HomeMy WebLinkAbout4163
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 1
Chapter One - 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
39EXHIBIT "A"
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 2
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;
this vision is carried forward to the year 2035. 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
and includes the goals and policies of the Shoreline
Management Act. These goals are not prioritized in
the GMA. 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. Consistent with VISION 2040,
the City’s comprehensive plan advances a
sustainable approach to growth and future
development and has been updated based on
residential and employment targets that align with
VISION 2040. 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 8 elements required by GMA:
Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities,
Transportation, Economic Development, Shoreline,
40
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 3
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.
Each element has been deemed consistent
reviewed for consistency with State, regional and
countywide goals and policies, other elements in
the Plan, and the plans of adjacent jurisdictions.
Consistency in this context means that the plan is
not in conflict with these other plans and policies.
Public Participation
During the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan update
there were many opportunities for public involvement. There
was a customized Create Kent 2035 Web presence and
survey launched in August, 2014 at National Night Out. Not
only did staff distribute the survey at the numerous National
Night Out events but they also advertised the survey
through Neighborhood Council e-mail lists, business cards
and posters around City Hall, to downtown businesses and
the downtown library. Staff also attended service club
meetings and other community events to solicit public
comments on the update to the comprehensive plan.
It was especially fortuitous that the City partnered
with Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, InterIm
CDA, and OneAmerica on a SpeakOut during Kent
Cornucopia Days where over 100 Kent residents
participated. Futurewise and partners also
translated the survey into Spanish, Russian, Somali
and Vietnamese, as well as compiled the results
from over 900 responses to the survey.
Additionally, Futurewise and Mother Africa
successfully engaged the immigrant and refugee
community in four workshops to discuss issues
relevant to the participants and to provide training
on engaging with public and elected officials. See
the Background Report for SpeakOut and Survey
results.
41
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 4
The results of the survey indicate that community safety is the overall top
priority as well as the most important element of making Kent a better place
to live. Beautification, cleanliness and attractiveness placed second in
making Kent more livable.
Community Profile
History
Kent’s roots stretch back to 1890, the year it was incorporated with a
population of 763 people. Kent was a major grower of hops and berries, and
at one time, it was considered the Lettuce Capital of the World. Dairy
farming was also an important sector of Kent’s early economy. In 1899, the
first can of Carnation Milk was produced in Kent.
In the 1950’s, industrial production began to develop on Kent’s valley floor.
In 1963, completion of the Howard Hanson Dam, a flood-storage facility,
hastened further economic change in the Valley. With the dam, Kent was
transformed from a rural community with farm land that was routinely
flooded by the Green River each winter into the industrial powerhouse it is
today.
Today
From its roots in hops and lettuce farming to today’s aerospace
and high-tech manufacturing, Kent has come a long way since
it was first incorporated. Now as a hub of innovation with an
official OFM population estimate of 121,400 as of April 1, 2014
(See Table 1.1), Kent is a globally connected community. In
2015, Kent celebrates its 125th anniversary. Kent is also part
of the fourth largest warehousing and distribution center in the
nation, is the sixth largest city in Washington and is the third
largest city in King County.
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.
42
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 5
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 2006 - 2035)
10,858
(housing units)
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%
White 70,901 58.6%
43
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 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.
Table 1.4
Language Spoken at Home
44
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 7
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
Table 1.6
Housing Mix
Units in Structure
Total Housing Units
44,932
45
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 8
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.
Table 1.8
Household Income
46
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 9
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.
47
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 10
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 for
all users which will support current and projected growth using context-
sensitive design.
Public Facilities and Services
Provide a full range of public facilities and services to support the envisioned
urban growth pattern in a sustainable manner.
Housing
Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income
levels and household needs.
Urban Design
Support an urban design strategy and development pattern that create
places that attract people and promote active lifestyles.
Human Services
Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the
community’s growth, vitality and health.
Economic Development
Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods,
growth centers, and the overall community.
Natural Resource Industries
Promote, support and protect natural resource-based industries, such as
agricultural industries that provide local access to healthy foods.
48
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Kent Profile and Vision Page 11
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 culturally competent and accessible public participation in the
development and amendment of City plans and regulatory actions.
49
1
King County Equity Project
Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, InterIm CDA, OneAmerica
SpeakOut Results and Summary
Kent Cornucopia Days
Event: July 11-13, 2014
Introduction
Kent’s annual family festival, Kent Cornucopia Days,
took place in Downtown Kent from Friday July 11th
through Sunday July 13th, 2014. Futurewise and
partners designed and implemented an interactive
outreach booth, called a SpeakOut, about community
issues for residents of Kent and other areas of King
County.
The purpose of the SpeakOut was to gather input from
the broader community about issues related to Kent’s
upcoming Comprehensive Plan. A SpeakOut designed
to be a way to gather information and opinions from
community members in an easy and convenient way.
The City of Kent provided a set of questions regarding
housing, transportation, the environment, and quality of life. These questions correspond to
issues the city staff is working as they update the Kent Comprehensive Plan. These questions
were incorporated into the content of the SpeakOut panels, providing substance to the
overarching theme of envisioning “Kent 2035.” Participants were given a set of stickers and
markers so that they could answer questions on large panels that were hanging in the booth.
The content of the questions allowed us to effectively gauge opinions, record meaningful
comments, and compile quantitative data on the issues. Meanwhile, the interactive nature of the
SpeakOut encouraged a high response rate and added to the fun, family-oriented atmosphere of
the festival.
50
2
Throughout the weekend, the rate of participation varied with the number of people at the fair at
any given time. Friday morning was, predictably, very slow, while Friday afternoon and evening
were very busy. The weekend days were generally somewhat slow as well as the area was
experiencing a heat wave. In total, at least180 King County residents participated in the
SpeakOut, including 101 residents of Kent.
Most of the participants were accompanied by many family members. When a participant began
the survey, they were assigned a color based on their residence. King County was divided into
the following areas: Kent, East of Kent, North of Kent, South of Kent, and Unincorporated King
County. Because the same color was used for each question, at the end of the event we generate
d a list of geographically color-coded survey responses (with corresponding sticker colors). The
number of participants by residence is shown below, divided into geographic locations.
51
3
SpeakOut Topics
SpeakOut participants considered the following issues, and “voted” on panels with stickers,
wrote in comments with colored markers, and drew their commute on a simplified graphic map
of King County:
Housing type and specific housing needs
Quality of life/important community services and amenities
County spending on air and water quality and green spaces
Favorite outdoor recreational activities
Route of daily commute (to job, school or other daily activity)
Transportation issues, and potential improvements to public transit
While respondents were asked to answer every question, and to answer each question once
(except in instances where multiple stickers were used), the results contain some degree of error
stemming from incomplete surveys or multiple comments/votes by the same person. This is
expected in such an informal outdoor setting with family members and other distractions.
Because the questions are mostly inherently qualitative, the wording of comments was rarely
identical. The data tables below group similar comments together, again meaning that errors
exist due to the loss of exact language in some cases. Additionally, as noted above, in most cases
a family was represented by one participant, so one sticker or comment represents several people
in a household.
SpeakOut Results
Results are summarized below and shown in detail in Attachment 1.
Despite uncertainties, some important trends can be identified in the data. The data below
highlight Kent results. Similar data for participants from other cities in King County can be
found in Attachment 1. This summary highlights the most frequent response for the pre-listed
potential answers, as well as additions made by community members that turned out to be
important feedback points.
52
4
Location
The first panel asked “Where do you live?”
Participants from Kent were asked to put a
sticker close to their home whereas other
participants were asked to put stickers in
boxes to identify their city or other home
location.
The areas represented and number of
respondents were:
Kent (Blue) 101
Auburn, Covington, Maple Valley,
North Bend, Pacific (Green) 28
Bellevue, Burien, Renton, SeaTac,
Seattle, Tukwila (Orange) 27
Des Moines, Federal Way,
Puyallup, Tacoma (Pink) 19
Unincorporated King County (Yellow) 5
Type of housing
Next, participants were asked to describe the
type of housing that they and their family
would like to live in during the next ten
years. This prompted participants to
identify their current type of housing or to
identify a change in housing they would
like to make. 75% of Kent respondents (73
of 97) placed their sticker next to “single
family home.” 66% of those who wanted to
live in a single-family home identified 3-4
bedrooms as an ideal size. 12 participants
wanted to live in apartment buildings and
no one from Kent placed a dot next to
skinny lot single family homes.
53
5
Importantly, participants did not favor the idea of shared outdoor space: of those who indicated
townhomes or apartment buildings, no participants wanted a shared yard or shared rooftop space.
Addenda included shared housing and SRO/boarding houses.
Participants were then asked to write comments about their specific housing needs. There were
133 total comments from Kent residents (some participants put check marks next to multiple
comments, resulting in higher total response rate). The most common responses were related to
affordability of family and senior housing (18%), desire for more yard or garden space (12%),
improved safety (9.7 %), and larger lot sizes (8.3%). These comments are roughly consistent
with the selections of housing type above, where most respondents desired a 3-4 bedroom single
family home.
54
6
Quality of Life
Participants were asked
to place stickers on their
top two choices for
quality of life features,
including services,
places, or recreation
opportunities within
their communities. It
appeared that some
people interpreted this
question as an
opportunity to point out
things they love about
their community, while
others pointed out areas
where they wanted to
see improvement.
Overall, there were 218
responses from
residents of Kent. The
top five responses were,
in order, safe
communities (16%),
great school system
(13%), walking and
biking trails (9.6%), air
and water quality
(7.8%), and living close
to work (5.5%). Other favored options included shopping within walking distance, transit options
to get to work, access to health services, and access to good food. No participants from Kent
prioritized energy efficient buildings and only two people supported a greater variety of housing
options.
55
7
Environment and Open Space
Participants were asked to place their sticker on a range between low investment and higher
investment in environment and open space improvements. Sixty-nine Kent residents responded
to this question. The
distribution of stickers was
divided into thirds, with the
lowest third indicating
favoring less investment, the
middle third representing
generally favoring continuing
current levels of spending,
and the top third favoring
increased spending. Twenty-four people (35%) felt that current spending is appropriate, and 42
people (61%) thought that more money should be spent in this area.
Outdoor Recreation
Participants were asked to write
down their favorite outdoor
recreational activities: 40 of 110
(36%) respondents listed their
favorite outdoor activity as
walking, hiking and running,
while 14 (13%) noted cycling was
their favorite. A follow-up
question asked what respondents
needed to better access their
favorite activity. 17 of 79
respondents (22%) requested
trails, 11 people (14%) requested
sidewalks, 6 (7.6%) wanted park
maintenance, and 5 (6.3%) asked
for bike lanes.
56
8
Commute
SpeakOut participants were asked to draw a line
representing their most common commute on a
simplified graphic of King County. It was explained
verbally to respondents that the route could be to a
workplace, to school, or to a place they regularly travel.
Of 73 commuters whose route began in Kent, 19 (26%)
drew lines to Seattle, 11 (15%) to Renton, and another
11 within Kent.
Transportation
The final set of questions in the SpeakOut concerned transportation practices, concerns and
potential improvements to public transit.
The questions prompted respondents to
vote on what transportation issues were
most important, how participants travel
most often, and what might help
participants take public transit more?
37 of 102 people (36%) cited traffic as
the biggest transportation issue in Kent.
18 of 102 people (18%) agreed with a
write-in comment that more transit
options are needed. 56 of 101
respondents (55%) also said they
commute by car most frequently, and 19
people (19%) ride the bus most
frequently. It seems that expanded bus
and train service is desired, as 25 of 108
people (24%) want more routes, and 13
of 108 (12%) want more buses per route.
Write-in ideas included later hours for
buses and trains, faster commute times
and more stops in residential areas.
57
9
Summary
The data collected at the SpeakOut shows a general trend of preferences for low-density
development while also desiring high-density amenities and accessibility. Requests for less
traffic congestion and more public transportation, sidewalks, and bike lanes show the need for
easy access to work, school, shopping, and recreation. Residents of Kent value single-family
homes on large lots and appreciate natural spaces for parks and trails. Responses on important
city services varied from the need for affordable housing assistance and social services to quality
of life services such as cleaning up litter and maintaining trails.
58
10
Attachment 1: SpeakOut data by residence of respondent in order of questions in
booth
Housing: Place a dot next to the housing type that you would like to live in within the next 10 years!
Housing type Kent Auburn,
Covington, Maple
Valley, North
Bend, Pacific
Bellevue, Burien,
Renton, SeaTac,
Seattle, Tukwila
Des Moines,
Federal Way,
Puyallup, Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Apartment building 2 2 2 1 0
Apartment building with
balcony
6 1 2 0 0
Apartment building with
rooftop communal outdoor
space
0 0 0 0 0
Attached home/townhome
(higher density) with
private yard
3 2 2 0 0
Attached home/townhome
(higher density) with
shared yard
0 1 0 0 0
Attached home/townhome
(medium density) with
private yard
3 4 1 0 0
Attached home/townhome
(medium density) with
shared yard
0 1 0 0 0
Duplex/triplex/ four-plex 1 0 0 1 0
Mid or high rise mixed use
apartment with
commercial space or near
commercial district
0 0 1 1 0
Mid-rise mixed use
apartments
3 1 1 2 0
Mixed use apartments with
recreation options
1 1 0 0 0
Senior housing 3 0 1 0 0
Single family residence (1-
2 bedrooms)
15 2 3 3 2
Single family residence (3-
4 bedrooms)
48 11 8 4 3
Single family residence (5-
8 bedrooms)
10 5 4 2 0
Skinny lot single family
home
0 0 0 0 0
Addenda:
Shared house (6 bdrm) 1 0 0 0 0
Mobile Home/ Cabin 0 1 0 0 1
SRO/Boarding House 1 0 0 0 0
59
11
Housing: Describe the type of housing that fits the needs of your family
Housing Needs Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley,
North
Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Additional
Comments (Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments (non-
Kent residents)
ADA 1 0 0 0 0 accessibility
Affordability 24 7 6 4 3 Family housing
(19), sr housing
(4),
rent/mortgage not
more than 1/3
income
Family (6), senior
(2), student
housing, density
okay but w/
private outdoor
space, 1-2 BR (2),
retirement
housing
Animal friendly 6 1 0 1 0
Apartment complex 1 0 0 0 1 More apartments One bedroom
allows pets, 2
bedroom
affordable and
walkable
Appliances 3 1 0 0 0 AC, W/D,
Dishwasher
AC
Cleanliness 1 0 0 0 0 No litter
Comfortable 3 0 0 0 0 Comfortable but
affordable, small
(2)
Communal housing 1 0 0 0 0
Community 1 0 0 0 0
Costs 1 0 0 0 0 Help w/ moving
costs, Southside
services
Development 1 0 0 0 0 Some, not too
much
Home/land ownership 3 2 1 2 1 Privacy and land,
acreage, land in
unincorporated
Homeless assistance 1 0 0 0 0 More family
homeless shelters
Housing options 2 0 0 0 0 Flexible space
Large lots 11 4 1 0 0
Location 5 1 2 2 0 Walking distance
to parks (2),
walking distance
to downtown (2)
Walkable to
shopping and
restaurants,
walking distance
to distinguished
schools, walking
distance to
amenities,
walkable to
60
12
downtown
Low income housing 1 0 0 0 0
Mixed use 1 1 0 0 0 Like platform Mixed family
house w/ many
bedrooms, wide
open green spaces
to walk/run/bike
Outdoor spaces nearby 4 1 0 1 1 Dog park,
beautiful parks
(2), open green
spaces to walk,
run, bike
Preserve big trees
when
developments go
in, more beautiful
parks,
Quiet and peaceful 5 3 0 2 0 Settled, private,
quieter
Retail 2 1 0 0 0 Non-Safeway
grocery store,
shopping and
restaurants
Restaurants and
shopping
Safety 13 2 1 0 0 Low crime, safe
neighborhood
Schools 3 0 1 0 0
Section 8 options 1 0 0 0 0
Senior housing 0 0 1 0 0
Sidewalks 2 1 0 0 0 Repair, both sides
of Rd.
Both sides of Rd
Single family house 8 4 4 1 1 3 bedroom, 1-2
bedroom, 4
bedroom 3 bath
Sun room, many
bedrooms w/
room to run, new
deck, downsize to
2BR, pool and
garage, yard,
small lot walkable
to downtown, nice
affordable 4 bed
house
Supportive housing 2 2 0 1 0 Sober living (2) Sober living in
Covington,
Tacoma
Townhouse/multi-
family
1 0 0 1 0 Multifamily okay
Trails 1 1 0 0 0 Bike trails Access to nature
trails from
housing
developments,
access
Transit 8 1 1 0 0 Public transit (5),
near light rail,
bicycle to work
(2)
Access, space for
a garden (2)
Yard/garden 16 3 3 3 0 Pool and garage,
61
13
What Provides You with Great Quality of Life
Place stickers on the two top things that are most important to you for good quality of life in your
community.
Service or
amenity
Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley,
North
Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Additional
Comments (Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments
(non-Kent
residents)
Access to good
food
5 2 5 3 0
Attractive streets 5 1 3 1 0
Clean water and
environment
17 3 2 2 1
Energy efficient
buildings
0 1 2 3 0
Good cell
coverage
5 2 0 1 0 And wifi
Good
walking/biking
trails
21 8 7 5 0 Horse trails, bike
lanes (4)
Places to walk,
bike lanes
Great access to
health services
6 3 1 1 2 Social services
Great school
system
29 8 7 1 1
Less train noise 6 1 0 0 0
Live close to work 12 0 1 0 0
No graffiti/junk
cars
5 2 0 1 1 Enforcement
Recreational
opportunities
9 5 7 1 0
Safe community 35 9 8 6 3
Shopping within
walking distance
10 8 2 1 0
Transit options to
get to work
10 3 7 6 2
Variety of housing
options
2 1 1 0 0
Variety of senior
programs
4 0 0 1 0
Well-maintained
public assets
7 0 3 1 0
Addenda:
Air quality 0 0 1 0 0
Bars walking
distance
3 0 0 1 0
Better metro
options
3 2 1 0 0
Better shopping
downtown
1 0 0 0 0
Church
community
2 1 0 0 0
Free bus system
914/916
2 0 0 0 0
Good childcare 1 0 0 0 0
62
14
options w/ work
Less gov’t/ less
corruption / low
taxes
2 0 2 0 0
Library System 3 0 2 1 0
Longer trains at
night
2 0 0 0 0
More grocery
stores
3 0 0 1 0 Other than Safeway
(2)
More high tech
jobs – less
commuting to
Seattle
1 0 0 0 0
Nature/ views/
waterfront
2 0 0 1 0
People 0 0 0 1 0
Privacy/quiet 1 3 0 1 1
Roads 5 0 1 0 0
63
15
Environment and Open Space: Place a sticker on the line to show how much you think your
community should spend on clean air, clean water, and open space
Region of
spending
spectrum
Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley,
North
Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Additional
Comments (Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments (non-
Kent residents)
Lowest 3rd 3 0 2 1 0 Do not sell river
bend 9 hole course
Middle 3rd 24 6 5 4 3 Need more
maintenance of
plants they plant
Spend wisely,
More on
maintaining not on
new spaces
Highest 3rd 42 13 8 7 0 More on this but
not more taxes
64
16
Environment and Open Space: What is your favorite recreational activity to do outdoors?
Activity Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple Valley,
North Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien, Renton,
SeaTac, Seattle,
Tukwila
Des Moines,
Federal Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
4x4 0 1 0 0 0
Airsoft 1 0 0 0 0
Basketball 0 1 0 0 0
Bike Riding 14 2 2 2 2
Bird Watching 0 1 0 0 0
Boating/water sports 0 0 0 1 0
Camping 6 1 0 1 0
Enjoying outdoors/ open spaces 1 0 1 0 1
Exercising 2 0 0 0 0
Exploring 3 0 0 0 0
Fishing 2 0 0 0 1
Gardening/Farming 7 3 1 1 0
Geocaching 1 0 0 0 0
Going to Park 4 1 2 0 1
Golf 2 1 0 0 0
Horseback Riding 2 0 0 0 0
Kayaking 2 0 0 0 0
People Watching 0 0 1 0 0
Picnic/BBQ 4 0 1 0 0
Playing Outside 2 0 0 0 0
Racing 1 1 0 1 0
Sailing 0 0 0 0 0
Soccer 3 1 0 0 0
Softball 2 0 0 0 0
Swimming 5 3 0 0 0
Walking/Hiking/Running 40 11 8 10 7
Walking/Playing with dog 5 1 0 1 0
Watching Sports 0 1 0 0 0
Water Park 1 1 1 0 0
Yard/Patio 0 0 0 0 1
65
17
Environment and Open Space: What do you need to be able to access your recreational activity
more easily?
Service Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley, North
Bend, Pacific
Bellevue
, Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unin. King
County
Additional
Comments (Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments
(non-Kent
residents)
Better transit 5 0 0 1 0 Buses, don’t cut
service (2), nicer
bus drivers, 167
Bus to water
front
Bike Parking 0 2 0 0 0
Bike Paths and
Trails
5 1 1 0 0 Bike lanes Further trails
Clean water,
swimming
opportunities
2 0 0 0 0
Dog Park 3 1 0 0 0 Off-leash parks Covington
Drinking fountains 1 0 1 0 0
Equipment 1 1 0 0 0 Kayak rentals
Golf courses 1 1 0 0 0 more cheaper
Interactive maps of
Trails/Amenities
2 1 0 0 0 Yearly maps
Lakes 1 1 0 2 0 Motorized lakes More boating
access, cleaner
Maintenance 5 0 2 0 0 Clean campsites,
trail maintenance
Trail
maintenance
Money 1 1 0 0 0
Neighborhood
Activity group
1 0 0 0 0
No homeless camps
in public zones
2 0 0 0 0
Open spaces 3 1 0 0 1 Smoke free space
(2)
Quiet fields,
Parking 0 0 1 0 1
Parks 6 0 1 2 1 More/safer/not just
tot lots, more hours,
playgrounds (2)
public rec
areas, more
Places to dance 2 0 0 0 0
Public Pool 2 0 0 0 0 Water parks
Rec center 1 0 0 0 0
Retirement 0 0 0 0 1
Safety 2 1 0 0 0 Fewer gangs Safe ball
courts,
Sidewalks 11 1 0 4 Better, more,
lighting, 132nd St
West valley,
lighting, more,
trees/ safer feel
Soccer fields 3 0 0 0 0
Time 0 1 0 0 0
Trails 17 5 3 6 3 More parking (2),
more multi-use
trails w/ access,
horse trails
More trails,
shaded, well lit,
priority for
open space,
more, jeep
trails,
more/easier
trails, more
66
18
Waste 2 1 0 0 0 Less trash, more
yard waste pickup
Access to
compost
Water fountains 0 0 1 0 0
Transportation: Map your commute by drawing a line from where you live to where you work! (Or
where you commute most often)
Commuters in Kent:
Lake Meridian To Covington 1
Lake Meridian To Seattle 3
Lake Meridian To Renton 1
Lake Meridian To East Hill 1
Lake Meridian To Puyallup 1
Lake Meridian To Downtown 2
Downtown To Seattle 4
Downtown To West Hill 1
Downtown To Surrounding 2
Downtown To Renton 2
Downtown To Burien 1
East Hill To Downtown 4
East Hill To Auburn 3
East Hill To Tacoma 2
East Hill To Edgewood 1
East Hill To Puyallup 1
East Hill To Unincorp. King 1
East Hill To Issaquah 1
East Hill To Bellevue 6
East Hill To Everett 3
East Hill To Renton 4
East Hill To Lake Meridian 1
East Hill To Federal Way 2
East Hill To Seattle 8
The Lakes To Federal Way 1
The Lakes To Des Moines 1
The Lakes To Bellevue 1
The Lakes To Seattle 2
Scenic Hill To Renton 1
Scenic Hill To SeaTac 1
Scenic Hill To Renton 1
Scenic Hill To Seattle 2
Riverview To SeaTac 1
Riverview To Renton 1
West Hill To Surrounding Area 1
West Hill To Downtown 1
West Hill To Federal Way 1
West Hill To Seattle 1
West Hill To Renton 1
Total (In Kent) 73
67
19
Transportation: Map your commute by drawing a line from where you live to where you work! (Or
where you commute most often)
Commuters Outside of Kent:
Commute #
commuters
Renton To Surrounding Area 1
Renton To Seattle 1
Renton To Covington 1
Renton To Kent 2
Renton To Redmond 1
Renton To West Hill 1
Renton To Tacoma 1
Renton To SeaTac 1
Renton To Kenmore 1
Covington To Lake Meridian 2
Covington To Downtown Kent 1
Covington To Seattle 3
Covington To Renton 2
Covington To Tacoma 1
Covington To Des Moines 1
Auburn To Seattle 2
Auburn To Renton 3
Auburn To East Hill 1
Auburn To Downtown Kent 1
Auburn To Puyallup 1
Auburn To Unincorporated King County 1
Auburn To Redmond 1
Auburn To Everett 1
Auburn To Bellevue 1
Auburn To Federal Way 1
Auburn To Surrounding Area 3
Tacoma To Surrounding Area 1
Tacoma To Auburn 2
Tacoma To Seattle 2
Commute #
commuters
Tacoma To Redmond 1
Tacoma To South Seattle 1
Pacific To Tumwater 2
Pacific To Kent 1
Pacific To Tacoma 1
Lakewood To Seattle 1
Uninc King County To Auburn 1
Federal Way To Olympia 1
SeaTac To Surrounding Area 1
SeaTac To Seattle 1
Burien To Bothell 1
Burien To Seattle 1
Burien To Tacoma 1
Burien To Des Moines 1
Seattle To SeaTac 1
Seattle To Tacoma 1
Seattle To Rainer 1
Seattle To Everett 2
Seattle To Federal Way 1
Seattle To Downtown Kent 3
Seattle To Surrounding Area 3
Bellevue To Auburn 1
Bellevue To Downtown Kent 1
Maple Valley To SeaTac 1
Puyallup To Downtown Kent 1
Des Moines To White Cedar 1
Des Moines To Renton 1
Des Moines To East Hill 1
Des Moines To Seattle 1
Total (Outside Kent) 76
68
20
Transportation: What transportation issues are most important to you?
Issue Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley,
North Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Additional
Comments
(Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments
(non-Kent
residents)
Less traffic 37 8 7 5 0
More sidewalks 10 4 3 2 0 Nature
park/trails,
Covington
Hills to lib
sidewalk
Better-connected
streets
2 1 1 0 0
More bike paths 9 1 1 1 0
Better bike safety 5 1 2 0 0
Railroad
separations
4 2 0 0 0 safety
Addenda:
More transit
options
18 4 9 3 4 Expand light
rail (2)
Weekend
options, light
rail, bike
racks on UA
buses
Later buses
locally
1 1 4 2 0
Daily trains 4 0 0 1 0
Better designed
Hwys
2 0 0 1 2
More housing
near transit
1 0 0 1 0
More parking for
sounder/ more
times of
departure
6 0 0 0 0
Slower Speeds 1 0 0 0 0 88th St
Infrastructure
maintenance
1 0 0 0 0 Central Ave
tire damage,
crosswalks
Reliability 0 1 0 0 0
Less lights 0 0 0 1 0
Safe Rts to
School (Nealy
O’Brian Russell)
1 0 0 0 0
69
21
Transportation: How do you travel most often?
Transportation Kent Auburn,
Covington, Maple
Valley, North
Bend, Pacific
Bellevue, Burien,
Renton, SeaTac,
Seattle, Tukwila
Des Moines,
Federal Way,
Puyallup, Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Biking 3 1 2 1 0
Walking 10 0 3 0 0
Riding the bus 19 2 11 3 1
Carpooling 3 0 2 0 0
Driving 56 20 12 9 4
Taxi/rideshare 1 1 0 1 0
Commuter rail 7 1 0 1 1
Addenda:
Scooter 1 0 0 0 0
School bus 1 0 0 0 0
70
22
Transportation: What might help you to take transit more?
Kent Auburn,
Covington,
Maple
Valley,
North Bend,
Pacific
Bellevue,
Burien,
Renton,
SeaTac,
Seattle,
Tukwila
Des
Moines,
Federal
Way,
Puyallup,
Tacoma
Unincorporated
King County
Additional
Comments
(Kent
residents)
Additional
Comments
(non-Kent
residents)
Lower cost 12 4 3 0 0
More routes 25 5 6 4 0 Intercity
buses, bus to
Wynco, bus
to Bellevue
More buses per
route
13 1 2 2 0
Faster travel
time
12 3 7 3 1
No stop near me 10 3 0 0 6 More
Covington
bus stops
Cleaner buses 2 2 1 0 0
safety 9 1 1 1 0
Free wifi 2 0 0 1 0
Addenda:
Better Sidewalks 2 1 0 0 0
ADA
accessibility
1 0 1 0 0
Comfortable
seats
1 0 2 0 0
Better bus
community
service
1 0 0 0 0
More train/bus
times
9 2 0 0 0 Weekend
train
Weekend
train
Park and ride
light rail and
sounder
6 1 0 1 0
Credit cards
accepted on
buses
0 1 0 0 0
Don’t cut metro 1 1 0 0 0
Don’t cut
914/916
1 0 1 0 0
Less crowded on
event days
0 1 0 0 0
Transfer passes
easier
1 0 1 0 0
More people
taking transit
0 0 1 0 0
A different job 0 1 0 0 0
71
72
Kent Survey – Fall 2014 Snapshot of Results
Draft results Dec 10, 2014 Introduction
The City of Kent created the Kent 2035 survey (with input from Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, and OneAmerica) to
gather input from Kent citizens on a broad range of issues related to the City of Kent’s long-range Comprehensive Plan.
The City primarily deployed the survey online (459 respondents). Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, OneAmerica and
Mother Africa conducted the survey in the field using a printed copy (460 respondents). The survey was translated into
Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese and Somali and interpreted into Arabic and Tigrinya and Somali
This report is a preliminary summary and analysis of the survey responses collected under these categories:
• On-line respondents: 459 respondents who took the online survey based on emails and other communications
from the City of Kent.
• Kent Food Bank: 26 food bank visitors surveyed by Futurewise and El Centro de la Raza
• Wilson Playfield: 199 parents and relatives and friends viewing soccer games surveyed by El Centro de la Raza
and Futurewise
• Immigrants and refugees: This grouping includes 158 immigrants and refugees surveyed by MotherAfrica, 16
immigrants and refugees surveyed by OneAmerica, and 13 Latino community members surveyed by El Centro
de la Raza. These 187 surveys responses do not duplicate the surveys in the other categories.
• Kent Senior Activity Center: 65 seniors and center staff surveyed by Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza and
OneAmerica
Most of the survey questions asked respondents to rate options. Two questions were open-ended in which participants
wrote in answers (not all survey respondents answered all questions.)
As shown in the results below, some community priorities such as safety are a major concern for all Kent survey
respondents. Other issues, however—such as housing—show differences between the groups surveyed.
73
Race/Ethnicity and Age of Respondents Overall
Race/Ethnicity
• 55% of all respondents identified race as “White.”
• 22% identified race as “Black.”
• 8% identified race as “Hispanic.”
• 6% identified race as “Asian.”
• 6% identified race as “Other.”
• 2% identified race as “Pacific Islander.”
• 1% identified two or more races.
• 1% identified race as “American Indian.”
As a note, this question was optional and was phrased as
race/ethnicity, the responses are not 100% inclusive
because the survey categories did not include a complete
list of options that are typically available in the census.
Age – see graph to right
Online Respondents
Race/Ethnicity
• 76% identified race as “White.”
• 6% identified race as “Asian.”
• 5% identified race as “Black.”
• 5% identified two or more races.
• 4% identified race as “Hispanic.”
• 1% identified race as “American Indian.”
• 1% identified race as “Pacific Islander.”
Age – See graph at right.
Food Bank Visitors
Race/Ethnicity
• 54% identified race as “White.”
• 25% identified race as “Black.”
• 8% identified race as “Other.”
• 4% identified race as “Asian.”
• 4% identified race as “Hispanic.”
• 4% identified two or more races.
• 1 participant wrote in “Middle Eastern.”
Age – See graph at right.
74
Soccer Game Attendees
Race/Ethnicity
• 44% identified race as “White.”
• 17% identified race as “Hispanic.”
• 12% identified race as “Asian.”
• 11% identified race as “Black.”
• 6% identified race as “Pacific Islander.”
• 5% identified two or more races.
• 4% identified race as “Other.”
• 1% identified race as “American Indian.”
• 2 participants wrote in “Middle Eastern.”
Age – See graph at right. Immigrants and Refugees
Race/Ethnicity
• 84% identified race as “Black.”
• 14% identified race as “Other.”
• 1% identified race as “White.”
• 1% identified two or more races.
• Of those respondents who identified “Other,”
40% wrote in “Iraqi,” and 2% wrote in
“Pakistani.’
• Of those respondents who identified “Black,”
14% added “Kenyan,” 12% added “Zambian,”
11% added “Sudanese,” 10% added “Somali
(Bantu),” 9% added “Eritrea,” 8% added
“Gambian,” 6% added “Somali,” 2% added
“Senegalese,” and 1% added “Congo.”
Age – See graph at right.
Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff)
Race/Ethnicity
• 83% of seniors and staff identified race as
“White.”
• 5% identified race as “Black.”
• 5% identified race as “Asian.”
• 5% identified race as “Hispanic.”
• 2% identified race as “Pacific Islander.”
Age – See graph at right.
75
Community Priorities for Quality of Life
1=Not Important, 2=Somewhat Important, 3=Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Essential Overall
Priorities for Kent citizens (all respondents) are
community safety, clean groundwater, schools,
and roadways. Maintained public assets,
healthy food, safe parks, affordable recreation,
less junk, quality housing options and attractive
streets all ranked highly as well.
Online Respondents
Community safety is the top priority for the
online respondent group, with roadways, clean
groundwater and schools ranked highly as well.
76
Food Bank Visitors
Public transit and clean groundwater were the top
priorities for food bank visitors, followed closely by
community safety and quality housing options.
Soccer Game Attendees
Soccer game attendees rated community safety as the
highest priority, followed closely by schools, then clean
groundwater and roadways.
Immigrants and refugees
For immigrant and refugee participants, quality housing
options was the most important, followed closely by
community safety, healthy food and schools. Recent
immigrants more evenly distributed their priorities.
77
Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff)
Seniors and Senior Activity Center staff chose
community safety as the highest priority, followed
closely by junk and roadways.
78
Housing
The survey results show that respondent groups have different housing needs. Immigrants and refugee respondents and
food bank visitors had the highest rate of response that they struggle to pay for housing relative to the other groups
surveyed. Overall
• 39% struggle to pay for housing (rent plus utilities).
• 53% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms fit their family’s needs.
• 8% indicated apartments fit their family’s needs. Online Respondents
• 27% struggle to pay for housing (117 out of 443).
• 57% indicated single family homes (3-4 bedrooms) (253 out of 443) fit their family’s needs.
• 3% indicated apartments (13 out of 445) fit their family’s needs. Food Bank Visitors
• 82% struggle to pay for housing (18 out of 22 people).
• 68% indicated single family homes (bedrooms not defined) (15 out of 22 people) fit their family’s needs.
• 14% indicated apartments (3 out of 22 people) fit their family’s needs. Soccer Game Attendees
• 33% (61 out of 185) struggle to pay for housing.
• 74% indicated single family homes (3-4 bedrooms) (148 out of 192 people) fit their family’s needs.
• 3% indicated apartments (only 6 out of 192) fit their family’s needs. Immigrants and refugees
• 71% struggle to pay for housing (110 out of 155 people).
• 31% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms (51 out of 166 people) fit their family’s needs.
• 25% indicated apartments (42 out of 166) fit their family’s needs. Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff)
• 41% struggle to pay for housing (24 out of 59).
• 26% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms fit their family’s needs, 8% indicated single family homes
with 1-2 bedrooms fit their family’s needs, 16% indicated single family homes with bedroom number unspecified
fit their family’s needs. A total of 35 out of 57 respondents identified single family homes of one type or
another.
• 12% (7 out of 57) indicated apartments fit their family’s needs.
• 14% (8 out of 57) indicated senior housing fit their family’s needs
79
80
Environment
The survey asked how often (never, sometimes, or always) respondents do activities “at home or in your daily life that
affects the environment.”
Overall
• 79% of all respondents always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc.
• 51% of all respondents always recycle food waste.
• 31% of all respondents always use reusable bags.
• 10% of all respondents always take public transit.
• 14% of all respondents always grow their own food. Online Respondents
• 89% always recycle glass, metal, plastic etc. (400 out of 451).
• 56% always recycle food waste (251 out of 448).
• 33% always use reusable bags (146 out of 445).
• 6% always use public transit (28 out of 443).
• 16% always grow their own food (72 out of 444). Food Bank Visitors
• 70% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (16 out of 23).
• 43% always recycle food waste (9 out of 21).
• 52% always use reusable bags (12 out of 23).
• 46% always use public transit (10 out of 22).
• 14% always grow their own food (3 out of 22). Soccer Game Attendees
• 78% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (151 out of 193).
• 51% always recycle food waste (97 out of 189).
• 30% always use reusable bags (58 out of 192).
• 14% always take public transit (26 out of 189).
• 12% always grow their own food (22 out of 192). Immigrants and Refugees
• 48% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (75 out of 156).
• 34% always recycle food waste (50 out of 147).
• 22% always use reusable bags (35 out of 162).
• 10% always use public transit (16 out of 158).
• 8% always grow their own food (13 out of 158). Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff)
• 86% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (47 out of 55).
• 59% always recycle food waste (33 out of 56)
• 40% always use reusable bags (23 out of 57).
• 14% always use public transit (7 out of 51).
• 14% always grow their own food (7 out of 51).
81
Transportation Overall
Heavy traffic or congestion was identified as the primary transportation issue (30%) for the next five years. Other
concerns that rated highly include easy access to major roads (17%), more public transit (16%), and railroad separation
(16%).
64% of all
respondents indicated
that their primary
transportation mode
is to drive alone.
More options for
where people need to
go (19%) would help
motivate the overall
group to use transit
more. Additionally,
faster travel time and
more frequent service
were identified as
motivators.
82
Online Respondents
76% of online respondents drive alone (362 out of 474 people) as their primary mode of transportation. The biggest
transportation issue for this group is congestion (30%). The next most important transportation issue is railroad grade
separation, then easy access to major roads and more public transit. Increased ridership for public transit may result
from providing more options where people want to go, as well as faster travel times.
Food Bank Visitors
Congestion is also the primary transportation
issue for visitors to the food bank (30%). 35%
drive alone (13 out of 37), while 27% walk and 27% ride the bus (10 out of 37 each). Lower cost and more frequent
service would help this group take transit more. More options where people need to go and bus stops closer to homes
would help as well.
83
Soccer Game Attendees
Congestion is again the primary transportation issue for attendees at soccer games (35%). 62% (143 out of 242) drive
alone, and another 19% (45 out of 232) carpool. More options for where people need to go would help this group take
transit more, followed closely by increased frequency and faster
travel time.
