and enhance public health and
environmental quality in King county by reducing the threat posed by the
production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.”
Electric Utilities
Puget Sound Energy
Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a private electric utility whose
operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Existing System
PSE is part of a Western-states regional coordination system and provides
electric service to over 1.1 million customers in nine Washington State
counties. Electricity is produced elsewhere and transported to switching
stations in Kent and Renton through high-voltage transmission lines. As
electricity nears its destination, the voltage is reduced and redistributed
through lower-voltage transmission lines, distribution substations, and
smaller transformers.
PSE provides electrical service to approximately 57,300 electric customers in
Kent. There are 230 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage transmission lines running
north and south within the city of Kent that move bulk power from
transmission stations in Renton and Kent. Both of those stations generally
supply electrical energy to the southern half of King County, an area much
larger than the City of Kent. Also within the city are several 115 kV
transmission lines and a number of neighborhood distribution substations.
The 115 kV lines also deliver electrical energy to other neighborhood
substations in communities adjacent to Kent.
94
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 25
PSE imports electrical energy from generation sources in Canada, the
Columbia River basin and other regions outside of PSE’s service territory.
Additionally, PSE has its own hydro, thermal, wind and solar power-
generating facilities. There are also about 1,500 small, customer-owned
generation facilities that are interconnected with PSE’s system and can
export surplus energy into the grid. The vast majority of these are solar
panel installations. Although this provides a very small portion of PSE’s
electrical supply portfolio, the number of customer-owned installations
increases every year.
PSE’s Integrated Resource Plan is updated and filed with the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission every two years. The current plan,
which was submitted in May of 2013, details the energy resources needed to
reliably meet customers’ wintertime, peak-hour electric demand over the
next 20 years. The plan, which will be updated in the fall of 2015, forecasted
that PSE would have to acquire approximately 4,900 megawatts of new
power-supply capacity by 2033. This resource need is driven mainly by
expiring purchased-power contracts and expected population and economic
growth in the Puget Sound region. The IRP suggests that roughly half of the
utility’s long-term electric resource need can be met by energy efficiency and
the renewal of transmission contracts. The rest of PSE’s gap in long-term
power resources, the IPR stated, is likely to be met most economically with
added natural gas-fired resources.
Future Projects
The capacity of individual electric lines depends on voltage, diameter of the
wire, and the clearance to objects below the line. To meet this demand,
some new transmission lines and substations will need to be constructed, as
well as existing ones rebuilt or maintained. Utility work is sometimes needed
to comply with federal system reliability regulations. Specific construction
that is anticipated includes the following:
Autumn Glen neighborhood substation and the reconfiguration
of the 115kV lines near the intersection of 104th Ave SE and SE
272nd St.
New 115kV line from the existing O’Brien substation north along
the PSE right-of-way to S. 204th St and then west to 68th Ave
SE.
Briscoe Park neighborhood substation located just outside the
city limits of Kent in Tukwila. Although located in Tukwila, this
substation will eventually serve customers in Kent.
Natural Gas
Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to more than 750,000
customers in six Western Washington counties: Snohomish, King, Kittitas,
Pierce, Thurston, and Lewis. It is estimated that PSE currently serves over
26,800 gas customers within the City of Kent.
95
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 26
Existing Distribution System
Natural gas comes from gas wells in the Rocky Mountains and in Canada and
is transported through interstate pipelines by Williams Northwest Pipeline to
Puget Sound Energy’s gate stations.
Supply mains then transport the gas from the gate stations to district
regulators where the pressure is reduced to less than 60 psig. The supply
mains are made of welded steel pipe that has been coated and is cathodically
protected to prevent corrosion. They range in size from 4” to 20”.
Distribution mains are fed from the district regulators. They range in size
from 1-1/4” to 8” and the pipe material typically is polyethylene (PE) or
wrapped steel (STW).
Individual residential service lines are fed by the distribution mains and are
typically 5/8" or 1-1/8” in diameter. Individual commercial and industrial
service lines are typically 1-1/4", 2" or 4” in diameter.
Future Facility Construction
PSE Gas System Integrity-Maintenance Planning has several DuPont
manufactured main and service piping and STW main replacements planned
for 2015. There will be several pipe investigations throughout the city to
determine the exact location of the DuPont manufactured pipe. Identified
DuPont manufactured piping in PSE’s entire system will be ranked and
replaced accordingly.
New projects can be developed in the future at any time due to:
4. New or replacement of existing facilities to increased capacity
requirements due to new building construction and conversion from
alternate fuels.
5. Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities.
6. Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state projects.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications services include both switched and dedicated voice,
data, video, and other communication services delivered over the telephone
and cable network on various mediums, including, but not limited to, wire,
fiber optic, or radio wave. Either regulated or non-regulated companies may
provide these services. Cable service includes communication, information
and entertainment services delivered over the cable system whether those
services are provided in video, voice or data form. Telecommunication
services follow growth and have capacity to match whatever growth occurs in
Kent. With new technologies, telecommunications utilities project virtually
limitless capacity within the planning horizon.
96
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element – (10/7/2014) Page 27
Through partnerships with franchised telecommunications companies, and
completion of capital projects, the City has a robust conduit infrastructure
that would enable and facilitate future fiber optic connectivity projects
benefitting the City, its residents and businesses, and project partners.
The City participates in a connectivity consortium consisting of cities and
other public partners that would construct and maintain a regional fiber-optic
telecommunications system. This fiber-optic system would provide system
redundancies, and enhance communications networks, and emergency
operations. At some point during the planning period, the
telecommunications network will be updated to fiber optic, but the exact
schedule and locations are not available.
Cable and Satellite Television
The City of Kent has a non-exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast
Corporation to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system in compliance
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Comcast's
network provides high-definition television capacity and high-speed internet
access through cable modems, and includes coaxial and fiber optic cabling
systems deployed underground and overhead using utility poles leased from
power and telephone companies. Future growth is most likely to occur
relative to data/internet service, as more content becomes accessible online.
These broadband services can be provided over fiber optic networks, cable
networks or DSL telephone networks.
Satellite television competes directly with cable television by delivering
hundreds of channels directly to mini-dishes installed in homes and
businesses throughout Kent.
Wireline and Wireless Communications
Multiple companies offer telecommunications services in Kent including
integrated voice and data, and voice over internet telephony (VoiP)
technology. Century Link, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) is
now joined by several Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) in
providing more communications service options to Kent residents and
businesses.
Because Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC) regulations
require CenturyLink to provide adequate PTSN telecommunications service on
demand, there are no limits to future capacity, although demand for land
lines is declining. Additionally, VoIP telephone service should only be
restricted by bandwidth constraints on fiber optic networks that provide this
digital service.
97