Immigrants and refugees
The immigrant and refugee respondents
prioritized easy access to major roads (22%) and
more public transit (22%) along with congestion (22%) as the top transportation issues. 57% (123 out of 215) drive alone,
while 18% (39 out of 215) take the bus. Frequency of service, faster travel times, and closer bus stops to homes would
help this group take transit more often.
84
Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff)
Congestion is once again the primary transportation issue for this group (36%). More public transit was also identified as
a secondary priority in transportation. 58% of respondents (42 out of 73) drive alone, and 21% (15 out of 73) ride the
bus. Bus stops closer to homes would help this group take transit more, as well as more options for where people need
to go, as well as safety walking to and from stops.
“Where would you take an out-of-town guest?”
In an open-ended question, Kent residents overwhelmingly indicated that they would take out-of-town guests to Kent
Station, followed by parks, trails, and lakes.
There were four specific locations of
parks/trails/lakes that respondents identified most
frequently: Lake Meridian, Soos Creek Trail, Green
River Trail and Lake Fenwick. For local businesses,
there were four most identified: the farmers market,
Maggies on Meeker, Mama Stortini's and the
Carpinito farms.
85
“What would make Kent a better place to live?”
Respondents were asked in an open ended question “What would make Kent a better place to Live.” Safety (174
responses) was mentioned most frequently, followed by the need for more beautification, cleanliness, and
attractiveness (74 responses). There were also many concerns mentioned about the homeless population (52
responses)—ranging from a desire for fewer homeless people in Kent to desiring more services for them.
Many survey respondents also mentioned a need for downtown revitalization (55 responses), more grocery (23
responses) and retail (47 responses) options, as well as restaurant options (38 responses). Many responders asked for
“something to do” and included ideas such as theaters and bars.
Similarly, survey respondents identified that Kent is not a “destination.” There appears to be a desire for the creation of
a unique Kent identity (at least 15-20 responses). Additionally, sidewalks (45 responses) and roads/infrastructure (51
responses) were cited by many as being important for a better Kent.
The online survey respondents included over 20 comments stating a desire for fewer apartments and less low-income
housing, and no comments requesting more housing besides condos/higher income. In contrast, the other survey
respondents (Senior Activity Center, immigrant and refugee, soccer game attendees and food bank visitors) included
many specific requests for apartments, and few requests for fewer apartments.
Overall, many respondents mentioned better schools (58 responses) as important for making Kent a better place to live.
86
87
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 1
Chapter Two - LAND USE ELEMENT
Purpose
The Land Use Element guides the general distribution and location of various
land uses, as well as the scheduling of capital improvement expenditures. It
also will guide the character of the development pattern which has impacts on
aesthetics, mobility, housing, environmental and public health, and economic
development. Finally, the Land Use Element provides the internal consistency
among all the elements which translates into coordinated growth for the City of
Kent.
Issues
Creating Places
What is that place called home? What
attracts people to Kent and what keeps them
here? As the City accommodates growth, it
must be creating vibrant places.
Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions
The City must coordinate with adjacent
jurisdictions to ensure land use decisions of
one jurisdiction are not adversely affecting
other jurisdictions.
What you will find in this chapter:
Foundation and framework for the Element
How anticipated future growth of households and employment can be
accommodated;
Goals and Policies for vibrant commercial centers, well-designed
neighborhoods and job centers; and consideration of healthy
environment and lifestyles.
Purpose Statement:
To foster a growth pattern that ensures Kent is a safe, connected and
beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers.
88
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 2
Communication
Open, interactive, and transparent
communication with Kent residents and
businesses creates our City.
Background
The Growth Management Act (GMA) is concerned with the conservation and
wise use of our lands and infrastructure; that growth occurs in a compact and
livable urban form; the creation of a sustainable economy; and the opportunity
for the residents of the state to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. State, regional and
county land use policies provide the statutory framework for the Land Use
policies and how they relate to other chapters in the Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan); how the City identifies Kent’s Potential Annexation Area; and the need to
coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and regional agencies.
The GMA requires cities to inventory, designate, and protect critical areas and
resource lands through development regulations. Kent’s Critical Areas
Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and development regulations protecting
Agricultural Resource Lands fulfill those GMA requirements.
Existing Zoning Pattern
The City of Kent has five general categories of land use plan map designations:
agricultural, single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and
industrial. Within each of these general categories, there are several zoning
districts which allow varying levels of land uses, bulk and scale of development.
Table LU.1 shows the land area of each of these zoning categories and Figure
LU-1 shows the distribution of these zoning districts.
89
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 3
Table LU.1*
2015 CITY OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
LAND
USE
AREA
(ACRES)
% OF
TOTAL
AREA
ALLOWED
ZONING
Agricultural AG-R 53.5 0.3 A-10
AG-S 223.3 1.0 AG
Subtotal 276.8 1.3
SF Residential US 1,637.2 7.6 SR-1
SF-3 88.8 0.4 SR-3
SF-4.5 2,301.2 10.7 SR-4.5
SF-6 6,769.9 31.4 SR-4.5, SR-6
SF-8 631.2 2.9 SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8
MHP 166.4 0.8 MHP
Subtotal 11,594.7 53.8
MF Residential LDMF 836.1 3.9 SR-8, MR-D, MR-G,
MRT-12, MRT-16
MDMF 824.4 3.8 MR-D, MR-M, MR-H,
MRT-12,MRT-16
Subtotal 1,660.5 7.7
Commercial MU 614.0 2.8 GC, CC, O, MRT-16,
M2 (legacy)
NS 15.9 0.1 NCC, MRT-12, MRT-16
C 707.0 3.3 GC, GWC, CC,
O, CM-1, CM-2,
MRT-12, MRT-16
UC
TOC
492.0
271.7
2.3
1.3
DC, DCE, GC
MRT-12, MRT-16
MR-M, MHP
MTC-1, MTC-2, MCR,
MHP
Subtotal 2,100.6 9.8
Industrial I 2,285.3 10.6 MA, M1, M2, M3,
M1-C
MIC 1,984.3 9.2 M2, M3
Subtotal 4,269.6 19.8
Park & Open
Space
OS 1,641.1 7.6 All
90
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 4
TOTAL 21,543.3 100.0
*Will require further revisions with approval of proposed amendments to the
Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts maps.
FIGURE LU-1
ZONING DISTRICTS
Potential Annexation Area
Kent’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA) identifies areas within the
unincorporated King County Urban Growth Area (UGA) which the City has
committed to annex. There have been 13.6 square miles annexed into Kent
since the PAA was established. There is approximately nine-tenths of a square
mile remaining to be annexed. Kent city limits and the PAA together form the
Planning Area for the City's Land Use Plan Map.
FIGURE LU-2
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
Critical Areas and Resource Lands
The city of Kent contains numerous areas that can be identified and
characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the
city include wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard
areas, frequently flooded areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas.
Designated “Resource Lands” within Kent are agricultural in nature and are
considered to have long-term commercial significance. The development rights
for the Agricultural Resource Lands in Kent were purchased under King
County’s Agricultural Preservation Program during the 1980’s, ensuring they
will remain in agricultural land use in perpetuity.
The City has adopted policies and development regulations to protect critical
areas. The Green River, a notable natural feature in Kent, is considered a
91
92
Kent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iam ond R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STW o o d la n d
U.P. RailroadG reenR iv e rR d
GreenR iv e rP a n th e r L k .16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.Star Lk.R dRiethMilitaryAngle LakeS 208 STS 223 ST16 AVE S24 AVE SKentDes MoinesRdKent-Kangley RdClark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow LkSeattle-TacomaInternational AirportS 188 STS 200 STInterstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288ST55 AVESS 272STSouthcenterParkwayS 216 STMilitary RdE Valley R d
64 AVE SN 4 AVEWGowe StValley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 STSE 240 STS R 5 16 SR 18B.N . R a ilr o a d
U.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99PacificAVESS 277 STSE 288 STS 200 STKent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iamo nd R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SEKent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iamo nd R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STW o o d la n d
U.P. RailroadG reenR iv e rR d
GreenR iv e rP a n th e r L k .16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.Star Lk.R dRiethMilitaryAngle LakeS 208 STS 223 ST16 AVE S24 AVE SKentDes MoinesRdKent-Kangley RdClark Lk.Valley FwyLakeFenwickMeeker StJames StSE 208 STSE 256 ST112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 STS 228 STAveSE Petrovitsky RdRd68 AVE S76 AVE SC anyon D rW a y
Gateway42 AVE SS 229 STRdS 252 STS 248 STWillis StSmith StCentralSE100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELakeYoungsB i g S o o s C r e e k BigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST72 AVE SS 200 STS 212 STS 180 STLind AveS 192 ST92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 STS 204 STZONING DISTRICTSAgricultural 1 Unit/10 AcresAgricultural GeneralIndustrial AgriculturalSingle-Family (SR-1)Single-Family (SR-3)Single-Family (SR-4.5)Single-Family (SR-6)Single-Family (SR-8)Duplex MultifamilyTownhouse/Condo (MRT-12)Townhouse/Condo (MRT-16)Garden Density MultifamilyMedium Density MultifamilyHigh Density MultifamilyMobile Home ParkNeighborhood Convenience CommercialDowntown CommercialDowntown Commercial EnterpriseDowntown Commercial Enterprise - Transitial OverlayCommunity CommercialCommunity Commercial/Mixed UseGateway CommercialGeneral CommercialGeneral Commercial/Mixed UseMidway Commercial Residential Midway Transit Community IMidway Transit Community IICommercial Manufacturing ICommercial Manufacturing IIOfficeOffice/Mixed-UseIndustrial ParkIndustrial Park/CommercialLimited IndustrialGeneral IndustrialThis map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depictedthereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and alldamage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, whicharises or may arise from use of this product.LEGENDZONING DISTRICTSFigure xx.xInsertAnnexed to KentOrd. #2743124 Ave SESE 304 ST¯SCALE: 1" = 40,000'93
94
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
POTENTIALANNEXATION AREAFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
RURAL GROWTH AREA
URBAN GROWTH AREA
¯plan15-1i.mxd
95
96
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 5
Shoreline of Statewide Significance and falls under the jurisdiction of the City’s
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Other water bodies subject to SMP policies
and regulations are Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural
Resources Area, Panther Lake and portions of Big Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek
and Springbrook Creek. See Figure LU-3.
The other significant natural resources in Kent are protected by the Critical
Areas Ordinance. The approximate location and extent of critical areas within
the city are shown on the City’s critical areas inventory maps. These maps
are used for informational purposes and as a general guide only; the actual
presence or absence, type, extent, boundaries, and classification of critical
areas on a specific site shall be identified in the field by a qualified
professional and confirmed by the department, according to the procedures,
definitions, and criteria established by the Critical Areas Ordinance.
FIGURE LU-3
STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND BUFFERS
There are regulatory constraints placed on Agricultural Resource Land. When
the development rights are purchased from Agricultural Resource Land,
covenants dictate uses and some development standards. Because Agricultural
Resource Land is protected for farming only, the GMA requires that adjacent
property owners who propose development must be notified of the protected
status of the Agricultural Resource Lands to ensure there are no conflicts
between land uses. Kent’s Agricultural Resource Land and the County’s Lower
Green River Agricultural Production District are illustrated in Figure LU-4.
FIGURE LU-4
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE LANDS
97
98
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
STREAM CLASSIFICATONAND BUFFERS
Figure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
Watershed Boundary
Shorelines - Class 1
Salmonid - Class 2
Non-salmonid - Class 3
Inventoried Wetlands
Valley Overlay
¯plan15-1h.mxd
- Other Shorelines Include Lake Fenwick,
Green River Natural Resources Area
and Lake Meridian
99
100
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
AGRICULTURALRESOURCE LANDSFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
RURAL GROWTH AREA
URBAN GROWTH AREA
KENT AGRICULTURAL
LOWER GREEN RIVER AGRICULTURAL
¯plan15-1g.mxd
RESOURCE LAND
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
101
102
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 6
Analysis of Development Capacity
The GMA requires jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate the forecasted
20-year growth of households and employment. Working with the State and
local jurisdictions, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) established
household and employment targets for 2031. Because the GMA planning
horizon is to 2035, Kent extended the CPPs growth target on a calculated
straight line out an additional four (4) years from the 2031 targets.
A critical component of determining future development potential is the
analysis of development capacity. Development capacity refers to an estimate
of the amount of development which could be accommodated on vacant and
re-developable land based on existing zoning and environmental constraints. It
serves as a benchmark from which to gauge to what extent current land use
and zoning policies can accommodate growth.
The 2014 methodology to estimate capacity for household and employment is
based on the Buildable Lands Program (RCW 36.70A.215). Under Buildable
Lands, the City is required to conduct a review and evaluation of the current
supply of “lands suitable for development” and to evaluate the effectiveness of
local plans and regulations. The Buildable Lands Program collects annual data
to determine the amount and density of recent development, an inventory of
the land supply suitable for development, and an assessment of the ability to
accommodate expected growth for the remainder of the twenty (20) year
planning horizon.
Figure LU-5 shows the location and extent of vacant and re-developable sites in
Kent. Table LU.2 summarizes the household and employment capacity for the
Kent Planning Area based on Buildable Lands Analysis, and provides the
existing household and employment as of 2010.
FIGURE LU-5
KENT VACANT AND RE-DEVELOPABLE LAND
103
104
Kent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iam ond R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STW o o d la n d
U.P. RailroadG reenR iv e rR d
GreenR iv e rP a n th e r L k .16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.Star Lk.R dRiethMilitaryAngle LakeS 208 STS 223 ST16 AVE S24 AVE SKentDes MoinesRdKent-Kangley RdClark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow LkSeattle-TacomaInternational AirportS 188 STS 200 STInterstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288ST55 AVESS 272STSouthcenterParkwayS 216 STMilitary RdE Valley R d
64 AVE SN 4 AVEWGowe StValley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 STSE 240 STS R 5 16 SR 18B.N . R a ilr o a d
U.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99PacificAVESS 277 STSE 288 STS 200 STKent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iamo nd R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SEKent-Kangley RdK ent-B lack D iamo nd R d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELake Meridian132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STW o o d la n d
U.P. RailroadG reenR iv e rR d
GreenR iv e rP a n th e r L k .16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.Star Lk.R dRiethMilitaryAngle LakeS 208 STS 223 ST16 AVE S24 AVE SKentDes MoinesRdKent-Kangley RdClark Lk.Valley FwyLakeFenwickMeeker StJames StSE 208 STSE 256 ST112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 STS 228 STAveSE Petrovitsky RdRd68 AVE S76 AVE SC anyon D rW a y
Gateway42 AVE SS 229 STRdS 252 STS 248 STWillis StSmith StCentralSE100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELakeYoungsB i g S o o s C r e e k BigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST72 AVE SS 200 STS 212 STS 180 STLind AveS 192 ST92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 STS 204 STThis map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depictedthereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and alldamage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, whicharises or may arise from use of this product.LEGENDBUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITYFigure xx.xInsertAnnexed to KentOrd. #2743124 Ave SESE 304 ST¯SCALE: 1" = 40,000'CITY LIMITSPOTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREADEVELOPMENT STATUSCommercial - RedevelopableCommercial - VacantIndustrial - RedevelopableIndustrial - VacantMultifamily - RedevelopableMultifamily - VacantSingle-Family - RedevelopableSingle-Family - Vacant105
106
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 7
Table LU.2
KENT PLANNING AREA 2010 and 20124
RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY
Activity Type
2010 Existing
20124
Capacity*
Total
Households 42,793 10,732 53,525
Employment 61,654 21,62423,283 83,27884,937
*Source: 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report
Evaluation of Development Capacity & Growth
Targets
As stated in the Kent Profile and Vision chapter, the Kent Planning Area’s
growth target for residential from the King County Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) is 9,360 housing unitshouseholds, and its employment target is 13,490
jobsemployees to the year 2031. The planning horizon for Kent’s
Comprehensive Plan is 2035 which required a mathematical extension of CPPs
targets, although these targets may be adjusted during the next countywide
target update process. The result is a residential 2035 target of 10,858
householdshousing units and an employment target of 15,648 jobs.
Table LU.3
EVALUATION OF HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT
CAPACITY TO MEET TARGETS FOR CITY OF KENT
Residential Target: 10,858
householdshousing
units
Residential Capacity: 10,732
householdshousing
units
Employment Target: 15,648
jobsemployees
Employment Capacity: 21,62423,283
jobsemployees
107
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 8
Targets are not inherently a reflection of market trends in a specific city. Over
the next two decades Sound Transit will continue to expand the Link Light Rail
which could dramatically shape the communities with stations. Midway (the
Kent-Des Moines area along the SR 99/I-5 corridor) is slated to have a rail
station by 2023. Midway is also an area that had no new developments from
which to predictably calculate capacity did not figure into the 2014 Buildable
Lands Analysis because there are no new developments from which to calculate
capacity. Similarly Tthe capacity in Kent’s Downtown Urban Center and Midway
is difficult to predict out to 2035. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan adopted
on November 19, 2013 is based upon a moderate growth scenario of 8,908
activity units (5,419 households and 3,489 jobs). Within the plan’s expanded
urban center of 550 acres is the 142-acre planned action area with an
envisioned density of about 39.5 units per acre. As Downtown and Midway
continue to develop into the compact mixed-use centers envisioned in their
subarea plans, there will be a clearer picture of the capacity to accommodate
the growth targets; those capacity numbers then can be incorporated into the
next plan update. The City believes there is What is known is that there is
substantial capacity in both of these areas to provide new housing and
employment in Kent.1 It is clear that there is adequate housing capacity and
more than adequate employment capacity to accommodate the 2035 targets.1
(see Table LU.3)
Table LU.3
EVALUATION OF HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT
CAPACITY TO MEET TARGETS FOR CITY OF KENT
Residential Target: 10,858 households
Residential Capacity: 10,732 households
Employment Target: 15,648 employees
Employment Capacity: 21,624 employees
Summary
1 Land Use Scenario 4.0 in the Midway Subarea Plan adopted on December 13, 2011
anticipated a light rail station, with transit-oriented development and future capacity
for 11,821 housing units and 9,481 jobs in the Midway Subarea. The Downtown
Subarea Action Plan adopted on November 19, 2013 looks toward a dense, mixed-
use urban center that complements transit. The plan expanded the downtown
subarea to approximately 550 acres and considered different growth alternatives
ranging from 5,285 – 20,001 for households and 23,496 – 30,076 for jobs from the
2006 base year to 2031.
108
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 9
The Land Use Element provides the vision for the City’s growth for the next
twenty (20) years. The vision is established in both the Land Use Map and the
Land Use Goals and Policies. It reflects the State, regional, and local policy
framework previously identified, as well as the City’s policy documents and
capacity analysis. More importantly, it reflects the preferences and views of the
citizens as they were expressed in the City's public participation process.
LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
The Land Use Goals and Policies cover a broad spectrum of issues. However, it
is important to note that all of the Goals and Policies function together as a
coherent and comprehensive vision of future growth in the community. This is
reflected in the Purpose Statement for this Element.
URBAN GROWTH
The Land Use Element provides the overall comprehensive vision of future
growth for the community. As mandated by the Growth Management Act, it is
fundamentally important to establish the policy framework for managing this
growth, particularly with regard to controlling and discouraging urban sprawl.
The following Goals and Policies establish and reinforce that framework:
Goal LU-1:
Kent will ensure a land use pattern that provides overall densities in the
Planning Area that are adequate to efficiently support a range of public facilities
and urban services.
Policy LU-1.1: Establish land use map designations that
accommodate a portion of the City’s overall growth targets into Kent’s
Potential Annexation Area.
Policy LU-1.2: Do not extend any urban services to adjacent
Unincorporated King County Rural Areas.
Policy LU-1.3: Monitor household and employment growth trends and
consider changes to the land use plan map and development regulations
to ensure Kent meets the density on net buildable acreage allowed by
the zoning district designation.
Goal LU-2:
Kent will locate public facilities and services with sensitivity to community
needs and environmental conditions.
109
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 10
Policy LU-2.1: Work with regional and state entities when public
capital facilities are considered for location in or near the City to ensure
that impacts and benefits are equitably dispersed.
Policy LU-2.2: Promote and support public transit, bicycle and
pedestrian circulation within compact urban settings.
Policy LU-2.3: Give funding priority to capital facility projects which are
consistent with the City's Land Use Element and support projected
housing and employment growth targets.
Policy LU-2.4: Via a public participation process, allow certain public
and private infrastructure, community open space, and social service
facilities that serve the general population the freedom to locate
throughout the City.
URBAN LAND USE
Downtown Kent is the heart of Kent. The Downtown Planning Area contains
Kent’s Urban Center as recognized by Countywide Planning Policies and the
Puget Sound Regional Council, and affirmed by the Downtown Subarea Action
Plan (DSAP). There are other urban nodes and corridors in Kent that contain a
mix of residential and commercial uses. The Midway Subarea Plan focuses on
an important node that by 2035 will contain a light rail station near Highline
Community College. The following Goals and Policies reflect community values
and are consistent with the Plan’s framework:
Goal LU-3:
Kent will focus household and employment growth in the Urban Center and
designated Activity Centers to provide adequate land and densities to
accommodate a large portion of the adopted twenty (20) year housing target of
10,858 new dwelling units and 15,648 new jobs within Kent’s Planning Area.
Policy LU-3.1: Encourage mixed-use development that combines
retail, office, or residential uses to provide a diverse and economically
vibrant Urban Center and designated Activity Centers.
Policy LU-3.2: Encourage medium- and high-density residential
development in the Urban Center that supports high-capacity transit and
is affordable to all ranges of income.
110
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 11
Policy LU-3.3: Utilize the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and
Downtown Design Guidelines to ensure development in the Urban Center
is attractive, constructed with high-quality materials, maximizes
livability and reinforces a sense of place.
Policy LU-3.4: Designate Activity Centers in areas which currently
contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding
medium-density housing; are supported by transit; or have an existing
subarea plan.
Policy LU-3.5: Periodically evaluate household and employment
forecasts to ensure that land use policies based on previous assumptions
are current.
Policy LU-3.6: Monitor economic trends and consider land use changes
and incentives to maintain the vitality of the Urban Center and
designated Activity Centers.
Goal LU-4
Kent will plan and finance transportation and other public infrastructure which
support medium- and high-density mixed-use development of the Urban
Center and designated Activity Centers.
Policy LU-4.1: Establish transportation levels of service (LOS) which
facilitate medium- to high-density development in the Urban Center and
designated Activity Centers consistent with concurrency requirements.
Policy LU-4.2: Focus future public transportation investments in the
Urban Center and designated Activity Centers.
Policy LU-4.3: Enhance pedestrian circulation systems and bicycle
lanes in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers with an
emphasis on circulation systems which link adjacent neighborhoods to
centers.
Policy LU-4.4: Take actions to ensure that adequate public parking is
available to facilitate development in the Urban Center and designated
Activity Centers, and monitor the effectiveness of actions taken.
111
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 12
Policy LU-4.5: Plan and finance City water and sewer systems to
support medium and high-density development in the Urban Center and
designated Activity Centers, and work with outside purveyors where
necessary.
Policy LU-4.6: Redesign existing downtown parks, and expand the
system where feasible, to maximize recreational opportunities for
residents, employees, and visitors in the Urban Center in support of a
healthy lifestyle.
Policy LU-4.7: Ensure designated Activity Centers provide recreational
opportunities for a diversity of residents, employees, and visitors to
support a healthy lifestyle and create a livable community.
Policy LU-4.8: Designate a portion of Midway as an Activity Center to
ensure that local and regional infrastructure investments are captured in
order to prepare and transform the neighborhood into a dense mixed-
use center served by Sound Transit Link Light Rail.
Goal LU-5:
Kent will emphasize the importance of good design, pedestrian first, and
healthy-living for development in the Urban Center and designated Activity
Centers.
Policy LU-5.1: Adopt and maintain policies, codes, and land use
patterns that promote walking, biking, public transportation, and social
interaction to increase public health and sense of place.
Policy LU-5.2: Ensure that the street standards in the Kent
Construction and Design Standards support and are consistent with the
Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines.
Policy LU 5.3: Ensure that the Kent Construction and Design Standards
support the community vision for designated Activity Centers, including
enhanced pedestrian and cyclist circulation, public transit opportunities,
and an emphasis on aesthetics and public safety.
Policy LU-5.4: Continue to undertake beautification projects in the
Urban Center and designated Activity Centers, including pedestrian
amenities, street trees, art and parks.
112
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 13
Policy LU-5.5: Implement design review for development in designated
Activity Centers.
Policy LU 5.6: Encourage development of public or semi-public spaces
for retail, office, or residential areas in designated Activity Centers.
Policy LU-5.7: Develop site and parking design standards in
designated Activity Centers which support public transit and are
pedestrian-friendly.
Policy LU-5.8: Promote food security, local food production, and
public health by encouraging locally-based food production, distribution,
and choice through urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers
markets, food access initiatives, and shared resources.
HOUSING
There are many factors which influence the development of housing in Kent.
The central issue is how to accommodate the City’s 2035 housing target while
supporting the diversity of households found in the community (e.g., household
size, age, ethnicity, marital status, income, special needs). There is also a
desire to balance jobs and housing in the Urban Center and designated Activity
Centers. Additional factors that influence housing are detailed in the Housing
Element. The following Goals and Policies create a framework to support a
wide variety of housing choices as Kent grows:
Goal LU-6:
Kent will provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the twenty (20)
year housing target of 10,858 new dwelling units within the Kent Planning
Area.
Policy LU-6.1: Evaluate, monitor and modify, if necessary, existing
land use plan map designations to ensure adequate capacity to
accommodate 20-years of household and employment growth.
Policy LU-6.2: Establish flexible regulatory methods, such as shadow
platting and minimum densities, to ensure future land division that
supports urban densities.
113
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 14
Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities
within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, human and
community services.
Goal LU-7:
Kent will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and
densities throughout the City to meet the community’s changing demographics.
Policy LU-7.1: Ensure residential development achieves a substantial
portion of the allowable maximum density on the net buildable acreage.
Policy LU-7.2: Allow and encourage urban density residential
development in the designated Urban Center and designated Activity
Centers.
Policy LU-7.3: Allow and encourage a variety of multifamily housing
forms and densities within designated commercial mixed-use land use
areas.
Policy LU-7.4: Allow a diversity of single-family housing forms and
strategies in all residential districts (e.g., accessory dwellings, reduced
lot size, cottage or cluster housing), subject to design and development
standards, to ensure minimal impact to surrounding properties.
Policy LU-7.5: Allow attached single-family housing within multifamily
land use areas (e.g., MRT-12 and MRT-16), and as demonstration
projects in mixed-use land use areas.
Goal LU-8:
Kent will revise development regulations to encourage single-family and
multifamily development that is more flexible and innovative in terms of
building design, street standards for private roads, and site design.
Policy LU-8.1: Support the achievement of allowable density in single-
family developments through flexibility and creativity in site design.
Policy LU-8.2: Establish residential streetscape patterns which foster
more opportunities for healthy living and community interaction.
114
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 15
Policy LU-8.3: Develop design standards for high-quality, compact,
innovative single-family housing to ensure such housing integrates well
into surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LU-8.4: Allow more flexibility in single-family and multifamily
residential setbacks, vehicle access, and parking, particularly on small
lots, to encourage more compact infill development and innovative site
design.
Policy LU-8.5: Lay out neighborhoods that are oriented to the
pedestrian, provide natural surveillance of public and semi-public places,
and foster a sense of community by orientation of buildings, limiting
block lengths, encouraging continuity of streets among neighborhoods,
connectivity to public spaces, and safe pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular
movement.
Policy LU-8.6: Establish design standards and parking requirements
for accessory dwelling units to ensure that the neighborhood character is
maintained.
Policy LU-8.7: Integrate multifamily housing with the surrounding
neighborhood, through site design, architectural features common to
adjacent single-family design, pedestrian connectivity and landscaping.
Policy LU-8.8: Adopt minimum density requirements for residential
development.
COMMERCIAL
Kent consists of dispersed commercial nodes and corridors that serve the
surrounding residents. Opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and
re-developable properties throughout the City. The following Goals and Policies
will contribute to economic vitality throughout the City:
Goal LU-9:
Kent will promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within existing
commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen commercial activity,
and maximize the use of existing public facility investments.
115
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 16
Policy LU-9.1: Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill
development in existing commercial areas.
Policy LU-9.2: Develop City investment incentives to encourage infill
development in existing commercial areas, which may include improved
sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, and outdoor public spaces.
Goal LU-10:
Kent will examine the City's commercial districts based on regional,
community, and neighborhood needs to support economic vitality and livability.
Policy LU-10.1: Examine commercial nodes, corridors, and subareas
for existing attributes and opportunities to revitalize the commercial
uses, connect with surrounding residential neighborhoods, and support
multi-modal transportation facilities.
Policy LU-10.2: Ensure opportunities for residential development
within existing business districts to provide support for shops, services,
and employment within walking distance.
Policy LU-10.3: Ensure in the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
(NCC) zoning district that all new development and redevelopment will
employ building and site design elements which will minimize impacts to
surrounding residential uses, include pedestrian-oriented amenities, and
develop with minimum parking provisions.
Policy LU-10.4: Promote redevelopment of existing commercial
properties by limiting the conversion of additional residential land use
plan map designations to commercial land use plan map designations.
Policy LU-10.5: Establish guidelines for design of edges where
commercial and mixed-uses abut single-family and medium- to low-
density multifamily residential uses.
Goal LU-11:
Kent will provide attractive, walkable, commercial areas that are focal points of
community activity.
Policy LU-11.1: Establish design standards for commercial and mixed-
use development which are complimentary to the surrounding
neighborhoods and accommodate transit, pedestrians, and cyclists.
116
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 17
Policy LU-11.2: Revise Kent Design and Construction Standards to
ensure the public streetscape associated with commercial and mixed-use
development is attractive, safe, and supports transit, pedestrians, and
cyclists.
Policy LU-11.3: Prepare comprehensive multi-modal streetscape plans
for commercial nodes and corridors to create a safe and inviting
pedestrian environment.
Policy LU-11.4: Establish additional gateways into and within Kent.
Policy LU-11.5: Consider neighborhood urban centers where
appropriate to add convenient commercial opportunities and gathering
places.
MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL
The Kent North Valley Industrial Area is over 6 square miles in size and
represents nearly 20% of Kent’s land base. This area provides a significant
amount of manufacturing, industrial, or other related employment. During the
Great Recession of 2008, dozens of companies provided over 28,000 jobs in
the North Valley Industrial Area. The City anticipates that by 2035,
approximately 49,500 jobs will locate in the North Valley Industrial Area.
Analysis indicates there is substantial capacity to accommodate the anticipated
growth, which includes office parks, bulk retail, and commercial activities along
with manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution.
Kent has designated 3.1 square miles as Manufacturing/Industrial Center
(MIC). The MIC meets the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) key
components for a manufacturing center designation. At the lowest point during
the Great Recession, the MIC provided over 12,000 jobs. In 2010 according to
the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Monitoring Report, the MIC had over
15,000 jobs and today that number is growing. The MIC is located in the North
Valley Industrial Area, which is an extremely important part of both the City's
and the Region's economic and employment base.
Goal LU-12:
Kent will support the Industrial area and Manufacturing/Industrial Center for
manufacturing, warehousing and related land uses.
Policy LU-12.1: Ensure the Manufacturing/Industrial Center
boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail corridors.
117
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 18
Policy LU-12.2: Discourage and limit land uses other than
manufacturing, high technology and warehousing within the boundaries
of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Policy LU-12.3: Provide for a mix of land uses which are compatible
with manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses, such as office,
retail, and service in the area designated Industrial.
Policy LU-12.4: Complete a comprehensive subarea plan for the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center that will establish a Kent-specific vision
and strategy for accommodating growth consistent with the regional
growth strategy.
Goal LU-13:
Kent will plan and finance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those
transportation and infrastructure systems which can accommodate high-
intensity manufacturing, industry and warehouse uses.
Policy LU-13.1: Work with the Regional Transit Authority and King
County to facilitate mobility to and within the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center for goods, services, and employees.
Policy LU-13.2: Upgrade water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater
management facilities as necessary to support development in the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Goal LU-14:
Kent will utilize development standards in the areas designated
Manufacturing/Industrial Center and Industrial to mitigate the impact of
development, create an attractive employment center and support multi-modal
transportation alternatives.
Policy LU-14.1: Support commute trip reduction goals and multi-
modal forms of transportation via development standards pertaining to
building setbacks, location of parking, parking standards, as well as
amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy LU-14.2: Utilize development standards that create an
attractive streetscape, including street trees and pedestrian-scaled
amenities.
118
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 19
Policy LU-14.3: Mitigate the overall size and scale of large projects
through such means as sensitive massing, articulation, and organization
of building; the use of color and materials; and the use of landscaped
screening.
Policy LU-14.4: Utilize development standards and code enforcement
that support a distinctive and orderly character along the Sound Transit
Corridor.
Policy LU-14.5: Where appropriate, encourage context-sensitive
design for the development or redevelopment of live-work units on
smaller parcels within or adjacent to industrial districts.
Policy LU-14.6: When new development, re-development, or
maintenance of industrial and built retail complexes occur adjacent to
environmentally-sensitive areas, require landscaping improvements that
will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities and
environmental functions.
Policy LU-14.7: Design industrial and bulk retail developments in
consideration of human scale.
PARKING
While parking may be linked to mobility, it is considered a land use issue
because it is integral to land development patterns. Whether it is commercial,
industrial, or housing development, all must accommodate the vehicle by
providing parking. The goals and policies found in this section apply to all
forms of development and are intended to promote land development patterns
that are less auto-dependent and that better support travel options. They
recognize that compact large- and small-scale site design close to services and
transit will reduce vehicular trips by supporting transit, ridesharing, bicycling,
or walking.
Goal LU-15:
Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand.
Policy LU-15.1: Develop parking ratios which take into account
existing parking supply, minimums and maximums, land use intensity,
transit and ride-sharing goals.
119
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 20
Policy LU-15.2: Incorporate ground-level retail or service facilities into
any parking structures that are constructed within the Downtown Urban
Center.
Policy LU-15.3: Provide an option for developers to construct the
minimum number of parking spaces on-site or pay an in-lieu fee to cover
the cost of the City's construction and operation of parking at an off-site
location.
Policy LU-15.4: Evaluate and re-evaluate the parking requirements for
all uses with the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers in
accordance with the following factors:
the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to
the site;
the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and
type of employees and the anticipated shifts;
the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual
site parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within
concentrated areas;
the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation
report and other publications which provide parking generation
indices; and
any studies of similar specific uses conducted either by the City or
the applicant.
Policy LU-15.5: Develop bicycle parking standards for remodeled and
new commercial, office, or industrial development.
NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Kent’s natural environment resides in the Green River Valley and adjacent
hillsides and plateaus, which together provide a unique and distinctive
character to the City of Kent. Urban development has altered this
environment, and the City is addressing the impacts. In consort with the GMA,
Kent has established Critical Areas regulations and the Shoreline Master Plan to
guide future development in and near sensitive areas. Kent also participates
with federal, state, and tribal governments, and other major stakeholders in
the Puget Sound region, to identify early actions and develop long-range
strategies to conserve and restore critical natural resources. Preservation of
open space, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas occurs through the
development process using “Sensitive Area Easements”. City stormwater is
120
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 21
monitored for water quality conditions, and problems that are identified are
addressed through capital improvement projects. Preservation and restoration
of native plant materials, particularly near streams and wetlands, are
considered for new development to enhance environmental quality for fish and
wildlife habitat.
Kent is committed to a multi-faceted approach toward the protection and
enhancement of local and regional natural resources. As such, the City will
continue to protect natural resources through the promulgation of development
standards, enhancement of natural resources through a variety of capital
improvement programs, and opportunities to support regional efforts to
preserve our resources for future generations.
Goal LU-16:
Kent will coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions, regional and federal entities
to retain the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's natural
features. The coordination may include approaches and standards for the
conservation and enhancement of terrestrial and aquatic habitat and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources and water quality;
and provision of open space.
Policy LU-16.1: Ensure the City’s regulations designating and
protecting critical areas are consistent with the Growth Management
Act.
Policy LU-16.2: Coordinate with King County to produce critical area
maps of the Potential Annexation Area which are consistent with the City
of Kent Critical Areas Maps.
Policy LU-16.3: When jurisdictional boundaries are involved,
coordinate wetland protection and enhancement plans and actions with
adjacent jurisdictions and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Goal LU-17:
Kent will recognize the significant role the natural environment plays in shaping
a sustainable community by contributing to human health, environmental
justice, and economic vitality.
Policy 17.1: Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas
through City regulations, programmatic plans, and capital improvement
programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as
higher urban density, clustering and planned unit development.
121
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 22
Policy LU-17.2: Conserve energy resources, improve air and water
quality, and support healthy lifestyles by establishing well designed,
compact mixed-use land use patterns that provide convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.
Policy LU-17.3: Develop strategies and utilize funding opportunities to
protect environmentally sensitive areas that contribute to wildlife
habitat, open space and the livability of Kent.
Policy LU-17.4: Identify and mitigate unavoidable negative impacts of
public actions that disproportionately affect people of color and low-
income populations.
Policy LU-17.5: Ensure that the City's environmental policies and
regulations comply with state and federal environmental protection
regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous materials, noise,
and protection of wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat.
Policy LU-17.6: Protect and enhance environmental quality via
maintenance of accurate and up-to-date environmental data, and by City
support of environmental management programs, park master
programs, and environmental education and incentive programs.
Policy LU-17.7: Minimize the loss of vegetation as new development
occurs. Continue to recognize the value of trees and other vegetation in
increasing the livability of Kent.
Policy LU-17.8: Protect established greenbelts to preserve existing
natural vegetation in geologically hazardous areas, along stream banks
and wetlands.
Goal LU-18:
Kent will ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands
adjacent to the shorelines of the Green River support the goals and policies of
the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
Policy LU-18.1: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used
for water supply in accordance with the City of Kent Water Quality
Program recommendations.
122
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 23
Policy LU-18.2: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state.
Rehabilitate degraded channels and banks via public programs and in
conjunction with proposed new development.
Goal LU-19:
Establish Urban Separators to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create
open space corridors that provide visual, recreational and wildlife benefits
within and between urban growth areas.
Policy LU-19.1: Ensure Urban Separators are low-density areas of no
greater than one dwelling unit per acre.
Policy LU-19.2: Link Urban Separators within the City of Kent to those
of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County.
Policy LU-19.3: Provide open space linkages within or to designated
Urban Separators when new development occurs.
Policy LU-19.4: Coordinate with appropriate agencies and adjacent
cities to create a regional approach to Urban Separators.
Policy LU-19.5: Inventory local and county designated Urban
Separators in an effort to manage development regulations.
Policy LU-19.6: Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including
clustering of housing units, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect
and enhance urban separators.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
The City of Kent has established siting criteria for essential public facilities,
which are defined by the State in RCW 36.70A.200(1) to “include those facilities
that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or
regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority
facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste
handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental
health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in
RCW 71.09.020.” Although the City does not have an airport within its
jurisdictional boundaries, residents and businesses in Kent are served by the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport located north of the Midway area on Kent’s
123
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 24
West Hill. The continued viability of the airport is important to economic
development of the region, including Kent, and the travel convenience to Kent
residents. The following goals and policies reaffirm Kent’s commitment to a fair
process for locating suchessential public facilities.
Goal LU-20:
The City shall participate in a cooperative inter-jurisdictional process to
determine siting of essential public facilities of a county-wide, regional, or
state-wide nature.
Policy LU-20.1: Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the
City of Kent or within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for
consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan during the initial stages
of the proposal process.
Policy LU-20.2: When warranted by the special character of the
essential facility, the City shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent
Zoning Code Section 15.04.150, Special use combining district, to
applications for siting such facilities to insure adequate review, including
public participation. Conditions of approval, including design conditions,
conditions, shall be imposed upon such uses in the interest of the
welfare of the City and the protection of the environment.
Policy LU-20.3: In the principally permitted or conditional use sections
of the zoning code, the City shall establish, as appropriate, locations and
development standards for essential public facilities which do not
warrant consideration through the special use combining district
regulations. Such facilities shall include but not be limited to small
inpatient facilities and group homes.
Goal LU-21:
The City shall participate in a cooperative inter-jurisdictional process to resolve
issues of mitigation for any disproportionate financial burden which may fall on
the jurisdiction which becomes the site of a facility of a state-wide, regional or
county-wide nature.
Goal LU-22:
Where appropriate, protect the viability of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
through development regulations consistent with RCW 36.70.547, Washington
State Department of Transportation Aviation Airport and Land Use
Compatibility guidelines, Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 guidance, and
other best management practices.
124
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 25
LAND USE PLAN MAP
The Land Use Plan Map is a vital part of the Land Use Element and the
Comprehensive Plan as a whole, because it establishes the framework for
amendments to the City's official zoning map. It also establishes the land use
and zoning framework to be used as land currently in the Potential Annexation
Area is annexed into the City.
Definition of Map Designations
There are several different land use plan map designations. They relate to
various types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and the
like. These designations are found on the Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU-6) and
are explained below. One needs to bear in mind, however, that there are
certain types of land uses that need relative freedom of location and, thus,
should not be restricted to certain districts. These types of uses may be
allowed via general conditional use permit in many of the listed districts,
whether residential, commercial or industrial. The uses include utility,
transportation, and communication facilities; schools; public facilities; open
space uses such as cemeteries, golf course, and so forth; and retirement
homes, convalescent facilities and certain other welfare facilities.
FIGURE LU-6
LAND USE PLAN MAP
Single-Family Residential (SF)
The Single-family Residential designation allows single-family residential
development at varying densities and housing forms (e.g. cottage and cluster).
In the city limits, there are four single-family designations: SF-3, SF-4.5, SF-6,
and SF-8. These designations allow development of up to 3, 4.5, 6, and 8
dwelling units per acre, respectively, and could accommodate lower densities as
well.
In the unincorporated area, there are two single-family designations: Urban
Residential, Low (UR-1) allows one (1) dwelling unit per acre; and Urban
125
126
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 S T
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
LAND USE PLANFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
Agricultural Resource
Agricultural Support
Parks & Open Space
Urban Separator
Single-Family 3 Units/Acre
Single-Family 4.5 Units/Acre
Single-Family 6 Units/Acre
Single-Family 8 Units/Acre
Low Density Multifamily
Medium Density Multifamily
Mobile Home Park
Commercial
Urban Center
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Services
Industrial
Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Transit Oriented Community
King County Parks & Open Space
King County Industrial
King County Greenbelt/Urban Separator
King County Urban Residential 1 Unit/Acre
King County Urban Residential 4-12 Units/Acre
King County Neighborhood Business Center
King County Other Parks/Wilderness
plan15-1j.mxd
127
128
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 26
Residential, Medium (UR-4-12) allows development at a range of four (4) to
twelve (12) units per acre.
Multifamily Residential (MF)
Multifamily Residential areas allow multifamily and single-family residential
development at varying densities and housing types. In the city limits, there
are two designations: Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) and Medium Density
Multifamily (MDMF). The Low Density Multifamily designation allows densities
of up to 16 dwelling units per acre, while the Medium Density Multifamily
designation allows densities of 17-40 dwelling units per acre. In Kent’s PAA of
Unincorporated King County, a multifamily designation of Urban Residential,
High (UR12+) allows 18-48 dwelling units per acre.
Urban Center (UC)
This designation identifies a portion of the Downtown area as an Urban Center.
This designation allows high-density, mixed-use development. Retail, office,
multifamily residential, and public facility land uses are permitted outright.
Mobile Home Park (MHP)
The Mobile Home Park designation allows mobile and manufactured homes and
recreational vehicles within existing commercial mobile home parks.
Mixed-Use (MU)
The Mixed-Use (MU) designation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential
uses together in the same area. The MU designation is distinguished from the
Urban Center designation in that the Mixed-Use areas do not allow as much
density as the Urban Center area. All residential development within a Mixed-
Use area must be a component of a retail or office development. The MU
designation also allows legacy M2 Limited Industrial zoning west of Central
Avenue North.
Neighborhood Services (NS)
Neighborhood Services allows for small nodal areas of retail and personal
service activities to provide everyday convenient goods to residential areas.
Commercial (C)
Commercial areas allow a variety of retail, office, and service uses located
along major thoroughfares that serve local residential neighborhoods or serve
regional clients and customers and consists of a contiguous strip of commercial
129
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 27
activities. Many areas on the Land Use Map, which were previously designated
for commercial uses, now are designated as Mixed-Use areas.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)
The Manufacturing/Industrial Center is an area reserved for manufacturing,
industrial, and advanced technology uses, or those uses closely related to
industrial development such as warehousing. Office uses related to the
primary land use is permitted, but they are otherwise limited. Retail uses are
also permitted, but limited in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Industrial (I)
The Industrial designation is an area for manufacturing and warehouse uses.
However, office and business park development is allowed in this area, as are
certain types of retail uses which serve the surrounding manufacturing and
office park uses, and bulk retail.
Transit Oriented Community (TOC)
The Transit Oriented Community allows retail, office, and multifamily residential
uses together in the same area or as a stand-alone use. This area allows high-
density uses in support of high-capacity transit investments.
Agricultural Resource (AG-R)
The Agricultural Resource designation is for land reserved for long-term
agricultural use. Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at
very low densities.
Agricultural Support (AG-S)
The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally-related
industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use.
Urban Separator (US)
The Urban Separator designation is reserved for low-density lands that define
community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource
lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space
corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual,
recreational and wildlife benefits.
130
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 28
Park and Open Space (OS)
The Park and Open Space designation represents publicly owned land that is
either large active park area or undeveloped or developed passive recreational
open space land that may have environmental sensitivities.
Related Information
Need Links
Midway Subarea Plan
Downtown Subarea Action Plan
131
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 29
Land Use Element Background Report
Urban Center
Kent's Downtown has been a focus of the City's planning and policy
development for some time. Over the past several decades, residents and
business owners have made recommendations to the Mayor and City Council to
improve the function of Kent’s downtown as a city and regional Urban Center.
The Downtown Plan adopted by the City Council in 1989 established a policy
framework for creating a vibrant downtown community with an abundance of
employment, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The City took
important steps toward implementation of this plan when it adopted zoning
changes in 1992, and in 1995, completed studies of downtown parking
management and infrastructure capacity. The Downtown Kent Strategic Action
Plan, adopted in 1998 and updated in 2005, helped guide development within
the Downtown area. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan adopted in November,
2013 replaced the 1998/2005 Plan, and supports continued urbanization of
Downtown as a memorable, compact, livable community that is economically
vital, environmentally sustainable and supported by a variety of transportation
options.
The Council's policy direction for the Downtown area was reaffirmed in
September 1992, when they elected to propose much of Downtown Kent as an
Urban Center, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The CPPs
envision urban centers as areas of concentrated employment and housing
which are served by high capacity transit. Past Buildable Lands Analyses
showed the market trend in Downtown Kent had been slow to capitalize on the
zoning district’s openness to increased residential development. However,
recent office, retail, and entertainment developments are energizing the
market interest. Other criteria for urban centers also are applicable to the
Downtown area. These include: convenient access to the Sound Transit
commuter rail and other regional transit opportunities; a bicycle and
pedestrian-oriented streetscape; zoning which encourages a mixture of uses at
high densities with an emphasis on superior urban design; historic preservation
and adaptive reuse of historic places; proximity to facilities to meet human
services needs; and a local commitment to fund infrastructure and public
improvements in the area.
Collectively, goals for the Urban Center are placed in the context of the overall
Land Use Element.
132
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 30
Activity Centers
One of the fundamental themes behind many of the state, regional, and local
planning goals is the idea of using urban land more efficiently in order to
reduce sprawl of residential and commercial development into rural areas. In
the past decade, several commercial areas in Kent have seen a large amount of
new development. These areas, which are located on East Hill, West Hill, and
in the Valley adjacent to Downtown, have an existing base of retail and office
uses, and typically are surrounded by medium-density residential areas. The
idea behind the Activity Center concept is to encourage more development in
these areas, because infrastructure to support growth is already in place, and
to allow a mixture of uses (residential and commercial) which brings housing
closer to jobs and shopping, and which supports public transit. Allowing a
mixture of uses in the community also will increase housing options.
Housing
Accommodating the demand for housing may be the greatest land use
challenge confronting the City of Kent. There are many factors which influence
the development of housing in the community. These are explained in detail in
the Housing Element. From a land use standpoint, the central issue is
accommodating the City’s housing target by supporting the diversity of
households found in the community (i.e. household size, age, marital status,
income, special needs) with housing types that are acceptable to the
community, and that efficiently utilize the remaining land within the Kent
Planning Area.
Since 1995, there have been some measurable successes in providing a
housing balance. There is a balance in the number of single-family and
multifamily dwelling units. New housing development has typically maximized
allowable densities. However, there is a need to balance estate housing with
housing that is affordable to young professionals and their families. Housing on
large lots, while desirable, is not affordable for most families in Kent.
The Housing Element provides additional detail on income and housing costs in
Kent.
Commercial
Kent's major centers of commercial activity are located Downtown which is
identified in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and includes the Urban Center;
on East Hill along the 104th Avenue SE corridor; and along Pacific Highway on
West Hill. At this time, opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and
redevelopable properties within the Urban Center and within the larger
133
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 31
Downtown area as defined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan. Commercial
developments located adjacent to major arterials west and north of the City
Center and on East Hill and West Hill are composed of predominantly one-story
buildings with large surface parking lots which are accessed by
separate driveways from the arterials. At key points along these corridors,
opportunities exist to develop pedestrian and transit-oriented Activity Centers.
The Activity Centers would incorporate commercial, office, and residential
development.
Environment
The major hydrologic feature in Kent is the Green River which encompasses a
system of associated creeks and wetlands. Some of the creeks in the Green
River system flow through steep ravines into the valley floor. Other creeks flow
at lower grades, but also contribute habitat. Significant fish and wildlife habitat
areas within this system support local and regional fish and wildlife resources.
Those water bodies or portions of water bodies not regulated by the Shoreline
Master Program are protected through local Critical Areas regulations.
In 2002, the City of Kent began revising Critical Areas regulations as required
by the GMA, using best available science standards tailored specifically for
Kent. These regulations are being updated as part of the Comprehensive Plan
Update process and will guide future development in protecting ecological
functions and values of critical areas from cumulative adverse environmental
impacts. Designated critical areas include critical aquifer recharge areas,
frequently flooded areas, geologic hazard areas, wetlands, streams, wildlife and
fisheries habitat. In addition to protecting and preserving critical areas through
regulations, a number of other programs work cooperatively to form a
systematic approach toward Kent’s natural resource policies. These other
programs include: stormwater regulations, environmental capital improvement
projects, regional and inter-jurisdictional collaborative efforts.
As a complement to Critical Areas regulations, Kent’s Shoreline Master Program
provides for the management and protection of local shoreline resources by
planning for reasonable and appropriate uses. The goals, policies, and
regulations in the Shoreline Master Program apply to activities in all lands and
waters under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58
RCW). The goals and policies of Kent’s Shoreline Master Program are
incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan (see Chapter 10 “Shoreline
Element”).
The Utilities Element contains additional information on water and stormwater
goals and policies.
134
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Page 32
Resource Lands
Historically, the commercial agricultural lands in the Green River Valley have
added to the City's economic support. Today, the majority of protected
agricultural resource lands in the Valley are located south of Kent’s municipal
limits within King County’s Lower Green River Agricultural Production District.
There are a few designated “Agricultural Resource” lands within Kent whose
development rights have been purchased and protected from conversion to a
more intensive land use. Activities within the land use designation “Agricultural
Support” (i.e. AG-S) will help sustain the agricultural community by providing
land dedicated to the processing and retailing of local agricultural production.
135
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 1
Chapter Three - HOUSING ELEMENT
PURPOSE
Healthy and strong neighborhoods with an adequate supply of quality and
affordable housing are fundamental to the well-being of Kent and its
residents. Beyond simply fulfilling a basic need for shelter, adequate and
affordable housing provides many more benefits. Studies show that children
in stable housing do better in school and are less likely to experience
disruption in their education due to moves. Living in decent, affordable
housing also provides individuals and families with a sense of economic
security and the ability to focus on their needs. There needs to be a wide
range of housing types to make housing affordable for every household in
Kent regardless of income.
An adequate supply of a variety of housing types and prices is also important
to Kent’s employment base and its economic vitality. A mix of homes
affordable to a range of income levels can attract and help retain a diverse
employment base in the community, support the local workforce so they can
live close to their jobs, and support economic development objectives.
Shorter commutes allow workers to spend more time with their families while
benefitting from reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, and
expenditures on roads.
What you will find in this chapter:
An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs;
A statement of goals, policies and objectives for the preservation,
improvement and development of housing;
Identification of sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families,
manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes and foster
care facilities.
Adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community
Purpose Statement:
Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income
levels and household needs.
136
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 2
The Housing Element considers the inventory and condition of existing
housing stock and future housing needs It addresses the provision of
housing types to accommodate the lifestyles and economic needs of the
community. The term affordable housing as used in this document refers to
housing that place a cost burden on the resident regardless of household
income. The City’s housing policies and development regulations (zoning,
building codes, etc.) establish how the development and construction of
housing will take place in the community. However, unlike the other services
discussed in this comprehensive plan, the City does not directly provide
housing. The Housing Element sets the conditions under which the private
housing industry will operate, and establishes goals and policies to meet the
community’s housing needs and to achieve the community’s goals.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code provide for a
variety of residential land uses to accommodate the City's targets as adopted
in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Zoning Code includes
provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned Unit Development incentives,
accessory dwelling units city-wide, as well as transit-oriented development
standards for the Midway and Downtown Subareas. Housing-related issues
are also addressed in the City’s 2013-2018 Human Services Master Plan and
the Consolidated Plan, providing a framework for implementing housing,
human services, and community development activities. Additionally, the City
maintains a Subsidized Housing Inventory that is periodically updated. It is a
moment in time count of the various types of subsidized units within the City.
The number and type of dwelling are established by the owners and the data
is subject to change at any given time. At any given time, roughly 25% of
Kent’s rental housing units are subsidized. As of 2014 there were a total of
3,094 subsidized units in the City.
Issues
Demographics, Economics and
Special Needs
A mix of homes affordable to a range of
income levels, ages, lifestyles and special
needs can attract and help retain a
diverse employment base in the
community, support the local workforce
so they can live close to their jobs, and
support economic development
objectives.
137
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 3
Housing Stock
Aging housing stock can be an important
source of affordable housing for low-
income families.
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Age distribution is an important indicator for determining the future demand
for housing types in the City. Traditional assumptions are that the young
adult population (20 to 34 years old) has a propensity for choosing
apartments, low to moderate priced condominiums, and smaller single-family
units. The adult population (35 to 65 years old) is the primary market for
moderate to high-end apartments, condominiums, and larger single-family
homes. This age group traditionally has higher incomes and larger household
sizes. The senior population (65 years and older) generates demand for low
to moderate cost apartments and condominiums, group quarters, and mobile
homes.
Table H.1
Sex and Age
Kent, WA
Estimate
SEX AND AGE
Total population 124,410
Male 62,995
Female 61,415
Under 5 years 7,530
5 to 9 years 9,374
10 to 14 years 7,412
15 to 19 years 8,642
20 to 24 years 8,557
25 to 34 years 22,300
35 to 44 years 15,601
45 to 54 years 18,512
55 to 59 years 7,543
60 to 64 years 6,820
65 to 74 years 7,526
75 to 84 years 2,721
85 years and over 1,872
Median age (years) 34.3
2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
138
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 4
DEMOGRAPHICS
The city’s population growth over the past 25 years has been primarily a
result of annexations but the number of new housing units has also
contributed to population growth. The forecast for 2035 is for a twenty-
fivenine percent increase in the number of households in Kent resulting in an
additional 3820,000 residents from the 2014 State OFM population estimate.
Significant changes include an increase in the number of family households in
the city and the racial composition of the city shifting from a non-Hispanic
white majority to a majority minority community. Over 27% of the
population is foreign born. A large proportion of residents living in Kent are
young, middle class families that seek a variety of housing options that are
affordable and located strategically to access the region. As noted in the
Land Use Element as well as the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, the City has
sufficient capacity to accommodate the growth targets for 2035.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
In 2012, there were a total of 41,481 dwelling units in the city, an increase
of a little over 5,000 units due primarily to the Panther Lake annexation.
Kent’s housing stock is comprised of approximately 50% single family and
50% multi-family housing. It should be noted that over 40% of the housing
stock is more than 30 years old and may be in need of repair or
rehabilitation.
The Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan both
encourage transit-oriented development. The Downtown Planned Action
Ordinance proposes new SEPA threshold levels below which no SEPA review
is required. Kent has also adopted increased SEPA thresholds for the rest of
the City, providing categorical exemptions to the maximum allowed by the
State.
According to the King County Countywide Planning Policies Goal CPP-H-1,
there is a countywide need for housing supply as follows: 16% for those
earning 50‐80% of AMI (moderate), 12% for those earning 30‐50% of AMI
(low), and 12% for those earning 30% and below AMI (very‐low). Kent will
focus on preserving and enhancing existing housing to maintain the
affordability while encouraging development of housing for residents at
120%+ of median income. Additionally the city will continue to collaborate
with other partners to construct housing affordable to those making less than
30% AMI. Currently approximately 50% of households are paying less than
30% of their income for housing resulting in the more affordable housing
being occupied by households that could afford to pay a greater percentage
139
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 5
of their income toward housing costs. This forces households with lower
incomes into overcrowding, overpayment or substandard housing. These
housing problems are defined and shown below.
Table H.2
Housing Costs
Income Monthly Housing
Cost
Units
Needed
Units
Available
>30%
AMI
= or > $750.00 5133 4658
>50%
AMI
= or > $1250.00 4665 14270
>80%
AMI
= or > $1810.00 6230 7620
100%
AMI
= or > $2500.00 3339 8709
<120%
AMI
= or > $3000.00 19900 5550
Data
Source: 2005-2009 CHAS
Table H.3
Housing Needs Summary Tables
1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen facilities 60 35 55 45 195 0 0 30 0 30
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per
room (and
complete
kitchen and
plumbing) 145 34 15 4 198 0 15 4 0 19
Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per 365 340 275 49 1,029 0 45 75 35 155
140
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 6
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
room (and none
of the above
problems)
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems) 2,555 260 40 0 2,855 579 595 535 170 1,879
Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems) 560 1,899 944 40 3,443 110 265 815 699 1,889
Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above
problems) 140 0 0 0 140 20 0 0 0 20
Data
Source: 2005-2009 CHAS
2. Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks
kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Having 1 or
more of four
housing
problems 3,130 670 390 104 4,294 579 655 645 205 2,084
Having none of
four housing
problems 1,075 2,700 3,330 1,349 8,454 195 635 1,865 1,679 4,374
Household has
negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems 140 0 0 0 140 20 0 0 0 20
141
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 7
Data
Source: 2005-2009 CHAS
3. Cost Burden > 30%
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
Small Related 1,150 1,254 553 2,957 160 345 560 1,065
Large Related 510 155 80 745 75 200 265 540
Elderly 620 325 40 985 253 250 270 773
Other 1,280 695 335 2,310 190 125 330 645
Total need by
income
3,560 2,429 1,008 6,997 678 920 1,425 3,023
Data
Source: 2005-2009 CHAS
Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than
habitable rooms in a home. Overcrowding falls into two groups: moderate
(1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more then 1.5 persons per room).
Overpayment refers to a household that pays more than 30% of household
income towards housing. According to federal definitions, overpayment falls
into two categories: moderate (pays 30-50%) and severe (pays more than
50% of income) toward housing.
Substandard Housing refers to a home with significant need to replace or
repair utilities (Plumbing, electrical, heating, etc.) or make major structural
repairs to roofing, walls, foundations, and other major components.
Table H.4
Total Households Table
0-
30%
HAMFI
>30-
50%
HAMFI
>50-
80%
HAMFI
>80-
100%
HAMFI
>100% HAMFI
Total Households * 5,134 4,665 6,230 3,339
Small Family Households * 1,510 2,054 2,485 8,315
Large Family Households * 760 470 760 1,259
Household contains at least
one person 62-74 years of
age 739 645 715 435 1,650
Household contains at least
one person age 75 or older 519 535 410 184 590
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or
younger * 1,299 1,229 1,575 2,459
142
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 8
* the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI
Data
Source:
2005-2009 CHAS
HOMELESSNESS
The City has recognized for many years the impact of homelessness on the
community and its residents. Homelessness impacts individuals, families,
children and youth. The reasons for and causes of homeless are numerous.
Nationally there has been an emphasis on addressing chronic homelessness
particularly for single adults. 2012 saw a call from national leaders to focus
on the plight of homeless veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. The recent recession has created an increasing number of
homeless in Kent as well as in the balance of the county. Unemployment
coupled with the high cost of rent, utilities and food in the region made it
difficult for some families to maintain their housing. The difficulty in
determining accurate numbers rests in the fact that many families share
housing, double up with grandparents, or couch surf with family and friends.
An increased focus on homeless prevention, including activities such as
partnerships with landlords, eviction prevention education, and funding for
emergency rental assistance can help prevent homelessness. While short-
term emergency and transitional housing will continue to be a necessary
service for people in need in our community, prevention of homelessness is
less traumatic for people in crisis and less costly for funders.
The recession also caused a decrease in funding levels. The decreased
funding coupled with the increased need resulted in a more visual presence
of the homeless particularly in urban centers. Kent, like its neighbors, saw
more street homeless in the downtown area. Addressing the needs of the
chronically homeless who struggle with mental health or addiction issues is
difficult. Best practices, such as Housing First, are expensive programs.
These types of programs offer the best results with positive long term
outcomes.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Assessing income groups is a major component of evaluating housing
affordability.
143
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 9
According to the American Communities Survey 2010-2012, the median
household income in Kent was $55,244 per year. The Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) is established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
• Very Low-Income: 50 percent or less of the area MFI;
• Low-Income: between 51 and 80 percent of the area MFI;
• Moderate-Income: between 81 and 120 percent of the area MFI;
• Upper-Income: greater than 120 percent of the area MFI.
The income distribution of the City of Kent based on 2010-2012 ACS Survey
3-Year Estimates is presented in Table H.5. In 2010, it is estimated that:
13 % of the households earned less than 30% of AMI annually;
12 % earned less than 50% of AMI annually;
19 % earned less than 80% of AMI annually;
8 % earned less than 100% of AMI
12 % earned less than 120% of AMI
35% percent of households eared over 120% of AMI
Table H.5
Household Income
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)
With earnings 34,809 83.2%
Mean earnings (dollars) 68,397 (X)
With Social Security 8,814 21.1%
Mean Social Security income
(dollars)
17,378 (X)
With retirement income 5,891 14.1%
Mean retirement income (dollars) 19,937 (X)
With Supplemental Security
Income
2,409 5.8%
144
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 10
Mean Supplemental Security
Income (dollars)
9,250 (X)
With cash public assistance income 2,442 5.8%
Mean cash public assistance
income (dollars)
4,262 (X)
With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in
the past 12 months
8,571 20.5%
Families 27,902 27,902
Less than $10,000 1,678 6.0%
$10,000 to $14,999 882 3.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 2,712 9.7%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,047 7.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 3,640 13.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 5,295 19.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 4,323 15.5%
$100,000 to $149,999 4,903 17.6%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,684 6.0%
$200,000 or more 738 2.6%
Median family income (dollars) 63,523 (X)
Mean family income (dollars) 73,640 (X)
Per capita income (dollars) 24,206 (X)
Nonfamily households 13,952 13,952
Median nonfamily income (dollars) 39,174 (X)
Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 51,256 (X)
Median earnings for workers
(dollars)
30,858 (X)
Median earnings for male full-time,
year-round workers (dollars)
50,006 (X)
Median earnings for female full-
time, year-round workers (dollars)
39,117 (X)
ACS 2010-2012
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal H-1:
Preserve and Improve Existing Housing
Policy H-1.1: Monitor and enforce building and property maintenance
code standards in residential neighborhoods.
Policy H-1.2: Promote the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of
residential structures which have fallen into disrepair.
.
145
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 11
Policy H-1.3: Promote increased awareness among property owners
and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long-term
housing values and neighborhood quality.
Policy H-1.4: Provide a high quality of services to maintain the
appearance of neighborhoods and quality of life of residents.
Policy H-1.5: Pursue comprehensive neighborhood preservation
strategies for portions of the community that need reinvestment.
Policy H 1.6: Promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy
efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state
and federal level to expand these programs.
Program 1 - Code Enforcement
The enforcement of existing property maintenance codes is a primary means
to preserve housing and the quality of neighborhoods. The Code Enforcement
Program is responsible for enforcing City ordinances affecting property
maintenance, building conditions, and other housing and neighborhood
issues. The Code Enforcement Program handles approximately 65 complaints
a month for these types of violations.
Program Objective: Continue to conduct inspections on a complaint basis
through the City’s Code Enforcement Program and increase outreach to
homeowners and renters to work towards greater understanding of the
importance of code compliance.
Program 2 – The Home Repair Program
The Home Repair Program will offer homeowners the opportunity to apply for
small grants to complete improvement projects on their properties. The
Program provides assistance for very low income households, offering grants
up to $10,000 to allow residents to address code enforcement violations,
health and safety concerns and energy efficiency. The Grant Program also
provides funding to residents to complete exterior and interior home repairs
as well as perform architectural modifications to achieve ADA compliance or
reasonable accommodation for residents with disabilities.
Program Objective: Address property, structural, and energy/water
conservation improvements for low income homeowners in the City. The City
anticipates that 80 projects will be assisted annually based on funding
availability.
146
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 12
Program 3 – Monitor and Preserve Affordable Housing
The City will continue to keep an inventory of affordable housing units and
promote, through the Housing and Human Services Division, the use of
additional affordable housing assistance programs, as appropriate, to
preserve existing affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-
rate. The City will facilitate discussions between developers and local banks
to meet their obligations pursuant to the Community Reinvestment Act
(CCRA) providing favorable financing to developers involved in projects
designed to provide lower and moderate-income housing opportunities.
Additionally the City will advocate for developers interested in rehabilitating
affordable housing units with the Housing Finance Commission and King
County Housing Finance program.
Program Objective: Housing and Human Services staff will maintain a list
of affordable units throughout the City. The Housing and Human Services
Division will continue to pursue partnership opportunities with non-profits to
preserve and expand affordable housing in the City.
Program 4 – Energy Efficient Design
The City will review ordinances and recommend changes where necessary to
encourage energy efficient housing design and practices that are consistent
with State regulations. The City provides information on their website and
will continue to periodically update their literature regarding energy
conservation, including solar power, energy efficient insulation, and subsidies
available from utility companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords
to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects.
When possible the City will encourage energy conservation devices including,
but not limited to lighting, water heater treatments, and solar energy
systems for all new and existing residential projects. The City will encourage
maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local government programs,
including the King County Home Weatherization Program and the City of Kent
Energy Efficiency Program that are intended to help homeowners implement
energy conservation measures. As part of the Home Repair Program, outlined
above, residents can apply for loans to increase the energy efficiency of their
home.
Program Objective: Maintain and distribute literature on energy
conservation, including solar power, additional insulation, and subsidies
available from utility companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords
to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects.
Encourage energy conservation devices, including but not limited to lighting,
water heater treatments, and solar energy systems for all residential
147
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 13
projects. Encourage maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local
government programs, such as the King County Weatherization Program,
that assist homeowners in providing energy conservation measures. Continue
to provide information on grant programs available through the City and
encourage residents to use the programs to implement energy efficient
design.
Goal H-2:
Encourage a variety of housing types
Policy H-2.1: Provide adequate sites and zoning to encourage and
facilitate a range of housing to address the regional fair share
allocation.
Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to
provide adequate residential sites.
Policy H-2.3: Facilitate and encourage the development of affordable
housing for seniors, large families, and other identified special housing
needs.
Policy H-2.4: Assist private and nonprofit developers in providing
affordable housing to low-income residents and special needs groups.
Program 5 – Housing Opportunity Sites
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code provide for a
variety of residential land uses to accommodate the City's targets as adopted
in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Zoning Code includes
provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned Unit Development incentives,
accessory dwelling units city-wide, as well as transit-oriented development
standards for the Midway and Downtown Subareas. To encourage and
facilitate the development of a variety of housing types, the City will provide
information on housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element
and any additional areas of the City to interested developers.
Program Objective: Staff will continue to facilitate the redevelopment of
underutilized sites through various outreach methods to the development
community. Provide information to interested developers and on the City’s
website about potential residential opportunity sites.
Goal H-3:
Provide Housing Assistance Where Needed
148
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 14
Policy H-3.1: Use public financial resources, as feasible, to support
the provision of housing for lower income households, seniors, and
special needs groups.
Policy H-3.2: Provide rental assistance to address existing housing
problems and provide homeownership assistance to expand housing
opportunities.
Policy H-3.3: Support the preservation of multi-family units,
government subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable
housing.
Policy H-3.4: Further public-private partnerships to develop,
rehabilitate and maintain affordable housing.
Policy H 3.5: Consider investments in capital infrastructure projects
that reduce private costs for the construction of affordable housing by
nonprofit housing providers targeted to those making less than 30%
AMI.
Program 6 - Section 8 Rental Assistance
The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very low income
households who overpay for housing. Prospective renters secure housing
from HUD registered apartments that accept the certificates. HUD then pays
the landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford (30 percent
of their income) and the payment standard negotiated for the community.
The City’s Housing and Human Services Division keeps records on the
number of households in Kent that participate in the Section 8 program
either through project based housing or the housing vouchers. On average,
there are approximately 1300 vouchers used in Kent and 757 project based
units. The Housing and Human Services Division regularly refers and
provides general qualification and program information to interested
individuals. While the City is not directly responsible for the administration of
this program, staff can direct residents to the King County Housing Authority
website and provide information on the program on the City website.
Program Objective: Continue to provide assistance to households through
continued participation in the Section 8 program and encourage rental
property owners to register their units with the Housing Authority. The
Housing and Human Services Division will continue to monitor the number of
residents accessing the program and units available for rent.
149
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 15
Goal H-4:
Remove Governmental Constraints
Policy H-4.1: Review development fees annually to ensure that fees
and exactions do not unduly constrain the production and maintenance
of housing.
Policy H-4.2: Provide for streamlined, timely, and coordinated
processing of residential projects to minimize holding costs and
encourage housing production.
Policy H-4.3: Utilize density bonuses, fee reductions, or other
regulatory incentives to minimize the effect of governmental
constraints on housing affordability, particularly in neighborhoods with
proximity to transit, employment, or educational opportunities.
Policy H-4.4: Utilize the Housing Authority as a tool to provide sites
and assist in the development of affordable housing.
Policy H-4.5: Explore collaborations with other South King County
jurisdictions to assess housing needs, coordinate funding, increase
capacity, and find cost efficiencies.
Program 7 – Remove Development Constraints
City Staff will periodically review the development standards for residential
zones to identify standards that may constrain the development of housing
opportunities for all income levels and housing for special groups, such as
disabled individuals. The City of Kent is committed to working with
developers to build diverse housing, which may require modifications to
constraining standards. Staff will continue to, on a case by case basis,
identify ways that standards can be relaxed if it is determined that such
requirements are in any way impeding the development of affordable housing
or housing for disabled residents. The City will also continue to provide
development standard modifications, streamlined processing for applications
related to the creation of housing opportunities for all income levels, and will
offer fee modifications for projects proposing affordable units that are
required to apply for variations to the existing development standards
Program Objective: On an annual basis, the City will review development
standards, to ensure that the development of lower income housing can
occur.
150
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 16
Program 8 - Planned Unit Developments
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process provides developers with the
opportunity to plan creative projects that are not constrained by the literal
application of zoning codes. The PUD application process allows for flexibility
in site development standards and encourages innovative and imaginative
land use concepts. The standards of the base zone apply in Planned Unit
Developments; however, density, setbacks, and open space requirements
are calculated on a project wide basis.
Program Objective: Continue to encourage Planned Unit Developments as
a means to provide affordable housing through creative land use techniques.
Inform developers of the density incentives under the program.
Program 9 - Streamline Processing
The City continues to monitor permit processing times to ensure the fastest
possible turnaround for applications. The City modified the application packet
to simplify and streamline the application process. The City has also been
computerizing property data to provide more reliable information to the
public in a more cost-effective manner using KIVA permit software. This
includes zoning, general plan, land use, property owner information, prior
planning cases, county assessor maps, and digital aerial photographs for
each parcel. The City's comprehensive plan land use map and zoning districts
map have also been digitized using enhanced geographic information system
technology.
Program Objective: Continue to monitor permit processing times and
investigate ways to streamline the process. Continue to digitize information
including building permits and the Zoning Code.
Program 10 – Prioritize Housing Program Activities
The City prioritizes housing program activities to address identified housing
needs. Specifically, priority has been given to use of rehabilitation grant
monies to maintain Kent’s stable yet aging housing stock. The City uses
CDBG to assist in improvements to the City’s existing housing stock. The City
recognizes that housing priorities shift over time as housing needs change.
The characteristics of the City’s current housing need have been identified
through the housing needs assessment, specifically the analysis of the special
needs groups. Based on the needs analysis in the Housing Element, there is
151
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 17
a need to provide affordable rental units for large families and housing for
those at or above 120% of the median income. The City will also prioritize its
program activities to meet the needs of other special needs groups, including
extremely-low income households, and people with disabilities including
developmental disabilities.
Program Objective: Identify housing needs and prioritize housing program
activities to meet those needs through annual updates to the City’s
Consolidated Plan.
Program 11 - Planning and Development Fees
The City conducts annual internal reviews of planning and development fees
to ensure that the fees are not excessive and are appropriate to cover the
cost of services provided. Kent also streamlines the permitting process for
residential projects, to minimize the holding and labor costs assumed by the
project applicant.
Program Objective: Continue to conduct annual reviews of planning and
development fees.
Goal H-5:
Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
Policy H-5.1: Encourage the use of barrier-free architecture in new
housing developments.
Program 12 - Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities
Pursuant to the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.030, the
City of Kent is obligated to remove potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing
for all income levels and for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act,
as amended in 1988, requires that cities and counties provide reasonable
accommodation to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such
accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal
housing opportunities. Reasonable accommodation provides a basis for
residents with disabilities to request flexibility in the application of land use
and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver from the local
government of certain restrictions or requirements to ensure equal access to
housing opportunities. Cities and counties are required to consider requests
for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and
provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based
on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes.
152
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 18
The City of Kent encourages and promotes accessible housing for persons
with disabilities. This includes the retrofitting of existing dwelling units and
enforcement of the State accessibility standards for new residential
construction. The City is committed to assisting residents in need of
reasonable accommodation and offers financial assistance though the Home
Repair Program, and will continue to direct eligible residents to apply for ADA
services.
Applicants can apply for grants to complete improvement projects that
remove constraints to their living facilities. In general, City Staff takes into
account the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the
review and approval of housing projects and grants modifications and
deviations from the Municipal Code to accommodate the needs of persons
with disabilities.
Program Objective: Administer the Home Repair Program to assist disabled
households with architectural modifications to their homes and continue to
implement the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Related Information
http://kentwa.gov/WorkArea/DownloadA
sset.aspx?id=40802189377
2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for
Community Development
153
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 1
Chapter Four - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Purpose
The Transportation Element (TE) establishes Kent’s transportation goals and
policies for the 20-year planning horizon to 2035. It provides direction for
transportation decisions regarding plan updates, including:
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement PlanProgram (TIP);
The Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP);
The biennial budget; and
The Design and Construction Standards.
The TE is key to achieving Kent’s overall goal of providing a balanced,
multimodal transportation system that supports current and projected land
use and provides an adequate level of transportation service. It also provides
guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning
decisions, and continuing transportation and maintenance programs.
The TE establishes a basis for decision-making that is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (GMA), King County’s Countywide Planning Policies
(CPP), and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) Transportation 2040.
The requirements of each of these plans are fulfilled by the City of Kent
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the TE Technical Report.
The TMP is the City’s blueprint for long-range transportation planning in
Kent. It functions as the overarching guide for the continued development of
What you will find in this chapter:
A description of the existing transportation network in Kent;
A discussion of how transportation planning, economic development and
land use are entwined;
A discussion of how demands made of the transportation network is
managed; and
Goals and policies for providing adequate transportation levels of service.
Purpose Statement:
Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system for all
users which will support current and projected growth using context-sensitive
design.
154
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 2
the City’s transportation system. The plan identifies key assets and
improvement needs. The TE Technical Report includes a detailed update to
the TMP of current land use assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and
project list to inform the Comprehensive Plan. The TMP1, Midway Subarea
Plan, Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) Update, Commute Trip
Reduction Plan, the annually-updated six-year TIP, six-year CIP, and the
budget are all adopted by reference in the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
The TE is multi-modal; it addresses all forms of transportation in Kent. This
includes. the street network, truck and rail traffic, non-motorized travel, and
transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly has enabled the City to address future
network needs in a comprehensive and balanced manner.
The TE also supports community livability and economic vitality by
addressing connections for people and places, and streetscape design that
complements surrounding land uses. Furthermore, transportation facilities
are an essential part of the City’s public realm and as such need to balance a
variety of goals and objectives. The goals and policies in this element
generally pertain to moving people and goods.
Issues
Physical and Geographic Features
Steep hills, a river valley, two national rail
lines, and multiple regional highways are
crucial, if not determinative, features of our
landscape that profoundly influence our
transportation system.
Coordination of Transportation Systems
The City is heavily reliant upon regional
transportation providers including the State,
Ports, Sound Transit and King County Metro.
This integration with regional systems
means levels of service for the City’s
transportation system are affected by levels
of service in adjacent jurisdictions.
1 Contents of the City of Kent Non-motorized Transportation Study and Transit Master Plan are
summarized in the TMP.
155
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 3
Encouraging Multi-Modality
Land use policies encourage development
patterns of mixed use activity centers and
high residential densities downtown. This
supports a shift in travel modes from single
occupant vehicles to transit and non-
motorized travel.
Quality-of-Life
Quality-of-life for residents in Kent is
significantly impacted by how well the
transportation system functions for cyclists,
pedestrians, transit users, motorists, truck
and rail traffic. Businesses, like residents,
also make locational choices in response to
the nature of public environments, such as
roads and streetscapes.
System Rehabilitation, Replacement and
Retrofit
To provide adequate safety and efficiency of
the transportation system, ongoing
maintenance is required in addition to
expanding infrastructure.
Balance of Scarce Resources
There is limited funding at the local, state
and federal level to satisfy competing
priorities. Public streets serve many
functions in our communities, and levels of
service and maintenance of roads must be
balanced in full consideration of the City’s
many interests.
Transportation and Land Use
The Transportation Element (TE) supports the City’s Land Use Element. It
demonstrates how the City will improve upon the existing transportation
network, as well as address deficiencies, maintenance and accommodate
projected growth over the next 20 years. The City’s land use forecasts for
the year 2035 are based on regional forecasts from the Office of Financial
156
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 4
Management (OFM) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). By 2035,
the City of Kent is projected to have 81,900 jobs and 53,500 households. To
plan for the transportation needs associated with this growth, the new
households and jobs are assigned to more than 300 traffic analysis zones
based on the availability of vacant and re-developable land. The City’s travel
demand model uses that growth distribution to forecast traffic volumes
throughout the city. Details of this analysis can be found in the TE Technical
Report.
Transportation and Land Use Goals and Policies
Goal T-1:
Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet forecasted demand
and policies of the City consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial,
multifamily, and other uses that generate high
levels of traffic in designated activity centers
around intersections of principal or minor
arterials, or around freeway interchanges.
Policy T-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and
residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to assure that
transportation facility capacity is sufficient to
accommodate the new development, or a financial
commitment is in place to meet the adopted
standard within six years.
Policy T-1.3: Balance travel efficiency, safety
and quality of life in residential areas though
context-sensitive design.
Policy T-1.4: Adopt and maintain policies, codes,
and land use patterns that promote walking,
biking, public transportation and social interaction
to increase public health and sense of place.
Policy T-1.5: Incorporate street trees in
transportation facility planning to enhance
Concurrency
Transportation and other
capital facilities must be in
place by the time they are
needed to accommodate
growth.
The Economic
Development Plan for the
City of Kent was adopted
in August 2014 by the
City Council. There is
department-wide
responsibility for
implementation of the
Plan.
The Plan’s strategy for
“placemaking & gateways”
is a strong collaborative
area for Parks, Economic
and Community
Development, and Public
Works.
For more, refer to the
Economic Development
Element.
157
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 5
neighborhood aesthetics, improve air quality and
provide traffic calming.
Policy T-1.6: Beautify Kent streetscapes to reflect quality and
integrated design supportive of businesses and a livable, vibrant
community.
Policy T-1.7: Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP Railroad, Washington
Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure
maximum transportation utility on both roads and rails.
Policy T-1.8: Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and
improvements with the State, the County, neighboring jurisdictions,
and all transportation planning agencies to ensure the City’s interests
are well represented in regional planning strategies, policies and
projects.
Policy T-1.9: Coordinate with the County and neighboring
jurisdictions to implement concurrency strategies and provide for
mitigation of shared traffic impacts through street improvements,
signal improvements, intelligent transportation systems
improvements, transit system improvements, or transportation
demand management strategies.
Policy T-1.10: Consider incorporating multiple modes into the city’s
concurrency program during the next update of the Transportation
Master Plan.
Policy T-1.11: Establish minimum and maximum parking ratio
requirements consistent with the transportation and land use
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Allow for a reduction in Parking
of up to twenty (20) percent of the minimum standard of off- street
parking stalls for businesses which have an approved CTR program
filed with the City.
Policy T-1.12: Plan for land use patterns and transportation systems
that minimize air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, ensure that transportation-related improvement projects
comply with state and federal guidelines for air and water quality.
158
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 6
Street System
The City of Kent is served by an extensive street network that provides the
primary means of transportation for all modes of travel within the City –
personal vehicle, freight, public transit, walking, and biking. Streets are also
part of the public realm used for parking, festivals, marches and other
events. To develop a citywide plan and policies that will guide the
maintenance and improvement of this vital infrastructure system, Kent
analyzed existing street conditions. The findings from this analysis may be
found in the 2008 TMP and the TE Technical Report. Key components of the
analysis include:
Examining the infrastructure of the street network and determining the
role of each street in that network; the inter-relationship with adjacent
State highways and regional arterials; and local land use context,
Evaluating how well the existing street network operates,
Evaluating the forecasted traffic conditions for the future street
network, and
Identifying the preferred future street network and the improvement
projects for that network.
The street network operates as a system and handles a wide variety of modal
users including those with special transportation needs (e.g., persons with
disabilities, the elderly, youth and low-income populations). It is important to
define the role(s) that any particular road should play in serving the flow of
traffic through the network and accommodating other modes as needed.
Street functional classifications are established in the 2008 TMP to balance
and recognize differing needs of vehicles, businesses, residents, and non-
motorized travelers. Functional classification also defines the character of
service that a road is intended to provide. Specific standards for streets and
roadways are detailed in Kent’s Construction Standards – Section 6.
Standards for Streets and Roadways.
The Transportation Element Technical Report illustrates the City’s recommended
project list through 2035 which includes four types of improvements:
intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade
separations. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million.
159
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 7
Figure T-1
Preferred Street Network
Right-Size Parking Policy Pilot Project
In August, 2013 the city of Kent was approved for a pilot project under the
King County Metro Right Size Parking (RSP) Project. The RSP is a three-year
grant project funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing
Pilot Program. The overarching goal of the RSP project is to foster livable
communities by optimizing the allocation of parking resources. More
specifically, the purpose is to impart data and strategies to help developers,
jurisdictions and neighborhoods accurately project the optimum amount of
parking for new multifamily developments. The amount of parking is
optimized (“right-sized”) when it strikes a balance between supply and
demand.
Kent’s pilot project had several deliverables consistent with implementation
of Downtown Subarea Action Plan objectives:
Inventory of on- and off-street parking supply and utilization in
downtown
Recommendations for Parking Management
Recommendations for Parking Code Alternatives
Kent began implementing some of the recommendations in 2014, including
shared parking, consistent parking signage and striping, and new parking
hours. These strategies and other future implementation measures should
help improve traffic management within the downtown area.
Street Goals and Policies
Goal T-2:
Provide a balanced transportation system that
recognizes the need for major road
improvements to accommodate multiple travel
modes. Create a comprehensive street system
that provides reasonable and safe circulation for
all users throughout the City.
Policy T-2.1: Assign a functional
classification to each street in the City
based on factors including travel demand
Context-Sensitive
Design
Context-Sensitive Design
is a model for
transportation project
development. Proposed
transportation projects
must be planned not only
for their physical aspects
as a facility serving
specific transportation
objectives, but also for
their effects on the
aesthetic, social,
economic and
environmental values,
needs, constraints and
opportunities in a larger
community setting.
(WSDOT)
160
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
AVESS 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
I-3I-2
I-1
I-7I-6I-5
I-9
R-1
R-2
R-5
R-3
R-6
I-20
I-19
I-18
I-14
I-11
I-23
I-15
I-22
I-16 I-17 W-5W-6W-3N-1
N-3
W-17W-2
W-10W-9W-19W-13
W-15
W-12 W-1W-18 N-2N-5N-3
W-11
Intersection Improvement
Railroad Grade Separation
New Street
Street Widening
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
PREFERREDSTREET NETWORKFigure 5
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SESE 304 ST SCALE: 1" = 40,000'
161
162
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 8
of motorized and non-motorized traffic,
access to adjacent land use and
connectivity of the transportation network.
Policy T-2.2: Coordinate implementation of street construction
standards for each functional classification with policies in the
Transportation Element to provide attractive, safe facilities that
complement the adjacent land use and support emergency response
and operation.
Policy T2.3: Prepare for, respond to, mitigate and recover from
disasters as provided for in the City of Kent Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan.
Level of Service (LOS)
There are a variety of ways to determine transportation level of service and
the City may decide to adopt a different measurement with the next update
of the Transportation Master Plan. Currently, the City’s, roadway level of
service (LOS) is a measure of the traffic operational performance of a
transportation facility. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C
and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are
approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where
demand exceeds capacity. The City of Kent analyzes intersections along 16
corridors and within a separate zone covering downtown—this analysis
includes a total of 71 intersections. The City of Kent calculates the LOS
operation for key corridor intersections (in seconds of delay) during the PM
peak period and then calculates an average based on a weighting of the
corridor intersection volumes. This method provides a corridor-wide result,
allowing some intersections to operate at a congested LOS as long as the
overall corridor operation is maintained. The City’s adopted LOS standard
requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM
peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway S corridor and the
Downtown zone, which are allowed to operate at LOS F.
The City works closely with multiple stakeholders to ensure that State and
regional projects that benefit Kent continue to be a priority. Because State
and regional transportation facilities are not within the City’s control,
construction of projects to mitigate impacts of development cannot be
guaranteed. Furthermore, further widening of SR 99, a Highway of
Statewide Significance, is unlikely. The operation of SR 99 is highly
dependent upon travel conditions along I-5, the effects of the SR 509
163
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 9
project, and the Link Light Rail project. The City will do more detailed
analysis of Pacific Highway South during the next major update of the
Transportation Master Plan.
The existing LOS analysis was recently updated using 2014 traffic volumes.
The evaluation found that all corridors meet Kent’s LOS standard. An
evaluation of projected 2035 traffic volumes was also conducted. Traffic
operations are expected to be very similar to the forecasts developed for the
year 2031 during the 2008 TMP process. Details may be found in the TE
Technical Report.
Using the LOS analysis, the 2008 TMP street project list was reviewed and
revised for this TE update. Since the TMP was adopted in 2008, ten projects
have been completed in full and two have been partially completed. Other
projects are identified for potential revisions during the next full TMP update.
The revised project list includes 17 intersection improvements, 4 new street
connections, 14 street widenings, and 5 railroad grade separations. In total,
these 40 projects are estimated to cost $509 million (in 2007 dollars). Of
that total, roughly $413 million are expected to be the City’s responsibility. A
complete discussion is included in the TE Technical Report.
LOS Goals and Policies
Goal T-3:
Develop strategies to improve smooth
traffic flows in areas experiencing
extreme congestion by employing
strategies that better accommodate
various modes of travel including
automobiles, freight, transit, trains,
pedestrian and bicycle modes.
Street LOS
Policy T-3.1: Develop a system of level-of-service standards which
promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining
the existing transportation system.
Policy T-3.2: Establish a network of heavy commercial freight routes
to ensure the mobility of goods and services, as well as of people, and
to improve the reliability of freight mobility.
How are projects selected?
Level of service (LOS) is just one measure
that is evaluated for projects included in
the TE, Technical Report, and TMP. The
TMP is the foundation for the TE and
included extensive stakeholder outreach
and input. Safety, preservation, freight
movement, transit mobility, pedestrian
and bicycle mobility, accessibility,
environmental preservation, neighborhood
protection, cost effectiveness, funding
availability, and project readiness were
considered at the time the TMP project list
was developed.
164
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 10
Policy T-3.3: Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial
roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local
neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes.
Policy T-3.4: For Highways of Statewide Significance, monitor
performance, evaluate improvement strategies and facilitate
coordination between the state, neighboring jurisdictions and the city
when establishing LOS standards. Furthermore, ensure that land use
policies and regulations are consistent with the controlled-access
requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT).
Pedestrian LOS
Policy T-3.54: Establish ‘pedestrian priority areas’ based on the
‘highest’ and ‘high’ Pedestrian Priority Index (PPI) scores as defined in
the Kent Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (Figure 6-6).
Policy T-3.65: Within the designated pedestrian priority areas:
provide sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on both sides of
streets as designated in the plan.
Policy T-3.76: Along designated ‘medium’ priority pedestrian streets
(Figure 6-7): provide sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on at
least one side of streets as designated in the plan.
Bicycle LOS
Policy T-3.87: Provide bicycle facilities consistent with the bicycle
routes called for in the TMP (Figure 6-11). Bicycle facilities include
roadway restriping to create bicycle lanes and designation of shared
bicycle routes.
Policy T-3.98: Provide adequate bicycle crossing of arterial or
collector streets.
Transit LOS
Policy T-3.109: Along designated Regional and Local Primary Transit
Network (PTN) routes identified in the TMP (Figures 7-5 and 7-6) work
with King County Metro and Sound Transit to:
a. Increase or maintain high peak and all-day service
frequencies (specified by route in Table 7-5)
165
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 11
b. Provide high level of transit stop amenities, including
pads, bus shelters, pedestrian access, and transit speed
and reliability.
Non-Motorized Transportation
The City of Kent is committed to providing the benefits of walking and cycling
to all residents by supporting pedestrian and bicycle travel as a safe,
efficient, desirable, and accessible mode throughout the City’s
neighborhoods. In 2007, the City prepared the Non-Motorized Transportation
Study (NMTS) to identify critical gaps in the City’s pedestrian and bicycle
transportation system. The contents of the NMTS were then integrated into
the Non-Motorized System Chapter of the TMP.
The Non-Motorized System Chapter of the TMP evaluates how well the
existing pedestrian and bicycle systems operate, identifies pedestrian and
bicycle needs and a future non-motorized network, and provides a prioritized
list of projects to achieve the future network. The projects consist of:
(1) missing sidewalk segments, curb ramps, and infrastructure repairs,
prioritized by need and funding feasibility;
(2) bike network improvements assumed to occur with roadway
improvements described in the Street System Chapter;
(3) new bike lanes, shared-lane routes, and shared-use paths that would
expand the existing system of non-motorized neighborhood connections;
(4) future studies to determine how to connect various corridors that are
important for bike network completion but physically constrained; and
(5) traffic control recommendations to facilitate biking in Downtown Kent.
Additional non-motorized projects and strategies were identified in the
Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) update
and will be incorporated into the next TMP update.
Figure T-2
Bicycle System Map
166
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
®®®®®®®®®
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
®®®
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
n
nnn n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
n n
n
nn
n
nn nn n
n
n n
n
n n
n
n
n
nnn n
n
n
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Æa
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
BICYCLE SYSTEMMAPFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
Existing System
BIKE LANES
!!!!!!SHOULDER LANE
SHARED USE PATH
!(SHARED USE PATH JUNCTIONS
NMTP Options
SHARED USE PATH EXTENSION
SHARED TRAVEL LANE
ROUTES FOR FURTHER STUDY
New Bike Lanes
POSSIBLE RE-STRIPING
PART OF FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENT
®®®®ALTERNATE ROUTE STUDIES
n SCHOOL
RAILROAD
Æa KENT TRANSIT CENTER
¯plan15-1k.mxd
167
168
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 12
Figure T-3
Existing & Missing Sidewalks & Curb Ramps
Non-Motorized Goals and Policies
Goal T-4:
Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal
circulation and linkages to regional travel, and promote the use of non-
motorized transportation.
Policy T-4.1: Provide non-motorized facilities within all areas of the
City.
Policy T-4.2: Establish a network of bicycle routes within the City to
connect those land uses likely to produce significant concentrations of
bicycle usage. Work with interested parties in the planning of such a
network.
Policy T-4.3: Create a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the City
of Kent to define specific goals and priorities for the non-motorized
transportation system.
Transit
The City of Kent collaborates with the region’s transit providers to ensure
convenient transit service for its residents and workers. New capital
investments in transit-focused projects and improved transit service are
integral in meeting the City’s land use goals and reducing the cost of
maintaining roadway level of service.
The Transit System Chapter of the TMP describes existing transit service and
facilities2, identifies community needs and observed gaps in service, and
recommends service improvements to local circulation within Kent and which
connect Kent residents to other communities. Also included in the chapter is
a discussion of transit-supportive goals and policies related to land use
2 The Kent TMP was originally published in June 2008. Transit service summarized in this document
(Transportation Element) reflects the September 2014 KC Metro service revisions and the most recent
round of Sound Transit service changes (2013).
169
170
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
EXISTING & MISSINGSIDEWALKS &CURB RAMPSFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
CURB RAMP
MISSING CURB RAMP
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF STREET
MISSING SIDEWALK
¯plan15-1l.mxd
171
172
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 13
designations, parking policies, and the then-existing Downtown Strategic
Action Plan.
King County Metro (KC Metro) provides regional, South County-specific
routes, and local Dial-a-Ride (DART) bus service within the City of Kent.
Eight different KC Metro routes provide regional services to destinations
within King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties. There are ten local and South
County routes providing connections within the City of Kent and to other
South King County communities such as Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des
Moines, Covington, and Federal Way. Additionally, Sound Transit operates
three regional express bus routes through Kent which connect to SeaTac and
Redmond. The Sounder commuter rail serves the Kent Transit Center with
connections to communities between Seattle and Tacoma. The Kent Transit
Center provides 994 park-and-ride spaces for transit riders.
During the TMP process, community input and a technical gaps analysis
identified recommendations for transit service and infrastructure
improvements. Service recommendations are categorized by one of three
route types:
Primary Transit Network (PTN) – provides frequent service (typically
15 minutes or better) over a long service span in markets where there
is high demand for travel throughout the day. It is narrowly focused on
the densest corridors in the region where potential ridership is highest.
It can also be used as a policy tool to help focus transit-oriented
development around corridors where transit can be provided cost-
effectively.
Local Urban Service – provides all-day service at lower frequencies (20
to 60 minutes) in lower density areas. These services should provide
connections from moderately dense areas to PTN services as well as
local destinations.
Specialized Commute Service – runs at very specific high-demand
times and only operates at times of day and in the direction of peak
demand. Most Sound Transit service within Kent is included in this
category.
The TMP transit recommendations focus on near- and long-term
improvements for PTN and Local Urban Services. In some cases,
recommendations would enhance existing Specialized Commuter Services,
creating all-day PTN service to address the need for reverse-commute travel
173
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 14
and off-peak connections. Short-term recommendations include
infrastructure improvements to bus shelters and sidewalk connections.
Transit Goals and Policies
Goal T-5:
Work with regional transit providers to provide frequent, coordinated, and
comprehensive public transit services and facilities in all residential and
employment areas in the Kent Planning Area. (Public transit services and
facilities include train service, bus service, vanpool services, vanshare
services, Dial-A-Ride, Access, park and ride lots, car-sharing services, as well
as marketing/promotional activities for all the above).
Policy T-5.1: Emphasize transit investments that provide mobility and
access within the community and make it possible for citizens to
access local services and support local businesses while reducing auto-
dependent travel.
Policy T-5.2: Work with Washington State Department of
Transportation and regional transit providers to identify appropriate
sites for a network of park and ride lots which feed into the regional
transit system.
Policy T-5.3: Implement Kent’s Transit System Plan as identified in
the Transportation Master Plan.
Policy T-5.4: Foster transit-oriented development opportunities and
leverage public and private funds to achieve other City objectives
related to economic development and housing.
Policy T-5.5: Work with regional transit providers to provide a high
level of transit stop amenities, including pads, bus shelters, pedestrian
access, safety and visibility features such as lighting, and transit speed
and reliability.
Transportation Demand Management
Using the existing network of streets more efficiently is a fiscally sound way
to improve traffic conditions and safety. Transportation demand management
(TDM) policies and strategies are designed to reduce automobile travel and
174
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 15
shift some vehicle trips to non-peak periods (before or after the commute
hours). Transportation system management (TSM) is the practice of
improving the flow of traffic without relying on major capacity expansions or
new roadways. The City of Kent’s efforts in implementing TDM and TSM are
detailed in the Managing Demand chapter of the TMP.
Kent’s TDM activities are directed at employers, workers, business owners,
residents and visitors. In compliance with the Washington State Clean Air
Act, Kent has enacted a local Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance,
requiring that all employers in the City with more than 100 full time
employees traveling to work morning peak commute hours develop a CTR
program. Kent’s CTR program provides information and connections for
employees to a variety of alternative commute options including flex
schedules, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, transit, and ridesharing.
The City also actively coordinates with transit organizations that administer
marketing campaigns such as Wheel Options, Rideshare, and the Commuter
Challenge. Currently, 31 CTR worksites participate in the program, making
Kent’s program the fourth largest in King County following Seattle, Bellevue,
and Redmond.
The TMP recommends the City:
continue to promote alternative commute methods (particularly
through ride-matching programs that link carpool, vanpool, and van-
share participants),
encourage businesses in the community to voluntarily participate in
the CTR program, and
review and update the CTR Ordinance as appropriate to meet the
needs of employers and the community.
TSM techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation
system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects.
These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors
approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques identified in the TMP
include the following:
Rechannelization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding/increasing
number of intersection through lanes;
Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes;
Signal interconnect and optimization;
Turn movement restrictions;
Access Management; and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
175
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element Page 16
The City is incorporating appropriate TSM techniques as part of its ongoing
transportation program.
Transportation Demand Management Goals and Policies
Goal T-6:
Use Transportation Demand Management Techniques to achieve efficient use
of transportation infrastructure and to help meet the City’s land use
objectives.
Policy T-6.1: Work with major institutions, Activity Centers, and
employers through the City’s Commute Trip Reduction Program and
the promotion of alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use to
reduce congestion, improve air quality and enhance safety.
Policy T-6.2: Promote measures to increase the use of high-
occupancy vehicles, public transit, and non-motorized travel modes
among employers located within the City who are not required to
comply with commute trip reduction.
Related Information
TE Technical Report
City of Kent 2008 Transportation
Master Plan
Right-Size Parking Pilot Project
City of Kent Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan, May
2010
2016-2021 Transportation
Improvement Program
176
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update
Transportation Element Technical Report
Prepared for:
City of Kent
January 2015
SE14-0368
DRAFT177
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Existing Level Of Service Analysis ................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST ...............................................................................................................10
3.1 2035 Level of Service Analysis..................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 PROJECT LIST ......................................................................................................................................14
4.1 Intersection Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 New Streets ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Street Widening ................................................................................................................................................ 22
4.4 Railroad Grade Separation ........................................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Project List Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 25
5.0 DOCKET REVIEW ......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
DRAFT178
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Corridors and Intersections ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2. Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor ........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Existing Level of Service .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5. Recommended Projects .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Tables
Table 1. Intersection Level of Service Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Existing PM Peak Hour Auto Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 8
Table 3. City of Kent Land Use Forecasts ................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 4. 2035 PM Peak Hour Auto Level of Service ............................................................................................................. 12
Table 5. 2008 TMP Project List ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 6. Completed Projects ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 7. Revised Project List – Intersection Improvements .............................................................................................. 18
Table 8. Revised Project List – New Streets............................................................................................................................. 20
Table 9. Revised Project List – Street Widening .................................................................................................................... 22
Table 10. Revised Project List – Railroad Grade Separation ............................................................................................. 24
Table 11. 2015 Project List ............................................................................................................................................................. 25
DRAFT179
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical report supports the City of Kent’s 2015 Transportation Element (TE) update. The report
begins by summarizing the existing conditions of the roadway network. Next, the 2035 land use forecast is
compared to other recent citywide forecasts. That land use forecast provides the foundation for the travel
demand analysis of the 2035 roadway network. Based on the 2035 auto volume projections, this report
documents recommended revisions to the City’s project list as well as discusses potential additional
changes that could come about based on the next Transportation Master Plan update. Lastly, this report
includes a review of transportation implications of the proposed dockets.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
In 2014, existing traffic conditions throughout the city were analyzed to determine how congestion
patterns may have changed since the previous analysis was completed in 2006. The City of Kent collected
PM peak hour traffic data in May 2014 at the intersections that were evaluated as part of the 2008
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. As with the 2006 analysis, the intersection counts were grouped
into 16 corridors and a separate zone covering downtown, as shown in Figure 1. Intersections serving
both a key north/south route and east/west route are included in more than one corridor.
Figure 1. Study Corridors and Intersections
DRAFT180
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
AVESS 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
2
5
4 149153
6 1211161
13710
8
Study Intersection
Study Corridor
Downtown
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
STUDY CORRIDOR ANDINTERSECTION LOCATIONSFigure 1
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SESE 304 ST SCALE: 1" = 40,000'DRAFT181
The 2014 traffic counts were found to be lower than the 2006 counts on nearly every corridor, as shown in
Figure 2. Citywide traffic volumes declined by about four percent between 2006 and 2014. This trend of
lower traffic volumes is not unique to Kent; similar patterns have been observed around the region since
traffic volumes peaked in 2006-2007.
Figure 2. Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor
2.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Roadway level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A
letter grade, ranging from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned based on the delay experienced by
drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future traffic conditions. In general, LOS A
and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes
are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where demand exceeds capacity. For
signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by
the average delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-controlled intersections,
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Corridor Volume Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor
2006 2014
DRAFT182
LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table 1 displays the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections.
TABLE 1. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A < 10 < 10
B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15
C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25
D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35
E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50
F > 80 >50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Transportation Research Board.
The City of Kent calculates the LOS for key intersections along each corridor (in seconds of delay) and
then calculates an average based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method
provides a corridor-wide result, allowing some intersections to operate at a more congested LOS as long
as the overall corridor operation is maintained.
The City’s adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the
PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway S corridor and the downtown zone which are
allowed to operate at LOS F.
For this TE update, auto LOS analysis was completed using the 2014 vehicle counts. Auto LOS was
calculated using the Synchro software package. In the downtown area, the SimTraffic module of Synchro
was used to calculate intersection LOS. While Synchro is appropriate for determining LOS at relatively
isolated intersections, the program does not always capture queuing and congestion between
intersections, which is common in downtown Kent. For these conditions, traffic simulation tools such as
SimTraffic produce more accurate results.
The results of the corridor LOS analysis are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The analysis of 2014
conditions indicates that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or
improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the city. The 2014 analysis indicates that all
corridors are currently meeting the City’s LOS standard. DRAFT183
TABLE 2. EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
Corridor
ID Location LOS
Standard 2006 LOS 2014 LOS
1 S 196th Street / SE 192nd Street E D C
2 S 212th Street / SE 208th Street E C C
3 S 224th Street / S 228th Street E D C
4 James Street / SE 240th Street E D D
5 S 260th Street / Reith Road / W Meeker Street E D D
6 Canyon Drive / Kent-Kangley Road E E C
7 S 256th Street E E D
8 S 272nd Street E F E
9 Pacific Highway S F1 E D
10 Military Road E E D
11 64th Avenue S E C C
12 Washington Avenue / 68th Avenue S / West Valley Highway E D D
13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D C
14 SR 515/ Benson Avenue E E D
15 116th Avenue SE E D E
16 132nd Avenue SE E D D
17 Downtown Zone F E C
Source: City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, 2008, and Fehr & Peers, 2014.
Notes: 1. WSDOT’s level of service standard for this facility is LOS D.
Figure 3. Existing Level of Service
DRAFT184
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
AVESS 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
2
5
4 149153
6 1211161
13710
8
Level of Service (LOS)
C
D
E
Downtown (LOS C)
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
EXISTINGLEVEL OF SERVICEFigure 3
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SESE 304 ST SCALE: 1" = 40,000'DRAFT185
186
3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST
In preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update, the City developed 20-year land use forecasts. The
forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC)
regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts. Table 3 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to
previous land use forecasts.
TABLE 3. CITY OF KENT LAND USE FORECASTS
Policy Document Forecast Year Employment1 Households
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400
2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS Proposal 2031 93,600 68,900
2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS Proposal 2031 73,300 57,100
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500
Notes: 1. Employment totals do not include construction jobs.
Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast includes the same number of
jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100 more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the
employment and household figures assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend
the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS.
In addition to considering land use totals at the citywide level, the distribution of growth was compared to
determine how traffic patterns may differ. Land uses are divided into more than 300 traffic analysis zones
called K-zones, which are basic geographic units for estimating travel demand. K-zones range in size from
a few city blocks to an entire residential neighborhood. Each of the aforementioned forecasts was
distributed at the K-zone level. The comparisons indicated that a new run of the Kent Travel Demand
Model was warranted to explore how traffic distribution along the City’s study corridors would differ
between the land use scenarios. The City’s travel demand model was used to forecast PM peak hour traffic
volumes for the 2035 LUT forecast. The model focuses on the Kent Planning Area (city limits and Potential
Annexation Area), and includes external zones that represent land uses for the greater Puget Sound
region.1 The updated model run was used to evaluate 2035 LOS, as described below.
1 The 2011 Midway EIS included two network scenarios: the Baseline, which included a short list of known roadway
projects, and the Preferred Network, which included a more extensive list of improvements based on the 2008 TMP
needs assessment. The current modeling exercise assumes the Preferred Network. DRAFT187
3.1 2035 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
As stated in the previous section, the 2031 TMP and the 2031 Midway Proposal land use forecasts
bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Therefore, the auto LOS for the 2035 LUT forecast should fall within the
LOS bookends developed for the 2031 TMP and 2031 Midway Proposal forecasts. That citywide analysis
was conducted for the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action
EIS.
Given the similarities between these forecasts, Fehr & Peers took a simplified approach to the LOS
evaluation. To compare these three scenarios, projected auto volumes were compared at the intersection
level. For each study intersection, the travel demand model’s forecast of entering vehicles was compared
among the three scenarios. Based on that relationship, the average delay at the intersection under the
2035 LUT forecast was estimated. The calculation assumes a linear relationship between the number of
vehicles entering the intersection and the average delay of the intersection. As an example, consider an
intersection with the following assumptions:
• 3,000 entering vehicles and 35 seconds of delay under the 2031 TMP forecast
• 5,000 entering vehicles and 45 seconds of delay under the 2031 Midway Proposal forecast
If the 2035 LUT forecast had 4,000 entering vehicles, the delay is estimated to be 40 seconds. This process
was completed for each study intersection. A corridor average was calculated based on a weighting of the
corridor intersection volumes. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.
DRAFT188
TABLE 4. 2035 PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
Corridor
ID Location LOS
Standard 2031 TMP
2031
Midway
Proposal
2035 Land
Use Target
1 S 196th Street / SE 192nd Street E D D D
2 S 212th Street / SE 208th Street E D E D
3 S 224th Street / S 228th Street E E E E
4 James Street / SE 240th Street E E E E
5 S 260th Street / Reith Road / W Meeker Street E D F D
6 Canyon Drive / Kent-Kangley Road E E E E
7 S 256th Street E D D D
8 S 272nd Street E E F E
9 Pacific Highway S F1 F F F
10 Military Road E D E D
11 64th Avenue S E D D D
12 Washington Avenue / 68th Avenue S / West
Valley Highway E E E E
13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D D D
14 SR 515/ Benson Avenue E E E E
15 116th Avenue SE E D D D
16 132nd Avenue SE E D D D
17 Downtown Zone F F F F
Source: City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, 2008, and Fehr & Peers, 2014.
Notes: 1. WSDOT’s level of service standard for this facility is LOS D.
Though the average seconds of delay varies, the 2035 LUT scenario results in the same corridor LOS
grades as were calculated for the 2031 TMP forecast. All corridors are expected to meet the City’s LOS
standards, assuming the Preferred Network is in place.
Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service
DRAFT189
190
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
AVESS 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
2
5
4 149153
6 1211161
13710
8
Level of Service (LOS)
D
E
F
Downtown (LOS F)
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
2035LEVEL OF SERVICEFigure 4
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SESE 304 ST SCALE: 1" = 40,000'DRAFT191
192
4.0 PROJECT LIST
Given that the base year conditions have changed little since the 2008 TMP was completed, and the 2035
LUT forecast is projected to be very similar to the 2031 TMP forecast, the 2008 TMP project list remains
relevant to this Comprehensive Plan update. The 2008 project list included four types of improvements:
intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade separations. The project list
included 53 projects totaling nearly $600 million. Of that total, the City’s share was estimated to be
approximately $502 million. Table 5 summarizes the type and cost of each project type in the 2008 TMP
(all costs are in 2007 dollars). Street widening projects accounted for nearly half the total cost and railroad
grade separations accounted for the next largest cost. Due to the high cost of railroad grade separation
projects, they accounted for more than a quarter of the total project list cost, despite there being only six
projects.
TABLE 5. 2008 TMP PROJECT LIST
Type of Project Number of Projects Cost ($) City Share ($)
Intersection Improvements 23 63,309,500 62,079,500
New Streets 5 84,715,000 42,827,000
Street Widening 19 288,895,000 235,151,000
Railroad Grade Separation 6 162,300,000 162,300,000
Total 53 $599,219,500 $502,357,500
Source: City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, 2008.
Of the 53 projects recommended in the 2008 TMP, eleven have been completed. These projects are listed
below in Table 6. The completed projects cost a total of $47 million.
DRAFT193
TABLE 6. COMPLETED PROJECTS
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
I-8 S 212th St/SR 167 Northbound Ramp - Modify signal
timing by making northbound right turn free. 220,000 220,000
I-10 4th Ave N/Cloudy St - Provide northbound and
southbound exclusive left turn lanes. Install traffic signal. 2,160,000 2,160,000
I-12 Smith St/Lincoln Ave (Smart Growth Initiative) - Add
eastbound left turn pocket. 1,990,500 1,990,500
I-13 W Meeker St and W Smith St - Interconnect Interurban
Trail crossing signals. 342,000 342,000
N-4 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S to 64th Ave S) -
Construct new roadway with 5 lanes. Completed by 2008 Completed by 2008
W-4 84th Ave S (SR 167 to S 212th St) - Widen to 7 lanes. 5,106,000 5,106,000
W-7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S from SR 516 to
Bolger Road) - Widen to 5 lanes. Completed by 2008 Completed by 2008
W-8 James St (Union Pacific Railroad to 4th Ave N) - Provide
eastbound and westbound exclusive left turn lanes. 1,800,000 1,800,000
W-14 SE 256th St-Phase II (SR 516 (Kent-Kangley Rd) to 116th
Ave SE) - Construct a 5 lane roadway with bike lanes. 5,100,000 5,100,000
W-16 S 277th St Corridor (116th Ave SE from Kent-Kangley Rd
(SR 516) to SE 256th St) - Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 7,500,000 7,500,000
R-4 S 228th St / Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad -
Grade separation. 23,000,000 23,000,000
Total $47,218,500 $47,218,500
Source: City of Kent, 2015.
In addition to the completed projects, two other projects were removed from the list:
• I-4: SE 208th Street/SR 515-Benson – Add dual southbound left storage lane and modify
signal phasing. This project, with a cost of $690,000, has committed funding and a bid for
construction is expected in the near future.
• I-21: I-5/272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction-Phase I – Provide transit and HOV direct
access between S 272nd Street and I-5. This project, with a cost of $42,330,000, was envisioned
as a partnership with Sound Transit and WSDOT. At this time, partner agency support for the
project appears unlikely so it has been removed from the project list. DRAFT194
Two projects have been partially completed.
• Project I-16: S 260th St/SR 99 – the westbound right turn pocket has been completed. That
component has been removed from the revised project list.
• Project I-22: S 272nd St/Military Rd – the northbound dual left turn lanes have been completed.
All other projects from the 2008 TMP remain on the revised project list. Figure 5 shows each project’s
location. The following four tables list the recommended projects by project type:
• Table 7: Revised Project List – Intersection Improvements
• Table 8: Revised Project List – New Streets
• Table 9: Revised Project List – Street Widening
• Table 10: Revised Project List – Railroad Grade Separation
Figure 5. Recommended Projects
DRAFT195
196
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
AVESS 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
ve
r
RdGreenRiv
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.16Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
I-3I-2
I-1
I-7I-6I-5
I-9
R-1
R-2
R-5
R-3
R-6
I-20
I-19
I-18
I-14
I-11
I-23
I-15
I-22
I-16 I-17 W-5W-6W-3N-1
N-3
W-17W-2
W-10W-9W-19W-13
W-15
W-12 W-1W-18 N-2N-5N-3
W-11
Intersection Improvement
Railroad Grade Separation
New Street
Street Widening
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
PREFERREDSTREET NETWORKFigure 5
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SE124 Ave SESE 304 ST SCALE: 1" = 40,000'DRAFT197
198
4.1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Table 7 lists 17 intersection improvements, totaling roughly $15.6 million. Of that total, the City’s share
would be approximate $15.0 million.
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
I-1 SE 192nd St/SR515-Benson - Add southbound right turn
pocket. 540,000 0
I-2 S 196th St/80th Ave S - Change intersection phasing and
lane approaches. 250,000 250,000
I-3 S 196th St/84th Ave S - Add eastbound right turn pocket
and southbound dual left turn lanes. 1,190,000 1,190,000
I-5 S 212th St/72nd Ave S - Add southbound dual left turn
lanes. 330,000 330,000
I-6 S 212th St/84th Ave S - Extend eastbound left turn lane
and add northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes. 1,710,000 1,710,000
I-7 S 212th St/SR 167 Southbound Ramp - Add southbound
left turn lane. 400,000 400,000
I-9 S 240th St/SR 99 - Change signal phasing. 420,000 420,000
I-11
SE 240th St/SR 515 - Add dual northbound and
southbound left turn lanes. Add northbound and
southbound right turn pockets.
1,650,000 1,650,000
I-14 Smith St/Central Ave - Revise southbound and
northbound turn lane assignment. 20,000 20,000
I-15 Meeker St/Washington Ave - Modify signal phasing. Add
eastbound and westbound right turn pockets. 780,000 780,000
I-16 S 260th St/SR 99 - Add westbound dual left turn lane. Add
eastbound right turn pocket. 1,180,0001 1,180,0001
I-17 Military Rd S/Reith Rd - Widen intersection to provide turn
lanes on all approaches. 1,945,000 1,945,000 DRAFT199
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
I-18 SE 256th St/SR515-Benson - Add northbound right turn
lane and change signal phasing. 550,000 550,000
I-19
Kent-Kangley Rd/108th Ave SE - Add eastbound and
westbound dual left turn lanes. Add eastbound right turn
pocket. Change northbound right turn phasing.
1,410,000 1,410,000
I-20
SE 256th Street and 132nd Ave SE - Extend northbound
left, southbound left, and westbound left turn pockets.
Construct new eastbound and southbound right turn
lanes.
302,000 302,000
I-22 S 272nd St/Military Rd - Add a southbound through lane
at intersection. 1,540,0001 1,540,0001
I-23 Kent-Kangley Rd/132nd Ave SE - Add northbound and
southbound dual left turn lanes. 1,360,000 1,360,000
Total $15,577,000 $15,037,000
Notes: 1. Portion of project already completed; remaining cost will be less than shown here.
DRAFT200
4.2 NEW STREETS
Table 8 lists four new street connections, estimated to cost $84.7 million, of which $42.8 million would be
the City’s responsibility.
TABLE 8. REVISED PROJECT LIST – NEW STREETS
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
N-1 SE 192nd St (84th Ave SE to 108th Ave SE) - Create new roadway
connection with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes. 45,200,000 14,329,000
N-2 72nd Ave S (S 200th St to S 196th St) - Extend roadway to connect
to S 196th St. 1,015,000 1,015,000
N-3
S 224th St (84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE (Benson Rd-SR 515)) -
Extend roadway to connect to E Valley Hwy and widen existing
road to 3-5 lanes.
36,000,000 24,983,000
N-5 108th Ave SE (SE Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516) to SE 256th St) -
Extend roadway connection to SE 256th St. 2,500,000 2,500,000
Total $84,715,000 $42,827,000
These street connection concepts were developed to ease congestion on existing roadways. Therefore,
not completing the new connections would have LOS effects on alternate routes. To evaluate the
repercussions, the travel demand model was used to predict which routes would see the highest increases
in traffic absent the new connections. More detailed analysis could be completed in the next TMP update.
Two of the projects (N-1 and N-3) would construct new east-west connections across SR 167. If Project N-
1 is not constructed, traffic would primarily divert to S 180th Street and SE 208th Street. The intersections
most affected are expected to be the S 212th Way/SR 167 interchange and S 212th Way/96th Avenue S.
The LOS on those intersections is likely to fall by at least one letter grade compared to the condition if
Project N-1 were constructed. If Project N-3 is not constructed, intersections along S 212th Street are
likely to be most affected, with LOS at 84th Avenue S and the SR 167 interchange falling by up to one
letter grade.
Project N-2 would complete the 72nd Avenue S corridor north to S 196th Street, providing an alternate
route to SR 181/West Valley Highway/68th Avenue S and 84th Avenue S. If this project were not
completed, the LOS on the intersections of S 196th Street/W Valley Highway, S 196th Street/80th Avenue
S, and S 196th Street/84th Avenue S is expected to fall by up to one letter grade. DRAFT201
Project N-5 would create a north-south connection along 108th Avenue SE between Kent-Kangley Road
and SE 256th Street, and convert the section of SE 256th Street between Kent-Kangley Road and 108th
Avenue SE to one-way westbound. This project would result in simpler operations at the SE 256th
Street/Kent-Kangley Road intersection and the SE 256th Street/SR 515 intersection immediately to the
west. Therefore, not completing the project would adversely affect LOS at those two intersections.
DRAFT202
4.3 STREET WIDENING
There are 14 street widening projects on the revised project list, as shown in Table 9. These projects
constitute the largest share of costs at $269.4 million. The City’s share is estimated to be $215.6 million.
TABLE 9. REVISED PROJECT LIST – STREET WIDENING
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
W-1 80th Ave S Widening (S 196th St to S 188th St) - Widen to 5 lanes. 1,323,000 1,323,000
W-2 S 212th St (SR 167 to 108th Ave SE) - Widen to 5-6 lanes. 10,100,000 6,046,000
W-3 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening (Meeker St
north to 218th block) - Widen to 7 lanes. 16,150,000 16,150,000
W-5 116th Ave SE (SE 208th St to SE 256th St) - Widen to 5 lanes with
bike lanes. 46,430,000 17,730,000
W-6 132nd Ave SE (SE 200th St to SE 236th St) - Widen to 5 lanes with
bike lanes. 20,990,000 0
W-9 132nd Ave SE-Phase III (SE 248th St to SE 236th St) - Widen to 5
lanes with bike lanes. 11,950,000 11,950,000
W-10 Military Rd S (S 272nd St to S 240th St) - Widen to provide a center
turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks. 13,630,000 13,630,000
W-11 W Meeker St-Phase II (Lake Fenwick Road to east side of the Green
River) - Widen to 5 lanes including a new bridge. 70,000,000 70,000,000
W-12 W Meeker St Phase I (64th Ave S to Green River Bridge) - Widen to
5 lanes. 5,960,000 5,960,000
W-13 SE 248th St (116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE) - Construct a 3 lane
roadway. 5,640,000 5,640,000
W-15 SE 256th St-Phase III (132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE) - Widen to 5
lanes with bike lanes. 16,980,000 16,980,000
W-17 132nd Ave SE-Phase II (Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516) to SE 248th St) -
Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 23,200,000 23,200,000
W-18 S 272nd St-Phase II (Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S) - Add 2 HOV
lanes and a center left-turn lane. 13,916,000 13,916,000
W-19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I (SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)) -
Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 13,120,000 13,120,000
Total $269,389,000 $215,645,000 DRAFT203
The 2008 TMP included two projects along the 116th Avenue SE corridor: Project W-5 from SE 208th
Street to SE 256th Street and Project W-16 from SE 256th Street to SR 516. Project W-16 has already been
completed, bringing the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes between SE 256th Street and SR 516. This
project benefited intersections that were forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the future absent the street
widening. The intersections to the north (SE 208th Street, SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street) were
forecast to operate at LOS D or better without the roadway widening. Therefore, extending the five-lane
cross-section to the north may not be necessary from a capacity perspective. However, regardless of
capacity needs, improvements along the northern portion of the corridor are still recommended as a
complete streets project to ensure all modes are accommodated. At this time, Project W-5 remains on the
project list as envisioned in the 2008 TMP, but may be revised in a future TMP update pending further
study. For example, additional study may indicate that acceptable operations can be maintained by
widening the roadway to a three-lane cross section with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. This would provide
more continuity of the non-motorized network, a modest increase in capacity with safety benefits, but at a
lower cost.
The 2008 TMP also included street widening projects along the 132nd Avenue SE corridor: Projects W-6,
W-9, W-17, and W-19. These projects would widen the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes from SE
208th Street to SE 288th Street. Based on the modeling completed for the 2031 TMP Baseline, this
corridor is likely to operate acceptably without the five-lane cross-section. As with 116th Avenue SE, the
132nd Avenue SE projects remain on the current project list, but may be revised in a future TMP update.
Potential changes would be based on more detailed study, but may include a three-lane cross-section
rather than a five-lane cross-section, or a five-lane cross-section on only the most congested portion of
the corridor south of SE 256th Street.
The S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street corridor (Projects W-11 and W-12) was re-evaluated for
this planning-level review of the project list. The findings indicated that the recommended intersection
improvements alone would not bring the corridor to an acceptable level of service in the future, indicating
some widening is necessary. Therefore, Projects W-11 and W-12 remain on the project list, although they
will be studied at a more detailed level during the next TMP update.
DRAFT204
4.4 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad run parallel to
one another in the north-south direction through the City of Kent. The arterials most affected by those
grade crossings are S 212th Street, S 228th Street, and Willis Street (SR 516). An overpass of the BNSF
Railroad at S 228th Street was completed in 2009 at a cost of roughly $20 million. This leaves five railroad
grade separation projects remaining on the project list, as shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10. REVISED PROJECT LIST – RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION
Project
Number Capital Project (Location and Description) Cost ($) City Share ($)
R-1 S 212th St/Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation. 33,000,000 33,000,000
R-2 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad - Grade
Separation. 33,000,000 33,000,000
R-3 S 228th St / Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation. 24,200,000 24,200,000
R-5 Willis St (SR 516)/Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation. 26,500,000 26,500,000
R-6 Willis St (SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad - Grade
Separation. 22,600,000 22,600,000
Total $139,300,000 $139,300,000
Source: City of Kent, 2015.
These grade separation projects provide substantial benefits to city streets, but they are expensive and
generally require funding partners to meet the total project cost. Currently, approximately 46 trains travel
through Kent on the BNSF Railroad on a daily basis. This results in a daily closure time of one hour and 14
minutes. The UPRR has approximately 19 closures per day, totaling 25 minutes in daily closure time.2
These estimates reflect the lower bound of traffic delay. Actual delay is longer than the closure since it
takes time for queues to dissipate once the road reopens.
During the development of the 2008 TMP, the City solicited feedback from the public on the most needed
street projects. Railroad grade separation projects were the most often listed high priority need. In
addition to widespread public support, the need for these projects has been documented by City studies
of average delay, as cited above. In the next TMP update, the effects of each grade separation project
could be studied further to determine which projects would provide the most benefit to the street system.
This prioritization will ensure that limited financial resources are directed to the most needed projects.
2 City of Kent, 2014. DRAFT205
4.5 PROJECT LIST SUMMARY
Table 11 summarizes the revised 2015 project list. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509
million. The City’s share of that total is estimated to be approximately $413 million. As mentioned
previously, this list may be revised further pending the next update of Kent’s TMP.
TABLE 11. 2015 PROJECT LIST
Type of Project Number of Projects Cost ($) City Share ($)
Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000 15,037,000
New Streets 4 84,715,000 42,827,000
Street Widening 14 269,389,000 215,645,000
Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000 139,300,000
Total 40 $508,981,000 $412,809,000
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
DRAFT206
DRAFT207
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 16 2015
To: Monica Whitman, City of Kent
From: Don Samdahl and Ariel Davis, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Non-Motorized LOS Discussion
This memo addresses a question asked regarding the non-motorized LOS and its implications on
impact fees and other funding needs. Initially, the non-motorized LOS was established as part of
the DSAP process. It recognized the importance of non-motorized modes in downtown Kent and
wanted to make sure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities were properly prioritized by the city and
new development.
The multimodal LOS guidelines were expanded to the rest of the city in the comprehensive plan
update. The LOS guidelines give emphasis to the non-motorized components already included
in the TMP and do not identify any new facilities other than those that were previously identified.
They are not fixed standards that must be met by new development before being approved, nor
do they require the city to start making non-motorized projects the first priority. However, by
creating these LOS policies, it is likely that the importance of implementing non-motorized
projects will increase, but they do not prescribe any specific priorities.
The impact fee program can stay the way it is, since many of the non-motorized projects are
already included as part of street projects in the impact fee project list. The city is making a
good-faith effort to implement those projects as funds become available. When the impact fee
program is updated in concert with the next TMP revision, it would be possible to modify the
project list to include other non-motorized projects if the city desires.
Regarding concurrency, the city’s current concurrency program is focused on implementing the
TMP project list, which includes non-motorized projects. In the next update, we would
recommend creating a more explicit multimodal concurrency program to bring the city into
better compliance with the regional planning guidelines.
208
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 30, 2015
To: Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson, City of Kent
From: Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Review of Transportation Implications of Dockets and Potential Land Use
Map Amendments
We have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan
amendments documented in the January 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the
Land Use and Planning Board. Our review focused on potential implications of these proposals to
the transportation system in the context of the Transportation Element. Since most of these
proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic
generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some
perspectives on the likely transportation impacts.
In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance
of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes
can be incorporated into the travel model for more detailed analysis during the next
Transportation Master Plan update.
The following table summarizes our review.
209
Land Use Proposal Comments
DKT-2014-4 Relatively small parcel located along S 272nd St. Although S 272nd St
and Pacific Highway corridors are both very congested, the change in
traffic is unlikely to substantially affect the level of service conditions
in the area.
DKT-2014-6 Located at corner of Kent Kangley Rd and 116th Ave SE. Proposed to
rezone to commercial and likely construction of a pharmacy. The
two affected corridors would be LOS D in 2035 and the proposed
land use is unlikely to change those conditions. Property access
would need to be examined given the heavy traffic at that corner.
DKT-2014-7 Proposal to change to multifamily housing along 88th Ave SE. Likely
development of up to 154 townhouses. This location is not adjacent
to one of the transportation corridors, but the traffic from this
development would access via 84th Ave S, which operates at LOS D.
Local street access would need to be analyzed.
DKT-2014-8 Proposed to change to transit-oriented commercial-residential
within the Midway area. The Transportation Element included
assumption of growth in Midway, so this change would likely be
compatible with that analysis. More detailed analysis was prepared
as part of the Midway EIS.
Expand Commercial
Opportunities in Industrial
Area (A1-A4)
Would allow some commercial land uses in addition to current
industrial uses. The intent appears to allow for commercial uses and
service providers to support the large employment base in the
industrial areas. While retail generates higher traffic volumes than
industrial uses, the type of retail envisioned would be less likely to
generate new trips from outside of the existing industrial area. The
overall transportation impacts would therefore be fairly limited.
Eliminate Office Zone (B1) This change would make certain parcels on the East Hill more
developable with mixed commercial uses. These would serve the
nearby residential areas and offer more services to the
neighborhoods. The transportation effects would likely be positive
by creating commercial opportunities closer to residences.
Eliminate the MA Zoning
District (B2)
Affects a dispersed number of properties in the valley. This appears
to be more of a housekeeping change in zoning that would likely
have few changes in transportation conditions.
Eliminate Gateway
Commercial Zone (B3)
Located along 84th Ave South to the north of SR 167. It seems that
the land uses with the proposed change would continue to be auto-
oriented commercial, which is consistent with the land uses analyzed
in the Transportation Element. Without further analysis, it is difficult
to assess the potential change in traffic generation.
210
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 1
Chapter Five - PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Purpose
Although the Parks and Recreation Element is required under the Growth
Management Act, Kent has long maintained a park and open space element,
because park and recreational opportunities are viewed as an integral part of
the city and essential to the quality of life for its residents.
The Parks and Recreation Element of the city’s Comprehensive Plan is
intended as an overview of the city’s planning efforts related to the provision
of parks and recreation facilities. It, combined with the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, describes the city’s goals and priorities in a general
way.
The Comprehensive Plan is a useful and mandated city planning document; it
is supplemented by a number of other city planning efforts, including the
Park and Open Space Plan (P&OS Plan). The P&OS Plan fleshes out the basic
policies covered in this Parks and Recreation Element, as it can go into far
greater detail. It is also updated on a different schedule than the
Comprehensive Plan. The last P&OS Plan update was adopted in 2010 and
preparations are underway to begin the next P&OS Plan update which is
scheduled to be completed in 2016. As that update will be adopted after this
Comprehensive Plan update, this Element will look back to the prior update
to inform it. At the same time, this Element will look forward at some of the
What you will find in this chapter:
A description of how and why parks and recreation facilities are
planned;
A discussion of existing conditions and trends impacting parks and
recreation services;
A discussion of current and proposed approaches to measuring Levels
of Service; and
Goals and Policies related to the provision of parks and recreation
facilities
Purpose Statement:
Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces,
recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for all persons in the community.
211
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 2
policy shifts that began in the prior P&OS Plan and are expected to see
further development in the next Plan update.
Issues
Decreasing Resources
For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in
this Plan, the city continues to face revenue
shortfalls. These shortfalls have hit parks
capital funds hard, exacerbating a capital
maintenance backlog that had begun long
before the 2008 recession.
Aging Infrastructure
Each category of park asset has a typical
expected lifetime, along with its own typical
amount of routine maintenance and typical
amount of capital maintenance.
Changing Demographics
Kent has an increasing population of foreign-
born residents, including a sizeable
population who does not speak English. In
addition, the numbers show that our
population is getting older.
Change In Focus
With the city's lower revenues, the fact that a
percentage of that revenue is going toward
debt retirement, and the aging park
infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks
capital program has been on redevelopment,
or, what we're calling "making better use of
what we have."
Parks Planning In Kent
The Parks and Recreation Element works in concert with the Park and Open
Space (P&OS) Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition,
development, and renovation of parks, open space and recreational facilities.
The P&OS Plan was last updated in 2010, and is due to be updated again in
2016.
Since the last update of the P&OS Plan, fiscal realities for many local
governments have changed significantly. Kent has been no exception. While
212
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 3
we still aspire to a system that provides a high level of service to the
community, our current budget realities require an entirely new approach to
planning and maintaining our park system.
Over the past several years, Kent has managed to make a number of
improvements to its park system. These projects include an expanded
playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new playground and park
improvements at Tudor Square Park (2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green
Tree Park (2014); planting improvements at Service Club Ballfields (2013);
and the replacement of synthetic turf at Wilson Sports Fields (2014). The city
has also managed to make some significant strategic acquisitions: the Huse,
Matinjussi and Van Dyke properties in the Panther Lake area (2012); and
continued assemblage at Clark Lake Park (2013) and Morrill Meadows Park
(2014).
All the property acquisitions and several of the park improvements were
funded either entirely or primarily through grants. The playground
improvements also benefitted from the use of in-house labor and
contributions made by volunteers.
The use of in-house labor, grants and volunteers can certainly help leverage
limited financial resources; but it’s simply not feasible to rely heavily on
these sources for the basic renovations and improvements needed to keep a
park system vibrant and relevant to its community.
Relationship to Other Plans
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board's Manual 2
The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, or RCO, is a state agency
tasked with distributing a number of state and federal grant funds. These
grant funds are dedicated to the acquisition, development and
redevelopment of recreational facilities across Washington State.
Eligibility for these funds is based, in part, on having a state-approved Parks
Comprehensive Plan, which must be updated every six years. Kent's Parks
and Open Space Plan, last updated in 2010, met the state's requirement and,
as a result, qualified Kent to receive the $1,809,959 it has received in RCO
funding since 2010. As has been mentioned, the city is preparing to embark
on the next update, scheduled to be adopted in 2016.
Because the P&OS Plan is related to the Parks and Recreation Element of the
city's Comprehensive Plan, the RCO's grant requirements impact not only the
contents of the P&OS Plan but also those of the Parks and Recreation
Element.
213
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 4
Washington's 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Washington’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, commonly
referred to as SCORP, provides a statewide look at recreation, with a focus
on recreation on public lands. It examines trends in recreation, identifies
current issues, and sets recommendations for ways to improve outdoor
recreation in the state. It also sets the priorities for RCO funding. To receive
RCO funding, a project must be consistent with the goals laid out in SCORP.
Public Outreach
When the Park and Open Space Plan was last updated, its policies were
shaped, in part, from the responses the city received from its 2009 Park Plan
survey. The survey was widely advertised, was available online, and hard
copies were available at the city's facilities and neighborhood councils. The
outreach effort resulted in 631 responses. Some of the questions and answers
were included in the Plan. The entire survey results can be found online at the
city's website.
Likewise, during the next update, the city plans to have several conversations
with Kent residents to discuss priorities and resources. The analysis and
discussion provided briefly in this Element will be expanded upon in the P&OS
Plan. The capital goals laid out here will be updated annually as part of the
budget process.
Administration of the Parks Element and its Policies
Policy that guides the funding and operation of Kent’s park system is
administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department. Policy direction is set by the three-member Parks
Committee of the Kent City Council. The city’s 16-member Parks Commission
advises the Council on most park- and recreation-related matters. The city's
12-member Arts Commission, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by
Council, advises the Council and approves public art and cultural
programming.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Every large planning effort needs to consider its context. Part of doing so
involves analyzing and accounting for current and anticipated trends. This
effort is no exception. Significant trends in Kent, and their impact on parks
and recreational facility planning, include decreasing resources, aging
infrastructure, and changing demographics.
214
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 5
Decreasing Resources
For reasons discussed in detail
elsewhere in this Plan, the city
continues to face revenue
shortfalls. These shortfalls have
hit parks capital funds hard,
exacerbating a capital
maintenance backlog that had
begun long before the 2008
recession. During the parks
facilities assessment work that
was last updated in 2012, the
city’s parks capital maintenance
backlog was determined to be
over $60 million. If current
funding trends continue, the
backlog will continue to grow.
One of the larger questions to
be addressed in the upcoming
Park and Open Space Plan
update will have to do with how
to respond to this trend.
Options include identifying new
sources of revenue, adjusting
the size of the park system, or
a combination of both.
Aging Infrastructure
Kent's park system has a long and proud
history. Kent's first park, Rosebed Park, was
opened in 1906. Over one hundred years later,
our system continues to receive good reviews,
locally and nationally. One indication of our
reputation is that we consistently attract
regional and national athletic tournaments
because players enjoy playing on our well-
maintained grass fields.
That reputation is something of which we are proud. Unfortunately, not all of
our assets have aged as well as some of our grass fields. Even at our most
popular sports field sites, there are assets that are in desperate need of re-
investment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in
What's the difference between routine
maintenance and capital maintenance?
Most people are aware that many cities,
including Kent, have park maintenance
employees on their staff. These employees are
generally responsible for:
Routine maintenance tasks, including such
things as mowing grass, cleaning restrooms
and emptying trash.
Minor construction projects, such as making
repairs to plumbing and roofs and filling in
potholes in parking lots, as well as repairing
sidewalks and trails in the parks.
This work is considered routine maintenance
and is funded through the city's operations
budget.
Larger projects, such as building a new
restroom building, repaving a park's parking
lot, or replacing worn-out athletic fields'
synthetic turf, are typically considered capital
maintenance projects, are contracted out to
private construction firms and are paid for
through the Parks capital budget.
215
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 6
near-constant need of repair, be it a leaky roof or the crumbling plumbing
system. At Russell Road, the parking lots have been patched so many times
that it is getting increasingly difficult to patch the patches.
Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its
own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital
maintenance. The expected lifetime of a restroom building, and the amount
of maintenance required to keep it functioning, are entirely different from
that of, say, a playground, whose expected lifetime and maintenance are
different from that of a grass athletic field. What they all have in common is
the fact that they all have finite life expectancies, and they all require
continuing investments throughout the course of their lifetimes. Not
surprisingly, maintenance costs increase as assets age, with older assets
requiring more frequent maintenance than their newer counterparts.
In 2012, Parks undertook an asset analysis update to inventory and assess
the condition of every park asset valued over $25,000. The analysis looked
at 240 assets. The scores ranged from 1 (nearing the end of its useful life) to
5 (functionally new). Seventy nine assets (32% of the total) were ranked 1
or 2. Sixty-three percent of Kent's parks contained at least one asset ranked
1 or 2.
The analysis included a list of recommended projects to address the failing
assets in the park system. The estimate for the recommended work totaled
over $60 million. From 2010 through 2013, the city spent approximately $3.5
million on parks capital projects. At the current average rate of investment, it
would take 69 years to complete the projects on our list of assets waiting to
be repaired or replaced.
Changing Demographics
Kent’s population has changed significantly over
the past two decades, and continues to change.
At the time of the last Parks and Open Space Plan
(P&OS Plan) update, the city's population stood at
88,380. Shortly after the plan was adopted, the
city annexed the area known as Panther Lake.
The latest (2014) three-year American
Community Survey shows Kent’s population at
121,400. Kent’s current (2015) population is
estimated to be 122,300.
It's not just the number of residents that has changed. The city has become
increasingly racially and culturally diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent’s
216
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 7
residents were white. The most recent American Community Service count
put the percentage of white residents in Kent at 59.5 percent. In 2000, eight
percent of Kent’s population was Hispanic. In 2010, that percentage jumped
to 16.7 percent.
Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born residents, including a
sizeable population who does not speak English. The Kent School District's
website reports that their student population comes from families speaking
137 languages.
In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. In 2000,
7.4 percent of Kent’s population was over 65. The most recent data show
that population at 9.1 percent.
These changes are expected to impact not only what our parks offer, but the
quality and type of access to our parks and the various amenities they offer.
The changing needs and priorities of Kent residents will require greater
flexibility than ever in planning new and renovated facilities that better suit
our changing citizenry.
Kent's changing demographics are also changing how we engage the
community in conversations regarding their recreational needs and priorities.
The old-style "town hall" type of public meeting isn't as effective as it used to
be. The city continues to look at new and innovative ways to engage
residents, in order to get as broad a representation of thoughts and ideas as
possible.
The next Park and Open Space Plan update will include an extensive public
outreach component, to determine where and how our parks are meeting the
needs and priorities of Kent residents, and how they can improve to continue
to provide relevant and vibrant recreational opportunities to the community.
Change in Focus
The city's last period of park facility expansion included the construction of
Service Club Ball Fields, Wilson Playfields, Arbor Heights 360 Park, and Town
Square Plaza. Funds for these projects were provided by councilmanic bonds.
The city is still paying on these bonds, with the last of the bonds expected to
be paid off by 2024.
With the city's lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is
going toward debt retirement, and the aging park infrastructure, the primary
focus for the Parks capital program has been on redevelopment, or, what
we're calling "making better use of what we have."
217
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 8
The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program “Stool”
Historically, parks departments all over the country have compared
their parks capital program to a three-legged stool, with the "legs"
consisting of acquisition, development and redevelopment.
"Acquisition" is about obtaining new park land, and is most commonly
achieved through purchase of private property. "Development" refers
to the design and construction of new parks. "Redevelopment" can
include either the refurbishment or replacement of worn-out facilities
through capital maintenance or the reimagining of park amenities-- or
even entire parks-- based on changes in recreation trends and local
demographics.
The city of Kent has been acquiring and developing park properties for
several decades. As previously mentioned, the city has seen many
changes over that time. Even without the city's current financial
pressures, the time is right for a prudent and community-based look at
the system to assess which properties are working well, which
properties could use having some of their current amenities replaced
in-kind, and which properties need more creative re-imagining.
When initiating this discussion, the city will make it clear that the
discussion isn't about raising funds. The discussion will be focused very
clearly on the park system, the community, and what the community's
desires and priorities for the future of the system are.
Park Inventory and Classification
The 2010 P&OS Plan update counted 1,434 acres of park and open space
land and 59 parks. The current inventory includes 1094.68 acres (including
160.16 acres of undeveloped properties) of land under our direct
stewardship, and a system of 53 developed parks. (Please see Figure P-1.)
Figure P-1
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The numbers appear to indicate that the system has shrunk, when the city
has actually added acres to the park property inventory. How to explain this
seeming contradiction? There are four factors that explain the differing
numbers between 2010's count and today's.
218
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST
37AVES140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180 ST
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
§¨¦
§¨¦
KIWANISTOT LOT #1
HUSEPROPERTY
See Inset
KENTMEMORIALPARK
RIVERBENDGOLFCOMPLEX
WILSONPLAYFIELDS
SERVICECLUB PARK
RUSSELLROAD PARK
NORTHMERIDIANPARK FIELDS
KENT VALLEYICE CENTRE
DOWNTOWNSHOPS
EAST HILLMAINTENANCESHOPS
SPRINGBROOKGREENBELT
BRISCOEPARK
BOULEVARDLANE PARKIKUTAGREENBELT
THREE FRIENDSFISHING HOLE
BOEINGROCK CHESTNUTRIDGE PARK
ANDERSONPARK GREEN TREEPARK
GARRISONCREEK PARK
VAN DORENSLANDINGPARK'
GREEN RIVERNATURALRESOURCES AREA
GRANDVIEWOFF LEASHDOG PARK NORTH MERIDIANPARK
PARK ORCHARDPARKRUSSELLWOODSPARKTURNKEYPARK
COMMONSPARK
COTTONWOODGROVE ARBORHEIGHTS360 PARK
CLARKLAKEPARK
WALNUTGROVEPARK
LINDAHEIGHTSPARK MILL CREEKEARTHWORKSPARK
CANTERBURYPARK
GARY GRANTSOOS CREEKPARK
SALT AIRVISTA PARK
EASTHILLPARKOLD FISHINGHOLE CAMPUSPARK
WESTFENWICKPARK
KIWANISTOT LOT #4 KIWANISTOT LOT #3
WEST HILLSKATE PARK
FOSTERPARK SCENICHILL PARK
EASTRIDGEPARK
LAKEFENWICKPARK SEVENOAKSPARK
NORTHGREENRIVER PARKGLENNNELSONPARK 132ND AVENUEPARK
TUDORSQUAREPARK
LAKEMERIDIANPARK
272NDCORRIDORPARK SPRINGWOODPARK
MERIDIANGLEN PARK
PINETREEPARK
GREENVIEWPARK SUNMEADOWSPARK
VALLEY FLOORCOMMUNITYPARK
WEST HILLPARK
MORRILLMEADOWSPARK
KRONISCHPARK
RIVERVIEWPARK
RAINIER VIEWESTATES PARK
EAGLECREEKPARK
HOPKINSOPENSPACE
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
plan15-1d.mxd
PARKS ANDRECREATIONFACILITES
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
Figure xx.x
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
Parks
Recreation Facilities
Maintenance Facilities
Undeveloped
Non-Kent Park
Trails
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
MILL CREEKEARTHWORKSPARK
UPLANDSPLAYFIELD
UPLANDSEXTENSIONPARK
SENIORACTIVITYCENTER
KENTHISTORICALMUSEUM
KENTCOMMONS
KIWANISTOT LOT#2
BURLINGTONGREENKAIBARAPARK
ROSEBEDPARKKHERSONPARK
GOWE STPARK
FIRST AVENUEPLAZAPARK
TITUSRAILROADPARKWILLIS STGREENBELT
TOWNSQUAREPLAZA
Gowe St
E James StW James St
E Willis St4AvNW Smith St
W Willis St CentralAvSLincolnAvNE Smith St
4AvSCentralAvNSR167NADENPARKInset
N.T.S
LEGEND
219
220
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 9
a. The city has acquired 72.57 acres of new park land since 2010.
These were all strategic acquisitions that contributed to long-term
assemblages and system goals.
b. We have built no new parks since 2010. That park plan update
signaled a change in direction from system expansion to a focus on "taking
care of what we have."
c. During the facilities assessment process the parks department
undertook in 2012, the department took another look at how it defined
“park”. One result of this effort was that they broadened their park
categories list. In addition to neighborhood and community parks and open
space properties, they acknowledged that there are a number of special-use
parks that don't really provide the traditional functions fulfilled by
neighborhood and community parks. Some parks that provide specialized
uses, such as skate parks, were reclassified as special use parks. Properties
utilized primarily by sports groups, like Wilson Playfields, were classified as
Recreational Facility - Outdoor. In addition to revising park categories, the
Department de-listed a handful of properties that, according to any objective
measure, didn't function as parks and had little potential for ever serving
that role well.
d. An administrative decision was made to discontinue counting the
310 acre Green River Natural Resources Area as a park. Because its primary
function is to capture and detain stormwater, which makes large portions of
the property inaccessible to the public, and because it is stewarded by the
city's Public Works Department, it was felt that it distorted any discussion on
parks acreage in Kent by including a property whose recreational functions
are secondary to its public works functions. Reclassifying the GRNRA doesn't
take away the enjoyment people have when they use the property for
recreation, but it does better reflect the collection of properties stewarded by
the city for the primary purpose of recreation.
The ultimate result is that while the park system has seen minor growth in
acreage since 2010, the numbers don't reflect the growth.
Table P.1
Parks and Facilities by the Numbers: 1993- 2015
1993 2003 2015
Population 41,000 84,275 122,300
Park property
(total acres all
849.5 1346.63 1094.68
221
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 10
categories)
Golf Course
(holes per 1000)
0.66 0.32 0.22
Indoor Recreation
Facilities
(sq. ft./person)
2.33 1.13 1.16
Our System by Category
Following is a list of the various categories of parks and properties stewarded
by the Kent park system, and an explanation of the role they serve in that
system. The list includes the number of properties in each category.
Neighborhood Parks
Kent has twenty five neighborhood parks. These tend to be small, intimate
parks, tucked into residential neighborhoods. They're typically accessed on
foot or by bike. They include amenities that tend to cause them to be natural
gathering places for the neighborhoods they serve, but they're not intended
to be destinations that attract use from outside of their neighborhood.
Community Parks
Kent has ten community parks. These parks are typically larger than
neighborhood parks, and contain amenities that attract a larger use area. For
that reason, parking lots are typically found in these parks. As larger
gathering spaces, they are often used for community-wide special events like
concerts or movies.
Special Use Parks
Not all parks fit into neat categories. Some parks are the size of
neighborhood parks, but they cater to a specialized audience. Arbor Heights
360 is such a park. With its primary features being a skate park and a
climbing wall, it draws a very active, usually young adult, audience seeking a
very specialized recreational experience.
Other examples of special use parks include several downtown "pocket
parks." These parks are not in a residential neighborhood; therefore, they
don't have a residential constituency. They are typically activated during
weekdays by business people seeking a short break from work.
Kent has nine special use parks.
Natural Resources
222
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 11
While Kent is known for its industrial and warehouse resources, the city also
benefits from a large amount of protected open space, both in the form of
publicly owned lands and critical areas protected by regulation. The Green
River, which runs south to north through the valley, is protected through its
designation as waters of the state. Other shoreline areas include Lake
Meridian, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area,
Springbrook Creek, portions of Soos Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn
Floodway.
Recreational Facilities
Kent has a number of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. These are
spaces that are heavily programmed. As a result, they tend to have a low
incidence of use outside of their programmed use.
Kent's outdoor recreational facilities include Wilson Playfields, Hogan Park at
Russell Road, Service Club Ball Fields, and Kent Memorial Park. Indoor
facilities include the Kent Valley Ice Centre, the Nealy-Soames Historic
Home, the Kent Historical Society Museum, the Kent Commons, the Kent-
Meridian Pool, and the Senior Activity Center.
Since the 2010 Park Plan update, our Resource Center was closed and the
property was removed from the city's inventory.
Undeveloped Park Land
As noted above, over the years Kent has obtained a number of properties it
has not yet developed as parks. Since this acreage is intended for eventual
use, it is included as park property; still, the properties have few to no
facilities, and so recreational use at these sites is not supported by our
limited maintenance resources. Kent owns 148.27 acres of undeveloped
park land.
Other Facilities
In addition to parks and open space, the city's parks system includes a golf
complex, and a community pea patch (on property owned by others).
The 167-acre golf complex includes an 18-hole course, a par 3 course, a
driving range and a mini-putt course.
There are also over 28 miles of off-right-of-way trails in the city.
The next update to the P&OS Plan will include a broader discussion of the
city's indoor recreation facilities than in the last update. It will be based on a
planned dialogue with the community to determine the community's
223
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 12
satisfaction with the current level of service as well as their desires and
priorities for changes to the level of service.
The upcoming P&OS Plan update will include a detailed list of Kent’s parks,
open space and recreational properties.
Other Local Recreation Facilities
The city is not the only public provider of recreational facilities in and around
Kent. The Kent School District owns a number of playgrounds and play fields
on its various school properties. Some of these are available for general
public use when school is not in session. Other facilities, like their synthetic
turf sports fields, are not open to the general public, but do host
programmed activities, such as Kent recreation league games.
In addition, King County owns several recreational properties in the local
area. They have the primary maintenance responsibility for the Interurban
Trail (owned by Puget Sound Energy, but leased to the County), as well as
the Soos Creek Trail. They also own the northern portion of North Meridian
Park, which they maintain as open space.
In addition, the city's Public Works department owns a number of properties
that provide some recreational value (typically via the trails they maintain for
access but allow the public to utilize for recreation), although that is not their
primary use.
These properties provide some recreational opportunities to Kent residents,
but they are not included in Kent's Level of Service equations because the
Parks Department has no control over how they are programmed, managed
and maintained.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Determining a level of service for parks, recreation facilities and open space
for a community is challenged by the fact that there really isn’t a one-size-
fits-all approach to providing these community facilities.
Population
Kent's most recent update to our Parks and Open Space Plan was adopted in
2010. At the time of the update, Kent's population stood at 88,380 residents.
Since that plan, the Panther Lake annexation added five square miles and
approximately 24,000 residents to the city. Kent's current (2015) population
stands at about 122,300. The population is fairly evenly split between
genders, with 50.4 percent male and 49.6 percent female. Nearly 30 percent
of Kent’s residents are under the age of 20, and 51.4 percent are between
the ages of 20 and 54. The city’s median age is approximately 34 years old.
224
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 13
More detailed information on Kent’s population may be found in the Profile
and Vision chapter of this Plan.
Needs Analysis
The P&OS Plan's Needs Analysis detailed the challenges of establishing Levels
of Service for parks and recreation facilities. Other public services enjoy
straightforward metrics, such as response time for emergency services,
quantity of materials disposed of or processed for waste management
services, and intersection wait times for transportation.
We know that parks and recreation facilities provide immense value to a
community. We know that communities with good parks tend to be healthier
than communities with few or no parks. We know that neighborhoods with
well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and lower
crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. Because these
benefits accrue over time, it's really difficult to track them back to specific
budget years. As a result, it's very difficult to provide metrics for the value
that parks and recreation facilities bring to their communities.
Communities all over the country have struggled and continue to struggle to
provide a quantifiable Level of Service for parks and recreation facilities. The
2010 P&OS Plan looked at the traditional means of measuring Levels of
Service (based on acres per thousand for different facilities) and traced the
decades-long trend of declining Levels of Service in Kent, based on that
approach. It also looked at Levels of Service on a neighborhood-by-
neighborhood basis. This approach identified 32 neighborhoods currently
served by parks, four neighborhoods with partially met needs and four with
no park space. Three additional neighborhoods in the at-that-time un-
annexed Panther Lake area were also park-deficient.
Below is a table illustrating how Kent's parks and open space Levels of
Service have changed over time.
Table P.2
Level of Service 1993- 2035
1993 2003 2015 2035
Population 41,000 84,275 122,300 138,156
Neighborhood Parks
(acres/1000)
2.53 1.13 .59^ .52*
Community Parks
(acres/1000)
18.19 14.85 1.24^ 1.1*
Golf Course
(holes/1000)
0.66 0.32 0.22 .19*
225
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 14
Indoor Rec Facilities
(sq. ft./person)
2.33 1.13 1.16 1.03*
Parks property (total
acres)
849.5 1346.63 1094.68 1094.68*
Natural Resource # # 3.71 3.28*
Overall LOS
(acres/1000)
20.72 15.98 8.95 7.92*
Overall LOS Dev.
Parks – incl. golf
course
(Ac./1000)
# # 3.82 3.38
^Some of this change is due to reclassification of parks. Please refer to Park Inventory and Classification
section for further information.
*This assumes no additional acquisition or new development.
#Figure not available.
Using the above approach to Levels of Service, Kent would need to develop
60.55 of its 160.16 acres of currently-undeveloped land by 2035 in order to
stem any further erosion to its developed parks Levels of Service for its
projected population of 138,156.
While the 2010 P&OS Plan update did not propose a new approach to Level of
Service, it recognized the need for one.
How Much Is Enough?
"Level of Service" is an attempt to provide a gauge for a particular public
good or service being provided to a community. It is also used to establish
goals for that good or service, according to the overall priorities and
resources of the community. For example, when a community sets a goal of
having emergency services respond to a call for help within a certain number
of minutes, that number is then used to inform city leaders how many
resources need to be allocated to emergency services in order to achieve the
response time goal.
Parks, recreation facilities and open space Levels of Service measures are
used in the same way. How many parks are enough for a community? How
many parks is the community willing to support? Those are difficult
questions, but given the ongoing revenue shortfall, they are very relevant
questions that will require extensive community discussion during the next
park plan update.
The chart below, from 2013, shows the developed park acreage for Kent and
some of its regional peer cities. Looking at what Kent is providing in relation
to its peer cities provides some points of reference when discussing what's
226
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 15
right for Kent. Looked at in isolation, Kent's numbers, and the Levels of
Service they represent, have little meaning.
Meaningful Measures
According to the chart above, Kent is behind its peer cities in providing
developed park land to its residents. However, acres per thousand, while a
useful measure, isn't the only metric used in discussing Levels of Service.
Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines, published by Washington's
Recreation and Conservation Office, is a statewide reference for cities
developing and updating their Parks and Open Space Plans. Its Level of
Service Summary for Local Agencies discusses a variety of approaches to
assessing parks and recreation facilities Levels of Service. Options include
measuring quantity, quality, and distribution and access of local parks and
recreation facilities.
Kent's next P&OS update will consider using these and other potential
approaches as part of a shift to a performance-based Level of Service
assessment. The update will include determining which parks and recreation
facilities in the Kent system are performing at a high level, and which parks
are underperforming. By focusing on preserving recreational value of high-
performing parks and increasing recreational value of low-performing parks,
the update will examine the potential for increasing Kent's parks and
recreational facility Level of Service without relying exclusively on adding
acreage.
Figure P-2
227
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 16
Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies are from the last Parks and Open Space Plan
update. That plan noted a shift in expressing how the City’s park and open
space system would best develop over the coming years and details
measurable steps toward achieving these goals.
Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to
participate in life- enrichment activities via the development of park land and
recreational facilities, preservation and enhancement of environmentally
sensitive areas, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of
community resources.
I. Park & Recreation Facilities Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality, diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and
interest groups.
Goal P&OS-1:
Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and
facilities.
Policy P&OS-1.1: Cooperate with King County, Kent, Federal Way and
Highline School Districts, and other public and private agencies to
acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing,
wading, swimming, and other related recreational activities and pursuits,
especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian,
and Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-1.2: Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft
access, including canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other non-power-boating
activities, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake
Meridian, and Panther Lake, where practicable.
Goal P&OS-2:
Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not
limited to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality
system of athletic facilities for competitive play.
228
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 17
Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest
quality standards and requirements for competitive playing for all
abilities, age groups, skill levels, and recreational interests.
Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football,
baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that
provide for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple
use, where appropriate.
Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of
facilities that provide the highest standard for competitive playing,
possibly in conjunction with King County, Kent and Federal Way School
Districts, and other public agencies and private organizations.
Goal P&OS-3:
Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that
provide activities and programs for the interests of all physical and mental
capabilities, age, and interest groups in the community.
Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor community
centers, such as the Senior Activity Center and Kent Memorial Park
Building, that provide arts and crafts, music, video, classroom
instruction, meeting facilities, eating and health care, day care, and
other spaces for all age groups, including preschool, youth, teens, and
seniors on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.2: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor
recreational centers, such as Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool,
that provide aquatic, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational
courts, and other athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels,
and community interests on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and
diversification by the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of
special meeting, assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities
that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the community
at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the
Potential Annexation Area.
229
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 18
Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor
cultural and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music,
dance, drama, and other audience and participatory opportunities for the
community at large.
Goal P&OS-4:
Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational
enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are able and willing to
finance them.
Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e.,
self-supporting), develop and operate specialized and special interest
recreational facilities like golf, ice skating, frisbee golf, mountain biking
and archery ranges.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public
agencies and private organizations joint planning and operating
programs to determine and provide for special activities like golf,
archery, gun ranges, off-leash areas, model airplane flying areas, frisbee
golf, mountain biking and camping on a regional basis.
Goal P&OS-5:
Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community
parks, with active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of-
service needs as Kent’s population grows and areas are annexed.
Policy P&OS-5.2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets
and geographic features that act as natural barriers. Set aside
neighborhood park land within each neighborhood to meet the levels-of-
service.
Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group
use, active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the
neighborhood or community as a whole.
230
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 19
Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily
residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation
elements.
II. Open Space and Greenway Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that
preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and
urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban separators is a
strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent’s open space system.
Goal P&OS-6:
Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation
between developed areas, and provide open space and greenway linkages
among park and recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve a system of open space and
greenway corridors as urban separators to provide definition between
natural areas and urban land uses within the Kent area.
Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or
other existing or planned connections with greenways and open space,
particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos
Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian,
Panther Lake, and Lake Youngs; and around significant wetland and
floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as
necessary, environmentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and
urban separators, particularly along the steep hillsides that define both
sides of the Green River Valley and the SE 277th/272nd Street corridor.
Goal P&OS-7:
Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to
development.
Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies
and with private landowners to protect land and resources near
residential neighborhoods for high-quality, low-impact park and
231
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 20
recreational facilities before the most suitable sites are lost to
development. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive
lands along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek
Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way.
Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments, preserve unique
environmental features or areas, and increase public use of and access
to these areas. Cooperate with other public and private agencies and
with private landowners to protect unique features or areas as low-
impact publicly accessible resources, particularly along the Green River,
Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 277th/272nd Street
corridors.
III. Trail and Corridor System Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that
provide access to significant environmental features, public facilities, and
developed neighborhoods and business districts.
Goal P&OS-8:
Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-
road and on-road trail systems that link park and
recreational resources with residential areas, public
facilities, commercial, and employment centers both
within Kent and within the region.
Policy P&OS-8.1: Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system
of multi-purpose off-road trails using alignments of the Puget Power
rights-of-way, Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail,
Green River Trail, Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green
River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to
improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring
enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and
alignments.
232
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 21
Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods
to community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center,
the Kent-Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts.
Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way,
Des Moines, Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions
to link and extend Kent trails to other community and regional trail
facilities like the Green River, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails.
Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street
improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or
proposed trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods.
Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the
downtown core, and other commercial and retail activity centers on East
and West Hills.
Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the
Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek, and around
natural features like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and
Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality, diverse sampling of
Kent’s environmental resources.
Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise development regulations so that key trail
links that are identified within the corridor map are provided to the city
during the development approval process.
Goal P&OS-9:
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with convenient
amenities and improvements.
Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead
supporting improvements that include interpretive and directory signage,
rest stops, drinking fountains, restrooms, parking and loading areas,
water, and other services.
Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in
conjunction with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to
233
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 22
increase local area access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of
supporting improvements and amenities.
Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which
emphasize safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access
by maintenance, security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment,
and vehicles.
IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of
significant historic and cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the
city’s multicultural heritage.
Goal P&OS-10:
Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multi-
cultural interests into the park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserve, and enhance Kent’s multi-
cultural heritage, traditions, and cultural resources, including historic
sites, buildings, artwork, views, monuments and archaeological
resources.
Policy P&OS-10.2: Identify and incorporate significant historic and
cultural resource lands, sites, artifacts, and facilities into the park system
to preserve these interests and to provide a balanced social experience.
These areas include the original alignment for the interurban electric rail
service between Seattle and Tacoma, the James Street historical
waterfront site, and the Downtown train depot, among others.
Policy P&OS-10.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other
cultural resource groups to incorporate community activities at historic
homes and sites into the park and recreational program.
Goal P&OS-11:
Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and
recreational system.
234
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 23
Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments,
structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these
features and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience.
Examples include the Earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in
public places.
Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase
public access to and utilization of these special features.
V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals & Policies
Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that
increase community awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for
participation.
Goal P&OS-12:
Work with the arts community to utilize local
resources and talents to increase public
access to artwork and programs.
Policy P&OS-12.1: Support
successful collaborations among the
Arts Commission, business
community, service groups, cultural
organizations, schools, arts patrons,
and artists to utilize artistic resources
and talents to the optimum degree
possible.
Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local
artists and art organizations. Where appropriate, develop and support
policies and programs that encourage or provide incentives to attract
and retain artists and artwork within the Kent community.
Goal P&OS-13:
Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas
and thereby increase public access and appreciation.
235
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 24
Policy P&OS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings,
sculptures, exhibits, and other media for indoor and outdoor display in
order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an
appropriate manner.
Policy P&OS-13.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and
operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities.
VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals & Policies
Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the
park system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migration corridors for local
fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation
associated with human activities.
Goal P&OS-14:
Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical fish and wildlife
habitat including nesting sites, foraging areas, and wildlife migration
corridors, within or adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and
developed urban areas.
Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire, enhance and preserve habitat sites that
support threatened species and urban wildlife habitat, in priority
corridors and natural areas with habitat value such as the Green River
Corridor, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North
Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park.
Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open
space, and environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy
urban forest with native vegetation that provides food, cover, and
shelter, by utilizing best management practices.
Goal P&OS-15:
Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such
access does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the
features.
236
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 25
Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental
features, including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands,
open spaces, woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that
support wildlife and reflect Kent’s natural heritage.
Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited
public access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are
especially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek,
Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural
Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther
Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake.
Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management
Program.
Policy P&OS–16.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of
life in Kent by restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces.
Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest
restoration and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program.
Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban
forest long-term sustainability, by removing invasive plants and
maintaining functional native forest communities.
VII. Design and Access Goals & Policies
Design and develop facilities that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain,
with life-cycle features that account for long-term costs and benefits.
Goal P&OS-17:
Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all
physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity
interests.
Policy P&OS-17.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts,
playgrounds, trails, parking lots, restrooms, and other active and
supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals and organized groups
237
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 26
of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and
activity interests.
Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms,
restrooms, hallways, parking lots, and other active and supporting
spaces and improvements to be accessible to individuals and organized
groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels,
and activity interests.
Goal P&OS-18:
Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance
materials.
Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-
maintenance and high-capacity design to reduce overall facility
maintenance and operation requirements and costs.
Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate, use low-maintenance
materials, settings, or other value-engineering considerations that
reduce care and security requirements, while retaining the natural
conditions and environment.
Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage
the use of low maintenance plants.
Goal P&OS-19:
Identify and implement the security and safety provisions of the American
Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED), and other standards.
Policy P&OS-19.1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the
American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED), and other design and development
standards that will improve park safety and security features for users,
department personnel, and the public at large.
238
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 27
Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards,
procedures, and programs that will provide proper training and
awareness for department personnel.
Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations
concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups,
department personnel, and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs,
neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will
increase safety and security awareness and visibility.
VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals & Policies
Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and
maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public
and private interests.
Goal P&OS-20:
Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational
requirements, including joint ventures with other public agencies and private
organizations, and private donations.
Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate innovative, available methods, such as
growth impact fees, land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation
ordinances, and inter-local agreements, to finance facility development,
maintenance, and operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain
financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase
facility services.
Policy P&OS-20.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint
ventures with King County, Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School
Districts, regional, state, federal, and other public agencies and private
organizations, including for-profit concessionaires to acquire and develop
regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.).
Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to
investigate grants and private funds, develop a planned giving program
239
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 28
and solicit private donations to finance facility development, acquisition,
maintenance, programs, services, and operating needs.
Goal P&OS-21:
Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced
local park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and
recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with
resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School
Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational
lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the
interests of area residents.
Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development
efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and
other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility
quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent interests of area
residents.
Goal P&OS-22:
Create and institute a method of cost/benefit and performance measure
assessment to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service,
and provision of facilities.
Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to effectively plan and program park and
recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential
annexation area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels-of-
service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the impacts of
population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities,
neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements
in the city as opposed to requirements in the Potential Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring,
developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in
manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and
private user interests. This includes the application of growth impact
fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards.
240
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 29
Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs
that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover
program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees,
user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer
efforts, and the use of general funds.
Related Information
http://kentwa.gov/content.aspx?id=1282
City of Kent 2010 Park & Open
Space Plan
241
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 1
Chapter Six - 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. Neighboring water and
sewer districts may include service areas
within the city limits of Kent. These districts
have completed concurrency analyses on
their systems and provide for planned growth
through infrastructure upgrades that are
funded through service rates.
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.
242
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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
Concurrency and Implications for
Growth
Utility projects and other capital facilities
must be in place to accommodate growth.
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.
243
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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.
Water supply service areas and facilities serving Kent’s Planning Area are
illustrated on Figure U-1.
Figure U-1
Water Supply Service Areas and Facilities
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
244
^^
^^
^^
T
T
º
º
ºº
º
º
º
º
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
^
^
º
º
º
º
º
º
º
º
º
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
PS NO 4
PS NO 5
2.0 MG RES
2.0 MGRES
6 MG RES15 MGRES
2.5 MGRES5 MG RES
6 MG#1 WT125,000G WT
BLUEBOY WT
REITHRD WT
3.5MG WT
CAMBRIDGE WT
640ZONE WT
0.15 MG WT
4 MG WT
3 MG WT
0.25 MG WT 1 MG WT
2.5MG WT
EASTHILLWELL
212TH STTREATMENTPLANT/WELL
208THST WELL
OBRIENWELL(NEW)
SEVENOAKSWELL
GARRISON CREEK WELL
EARTHWORKSWELL
108THAVE WELL
SUMMITWELL
WELLNO 1
WELLNO 2
WELLNO 3WELLNO 4WELLNO 5
WELLNO 6
WELLNO 9
ANGLELK WELL
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
PS #3
PS #5
PS #6 PS #4
PS #7
43RD ST PS- RENTONINTERTIE
PS #8 -HIGHLINEINTERTIE
GARRISONRES
GUIBERSONRES
WD #111 INTERTIE
TACOMA SSP3INTERTIE
AUBURNINTERTIE
TUKWILAINTERTIE
WD #111INTERTIE
WD #111INTERTIE
SCWSINTERTIE
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
WATER SUPPLY SERVICEAREAS & FACILITIESFigure xx.x
Y
Y
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743 3.5 MG WT
TACOMASSP3INTERTIE
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
KENT WATER FRANCHISE
KENT FACILITIES
ºWell
^Reservoir
Water Tank
T Pump Station
Y Intertie
OTHER AGENCY FACILITIES
ºWell
^Reservoir
Water Tank
T Pump StationWATER DISTRICTS
Auburn Water District
Covington Water District
Highline Water District
Lakehaven Water District
Renton Water District
Soos Creek Water District
Tukwila Water District
District #111
¯plan15-1b.mxd
245
246
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 4
coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future population forecast for
the actual area served by Kent sewer. Population forecasts are based on the
Land Use Plan for ultimate build out in accordance with Department of Ecology
requirements. The City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, which is
adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan, has identified various
undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitation.
King County Wastewater Treatment is responsible for interception, treatment,
and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and communities throughout
south and north King County. King County is providing additional wastewater
capacity to serve a growing population in the Puget Sound area through its
Brightwater Treatment Plant and is also expanding the South Treatment Plant
to handle additional flow from south and east King County. The city of Kent
does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs
for sanitary sewer treatment.
Service connections and interlocal agreements ensuring continuous service
exists between the City of Kent and adjacent sewer utilities providing service to
Kent homes and businesses. Figure U-2 illustrates the locations of the sanitary
sewer service areas and facilities.
Figure U-2
Sewer Service Areas and Facilities
Surface Water Management
The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed,
with stormwater flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River
via a tributary creek. The two main tributaries that convey stormwater from
Kent to the Green River are Big Soos Creek on the East Hill and Springbrook
Creek in the valley. Mill Creek and Garrison Creek flow into Springbrook Creek
in the northern area of the valley in Kent. A smaller portion of the City,
generally located west of I-5, flows either to Bingamon, Massey, or McSorley
Creeks, which drain directly to Puget Sound. These watersheds are shown on
Figure U-3. The City’s Clark Springs water supply properties are located in the
Rock Creek watershed, which flows into the Cedar River and then on to Lake
Washington.
Figure U-3
Storm Drainage Service Areas
247
248
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
SKYLINE
PARK
HORSESHOE
ACRES
SEWER
LINDENTAL
LINDA
HEIGHTS
VICTORIA
RIDGE
KENTVIEW
212TH
TRMT
PLANT
FRAGER
ROAD
MILL
CREEK
SEWER
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
S 260TH ST
LS 5B
LS 12
LS 9
LS 27
LS 17
LS 10
LS 19
LS 20
LS 21
LS 10B
LS 39
LS 23D
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
SEWER SERVICEAREAS & FACILITIESFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
!(KENT PUMP STATION
!(OTHER AGENCY PUMP STATION
METRO COLLECTOR
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
AUBURN SEWER
CEDAR RIVER WSD
LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT
MIDWAY SEWER DISTRICT
RENTON SEWER & WATER
SEWER DISTRICT #23
SOOS CREEK SEWER & WATER
TUKWILA SEWER DISTRICT
¯plan15-1e.mxd
249
250
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
Green River
Tributaries
Puget
Sound
Puget
Sound
Tributaries
Mullen
Slough &
Tributaries
Mill Creek
(Auburn) &
Tributaries
Mill Creek &
Tributaries
Springbrook
Creek
Tributaries
Springbrook
Creek
Garrison
Creek &
Tributaries
Mill Creek &
Tributaries
Green River
Tributaries
Green River Tributaries
Big Soos Creek &
Tributaries
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
STORM DRAINAGESERVICE AREAFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEGreen RiverTributariesInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
Watershed Boundary
SERVICE AREA
¯plan15-1c.mxd
251
252
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 5
The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches,
pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect
individual parcels with the City’s surface water systems. The City also owns,
operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities.
The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments
of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements
before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after
increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes
within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum
requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted
within the 2009 Drainage Master Plan (DMP).
The DMP included an evaluation of watersheds and drainage basins, analysis of
open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, and a
determination and prioritization of projects needed to reduce flood risks,
improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats,
and efficiently serve planned growth in a cost–effective way. Further details on
each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs
range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars.
Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater
management and stream protection are contained in the City’s 2002 Surface
Water Design Manual, which is a modified version of the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater system are improved
to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed.
These standards have been adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency
requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington.
Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE)-mandated National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Programs. The DMP included recommendations to meet the required
elements of the Lake Fenwick TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for tracking,
monitoring, maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary
resources to meet these needs.
As a result of the 1999 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).
The city is also an active participant in the Technical and Advisory Committees
for the King County Flood Control District, which constructs, operates and
maintains the levees along the Green River and other areas of King County.
253
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 6
Solid Waste
Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by
State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and
collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi-
year contract with the City, Republic Services provides comprehensive
garbage, recyclables and yard and food waste collection services to
residential, multifamily and commercial customers.
Kent has implemented mandatory garbage collection to curb illegal dumping,
litter and accumulation of trash/garbage on private property.
The City’s solid waste is ultimately taken to King County’s Cedar Hills Landfill
for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King
County, Kent and other parties will develop plans and alternatives to waste
disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advance of its closure in 2025; the
information will be incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan.
Kent has entered into an interlocal agreement with King County Solid Waste
and most other municipalities in the county to collectively manage solid
waste. At the current rate, Cedar Hills, which is the last remaining landfill in
the county, will last until 2030. Alternatives are identified in the King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Municipalities operating
under this plan strive to divert as much waste from the landfill as possible.
The residential sector in Kent is currently diverting just over 50% of the solid
waste from the landfill through recycling and yard and food waste collection.
Since 2010, participation in the yard and food waste collection program has
increased from 36% to over 95%.
Kent residents are able to participate in the countywide Hazardous Waste
Management program adopted by the King County Board of Health in
2010. Its mission is “to protect and enhance public health and
environmental quality in King county by reducing the threat posed by the
production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.”
Electricity
Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a private electric utility whose
operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Electricity is
produced elsewhere and transported to switching stations in Kent and Renton
through high-voltage transmission lines, then reduced and redistributed
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
254
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 7
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.
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.
Figure U-4
Existing and Proposed PSE Electric Facilities
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
255
256
")
"Y
")
")
"Y
"Y
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
v
e
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
S 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
v
e
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
§¨¦
§¨¦
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
EXISTING & PROPOSEDPSE ELECTRIC FACILITIESFigure xx.x
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124AVESESE 304 ST ¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
CITY LIMITS
EXISTING
Distribution Sub
")Tran Sub
"Y Tran Switch Station
115kV
230kV
55kV
End
PROPOSED
Distribution Sub
")Substation
"Y Tran Switch Station
115kV PSE
RemoveTransmission
¯plan15-1a.mxd
257
258
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 8
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 increase capacity requirements
due to new building construction and conversion from alternate fuels.
2. Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities.
3. Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state projects.
Figure U-5
PSE Gas Facilities
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.
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.
259
260
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
v
e
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyW Valley HwyGreenRiverBow Lk
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
S 188 ST
S 200 ST Interstate 5Pacific Hwy SS 288 ST 55 AVES
S 272 ST SouthcenterParkwayS 216 ST
Military RdE ValleyRd64 AVE SN 4 AVEW Gowe St Valley FwyJason Ave94 AVE S80 AVE SSE 192 ST
98 AVE S88 AVE SSE 248 ST
SE 240 STSR516
SR 18B.N. RailroadU.P. RailroadRdOrilliaHwy (SR) 99Pacific
S 277 ST
SE 288 ST
S 200 ST
Kent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SEKent-Kangley Rd
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d152 AVE SE124 AVE SELa
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n132 AVE SE148 AVE SE116 AVE SE104 AVE SE108 AVE SE116 AVE SE140 AVE SE108 AVE SESE 281 STWo
o
d
l
a
n
d
U.P. RailroadG
r
e
e
n
Ri
v
e
r
RdGreenRi
v
e
r Pa
n
t
h
e
r
L
k
.Pacific Hwy SInterstate5Star Lk.
Star
L
k
.
R
d RiethMilitaryAngle Lake
S 208 ST
S 223 ST
16 AVE S24 AVE SKent Des MoinesRd
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Clark Lk.Valley FwyLake
Fenwick
Meeker St
James St
SE 208 ST
SE 256 ST
112SEB.N. RailroadSE 218 ST
S 228 ST
AveSE P
e
t
r
o
v
i
t
s
k
y
R
d
Rd68 AVE S76 AVE SC
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
Wa
y
Gateway
42 AVE SS 229 ST
RdS 252 ST
S 248 ST
Willis St
Smith St CentralSE
100 AVE SEBenson Rd148 AVE SELake
Youngs
BigSoosCreekBigSoos124 AVE SE224 STE Valley RdFragerRdW Valley HwyS 196 ST 72 AVE SS 200 ST
S 212 ST
S 180 ST Lind AveS 192 ST
92 AVE SE Valley RdS 188 ST
S 204 ST U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
§¨¦
§¨¦
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
EXISTINGPSE GAS FACILITIESFigure xx.x
InsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
124AVESESE 304 ST ¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
HIGH PRESSURE
CITY LIMITS
¯plan15-1.mxd
261
262
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 9
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.
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:
263
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 10
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
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.
264
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 11
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.
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.
265
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 12
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.
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
266
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 13
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
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.
267
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 14
Policy U-12.1: Encourage participation in low-impact development and
environmentally sensitive builder programs.
Policy U-12.2: 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-12.3: Set public facility projects of the City as an example by
incorporating techniques of low-impact development design,
construction, operation and maintenance.
Goal U-13:
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 U-13.1: Establish site design criteria so natural hydrological
systems will function with minimum or no modification.
Policy U-13.2: 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-13.3: Promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection
systems in site and architectural design for non-potable water (gray-
water) storage and use, thereby saving potable (drinking) water for
ingestion.
Goal U-14:
Implement and maintain a stormwater management system that reduces flood
risk.
Policy U-14.1: Work with the King County Flood Control District to gain
and maintain levee accreditation from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) where appropriate.
Policy U-14.2: Ensure new development and redevelopment meets
the flow control requirements of the Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
268
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 15
Solid Waste
Goal U-15:
Reduce the solid waste stream, encouraging and increasing reuse, recycling,
yard and food waste diversion.
Policy U-15.1: 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-15.2: Support and promote product stewardship to divert
waste from the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Goal U-16:
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-16.1: Continue to competitively bid solid waste and
recycling collection services and technical assistance contracts when
current contracts expire.
Policy U-16.2: Consider innovative solid waste and recycling
programs to reduce carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas
emissions and limit accumulation of garbage in Kent’s residential
neighborhoods.
Policy U-16.3: Monitor solid waste providers for adequacy of service
and compliance with the service contracts.
Goal U-17:
Encourage and actively participate in a uniform regional approach to solid
waste management.
Policy U-17.1: Continue to participate in the Metropolitan Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC).
Policy U-17.2: 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.
269
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 16
Electricity
Goal U-18:
Promote electrical service on demand within the Kent Planning Area
consistent with a utility’s public service obligations.
Policy U-18.1: Underground new electrical transmission and
distribution lines, and where feasible existing transmission and
distribution lines.
Policy U-18.2: 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-19:
Promote expansion and delivery of natural gas service within the Kent
Planning Area by allowing access to alternative sources of fuel.
Policy U-19.1: 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-19.2: Utilize system design practices that minimize the number
and duration of interruptions to customer service.
Telecommunications
Goal U-20:
Provide telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and development
in a manner consistent with Kent’s vision, as outlined in the Vision and
Framework Guidance and the City Council’s Strategic Plan.
Goal U-21:
Complement private sector incumbent fiber build-out initiatives to support
continued connectivity build-out in underserved locations throughout Kent.
Goal U-22:
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.
270
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 17
Related Information
City of Kent 2009 Drainage Master Plan
City of Kent 2011 Water System Plan
City of Kent 2000 Comprehensive Sewer
Plan
City of Auburn 1983 Comprehensive
Water Plan
City of Auburn 2009 Comprehensive
Sewer Plan
City of Renton 2005 Water System Plan
City of Renton 2004 Wastewater
Management Plan
City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive
Sewer System Plan
Highline Water District 2008
Comprehensive Water System Plan
King County Water District No. 111
2007 Water Comprehensive Plan
Lakehaven Utility District 2009
Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan
Lakehaven Utility District 2008
Comprehensive Water System Plan
Lakehaven Utility District 2009
Comprehensive Wastewater System 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 Comprehensive 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
271
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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.
272
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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. 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,
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which
will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
273
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 20
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.
274
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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
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
within the DMP was reviewed for multiple benefits then given a “High, Medium,
275
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 22
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
DMP further discusses the needs of this program and provides areas of
276
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element Page 23
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
277
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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.
278
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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.
279
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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:
New or replacement of existing facilities to increased capacity
requirements due to new building construction and conversion from
alternate fuels.
Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities.
Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state
projects.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications services include both switched and dedicated voice,
data, video, and other communication services delivered over the telephone
and cable network on various mediums, including, but not limited to, wire,
fiber optic, or radio wave. Either regulated or non-regulated companies may
provide these services. Cable service includes communication, information
and entertainment services delivered over the cable system whether those
services are provided in video, voice or data form. Telecommunication
services follow growth and have capacity to match whatever growth occurs in
Kent. With new technologies, telecommunications utilities project virtually
limitless capacity within the planning horizon.
280
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Utilities Element 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.
281
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 1
Chapter Seven - HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
PURPOSE
Kent will be a place where children, individuals and families can thrive, where
neighbors care for each other, and where our residents share the responsibility of
ensuring a safe and healthy community for all.
A healthy city depends on the health and well-being of its residents. Human
services programs are essential to the health, growth and vitality of the Kent
community. Programs assist individuals and families meet their basic needs and
create a pathway to self-sufficiency. By investing in the delivery of these services to
Kent residents, the City of Kent is working to promote building a healthy
community. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create
measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents.
Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest possible impact. They
address the issues that matter most to our community and are targeted in order to
deliver meaningful results.
To achieve community impact, investments are made in a variety of ways:
Meeting Community Basics
Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help
meet immediate or basic needs.
Increasing Self-Reliance
Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access
to services and removing barriers to employment.
Strengthening Children and Families
Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed
What you will find in this chapter:
1. Demographic, economic and social trends
2. Statement of goals and policies to provide a framework defining the city’s
role in contributing to the social development of the community.
3. Goals that support the provision of services to assist those in need and
opportunities to encourage a healthy community.
Purpose Statement:
Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the
community’s growth, vitality and health.
282
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 2
to support their positive development, including early intervention &
prevention services.
Building a Safer Community
Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect
in our community.
Improving Health and Well-Being
Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental
and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently.
Improving and Integrating Systems
Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet demands
and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating
efforts, and sharing resources.
The City of Kent is one of the most diverse communities in the state of Washington.
As the City continues to strive to meet the needs and expectations of an
increasingly culturally and ethnically varied population, a better understanding of
cultural differences and their relationship to quality service – respect, inclusiveness,
and sensitivity – becomes essential. Serving diverse populations is not a “one size
fits all” process. Diversity includes all differences, not just those that indicate racial
or ethnic distinctions. Diversity transcends racial and ethnic distinctions to include
groups, their members, and affiliations. The concept of diversity also refers to
differences in lifestyles, beliefs, economic status, etc.
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
The demographic changes that have taken place in Kent and the surrounding cities
have had a broad impact on the provision of human services. It is evident that
segments of Kent’s population are growing more rapidly than others. Census 2010
data and the subsequent American Community Survey data indicate that while the
percentage of minorities in Seattle remained relatively flat, it skyrocketed in the
suburbs south of the city limits, including Kent. The shift happened as people of
color moved out of Seattle’s historically lower-income and diverse neighborhoods,
joining waves of immigrants who continue to relocate and settle in South King
County. While Seattle is scarcely more diverse than it was ten years ago, Kent and
several other South King County cities are now communities where minorities either
comprise a majority of the population or very close to it.
This trend is sometimes referred to as the suburbanization of poverty and its
prevalence in South King County drew the attention of the Brookings Institution, a
think tank based in Washington D.C. that conducts research and education in the
social sciences. Kent and the surrounding cities are now home to a wide variety of
people living in poverty. According to research conducted by Brookings, 68% of the
283
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 3
poor in the three counties surrounding Seattle now live in the suburbs, particularly
in South King County. The suburbanization of poverty is now a defining
characteristic of the Kent community and it appears to be increasing across the
nation.
As the suburbanization of poverty trend continues, Kent’s population will become
increasingly diverse, challenging our already overburdened service delivery systems
to deliver culturally and linguistically competent services. Individuals and families
will continue to need accessible transportation, health care, child, and dependent
care. Housing cost in part fuels this growth and, although housing in Kent is less
expensive than other parts of King County, it is still not affordable for many
(defined as a threshold of 30% of income). Kent has a large inventory of old
housing, both apartments and single-family homes. This housing stock is in need of
upkeep and improvements in order to maintain an appropriate level of livability.
Low-income households are too often crowded in older apartments not intended for
their family size, and home ownership opportunities are limited for working
families.
Additional challenges related to the suburbanization of poverty include the
development of health disparities. People living in poverty are more likely to have
underlying contributors to conditions that adversely affect health – factors such as
poor diet, tobacco use, physical inactivity, drug and alcohol use, and adverse
childhood experiences. The leading causes of death and disability are shaped in
large part by the places where people live, learn, work and play. Therefore, to
improve the health of Kent’s residents, more attention must be focused on
community features that affect health - such as decent housing, access to healthy
food, transportation, parks, living wage jobs, and social cohesion. The economy
and quality of life depends on the ability of everyone to contribute. By investing in
human services that are accessible to all, the City is working to remove barriers
that limit the ability of some to fulfill their potential.
Issues
Demographics, Economics and Special Needs
The needs of Kent residents are varied and range from
the need for one-time assistance to the need for more
complex, ongoing case management. It is critical to
provide a continuum of human services programs that
meet residents where they are, prevent them from
requiring more intensive services later, and guide them
toward a path of self-sufficiency.
284
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 4
Regional efforts in South King County are critical for high priority issues such as
housing, transportation and human services. While the migration of low-income
individuals and families to South King County is well documented, the proportion of
public funds has not followed. Additionally, simply moving the resources will not
solve the fundamental problems associated with poverty in the region. Kent and
other South King County cities do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet the
needs because public policy has not kept pace with the rise of poverty in the
suburbs. While there is no simple solution to this issue, it is critical that any
approach to system change must be addressed at a regional level, including local
partners in every part of the process.
KENT’S HISTORY IN HUMAN SERVICES
Kent is recognized as a leader in South King County in the human services arena.
The City has been funding nonprofit human service agencies to provide services to
its residents since 1974. In 1989, The City took a major step in its funding efforts
by allocating 1% of its general fund revenue to fund human services. This nearly
doubled the amount of funding in the first year. In addition, the City has
consistently allocated the maximum allowable of its Federal Community
Development Block Grant dollars to human services.
The City of Kent Human Services Commission was established by the City Council in
1986. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council,
and Chief Administrative Officer on setting priorities, evaluating and making
recommendations on funding requests, evaluating and reviewing human service
agencies, and responding to City actions affecting the availability and quality of
human services in Kent. Commissioners take an active part in promoting
community awareness and education on human services issues. In 1989 the City
created the Office of Housing and Human Services (now Housing and Human
Services).
In 2011 (for the 2012 budget) Human Services requested a budget adjustment of
$95,000 due to a significant decrease in the human services 1% funding allocation.
The decrease occurred when a number of factors converged that had the potential
to drastically reduce the City’s investment in human services. As a result the
Human Services Commission was charged with developing a new, more stable
funding strategy. Beginning in 2013, the City shifted to a per capita rate with a
Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalator. The CPI will not exceed 3% or drop below
0%. In 2013 the rate was established at $6.96.
CITY’S ROLE IN HUMAN SERVICES
Housing and Human Services, a division of Kent’s Parks, Recreation & Community
Services Department, is responsible for human services planning at both the local
285
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 5
and regional levels, facilitating human services activities and funding through the
Human Services Commission. Housing and Human Services also operates the City’s
Home Repair program, funded entirely by Federal Community Development Block
Grant money.
City of Kent staff provides leadership in human services as a planner, facilitator,
educator, and funder. The City plans for human service needs by assessing the
current state of the community, as well as anticipating future needs. The City
facilitates and convenes community partnerships to address emerging issues. The
City educates others on the resources available and the value of these services.
Kent funds programs through both General Fund dollars and Federal Community
Development Block Grant dollars to support and enhance existing services, as well
as to address emergent needs.
Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable,
sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are
focused in order to generate the greatest impacts.
Volunteers from the community who comprise the City’s Human Services
Commission determine the City’s community investments using the following
criteria:
address the City’s funding priorities;
are of high quality and fiscally sound with a track-record of achieving
measurable results;
reflect the continuum of human service needs;
are collaborative in nature;
provide an opportunity to leverage other resources for the greatest impact;
and
are accessible to all residents who need to access services
The City’s investments in the community are not only monetary in nature, but are
also evidenced through the dedication of staff time and resources to community
initiatives that will benefit the greater Kent community. Several divisions of the
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department are involved in providing
human service programs and assistance. The department provides a variety of
education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children, youth,
seniors, and people with disabilities. Other divisions within the City of Kent also
play important roles in the provision of human services. The City’s Neighborhood
Program was created to promote and sustain an environment that is responsive to
resident involvement while building partnerships between the city and its
residents. The Police Department coordinates a very successful Youth Board, that
exists to educate and raise awareness of youth issues through youth-driven
activities, including having a positive influence on peers toward making healthy
choices, and community based projects focused on drug and alcohol prevention.
286
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 6
DATA
In 2010-2012 there were approximately 42,000 households in Kent. The average
household size was 2.9 people.
73% of the people living in Kent were native residents of the United States. 27% of
Kent’s residents were foreign born. Of the foreign born Kent residents, 47% were
naturalized U.S. citizens and 93% entered the country prior to the year 2010.
Foreign born residents of Kent come from many different parts of the world.
Figure HS-1
Foreign-Born Residents
Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey Data
Table HS.1
Racial Diversity
More
than one
race
Other Asian/Pacific
Islander
Native
American
Black White
1990 0* 1.2% 4.4% 1.4% 3.8% 89.2%
2000 5.4% 9.8% 10.2% 1% 8.2% 70.8%
2010 6.6% 8.5% 17.1% 1% 11.3% 55.5%
*More than one race was not an option in the 1990 Census.
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010 US Census Data
Among people at least five years old living in Kent in 2010-2012, 41% spoke a
language other than English at home. Of those speaking a language other than
English at home, 32% spoke Spanish and 68% some other language. 47% reported
that they did not speak English “very well.”
Africa
8.2%
Asia
46.5% Europe
16.1%
Northern America
1.9%
Latin America
25.1%
Oceania
2.2% Regions of the World
287
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 7
Figure HS-2
Population Speaking Language Other Than English
2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Education
In 2010-2012, 27% of people 25 years and over had a high school diploma or
equivalency and 24% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. 17% were dropouts; they
were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.
8.3
34.9
24.7
32.2
0 10 20 30 40
Other languages
Asian and Pacific Islander
languages
Other Indo-European languages
Spanish
Percent of Population 5 years and who Speak
a Language other than English
Percent of Population 5 years
and who Speak a Language
other than English
288
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 8
Figure HS-3
Educational Attainment
2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Table HS.2
Educational Attainment
Subject Kent city, Washington
Total Male Female
Estimate Margin of
Error
Estimate Margin of
Error
Estimate Margin of
Error
Population 18 to 24 years 12,712 +/-1,073 6,059 +/-766 6,653 +/-779
Less than high school graduate 17.4% +/-3.9 18.2% +/-5.4 16.8% +/-4.9
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
27.9% +/-4.5 33.3% +/-7.3 23.0% +/-5.5
Some college or associate's degree 47.9% +/-5.5 42.5% +/-7.2 52.7% +/-6.6
Bachelor's degree or higher 6.8% +/-2.4 6.0% +/-3.4 7.5% +/-2.9
Population 25 years and over 75,934 +/-1,582 36,730 +/-1,184 39,204 +/-1,191
Less than 9th grade 8.4% +/-1.1 8.6% +/-1.4 8.1% +/-1.3
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 8.2% +/-0.9 8.5% +/-1.4 7.8% +/-1.2
High school graduate (includes 26.5% +/-1.5 26.1% +/-2.0 26.9% +/-2.2
Less than high school
diploma 16.5
High school diploma
or equivalency, 26.5
Some college, no
degree 23.7
Associate's degree
9.3
Bachelor's Degree
17.5
Graduate or
professional degree
6.4
Educational Attainment of People in Kent
Less than high school diploma
High school diploma or equivalency
Some college, no degree
Associate's degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate or professional degree
289
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 9
equivalency)
Some college, no degree 23.7% +/-1.5 23.8% +/-2.0 23.6% +/-2.0
Associate's degree 9.3% +/-0.9 9.2% +/-1.3 9.4% +/-1.2
Bachelor's degree 17.5% +/-1.4 17.6% +/-1.9 17.5% +/-2.0
Graduate or professional degree 6.4% +/-0.8 6.2% +/-1.0 6.7% +/-1.1
Percent high school graduate or higher 83.5% +/-1.2 82.9% +/-1.7 84.0% +/-1.6
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 24.0% +/-1.4 23.8% +/-1.8 24.1% +/-2.1
Population 25 to 34 years 18,062 +/-1,311 8,888 +/-851 9,174 +/-876
High school graduate or higher 81.0% +/-3.7 79.5% +/-5.4 82.5% +/-3.8
Bachelor's degree or higher 20.8% +/-2.8 20.1% +/-4.3 21.6% +/-3.6
Population 35 to 44 years 17,173 +/-1,235 8,230 +/-705 8,943 +/-802
High school graduate or higher 79.5% +/-2.9 78.7% +/-4.5 80.3% +/-4.1
Bachelor's degree or higher 25.2% +/-3.2 20.2% +/-3.6 29.7% +/-4.6
Population 45 to 64 years 29,170 +/-1,233 14,873 +/-782 14,297 +/-775
High school graduate or higher 87.6% +/-2.4 86.4% +/-3.0 88.8% +/-2.8
Bachelor's degree or higher 26.0% +/-2.6 26.4% +/-3.0 25.5% +/-3.4
Population 65 years and over 11,529 +/-590 4,739 +/-425 6,790 +/-515
High school graduate or higher 82.9% +/-3.0 85.6% +/-3.8 81.1% +/-4.3
Bachelor's degree or higher 22.1% +/-2.7 28.8% +/-4.8 17.4% +/-3.1
POVERTY RATE FOR THE POPULATION 25
YEARS AND OVER FOR WHOM POVERTY
STATUS IS DETERMINED BY EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT LEVEL
Less than high school graduate 32.2% +/-5.3 26.0% +/-6.4 38.4% +/-6.4
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
13.9% +/-3.4 11.4% +/-4.0 16.1% +/-4.2
Some college or associate's degree 10.4% +/-1.9 9.8% +/-2.5 10.9% +/-2.6
Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8% +/-1.8 4.7% +/-2.7 4.9% +/-2.4
(continued)
MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12
MONTHS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED
DOLLARS)
Population 25 years and over with
earnings
36,231 +/-1,353 41,689 +/-1,885 30,642 +/-1,438
Less than high school graduate 23,785 +/-3,519 27,171 +/-3,597 14,035 +/-2,876
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
30,570 +/-2,453 37,137 +/-3,457 25,731 +/-3,073
Some college or associate's degree 35,906 +/-1,429 41,128 +/-3,396 31,451 +/-1,829
Bachelor's degree 53,131 +/-2,181 65,766 +/-3,989 39,857 +/-5,945
Graduate or professional degree 65,873 +/-7,549 92,149 +/-23,593 58,197 +/-7,696
PERCENT IMPUTED
Educational attainment 6.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
290
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 10
Kent School District
The increasing diversity in Kent is even more pronounced when examining school
statistics.
Kent School District is the fourth largest school district in the state of Washington.
Currently, the district consists of 4 large comprehensive high schools, 6 middle
schools, 28 elementary schools and 2 academies. Kent School District benefits from
a wealth of diversity as at least 138 languages are spoken within its boundaries,
with the top five languages other than English including: Spanish, Russian, Somali,
Punjabi, and Vietnamese.
Ten Years of Change
Over the past ten years, the Kent School District has seen increased enrollment as
well as a shift in student population demographics.
Table HS.3
Kent School District Demographics
2001-2002 2012-2013
Student Enrollment: 26,670 Student Enrollment 27,539
Male: 51.6% Male: 52.3%
Female: 48.3% Female: 47.7%
Caucasian: 68.7% Caucasian: 39.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.6% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.1%
African American: 9.5% African American: 11.9%
Hispanic 6.8% Hispanic: 19.8%
American Indian: 1.2% American Indian: 0.7%
Kent School District Student Demographics
Enrollment
October 2013 Student Count 27,688
May 2014 Student Count 27,484
Gender (October 2013)
Male 14,513 52.4%
Female 13,175 47.6%
Race/Ethnicity (October 2013)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 156 0.6%
Asian 4,799 17.3%
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander 647 2.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 5,446 19.7%
Black / African American 3,377 12.2%
Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 5,779 20.9%
White 10,459 37.8%
Two or More Races 2,471 8.9%
Special Programs
291
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 11
Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2014) 14,399 52.4%
Special Education (May 2014) 2,996 10.9%
Transitional Bilingual (May 2014) 4,918 17.9%
Migrant (May 2014) 39 0.1%
Section 504 (May 2014) 1,095 4.0%
Foster Care (May 2014) 146 0.5%
Other Information (more info)
Unexcused Absence Rate (2013-14) 348 0.4%
Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2013) 78.7%
Adjusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2012) 82.8%
College/University enrollment rates of graduates
Office of Superintendent of Public Education
While the Kent School District serves the majority of Kent residents, several
neighborhoods have children and youth who attend schools in nearby Federal Way.
The demographics of the two school districts are similar in many ways. 67% of
Federal Way Public Schools students are an ethnicity other than white. 60% live in
or near the federal poverty level (based on free and reduced lunch figures). 16%
are transitional/bilingual English Language Learners. Over 112 languages are
spoken in the district.
Table HS.4
Federal Way School District Demographics
Federal Way Public Schools Student Demographics
Enrollment
October 2013 Student Count 1,056,809
May 2014 Student Count 1,055,517
Gender (October 2013)
Male 544,860 51.6%
Female 511,949 48.4%
Race/Ethnicity (October 2013)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 16,417 1.6%
Asian 75,587 7.2%
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander 10,099 1.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 85,686 8.1%
Black / African American 47,840 4.5%
Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 222,493 21.1%
White 612,836 58.0%
Two or More Races 71,463 6.8%
Special Programs
Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2014) 484,363 45.9%
Special Education (May 2014) 139,601 13.2%
Transitional Bilingual (May 2014) 102,339 9.7%
Migrant (May 2014) 20,295 1.9%
Section 504 (May 2014) 25,591 2.4%
292
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 12
Foster Care (May 2014) 7,914 0.7%
Other Information (more info)
Unexcused Absence Rate (2013-14) 525,714 0.5%
Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of
2013) 76.0%
Adjusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of
2012) 78.8%
College/University enrollment rates of graduates
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Education
The race/ethnicity makeup of students as of October 2013 was:
Figure HS-4
Race/Ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2013-2014 Report Card
Figure HS-5
0.6%
17.3%
2.3%
19.7%
12.2%
20.9%
37.8%
8.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
293
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 13
Center for Education and Data Research (CEDR) Percentage of English
Language Learners
Source: Kent School District’s State of the District 2011-2012
HEALTH INDICATORS
The following selected indicators from Public Health’s Communities Count data
released in 2012 and early 2013 illustrate important factors for healthy
communities. The data refer to South King County as a region, and will be generally
applicable to challenges faced by the City of Kent:
13% of adults experience “food insecurity”, reporting that household food
money did not last the whole month. Of those reporting food insecurity,
38% were Latino, 21% African American, 13% were Multiple Race, 6%
Asian and 7% white.
15% of adults in South King County reported that their household could not
afford to eat balanced meals or went hungry during the past 12 months.
This compares to 9% of King County residents on average.
Households with children in South King County are far more likely to
experience food hardship than those without children. (18% compared to
8%.)
At 27.7 per 1,000, West Kent had one of the highest teen birth rates in King
County. All neighborhoods and cities with teen birth rates greater than the
King County average were found in South King County and South
Seattle. These areas had teen birth rates 1.5 to almost 3 times higher than
the county average.
HOMELESSNESS
294
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 14
Spotlight on Homeless Families:
The City of Kent is experiencing increasing numbers of homeless individuals. The
One-Night Count, conducted annually by the Seattle-King County Homeless
Coalition and Operation Nightwatch, conducted their annual count of people
sleeping outside in January 2014. Sixty-three people were found on the streets, a
smaller number than anticipated. Fifty four persons were counted in 2013 and 104
were counted in 2012.
In addition to the homeless individuals sleeping outside, many homeless people are
not visible – many families are in “doubled up” housing conditions, in shelter, or in
hotels. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007 the number of homeless
children in the Kent School District has been between 400 and 500. The Kent
School District had 420 homeless students in the 2012-13 school year.
In April 2012 King County launched the Coordinated Entry “Family Housing
Connections” system for all families county wide experiencing homelessness.
Families searching for housing use a single entry point facilitated by 2-1-1. All
families are served through Catholic Community Services who uses the full range of
housing providers to place the family. During the first year of the project a number
of issues have emerged and planners are working on the best strategies to resolve
the issues.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal HS-1:
Build safe and healthy communities through mutually supportive
connections, building on the strengths and assets of all residents.
Policy HS-1.1: Provide children, youth and families with community
resources needed to support their positive development, including early
intervention and prevention services.
Policy HS-1.2: Provide resources and services that reduce violence,
crime, and neglect in our community.
Policy HS-1.3: Support efforts to strengthen neighborhoods and ensure
individuals and families feel connected to their community and build support
systems within neighborhoods.
Policy HS-1.4: Increase community participation from traditionally
under-represented populations, including youth, persons of color, immigrants
and non-native English speakers.
Goal HS-2:
Support residents in attaining their maximum level of self-reliance.
Policy HS-2.1: Ensure that people facing hardship have access to
resources to help meet immediate or basic needs.
295
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 15
Policy HS-2.2: Improve access to services that allow individuals to
improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to
live independently.
Policy HS-2.3: Promote access to jobs and services, especially for lower-
income individuals, when planning local and regional transportation systems
and economic development activities.
Goal HS-3:
Build community collaborations and seek strategic approaches to meet the
needs of Kent residents.
Policy HS-3.1: Lead efforts to improve the ability of human services
systems to meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing
technology, coordinating efforts and leveraging resources.
Policy HS-3.2: Collaborate with churches, employers, businesses,
schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community.
Policy HS-3.3: Encourage collaborative partnerships between the City
and the school districts to align resources to accomplish mutual goals that
meet the needs of children and families.
Goal HS-4:
Support equal access to services, through a service network that meets
needs across age, ability, culture, and language.
Policy HS-4.1: Promote services that respect the diversity and dignity of
individuals and families and are accessible to all members of the community.
Policy HS-4.2: Encourage service enhancements that build capacity to
better meet the needs of the community, reduce barriers through service
design, and are responsive to changing needs.
Policy HS-4.3: Ensure that services are equally accessible and
responsive to a wide range of individual, cultures and family structures, and
are free of discrimination and prejudice.
Goal HS-5:
Oversee city resources with consistent ethical stewardship, fairness in
allocating funds, and strong accountability for ensuring services are
effective.
Policy HS-5.1: Provide funds to nonprofit human services providers to
improve the quality of life for low- and moderate- income residents.
Policy HS-5.2: Continue the City’s active participation in subregional and
regional planning efforts related to human services.
Policy HS-5.3: Support new and existing human services programs, and
coordinate policies, legislation, and funding at the local, regional, State, and
Federal levels.
296
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Human Services Element Page 16
Related Information
http://kentwa.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkId
entifier=id&ItemID=24642&libID=24192
2013-2018 Human Services Master Plan
297
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 1
Chapter Eight - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Purpose
The Economic Development Element describes Kent’s existing business
community, industrial clusters, growth prospects, its competitive advantages
and disadvantages, and provides an overview of strategies for economic
growth. The purpose of economic development is to foster conditions for
economic growth throughout Kent.
This Element outlines the Plan’s municipal-centered strategies for community
enrichment through building vibrant and diverse urban places. It also reflects
the City Council’s vision of “a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally
vibrant with richly diverse urban centers” articulated in the City of Kent’s
Economic Development Plan adopted in August 2014.
Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, 2011,
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Issues
Telling Kent’s Story
Development of a brand and marketing
strategy can help a city better understand
itself and communicate its strengths to
potential residents and businesses.
Creating Conditions for Growth
Building a vital, growing city means creating
multifaceted and engaging streets, parks,
and plazas. Kent’s commercial centers and
corridors will need updating to accommodate
development and population growth.
What you will find in this chapter:
A short summary and analysis of the local economy’s strengths,
weaknesses, and issue areas;
A description of the City’s approved strategies and breakdown of
planned activities to foster economic growth and development;
Brief reference information descriptive of the local economy’s
composition and a list of resources for additional and supporting data.
Purpose Statement:
Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods,
growth centers, and the overall community.
298
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 2
40K & 50K (approximate):
Number of residents leaving Kent
and number of workers arriving in
Kent every workday, respectively.
Percentage of Kent 16.4%:
residents who also worked in Kent
in 2011.
Percentage of jobs 13.7%:
located in Kent recorded as held
by Kent residents.
The percentage of 21.7%:
commuters who live in Kent and
report to work in Seattle..
Top cities for in-commuting:
Seattle (7.7%), Auburn (5.4%),
Tacoma (4.4%), Renton (4.2%)
and Federal Way (4.1%).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and
LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of
Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011).
Economy-at-a-Glance
Source: Economic Development Plan
Median Family Income: $58,477
Covered Employment: 63,900
Retail Sales Per Capita: $17,865
Total Firms (2007): 8,094
Housing Units (2010): 36,424
Median Age (2010): 33 years old
Total Population: 123,000
Top Employers 2014:
Kent School District; Boeing; REI;
Exotic Metals Forming Co; City of
Kent; Carlisle Interconnect
Technologies; Hexcel; King
County; Columbia Distributing;
Sysco; Oberto; Starbucks; Alaska
Airlines; Flow; Omax Corporation;
Blue Origin
Welcoming and Supporting Businesses
Advancing and maintaining the City’s
favorable perception amongst businesses
impacts investment decisions, local
employment, and quality-of-life.
Collaborating to Foster Innovation
Collaboration between public institutions and
private employers is often needed to advance
common economic or public interests.
Increasing local competitiveness in areas
such as environmental sustainability or
broadband technologies will require City
government engagement and leadership.
Promoting Opportunities for Kent’s
Residents
The City needs to consider both demand and
supply issues in workforce development.
Working with educators and businesses to
ensure better than adequate experiential
learning and training opportunities supports
firm retention and growth. Equally important,
strengthening business within Kent serves
residents’ needs to gain employment.
299
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 3
Local Economy Overview
The City of Kent’s local economic performance is intricately tied to the
Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area. The Kent Valley’s flat lands formed by
volcanic lahars—whose fertile soils once grew lettuce and other cash crops—
in the late 20th century gave ground for the development of extensive and
nationally significant manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution
operations. Served by two railroads (the Union Pacific and the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe), the I-5 interstate, and equally close to the Ports of
Seattle and Tacoma, the Kent Industrial Valley is the second largest
manufacturing and warehouse center on the West Coast. Kent’s jurisdiction
encompasses over 45 million sq. ft. of industrial and commercial space within
the Kent Industrial Valley with more than 7,500 firms and over 60,000 jobs.
Remarkably, every workday morning nearly 40,000 residents depart Kent for
work while nearly as many arrive in Kent for their jobs. The tens of
thousands of primary jobs in manufacturing, wholesale and trade sectors
which are located in Kent also comprise a base to the Puget Sound’s regional
economic strength. In fact, the regional land use and transportation planning
agency, Puget Sound Regional Council designated the area as a
“Manufacturing Industrial Center.” Manufacturing, wholesale trade,
transportation and warehousing account for approximately 44% of Kent’s
overall employment (by comparison, these three major sectors account for
about 19% of the region’s overall employment). Many manufacturing firms in
Kent are counted among the most advanced in the United States with local
legacies in aerospace, outer space, and defense research and development.
Kent’s central location within the larger labor market, relative lower housing
and transportation costs, and its high quality services—especially the well-
regarded Kent School District—are defining, desirable qualities for attracting
new residents. Workers in higher wage sectors like information, business
management, finance, and professional, scientific and technical services
comprise 12.5% of Kent’s outbound commuters. An important factor for the
City of Kent’s fiscal stability given current state and regional tax policies is
the continued choice by these thousands of workers to invest their housing
dollars in Kent and shop locally.
300
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 4
Figure E-1
Building Permit History
Figure E-2
Kent Employment Density
630
96
327 293 254
648
842
465 446
1,075
553
446
346 301 278
586
325
256
157 186 210 263 251 211
70
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
thru
April
Annual Building Permits, City of Kent
Total Units Average yearly permits 1990 to 1999 Average yearly permits 2000 to 2013
Annual Avg (2000-2013) =312 units
Annual Avg(1990-2000) =508 units
301
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 5
Goals and Key Strategies
The five goals from the Economic Development Plan associate with six major
strategic areas for action. The five goals are:
Goal E-1:
Develop & Implement a Sustainable Funding Model;
Continue to prioritize public services, execute new fund reserve
policies, and identify and implement efficiencies.
Goal E-2:
Create Neighborhood Urban Centers;
Identify and develop niches unique to Kent.
Goal E-3:
Create Connections for People & Places;
Create connections for people & places by improving and expanding
trails and roadways and establishing welcoming entries into Kent.
Goal E-4:
Foster Inclusiveness;
Broaden opportunities to celebrate and showcase the diversity of our
community and ultimately promote inclusiveness.
Goal E-5:
Beautify Kent.
Update design standards for residential, commercial and downtown
Kent to include a plan for a “Green Kent” for better use of the city’s
assets.
These five goals are furthered by City actions within six key strategic areas.
The six strategies described below are complementary.
Greater specificity as to implementable strategies and descriptive actions are
available in the background reportCity of Kent Economic Development Plan.
302
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 6
Key Strategies
Images City Image & Branding
Making the case for Kent to businesses and
attracting new residents means promoting
the City’s existing industry strengths and
public amenities: such as the ShoWare
Center, downtown shopping, and the
significant presence of industry business
leaders like REI, Boeing, Amazon and
Starbucks. Leveraging existing assets to
improve outsider perceptions and telling the
story of Kent’s development depends on
execution and focused communication to
media outlets. Equally important is
substantiating the city’s image and ensuring
the brand matches authentic qualities of
place. All municipal activities should consider
and use the City’s brand.
Place-Making & Gateways
Creating conditions for economic growth
requires attentiveness by local government
officials to how their actions, decisions and
interpretations of rules are influencing the
built environment. Investments in high
quality urban design and consistent
programming in the public realm add to the
overall attractiveness and competitiveness
of Kent as a location for businesses.
Beautifying commercial corridors and
centers in the course of transportation
projects, designating key gateways and
connections for added investment, and
accommodating population growth will
contribute to resident quality of life and
capacity for growth. Adequately factoring
the need for these new amenities and public
spaces into transportation and land use
choices will be important for Kent’s future
development.
Business Climate
Advancing and maintaining the City’s
favorable perception amongst business and
industry leaders depends upon clear rules
and transparency in decision-making
303
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 7
processes. It also demands active listening
and creativity from staff persons in all
positions. Involving businesses in
transportation and land use planning
activities which will impact their operations
is especially critical. Before feedback is
collected from businesses there should
always be discussion and communication as
to how information will later be utilized in
decision-making. To foster a favorable
business climate, the City can also take
proactive steps to collect and present data
valuable to developers and firms.
Industrial Cluster Growth & Retention
The Kent Industrial Valley is an epicenter for
much of Puget Sound’s advanced
manufacturing activity. Consequently, the
clustering of firms and establishments in
Kent largely reflects those of the Seattle-
Tacoma-Bellevue, MSA with leading
employers in retail and outerwear, logistics,
aerospace, food processing, and
establishments in related sectors.
Investments in outdoor recreation
amenities, sponsoring of thematically related
industry cluster activities or networking
events, provision of incentives to regional
industrial clusters, and continued support for
the Center for Advanced Manufacturing in
Puget Sound (CAMPS) are all example
actions in support of retaining and growing
businesses within these major clusters.
Kent Industrial Valley: Regional
Innovator
Positioning the Kent Industrial Valley (KIV)
for increased visitation and a wider range of
user activities—like retail—are essential for
the City’s fiscal stability and raising the
profile of the industrial and commercial
zones to companies at the cutting edge of
innovation. Raising the amenity level in the
KIV benefits the quality-of-life of Kent’s
residents, but increasingly supports local
employers’ missions. Expanding allowable
zoned uses, improving the pedestrian
experience along major roads, and
304
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 8
supporting development of state-of-the-art
infrastructure are important undertakings
for keeping the valley current and
competitive for development of office and
industrial campuses.
Work Force
Facilitating workforce training and the
creation of higher education opportunities
are vital economic development functions.
City staff may serve as conduits between
educators and employers to ensure
curriculums are current to industry demands
and new trends. Strong workforce
relationships and the ability to articulate
local educational strengths are important for
building confidence amongst employers
about their Kent business investments. The
City may either directly support residents in
receiving education, or may provide indirect
support through aid and assistance to
organizations and institutions that work with
educators.
Related Information
Economic Development Council of Seattle
and King County
Data Center: http://edc-
seaking.org/data-center/
Workforce Development Council of Seattle
and King County
Washington Department of Commerce
City of Kent Economic Development Plan
Puget Sound Regional Council’s Economic
Strategy
305
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 9
Kent Chamber of Commerce
King County: Data and Reports
306
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 10
Economic Development Element
Background Report
The five economic development goals are furthered by City actions within six
key strategic areas. Greater specificity as to implementable strategies and
descriptive actions are described below.
Implementation Strategies and Actions
1. City Image & Branding
1.1 Signal Kent Aspirations with Implementation of Compelling
Branding Identity
1.1Brainstorm a brand
1.2Develop Kent’s city-wide brand
1.3Include District identities
1.2 Strengthen the Image of Kent in the Region with a Strategic
Marketing Campaign
1.2.1 Plan a marketing campaign
1.2.2 Execute a marketing campaign
1.2.3 Brand City communications
1.2.4 Build social media presence
1.2.5 Communicate successes
1.2.6 Build “Made in Kent” Campaign
2. Place-Making & Gateways
2.1 Beautify Kent Streetscapes & Public Realm with Strategic
Design & Policy Interventions
2.1.1 Rebuild the Commercial Corridors of Meeker St from River to
Downtown; 248th; South Central; Kent-Kangley; 104th; East Valley,
and Pacific Highway
2.1.2 Seek grants to redevelop key corridors
2.1.3 Brand shopping areas
2.1.4 Treatment of streetscapes as parks
2.1.5 Consistent lighting throughout Kent
2.1.6 Make downtown more walkable
2.1.7 Back the non-profit organization Downtown Partnership
2.2 Extend the good design of 4th Ave. and SR 516 north to 4th Ave
arterial
2.2.1 Support for transit-oriented development principles
2.2.2 Activate underutilized street scape with more outdoor seating and
other public uses
2.2.3 Improve pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to Kent’s
downtown
307
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 11
2.2.4 Use medians creatively to enrich the streetscape
2.2.5 Create a master-plan for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
2.3 Strengthen Sense of Place by Designating& Improving Key
Gateways & Connections Into & Through Kent
2.3.1 Designate external gateways
2.3.2 Designate internal gateways
2.3.3 Design the gateways
2.3.4 Pursue funding for holistic urban design
2.4 Encourage Quality development, Renovation, & Upkeep of New &
Existing Building Stock
2.4.1 Emphasize urban design
2.4.2 Practice effective code enforcement
2.4.3 Engage with key property owners
2.4.4 Solicit pro bono design services
2.4.5 Formulate & implement design guidelines
2.5 Accommodate Growing Workforce with Diversified Housing Stock,
Including Downtown Multifamily & Executive Housing
2.5.1 Implement the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
2.5.2 Expand housing choice in Kent
2.5.3 Map and market key sites
2.5.4 Leverage assets & local improvement districts
2.5.5 Update the Planned Action Ordinance
2.5.6 Utilize tax abatement downtown
2.5.7 Understand what’s missing
2.5.8 Show developers the demand
2.5.9 Surplus city property for housing & commercial
2.6 Strengthen & Enhance Competitiveness of Kent Commercial
Centers
2.6.1 Highlight downtown’s assets
2.6.2 Connect Kent Station to Meeker St
2.6.3 Promote “Clean and Safe” downtown
2.6.4 Prioritize anchor retail
2.6.5 Embrace shopping area character
2.6.6 Highlight cultural diversity
2.7 Grow Green Space & Connect Local & Regional Greenways through
Kent
2.7.1 Implement the Parks Plan
2.7.2 Add biking & running trails
2.7.3 Swap parking for green space & pocket parks
2.7.4 Finish the Kent Valley Loop Trail
2.7.5 Enhance Green River open space
2.7.6 Assess & remediate brownfields
3.0 Business Climate
3.1 Welcome Businesses to Kent with Clear Communication of
Business Support Structures & Tools
3.2 Make city resources available whenever possible to businesses
308
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 12
3.3 Involve businesses in land use and transportation planning
3.4 Highlight local business support
3.5 Listen carefully to local businesses
3.6 Place updated data into the hands of businesses
3.7 Enhance international trade and direct foreign investment
opportunities in Kent
3.1 Strengthen & Communicate the Competitive Advantage in Cost
of Doing Business Related to Kent Tax & Regulatory Structure
3.1.1 Streamline the permitting process
3.1.2 Make licensing easy
3.1.3 Designate a “handler” to guide businesses through the
permitting processes and to city and government resources
3.1.4 Quantify and explain the value of a healthy Green River
3.1.5 Explicate where B&O Tax revenue goes
3.1.6 Show the end uses of utilities taxes
3.1.7 Describe Kent’s unique value proposition for its local businesses
4 Cluster Growth & Retention
4.1 Strengthen & Diversify the Advanced Manufacturing Cluster in
Kent
4.1.1 4.1.1 Utilize Economic Development Council (EDC) industry
cluster services
4.1.2 Market Kent Industrial Valley campuses to advanced
manufacturers
4.1.3 Leverage CAMPS consulting
4.2 Position Kent as a Hub for Outdoor Recreation Equipment
“RecTech” Firms
4.2.1 Market the region’s RecTech agglomeration and Kent as its hub
4.2.2 Continue to support REI Headquarters
4.2.3 Target outdoor amenities in Kent Industrial Valley
4.3 Increase Kent’s Share of Retail Cluster Firms, Employment &
Revenue in the Kent Valley & Surrounding Area
4.3.1 Conduct a competitive analysis
4.3.2 Incentivize redevelopment of Meeker Street
4.3.3 Infill the strip malls with new development
4.3.4 Encourage companies to make in back, sell in the front
4.3.5 Locate a “Big Box” retailer within Kent
4.3.6 Respond proactively to retail trends
Leverage Area Health Care, Manufacturing & Retail Anchors to Expand Kent
Professional & Business Services Presence
4.4 Market Kent as a hub of health care services
4.5 Grow hospitality amenities in the Kent Industrial Valley
4.6 Market CenterPoint’s assets to possible tenants
4.7 Improve the look and feel of CenterPoint’s office campus
4.8 Build a bike spur to the CenterPoint office campus
5 Kent Industrial Valley
309
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 13
5.1 Enhance & Expand Industrial Zoning Classifications to
Accommodate a Changing State & Local Tax Structure
5.1.1 Expand the allowable uses in the Kent Industrial Valley
5.1.2 Modernize zoning codes for contemporary industry needs
5.1.3 Integrate best practices in industry land use from other cities
5.2 Position the Industrial Valley as a Regional Leader in Industrial
Greening & Sustainability
5.2.1 Embrace alternative energy in Kent Industrial Valley
5.2.2 Utilize the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound
(CAMPS) & Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS)
as resource centers
5.2.3 Create environmentally responsible infrastructure along Green
River using best “green” practices
5.2.4 Secure additional funding for environmental sustainability
efforts in the valley
5.2.5 Join a by-product synergy network
5.3 Position the Industrial Valley as an Amenity for both Industrial
Users & Surrounding Communities
5.3.1 Encourage more retail and hospitality uses in the Kent
Industrial Valley
5.3.2 Place a window on manufacturing by encouraging more people
to visit and take tours of going concerns
5.3.3 Conduct a “Made in Kent” retail tour
5.3.4 Activate the slack space in the valley by identifying
underutilized warehouses and working with property owners to
make them more revenue generating
5.4 Support Increased Development of Attractive Industrial
Campus Environments in the KIV
5.1.4 Master-Plan an Industrial campus
5.1.5 Analyze then incorporate Campus Best Practices
5.1.6 Re-imagine the Boeing Campus properties
5.1.7 Signal intent to developers with design guidelines
5.2 Advance State-of-the-Art Infrastructure Connectivity in KIV
5.2.1 Back completion of missing link
5.2.2 Build out broadband in Kent industrial valley
5.2.3 Grow transit options in Kent industrial valley
5.2.4 Certify the levees
6 Work Force
6.1 Connect Kent Residents & Communities to New Economic
Opportunities
6.1.1 Promote Kent job opportunities
6.1.2 Educate the educators
6.1.3 Support small business entrepreneurs
6.1.4 Develop a maker space in the Kent industrial valley
310
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development Element Page 14
6.2 Facilitate Workforce Training, Development & Higher Education
Opportunities in Kent
6.2.1 Support CAMPS career pathways program
6.2.2 Continue leveraging regional workforce efforts
6.2.3 Sponsor internships
6.2.46.2.1 Support Washington FIRST robotics program
311
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 1
Chapter Nine - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
PURPOSE
Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to include a capital
facilities element in its Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element
describes how public facilities and services will be provided and financed.
Capital facilities planning helps local jurisdictions manage their limited funds
to provide the greatest value to residents and take full advantage of available
funding opportunities.
A key concept of capital facilities planning is concurrency. That is, specific
public facilities will be available when the impacts of development occur, or a
financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities within six years of
the development, called “concurrency.” Concurrency of the transportation
system is required by the Growth Management Act. In addition to
maintaining adequate levels of service on City-provided facilities, the city of
Kent must coordinate with special purpose districts and regional providers on
providing adequate levels of service for forecasted growth.
"Public facilities" include streets,
roads, highways, sidewalks, street
and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, domestic water systems,
storm and sanitary sewer systems,
parks and recreational facilities, and
schools.
RCW 36.70A.030.12
"Public services" include fire
protection and suppression, law
Issues
Place-making
Capital facilities can contribute to the
look and feel of places, including their
vibrancy or their decline.
Safety
The public expects capital facilities
and services to maintain or enhance
their safety, including the perception
What you will find in this chapter:
An inventory of existing public capital facilities, including their location and
capacity;
A forecast of future needs for public capital facilities, their proposed
locations and capacities;
A financing plan for the public capital facilities, including funding capacities
and sources of public money; and
Goals and policies for providing public capital facilities to meet adopted
levels of service, including adjusting the land use element if funding falls
short of meeting the needs.
Purpose Statement:
To provide sustainable funding for desired public goods and services.
312
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 2
enforcement, public health,
education, recreation, environmental
protection, and other governmental
services.
RCW 36.70A.030.13
Capital budgeting: Cities must
make capital budget decisions in
conformance with its comprehensive
plan.
RCW 36.70A.120
Capital facility or improvement:
Capital facilities have an expected
useful life of at least 5 years and a
cost of at least $25,000.
of safety.
Levels of Service
The City’s level of service for capital
facilities needs to reflect an
increasingly urban environment.
Impacts on Low-Income
Communities and People of Color
Public facilities, services, safety and
opportunities for success should be
accessible to all members of the
community.
Sustainability, Rehabilitation,
Replacement and Retrofit
To maintain sustainable public
facilities and services, it is necessary
to plan and implement maintenance
and replacement of infrastructure.
Climate Change
As additional scientific information is
identified regarding climate change,
the City will evaluate the potential
impacts to its existing public facilities
and services.
Funding
Public facilities and services may be
funded by the rate payers or via
capital facilities budgets. When
applicable, grants may also help offset
the cost of large capital projects.
CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING
Capital facilities planning in Kent is separated into two categories:
General Government Funds, which include funds for general capital needs
such as streets and transportation, buildings, parks and trails, and other
improvements.
Enterprise Funds, which include funds for which fees are received in
exchange for specific goods and services. These include water, sewer, storm
drainage, and the Riverbend Golf Complex.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FUNDS
313
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 3
General government facilities are designed, built and operated for the
general public, unlike enterprise funds, which serve specific fee paying
customers. Any person may drive on City streets, walk on a trail, play in a
City park, etc.
Kent organizes it general government facilities needs into similar
programmatic categories, which are referred to as funds. There are four
categories of funds, which illustrate the focus of the City’s capital planning
and spending. All phases of a capital project are included in capital planning,
from plan and project development, preliminary engineering, right-of-way
acquisition, permitting, construction engineering, to construction.
The Street Operating Fund is specifically identified for transportation and
street improvements, and includes arterial asphalt overlays, residential
streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, illumination, and safety guard rails.
Funding for the program’s projects is primarily through grants, local
improvement districts (LIDs), motor vehicle excise tax, business and
occupation tax, and utility tax.
The Capital Improvement Fund is for the acquisition and development of
land for parks and recreational facilities, including the planning and
engineering costs associated with the projects. This fund is also designated
for maintenance and repair projects and other capital projects not provided
for elsewhere. Funding comes from grants, real estate excise tax, and a
portion of sales tax revenues.
The Information Technology Fund provides for the hardware and software
to support the technology needs of the City. Primary funding is from internal
computer and network fees and cable utility tax, after operating expenses
have been paid.
The Facilities Fund is for government buildings, such as the City Hall
campus, Kent Commons, Senior Activity Center, and the maintenance shop.
Primary funding is from internal square footage fees, after operating
expenses have been paid.
General government sources of revenue for capital expenditures and
allocation percentages by funding category are shown in Figure CF.1.
Figure CF-1
General Government Capital Sources and Uses
314
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 4
ENTERPRISE FACILITIES FUNDS
Enterprise Funds are supported by revenues generated by user fees and
charges. Developer contributions supplement the Water, Sewer and Storm
Drainage Funds. Enterprise funds are used by public agencies to account for
operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private
business enterprises. They are established as fully self-supporting operations
with revenues provided primarily from fees, charges or contracts for services,
and require periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred,
and net income for capital maintenance, public policy, management control
and accountability.
In order to provide for the short-term and long-term operating and capital
needs of the water, sewer and storm drainage utilities, the City evaluates
and utilizes a combination of revenue sources such as utility rates, bonds,
loans, grants, developer contributions, Public Works Trust Fund loans, and
local improvement districts (LIDs). An example of enterprise capital sources
of funds and expenditures is illustrated in Figure CF.2.
Figure CF-2
Enterprise Capital Sources and Uses
Water Fund – Approximately 59% of the area of the City is served by Kent’s
Water Utility. The remainder of the City is served by other districted.
Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement districts, Trust
Fund loans, rate increases, and developer contributions.
Sewer Fund – Approximately 69% of the area of the City is served by Kent’s
Sewer Utility. The remainder of the City is either not served or served by
other districts. Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement
districts, rate increases, and developer contributions.
Storm Drainage Fund – This fund accounts for operations and capital
improvements for the management of the City’s storm drainage and surface
water. Storm Drainage capital projects are required to correct deficiencies
and to meet Federal, State and local mandates. Required infrastructure is
paid for by developers, interlocal agreements, and grants, but the largest
fund contribution comes from the utility’s ratepayers.
315
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 5
Riverbend Golf Complex Fund – This is a publicly-owned facility funded by
user fees. An enterprise fund may be used to report any activity for which a
fee is charged to users for goods or services. The City has chosen to use the
enterprise fund structure to provide transparent accounting of user fee
revenues and operation, maintenance, and improvement costs of the
municipal golf facilities. The difference between the Riverbend Golf Complex
Fund and other utility enterprise funds is that the golf fund serves voluntary
customers as opposed to the users of water, sewer, and storm drainage
funds, who have no choice in service provider. While the Golf Complex is not
expected to meet its capital and operating needs in the short term, elected
officials and city staff are actively pursuing a multi-faceted solution in right-
sizing golf facilities. Once these activities are completed, the Golf Complex is
expected to be in a stable position to meet ongoing capital and operating
needs.
CAPITAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES
POLICE and CORRECTIONS
The Kent Police Department (KPD) provides police services, corrections
services and has law enforcement authority within the city limits of Kent.
Vision Statement
To be the most respected and effective police department in the region.
Mission Statement
The Kent Police Department partners with our community to:
Aggressively fight crime
Impartially protect rights and
Identify and solve problems
Table CF.1
Current Police Facilities Inventory - 2015
FACILITY NAME LOCATION CAPACITY
Police Headquarters 232 Fourth Avenue S. 18,000 s.f.
Police West Hill Substation 25440 Pacific Highway S. 1,174 s.f.
Evidence area-City Hall 220 Fourth Avenue S. 1,250 s.f.
Police North Substation 20676 72nd Avenue S. 132 s.f.
Police East Hill Substation 24611 116th Avenue SE 840 s.f.
Police Training Center 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,185 s.f.
Police Firing Range 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,685 s.f.
Police Panther Lake Substation 20700 108th Avenue SE 1,400 s.f.
Detective Unit Offices 400 West Gowe S. 6,226 s.f.
316
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 6
The Kent Police took occupancy of the current police headquarters in 1991.
The building previously served as the Kent Library and was remodeled to be
a temporary facility until a permanent police headquarters could be built.
Twenty four years later, the department has vastly outgrown the
headquarters. In an effort to mitigate the overcrowding and meet the need
for increased service, the department established offsite work stations and
outside storage facilities.
Table CF.2
Current Correctional Facilities Inventory - 2015
Facility Name Location Capacity
Correctional Facility 1230 Central Avenue S. 21,000 s.f.100
cellbeds/30 work
release beds
Corrections Annex 8309 South 259th Street 3,053 s.f.
The city of Kent Correctional Facility (CKCF) has a capacity of one hundred
cell beds and thirty work release beds (130 beds total). The Kent Police
Department has focused efforts to address the increasing demands for jail
capacity. The CKCF Programs Division added day reporting and work time
credit programs to the existing electronic home detention, work release and
work time credit programs for non-violent offenders.
Analysis of Demand for Facilities and Services
Police Calls for Service
The level of police service provided by the Kent Police Department in terms
of call response is contingent on the number of officers available at any given
time to respond to 911 calls. The Department has a level of service goal of
four minutes or less for response to emergency and priority 1 calls to 911.
This standard is based on historical data related to shooting incidents and
particularly active shooter incidents over the last decade. The data indicate
that 69% of all active shooter incidents are completed within 5 minutes.1
These emergency incidents require that police officers both stop the actions
that are causing the risk to life and facilitate emergency medical services in a
time frame that assures a high survival rate of those injured. Research
indicates that brain death begins within the first 4-6 minutes of someone not
breathing.2 Arriving within the first four minutes of these incidents assures
that lifesaving intervention can be provided in time to assure the highest
likelihood for survival.
1 US Department of Justice, FBI Study – A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between
2000-2013, Washington DC 2014
2 The American Heart Association Data on brain death and permanent death.
317
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 7
The following data show our response time to calls from emergency (E) calls
through priority (4) or routine calls for service.
• Priority E calls are emergency calls and are the highest priority.
This category represents a confirmed emergency, which could result in
loss of life and/or property. This category represents the greatest
potential for officers to encounter immediate danger. Current average
is a 2.66 minute response time.
• Priority 1 represents a potential emergency which could result in
loss of life and/or property; personnel safety may be at risk or
seriously jeopardized. Current average is a 3.92 minute response
time.
• Priority 2 represents a minimal hazard with considerably less
potential for life and/or property loss and minimal risk to officers.
Current average is a 8.26 minute response time.
• Priority 3 represents a low hazard, non-life threatening situation
with minimal risk of property loss. Current average is an 11.22 minute
response time.
• Priority 4 represents police reports or cold calls which require a
non-code response. Current average is a 15.54 minute response time.
Currently the average response time to emergency and priority 1 calls for
service is 3.29 minutes and the department is meeting its level of service
standard. However, there is reasonable concern that as population and calls
for service continue to grow, response times will increase.
Currently the Kent Police Department is authorized 148 sworn police officers,
which allows for 1.19 officers per thousand population. Amongst our
comparable cities (Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Kirkland, Federal Way, Renton
and Vancouver) the average officer per 1000 population percentage is 1.42
officers per 1000.3 The department seeks to increase the number of officers
to a level commensurate with our comparable cities, thus allowing for
enhanced level of service. This represents an increase of sworn police
officers to 177 officers from the current 148, with a projected growth to 196
sworn police officers by 20354.
Meeting the Needs
Police Headquarters
3 2011 Police Comparable Data Analysis, Kent Police Officers Association, 2011
4 Puget Sound Regional Council Forecasts for 2035/2014 OFM Average of 2.58 population per household
318
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 8
Police services are centered around the main police headquarters that serves
the entire city and supports the required staff, many of whom operate on a
patrol basis throughout the city. The police department took occupancy of
the existing 18,000 square foot police headquarters in 1991. At the time the
city’s population was 61,281 and the department had 86 sworn police
officers. Currently the headquarters houses 126 sworn police officers in
addition to 22 full time and 3 part time civilian support staff. Police
headquarters provides both designated and temporary work space, meeting
rooms, common areas, locker rooms, storage space, utility space, temporary
holding cells, electrical and utility space, evidence storage space and records
storage space. Another 18 sworn police officers that make up the detectives
unit have been housed offsite due to lack of space. Additionally, the
department maintains temporary offsite evidence storage that represents
approximately 2,500 square feet of space. Ideally, the 18 officers would be
housed in police headquarters and permanent evidence storage facilities
should be obtained.
Although both city population and the number police department employees
have nearly doubled since 1991, there has been no increase in facility space
at police headquarters.
The police department seeks the construction of a new police headquarters.
An initial space needs assessment and cost analysis was completed in March
of 2014, which identified the need for a headquarters that provided 47,770
square feet of space at a cost of $34,044,544.5 This analysis accounted for
both the immediate need (6-year plan) and the anticipated long term need
(20-year plan).
The anticipated cost of a police headquarters far exceeds current funding
levels. Current police funding is primarily directed toward current operating
and maintenance costs. There are no identified capital budget funds. It is
proposed that the city pursue funding via a bond measure. (See Table C.3)
Failure to pass the bond measure would significantly impact the police
department’s ability to maintain the current level of service. Police
Department administration would seek solutions to mitigate this impact, but
without increased facilities the end result would likely necessitate the
consideration of reduction in the level of police service standards.
5 Police Space and Cost Estimate, David A. Clark Architects, PLLC
319
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 9
Corrections Facility Capacity and Infrastructure Update
The City of Kent Corrections Facility (CKCF) was constructed in 1986 and was
initially designed to 48 inmates (beds). Currently the 2100 square foot
facility has a 100-bed capacity with an additional 30 beds designated for
work release inmates. The facility faces both a capacity deficit and
significant infrastructure needs.
Capacity Issues: Over the past several years, the jail inmate
population has seen significant increases in both female inmates and
inmates that require maximum security status/crisis cells due to
violent tendencies or mental disorders.
A review of CKCF jail population data indicates that from 2010 to
March of 2015 the average percentage of inmate population requiring
maximum security status or crisis cell status is 11.15 inmates. The
CKCF currently has six cells suitable for maximum security status/crisis
cell inmates, a 47% deficit. In order to meet the current need,
maximum status/crisis cells would need to be increased by 5 cells.
The CKCF facility has 19 beds available to house female inmates. A
review of jail population data indicates that from 2010 to March of
2015 the average female inmate daily population is 25, equating to a
24% deficit of bed space. In order to meet the current need, female
bed space should be increased by five female cells.
In addition to inmate capacity, CKCF is currently undersized to provide
adequate work space for the 23 corrections officers and one civilian
support staff. Although significant work has been done since 1986 to
more than double jail bed capacity, virtually no space has been added
to accommodate the increase in corrections personnel working in the
facility.
The police department seeks to complete construction of additional
female jail beds and maximum security status/crisis cells to meet the
current level of service requirements. In October of 2014, a CKCF
space needs assessment was conducted which indicated that an
increase of 4,100 square feet would be required to meet the increased
demand for female bed space, maximum security status/crisis cells
and modestly expanded work space. The estimated cost for
construction is $1.4 Million.6
6 Proposed Addition – Kent Corrections, Dave Clark Architects, PLLC, 2014
320
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 10
Infrastructure Issues: The 30-year-old CKCF is in immediate need
of infrastructure updates. Both the plumbing system and electrical
wiring of the facility routinely fail and are in need of replacement. The
video recording system at the jail is outdated and poses significant
safety and liability concerns. The master control panel software is
outdated and in need of upgraded software and hardware.
Although final costs estimates have not been obtained, initial
consultation with the City of Kent Facilities Department indicates that
the estimated costs for each infrastructure project would be as follows:
Plumbing $200,000
Electrical Wiring $100,000
Camera System Replacement $ 40,000
Master Control Panel $ 45,000
Total $385,000
The police department would seek to fund both the capacity projects and
infrastructure updates out of existing funding sources. (See diagram CF.3)
Table CF.3
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Project 1 – Police Headquarters
Cost $34.04
Million
$0 $0 $8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$0 $34.04
Million
Revenue Source -
Public Safety Bond
$0 $0 $8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$$8.51
Million
$0 $34.04
Million
Project 2 – CKCF
Bed Capacity
Increase
Cost $1.4 Million
$0
$0
$350K
$350K
$350K
$350K
$0
$1.4
Million
Revenue Source
1-
Jail Capacity
Fund
$0 $0 $350K $350K $350K $350K $0 $1.4
Million
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS
Project 3 – CKCF Plumbing
Cost $200,000 $0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K
Revenue Source –
School Zone
Speed Camera
Fund
$0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K
Project 4 – CKCF
321
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 11
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Electrical Wiring
Cost $100,000
Revenue Source
– School Zone
Speed Camera Fund
$0
$0
$50K
$50K
$50K
$50K
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100K
$100K
Project 5 – CKCF
Camera
System
Replacement
Cost $40,000
$0
$40K
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40K
Revenue Source
–
School Zone
Speed
Camera Fund
$0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K
Project 6 – CKCF
Master Control
Panel
Cost $45,0000 $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K
Revenue Source
–
School Zone
Speed
Camera Fund
$0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects $0 $0 $8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$0 $35.44
Million
Non-Capacity
Projects
$0 $175K $90K $40K $40K $40K $0 $385K
Goals and Policies
Police and Correction Services
Goal CF-1:
Ensure that residents, visitors and businesses in Kent continue to feel safe
throughout our community.
Policy CF-1.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective services and
programs with the goal of increasing the sense of safety throughout our
community. Such services and programs should be consistent with other
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Goal CF-2:
Establish, maintain and strengthen community relationships through direct
contact opportunities, community awareness, education and volunteer
programs.
322
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 12
Policy CF-2.1: Establish and maintain direct contact between
representatives of the Police Department and concerned citizens,
community groups, schools, business operators, local media, and human
services providers.
Policy CF-2.2: Establish and maintain community education programs
that promote the awareness of public safety, community-based crime
prevention, domestic violence prevention, alcohol and substance abuse,
and available human services for impacted populations.
Policy CF-2.3: Establish and maintain volunteer programs that meet
the Police Department objectives of increasing community awareness,
involvement, public safety, and crime prevention.
Goal CF-3:
Maintain responsive, quality patrol service throughout Kent’s service area and
other areas requiring response capability assistance.
Policy CF-3.1: Consider average response times as a level-of-service
measure in assessing needs for patrol service improvements.
Policy CF-3.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average
response times to emergency calls, where potential loss of life or
confirmed hazards exist.
Policy CF-3.3: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average
response times to non-emergency calls, where no immediate danger or
potential loss of life is indicated.
Policy CF-3.4: Coordinate with the City Information Technology
Department and the Valley Communications Center to improve response
times.
Policy CF-3.5: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing patrol
practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-3.6: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of patrol services.
Policy CF-3.7: To improve long-term patrol service effectiveness, work
with various members of the community to improve staff awareness of
localized issues and community resources.
323
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 13
Goal CF-4:
Provide effective and professional investigation services.
Policy CF-4.1: Consider annually-calculated crime clearance rates as a
level-of-service measure in assessing needs for patrol service
improvements.
Policy CF-4.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated Part I crime
clearance rates, which is a measure of the rate of arrests or clearances
for reported crimes.
Policy CF-4.3: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing
investigations practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-4.4: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of investigations services.
Policy CF-4.5: To improve long-term investigations service
effectiveness, work with various members of the community to improve
staff awareness of localized issues and community resources.
Goal CF-5:
Provide effective corrections services that protect the community and reduce
repeat offenses among corrections clients.
Policy CF-5.1: Coordinate with the Kent Municipal Court to ensure
appropriate correctional processes and facilities are available for criminal
offenders.
Policy CF-5.2: Maintain or improve facilities available for the
incarceration of criminal offenders. If additional facilities capacity is
necessary, coordinate with other agencies to locate and provide
appropriate facilities for the purposes of incarceration.
Policy CF-5.3: Establish and maintain effective alternative s to
incarceration for lesser criminal offenses.
Policy CF-5.4: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing
corrections practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-5.5: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of corrections services.
324
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 14
Policy CF-5.6: Acquire and maintain accreditation through the
American Corrections Association.
KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
The Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA) is an all-hazards
emergency response agency established as an independent municipal
corporation under chapter 52.26 RCW in April of 2010. The KFDRFA’s service
area is irregular in shape, running east and west from 2 to 12 miles and
north and south from 4 to 13 miles. Total service area is approximately 60
square miles including the City of Kent’s 34 square miles. The cities of
SeaTac, Covington and King County Fire District 37 make up the balance of
the service area.
Demand for service in 2014 exceeded 22,000 emergency incidents. Service
to these incidents was provided through a total staff of 260.8 personnel: 225
uniformed and 35.8 non-uniformed civilian employees. Emergency response
personnel work 48-hour shifts at 11 fire stations distributed strategically
across the service area. On a daily basis, the City of Kent receives
emergency services from resources in 10 of 11 fire stations. At any given
time, minimum on duty emergency staff is 40 firefighter/EMTs.
KFDRFA Fire Based Services
Response services:
Include; fire, basic life support (BLS), and hazardous materials
response.
Rescue services:
Include; confined space, high and low angle rope rescue and swift
water rescue.
Prevention services:
Include; land use and building plan review, fire permit issuance,
building inspections, fire code enforcement, and fire investigations.
Public education services:
Include; education in fire and life safety, injury and fall prevention and
emergency management planning and education.
Specialized services:
325
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 15
The FD-CARES (Community, Assistance, Referrals & Education
Services) Division is focused on connecting people who have health
and welfare issues with appropriate public and private services to
improve patient service and reduce the impact of frequent requests for
medical aid.
KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan
As a separate municipal corporation, the KFDRFA developed and adopted its
own Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan (CF&EP) adopted by reference in
this document. The purpose of the CF&EP is to identify capital resources
necessary for the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA), to
achieve and sustain adopted levels of service concurrently with the next 20
years of anticipated development and population growth.
Table CF.X shows the KFDRFA’s facilities, equipment, and size that serve the
Kent Planning Area.
Table CF.4
Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority
Current Facilities Inventory – Fire (2015)
Facility Location Equipment/ Services Size (Sq. Ft.)
Fire Stations
Station 70 407 Washington Ave N No services 3,464
Station 71 504 West Crow Street Aid 70 – Staffing Dependent
Aid 71
Engine 71
CARES 71
Boat 71 – Surface Water
Rescue
10,858
Station 72 25620 140th Avenue SE Engine 72
Tender 72
Reserve Engine
7,772
Station 73 26520 Military Road South Engine 73
Fire Investigators
Reserve Aid Car
Reserve Engine
13,000
Station 74 24611 116th Avenue SE Aid 74
Battalion 74 – East Battalion
Ladder 74
Engine 74 – Staffing
Dependent
Reserve Battalion
Rescue 74
17,053
Station 75 15635 SE 272nd Street Engine 75
Haz-Mat 75
Decon 75
12,425
326
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 16
Facility Location Equipment/ Services Size (Sq. Ft.)
Fire Stations
Mobile Generator
4 Wheel ATV 75
Station 76 20676 72nd Avenue South Engine 76
Haz Mat 76
Battalion 76 – Central
Battalion
13,104
Station 77 20717 132nd Avenue SE Engine 77
Reserve Engine
Reserve Ladder Truck
Training Engine
15,900
Station 78 17820 SE 259th Street
O/S Kent City Limits but
provides services to areas of
Kent
Engine 78
MCI Unit
Reserve Engine
17,685
Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention 400 W. Gowe Street, Suite
414
Fire Marshal
Code Enforcement
Development Services
Fire Investigations
Public Education
5,000
Training
Police/ Fire Training
Center
24543 116th Avenue SE 9,600
Training Annex 24611 116th Avenue SE Information Technology Unit 1,152
Drill Tower 24543 1116th Avenue SE 4,652
Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance Facility 20678 72nd Avenue South 10,865
Emergency Management and Logistics
Office of Emergency
Management
24425 116th Avenue SE 4 Wheel ATV 2,860
Logistics Warehouse 8320 South 208 Street,
Suite H-110
20,000
Total 165,3907
Level of Service Standard
Community Risk Types within city of Kent
The KFDRFA maintains a “Standard of Cover” document as part of their
accreditation process through the Center for Public Safety. The Standard of
Cover is the “Standard” or Level of Service (LOS) to which the fire
department will deliver services to the community. The continuum of time of
fire service performance to adopted level of service standard includes three
7 Includes 5000 square feet utilized by Fire Prevention and owned by city of Kent.
327
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 17
components measured at the 90th percentile (9 out of 10 times) of
performance:
Dispatch time: The time interval from when a 9-1-1 call is answered
and appropriate resources dispatched through alerts to firefighters;
Turnout time: The time interval that begins when audible or visual
notification is received by firefighters from the 9-1-1 center and ends
when firefighters have donned appropriate protective equipment and
safely seat-belted themselves in their response vehicle ready to drive.
Travel time: The time interval that begins when a response unit
begins to move in route to the emergency incident location and ends
when the unit arrives at the addressed location.
Benchmark for: Fire, Haz-Mat, Rescue Level of Service 90%
performance expectations
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:15) =
7 minutes 20 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:35) =
7 minutes 40 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (5:30) =
8 minutes 35 seconds
Benchmark for: Minimum First Alarm Arrival Objectives (first three
units) 90% performance
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:30) =
9 minutes 35 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:45) =
9 minutes 50 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (7:00) =
10 minutes 05 seconds
Full First Alarm Arrival Objectives 90% performance
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) =
328
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 18
12 minutes 00 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) =
12 minutes 00 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (9:55) =
13 minutes 00 seconds
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
Fire service resources are impacted by service
demand. To achieve level of service standards,
fire service resources being called upon to
deliver service must be available at least as
often as they are expected to achieve a given
performance measure. This level of service
capacity measure is referred to as “unit
reliability.” If a unit is called upon so often that
availability of that unit, from its assigned fire
station, falls below 90% of the time, it is no
longer reliable to the level of service standard.
The KFDRFA measures unit reliability by hour of
day against the following requirements:
Minimum Hourly Unit Reliability8
Urban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the
time.
Suburban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of
the time.
Rural Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the
time.
As unit reliability falls below 90%, additional units are then needed to provide
additional service capacity. Service capacity at each fire station is then
limited by the space available to house fire service units and staff. The more
hours each day that a unit’s reliability falls below 90%, the more often that
unit is unavailable to provide emergency services. When this happens, units
8 Unit reliability measures a unit’s ability to meet level of service objectives.
Measure above 90% indicates reserve capacity, 90% or below, resource
exhaustion is occurring.
329
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 19
from fire stations farther away respond in place of the unreliable resource,
leaving this next-up resource’s home area without service. This ripple effect,
caused by a single unit’s sub-standard reliability, then begins to affect
response times and levels of service throughout the total service area of the
KFDRFA. Therefore, in planning for future resource needs, the KFDRFA
utilizes unit reliability measures to evaluate unit and station capacity to
maintain concurrency with future development.
To better relate community growth with future demands on service and the
associated impacts to unit reliability, the KFDRFA has developed a “Fire
Concurrency Management Plan” that identifies factors that predict future
impacts of new development by property type. See Table CF.5.
Table CF.5
Projected Increase in Emergency Incidents – Kent Growth (2035)
Structure Type Incidents Per
Unit Per Year
Projected New Kent
Dwelling Units9
Projected Increase to
annual Incident Workload
Single-family/Duplex/MH 0.19 3,299 627
Multi-Family 0.14 4,032 564
Incidents Per Sq.
Ft Per Year
Projected New
Square Feet
Non-residential 0.04 11,500,00010 460
Total 1,651
Future Resource Needs
If unit reliability is adequate but response standards are not met, other
factors must be considered. Impacts of traffic density also have a significant
influence on response time; even though a unit or a station has adequate
reliability, drive time of emergency response units can be increased by traffic
congestion. These factors have been considered in the KFDRFA’s planning
documents. To assure fire service concurrency to the KFDRFA level of service
standards, three additional fire stations and their associated equipment are
needed within the City of Kent over the next 20 years. A complete listing of
resource needs and locations are found in the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and
Equipment Plan.
9 Ratio of Single Family to Multi-Family is estimated at 55% MF and 45% SF
based upon total Household Targets of 53,664 projected by 2035 (LUT HH).
This target assumes 7,331 new dwelling units compared to April 2014
inventory of 46,333 units (source Washington OFM). This estimate assumes a
modest annual growth rate of 0.79%.
10 Based upon 80% of the low commercial growth projections contained in
the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan.
330
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 20
Table CF.6
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Fire11
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
407 Washington -$ -$ -$ 651$ 2,173$ 3,578$ 1,086$ 7,488$
Benson 565$ 429$ 765$ 2,574$ 699$ -$ -$ 5,032$
Riverview -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,711$ 4,711$
75 Move -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,961$ 9,961$
Total 565$ 429$ 765$ 3,225$ 2,872$ 3,578$ 15,758$ 27,192$
407 Washington -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Station 71 10$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26$ 94$ 130$
Station 72 27$ -$ -$ -$ 22$ -$ 27$ 76$
Station 73 21$ 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 171$ 207$
Station 74 67$ 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 174$ 256$
Station 75 42$ -$ 25$ 35$ -$ -$ 102$ 204$
Station 76 15$ 24$ 30$ 5$ -$ -$ 134$ 208$
Station 77 36$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 69$ 105$
Station 78 -$ -$ -$ 10$ -$ -$ 78$ 88$
Benson Station -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40$ 40$
Total 218$ 54$ 55$ 50$ 22$ 26$ 889$ 1,314$
Annual Taxes to Capital 218$ 54$ 320$ 2,275$ 2,275$ 2,275$ 647$ 8,064$
Voter approved Bonds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Councilmatic Bonds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Sale of Surplus Property -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Covington LOS/Impact fees 565$ 404$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000$ 1,969$
Kent LOS/Impact fees -$ 25$ 500$ 1,000$ 619$ 1,329$ 15,000$ 18,473$
Expenses 783$ 483$ 820$ 3,275$ 2,894$ 3,604$ 16,647$ 28,506$
Revenue 783$ 483$ 820$ 3,275$ 2,894$ 3,604$ 16,647$ 28,506$
Unfunded Balance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Capacity Projects - Summary of New Construction Costs
Non-Capacity Project Costs - Necessary to Maintain Existing Assets
KFDRFA Revenue Sources
Summary of Revenue less Expenses
11 Cost does not include fire apparatus for new fire stations. These costs are
found within the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. Current 2015
cost of a fully outfitted fire engine is $850,000. New fire engines will be
required for new 407 Washington, Benson and Riverview fire stations. Total
apparatus cost for these new stations will be $2,550,000.
331
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 21
Figure CF-3
Existing and Proposed Fire Stations
Goals and Policies
Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority
Goal CF-6:
Maintain fire service concurrency through long range planning and mitigation
efforts that predict and mitigate the direct impacts of future development
upon the KFDRFA’s ability to deliver fire and life safety services in accordance
with its adopted level of service standards.
Policy CF-6.1:
Recognize that regional economic vitality depends upon orderly growth
and support community growth through development; participate in
the orderly growth of the Kent community necessary in maintaining
concurrency of fire and life safety services.
Policy CF-6.2:
Evaluate all new development proposed to occur, identify any adverse
impacts that may affect the KFDRFA’s ability to maintain level of
service standards and apply the mitigations outlined in the KFDRFA
Mitigation and Level of Service Policy as necessary to maintain fire
service concurrency with new development.
Policy CF-6.3:
Work cooperatively with the city of Kent to coordinate long-range
planning efforts that support fire service concurrency.
PARKS
The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department:
manages parks and open space resources, as well as the Senior Activity
Center, Kent Commons, and Riverbend Golf Complex;
manages other facilities and buildings necessary to the administrative and
maintenance functions of the City;
provides a wide range of recreational programs throughout the facilities;
and
administers funding in support of a variety of community service activities.
332
333
334
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 22
Details for community service activities can be found in the Human Services
Element, the Housing Element, and the Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development. The Park & Open Space Plan and the Parks Element
of the Comprehensive Plan provide greater detail about facilities and LOS
standards.
Facilities Management
Table CF.7
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Current Facilities Inventory – 2015
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Square Feet)
Type 1 - Administration
Centennial Center 400 W. Gowe 71,600
City Hall 220 4th Ave S. 33,000
Total Type 1
104,600
Type 2 - Information Technology
City Hall Annex 302 W. Gowe 4,600
Total Type 2
4,600
Type 3 - Maintenance Facility
Russell Road Shops 5821 S. 240th 26,158
East Hill Maintenance Facility 12607 SE 248th Street 840
East Hill Maintenance Trailers 12607 SE 248th Street 2,040
Total Type 3
29,038
Type 4 – Police
Police Headquarters 220 4th Avenue South 18,000
Police and Fire Training 24611 SE 116th Avenue 8,369
Woodmont Substation 26226 Pacific Highway South 1,174
Panther Lake Substation 10842 SE 208th 1,400
East Hill Police Substation 24611 SE 116th Avenue 840
Firing Range 24611 SE 116th Avenue 4,685
Corrections 1230 S Central 21,000
Corrections Annex 8323 S 259th 3,053
Total Type 4 58,521
Type 5 – Natural Resources
Natural Resources Building 22306 Russell Road 1,960
Total Type 5 1,960
Type 6 – Historical Building
Historical Society 855 E Smith 3,720
Neely Soames House 5311 S 237th Place 2,256
Total Type 6 5,976
Type 7 – Recreation
335
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 23
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Square Feet)
Kent Commons 525 N 4th Avenue 50,000
Kent Memorial Park 850 N Central 3,000
Kent Pool 25316 – 101st Ave SE 16,000
Senior Center 600 E Smith 21,000
Total Type 7 90,000
Type 8 – Golf
Driving Range 2030 W Meeker 1,800
Par 3 2020 W Meeker 1,380
Riverbend 18 Hole 2019 W Meeker 11,296
Total Type 8 14,476
Type 9 – Court
Municipal Court 1220 Central Ave S 15,000
Total Type 9 15,000
Type 10 – Fire
Fire Burn Tower 24611 SE 116th Ave 3,957
Fire Headquarters 24611 SE 116th Ave 6,324
Station 74 24611 SE 116th Ave 14,000
Station 75 15635 SE 272nd 10,621
Total Type 10 34,902
Total All Types 359,073
Table CF.8
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS) - None
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Project 1 - HVAC
Cost 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292
Facilities Revenues 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292
Project 2 – Emergency Repairs
Cost 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000
Facilities Revenues 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000
Project 3 – Kitchen
Equipment
Cost 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530
Facilities Revenues 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530
Project 4 – Roof Repairs
Cost 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020
Facilities Revenues 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020
Project 5 – Kent Pool
Lifecycles
336
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 24
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Cost 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500
Facilities Revenues 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500
Project 6 – Centennial
Reseal
Cost 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370
Facilities Revenues 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370
Project 7 – Fire Alarm
Upgrades
Cost 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Facilities Revenues 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Project 8 – Parking Lot
Lifecycle
Cost 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 685 1,020
Facilities Revenues 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 .685 1,020
Project 9 – Floor Covering
Replacements
Cost 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450
Facilities Revenues 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450
Project 10 – Racquet Ball
Wall Repairs
Cost 40 0 0 0 0 0 40
Facilities Revenues 40 0 0 0 0 0 40
Project 11 – City Hall
Elevator Doors
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 12 – City Hall
Council Chambers
Renovation
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 13 – Facilities Card
Access
Cost 0 36 75 0 0 0 111
Facilities Revenues 0 36 75 0 0 0 111
Project 14 – Corrections
Portable Backup Connection
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 15 – Tenant
Requested Renovations
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
337
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 25
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Non-Capacity Projects $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Total Costs $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Facilities Fund Balance $500
Facilities Revenues $634.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Total Revenues $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Table CF.9
Parks
Current Facilities Inventory – 2015
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Acres/Sq. Ft.)
Neighborhood Parks various
Total NP
72.66 acres
Community Parks various
Total CP
152.15 acres
Golf Course (holes/1000) Riverbend Golf Course
Total GC
167.00 acres
Natural Resource
Total NR
various
453.76 acres
Recreation Facilities – Indoor
Total RF-I
various 142,130 sq. ft. on
13.56 acres
Recreation Facilities - Outdoor
Total O
Various
75.39 acres
Undeveloped
Total U
Various
160.16 acres
Total Types
1094.68 acres
Source: Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Table CF.10
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Natural Resource Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 9.78 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1196.1 453.76 (742.33)*
338
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 26
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
2021 127,057 1242.62 453.76 (788.86)
2035 138,156 1351.17 453.76 (897.41)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 3.71 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 453.76 453.76 0
2021 127,057 471.38 453.76 (17.62)
2035 138,156 512.56 453.76 (58.8)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
* Change in LOS in this category is due primarily to reclassification of significant properties.
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Neighborhood Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.02 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 124.75 72.66 (52.09)*
2021 127,057 129.6 72.66 (56.94)
2035 138,156 140.92 72.66 (68.26)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = .59 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 72.66 72.66 0
2021 127,057 74.96 72.66 (2.3)
2035 138,156 81.51 72.66 (8.85)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Community Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.27 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 155.32 152.15 (3.17)
2021 127,057 161.42 152.15 (9.27)
2035 138,156 175.46 179* 3.54
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 1.24 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 152.15 152.15 0
2021 127,057 157.55 152.15 (5.4)
2035 138,156 171.31 179 7.69
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
339
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 27
*This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital
Facilities Plan.
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Indoor Rec. Facilities
Time Period Population
Square Feet
Needed to Meet
LOS standard
Current
Square Feet
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.71 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON
2015 122,300 209,133 142,130 (67,003)
2021 127,057 217,267 142,130 (75,254)
2035 138,156 236,247 142,130 (94,117)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 1.16 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON
2015 122,300 142,130 142,130 0
2021 127,057 147,386 142,130 (5,256)
2035 138,156 160,261 142,130 (18,131)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Outdoor Rec. Facilities
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 2.93 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 358.34 75.39 (282.95)
2021 127,057 372.28 75.39 (296.89)
2035 138,156 404.8 75.39 (329.41)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = .62 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 75.39 75.39 0
2021 127,057 78.78 75.39 3.39
2035 138,156 85.66 75.39 10.27
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Undeveloped
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.06 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 129.64 160.16 30.52
2021 127,057 134.68 160.16 25.48
2035 138,156 146.45 133.31* (13.14)
340
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 28
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = NO ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED
2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
* This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital
Facilities Plan.
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Overall LOS (acres/1000)
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 16.23 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1984.93 1094.68 (890.25)
2021 127,057 2062.14 1094.68 (967.46)
2035 138,156 2242.27 1094.68 (1147.59)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 8.95 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1094.68 1094.68 0
2021 127,057 1137.16 1094.68 (42.48)
2035 138,156 1236.5 1094.68 (141.82)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
341
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 29
Table CF.11
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List – Parks
Summary - ALL Projects
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 134,597.3 6,060.8 6,455.2 10,684.2 8,822.6 9,303.9 7,456.6 85,814.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 7,951.6 465.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 5,762.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 3,083.0
Total Uses 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant 996.5 - 125.0 871.5 - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax 189.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 135.0
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
CIP REET 2 Revenues 27,350.0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Total Sources 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Existing Capacity 106,870.9 4,996.8 5,367.0 9,571.1 7,684.3 8,139.8 6,266.2 64,846.0
New Capacity 37,717.5 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 28,482.0
Programmatic 8,538.6 490.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 6,199.0
Total 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
342
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 30
Tab # Project Name Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Tab - 1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program 8,729.0 409.2 411.0 412.2 413.4 415.2 270.0 6,398.0
Tab - 1.1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program - Unfunded 16,457.5 1,138.9 1,167.8 1,198.1 1,229.1 1,260.2 1,438.9 9,024.5
Tab - 2 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program 3,801.5 272.8 274.0 274.8 275.6 276.8 180.0 2,247.5
Tab - 2.1 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program - Unfunded 2,047.4 137.1 144.9 153.3 161.9 170.8 169.7 1,109.7
Tab - 3 ShoWare 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
Tab - 4 GreenKent 353.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 263.1
Tab - 5 Adopt-A-Park 590.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 440.6
Tab - 6 Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 234.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 174.3
Tab - 7 Park and Open Space Plan 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Tab - 7.1 Park and Open Space Plan - Unfunded 467.8 - - - - - - 467.8
Tab - 8 Path and Trails 3,897.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 3,843.3
Tab - 8.1 Path and Trails - Unfunded 12,922.6 1,043.1 1,064.8 1,086.2 1,108.1 1,130.5 1,153.3 6,336.6
Tab - 9 Master Plans - Unfunded 591.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 441.0
Tab - 10 Architect/Engineering - Unfunded 472.8 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 352.8
Tab - 11 Lake Meridian Park Phase 1 1,750.0 - - 500.0 450.0 400.0 400.0 -
Tab - 12 Kent Valley Loop Trail Implementation - Unfunded 550.0 250.0 150.0 150.0 - - - -
Tab - 13 Van Dorens Park Renovation - Unfunded 2,143.0 - 125.0 2,018.0 - - - -
Tab - 14 Russell Road Field Conversion - Unfunded 1,993.0 - 250.0 1,743.0 - - - -
Tab - 15 Kent Memorial Park Renovation - Unfunded 932.0 - - 121.0 811.0 - - -
Tab - 16 Lake Fenwick Park Phase 1 - Unfunded 1,285.0 - - 100.0 1,185.0 - - -
Tab - 17 Springwood Park Improvements - Unfunded 2,800.0 - - - 200.0 2,600.0 - -
Tab - 20 West Fenwick Phase 2 Park Renovation - Unfunded 731.0 - - - - - 731.0 -
Tab - 21 Mill Creek Earthworks Redevelopment - Unfunded 1,021.0 - - - - - - 1,021.0
Tab - 18 Strategic Development 3,318.0 - - - - - - 3,318.0
Tab - 18.1 Strategic Development - Unfunded 27,954.2 1,214.0 1,238.3 1,263.0 1,288.3 1,314.1 1,340.4 20,296.1
Tab - 19 Strategic Acquisitions - Unfunded 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.4
Tab - 22 Athletic Fields 6,050.3 - - - - - - 6,050.3
Tab - 22.1 Athletic Fields - Unfunded 21,177.9 1,711.7 1,745.5 1,780.4 1,816.0 1,852.4 1,889.4 10,382.4
Tab - 23 Strategic Redevelopment - Unfunded 17,991.4 - - - - - - 17,991.4
Total: 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,526.7
343
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 31
Summary - Funded Projects Only
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights - - - - - - - -
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 24,591.3 566.0 569.0 1,071.0 1,023.0 976.0 734.0 19,652.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 6,420.0 420.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 3,083.0
Total Uses 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax 189.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 135.0
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
CIP REET 2 Revenues 27,350.0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined - - - - - - - -
Total Sources 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Existing Capacity 24,228.1 691.0 694.0 1,196.0 1,148.0 1,101.0 859.0 18,539.0
New Capacity 3,318.0 - - - - - - 3,318.0
Programmatic 7,598.0 470.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 5,378.0
Total 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
344
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 32
Summary - Unfunded Projects
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 110,006.0 5,494.8 5,886.2 9,613.2 7,799.6 8,327.9 6,722.6 66,162.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 1,531.6 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 1,262.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management - - - - - - - -
Total Uses 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant 996.5 - 125.0 871.5 - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy - - - - - - - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - - -
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues - - - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP REET 2 Revenues - - - - - - - -
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Total Sources 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Existing Capacity 82,642.8 4,305.8 4,673.0 8,375.1 6,536.3 7,038.8 5,407.2 46,306.0
New Capacity 34,399.6 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 25,165.0
Programmatic 940.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 821.0
Total 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
345
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 33
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
A complete assessment of transportation facilities is considered in the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element as well as the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) which was adopted in June 2008. Figure 5 of the
Transportation Element Technical Report illustrates the City’s recommended
project list through 2035 which includes four types of improvements:
intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade
separations. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million.
Table CF.12
Transportation Recommended Project List
Type of Project Number of Projects Cost ($)
Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000
New Streets 4 84,715,000
Street Widening 14 269,389,000
Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000
Total
and freeways)
40 $508,981,000
Source: City of Kent 2015 Transportation Element Technical Report. Figures are in 2007 dollars.
The goal and policies, including Level of Service (LOS) policies and inventories
related to the provision of transportation services and facilities are contained in
the Transportation Element and Transportation Technical Background Report of
this Comprehensive Plan and in the Transportation Master Plan.
Table CF.13 shows a breakdown of the City’s streets by classification. There are
more miles of local streets than any other category, as local streets are present
in all neighborhoods. Local streets represent 66 percent of the streets.
Principal arterials represent only 7 percent of the roadway miles, but carry
most of the daily traffic volume.
Table CF.13
Transportation
Existing Street Functional Classification
Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total
Principal Arterials 30 6.5
Minor Arterials 39 8.5
Collector Arterials
Industrial 13 2.8
Residential 31 6.8
Residential Collectors 41 9.0
Local Access Streets/ 303 66.3
Unclassified
346
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 34
Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total
Total (excluding state highways
and freeways)
457 100
Source: City of Kent 2008 Transportation Master Plan
Level of Service (LOS)
The City of Kent uses roadway corridors to evaluate LOS. Roadway LOS is a
measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A letter
grade, ranging from A to F, is assigned based on the delay experienced by
drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future
traffic conditions. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and
D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are
approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where
demand exceeds capacity. For signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-
way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by the average
delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-
controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the movement with the
highest delay. Table CF-14 displays the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Table CF.14
Intersection Level Of Service Criteria
Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection Delay per
Vehicle (Seconds)
A < 10 < 10
B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15
C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25
D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35
E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50
F > 80 >50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Transportation Research Board
The City’s adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at
LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific
Highway South corridor and the downtown zone which are allowed to operate
at LOS F.
The LOS was re-examined in 2015 using 2014 vehicle counts to compare
with 2006 data used for the adoption of the 2008 TMP. The results indicate
that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same,
347
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 35
or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014
analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City’s LOS
standard.
The work completed in 2015 included analyzing 20-year land use forecasts.
The forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget
Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts.
Table CF-15 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to previous
land use forecasts.
Table CF.15
City Of Kent Land Use Forecasts
Policy Document Forecast Year Employment1 Households
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400
2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS
Proposal 2031 93,600 68,900
2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS
Proposal 2031 73,300 57,100
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500
Notes: 1. Employment totals do not include construction jobs.
Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast
includes the same number of jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100
more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the employment and
household figures assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP
and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of
these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS.
The results of the corridor LOS analysis presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 of
the Transportation Element Technical Report indicate that the overall traffic
congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved
somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis
indicates that all Corridors are currently meeting the City’s LOS standard.
Table CF.16
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Transportation
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
B&O Projects
Overlay Projects
3,549.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0 53250 74549
348
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 36
Sidewalks
895.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0 13500 18895
Striping
226.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0 3300 4626
Signal Loops
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0 450 630
B&O Revenue
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
70,500.0
98,700.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Street Fund & Utility Tax
Traffic Controllers
-
-
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
2,700.0
3,420.0
Traffic Signal Damage
-
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1,500.0
1,900.0
Street Light Mtc.
-
-
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
1,425.0
1,805.0
UPS Cabinets - New
-
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
-
-
150.0
UPS Cabinets - Repl.
-
-
-
-
-
45.0
675.0
720.0
Traffic Counts
-
-
-
-
150.0
150.0
2,250.0
2,550.0
Traffic Cameras - New
-
-
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
-
128.0
Traffic Cameras - Repl.
-
-
-
-
-
-
150.0
150.0
Neighborhood Traffic
Control
-
-
193.0
243.0
250.0
250.0
3,750.0
4,686.0
Street Fund & Utility Tax
Revenue
-
-
650.0
700.0
857.0
852.0
12,450.0
15,509.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Metro Transit Services
Metro Transit Services
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
Metro Transit Revenue
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Solid Waste Tax Projects
Residential Streets
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Solid Waste Utility Tax
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
4,855.0
4,855.0
5,505.0
5,555.0
5,712.0
5,707.0
85,275.0
117,464.0
Non-Capacity Projects
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Total Costs
7,363.0
7,375.0
8,050.0
8,126.0
8,308.0
8,329.0
127,912.0
175,463.0
Baseline Funding - Estimated Available Funds
B&O Funds
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
70,500.0
98,700.0
Street Fund & Utility Tax
-
-
650.0
700.0
857.0
852.0
12,450.0
15,509.0
Metro Transit Services
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
Solid Waste Utility Tax
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Total Revenues
7,363.0
7,375.0
8,050.0
8,126.0
8,308.0
8,329.0
127,912.0
175,463.0
Partial and Unfunded Street Projects
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Street Widening
80th Avenue South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,323.0
1,323.0
349
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 37
South 212th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,100.0
10,100.0
SR
181/WVH/Washington
Avenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
16,150.0
16,150.0
116th Ave SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
46,430.0
46,430.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 200
- SE 236)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,990.0
20,990.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 248
- SE 236)
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,950.0
11,950.0
Military Road South
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,630.0
13,630.0
West Meeker Street
(Fenwick - GR)
-
-
-
-
-
-
70,000.0
70,000.0
West Meeker Street (64
- GR)
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,960.0
5,960.0
SE 248th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,640.0
5,640.0
SE 256th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
16,980.0
16,980.0
132nd Ave SE (KK - SE
248)
-
-
-
-
-
-
23,200.0
23,200.0
South 272nd Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,916.0
13,916.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 288
- KK)
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,120.0
13,120.0
269,389.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Intersection
Improvements
SE 192nd/SR515-
Benson
-
-
-
-
-
-
540.0
540.0
South 196th/80th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
250.0
250.0
South 196th/84th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,190.0
1,190.0
South 212th/72nd Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
330.0
330.0
South 212th 84th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,710.0
1,710.0
South 212th/SR 167
-
-
-
-
-
-
400.0
400.0
South 240th/SR 99
-
-
-
-
-
-
420.0
420.0
SE 240th/SR 515
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,650.0
1,650.0
Smith/Central
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
20.0
Meeker/Washington
-
-
-
-
-
-
780.0
780.0
South 260th/SR 99
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,180.0
1,180.0
Military/Reith
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,945.0
1,945.0
SE 256th/SR 515
-
-
-
-
-
-
550.0
550.0
Kent-Kangley/108th
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,410.0
1,410.0
SE 256th/132nd Ave
SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
302.0
302.0
South 272nd/Military
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,540.0
1,540.0
Kent-Kangley/132nd
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,360.0
1,360.0
15,577.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
New Streets SE 196th Street
350
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 38
- - - - - - 45,200.0 45,200.0
72nd Ave South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,015.0
1,015.0
South 224th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
36,000.0
36,000.0
108th Ave SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,500.0
2,500.0
84,715.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Railroad Grade
Separations
South 212th/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
33,000.0
33,000.0
South 212th/BNRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
33,000.0
33,000.0
South 228th/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,200.0
24,200.0
Willis Street/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
26,500.0
26,500.0
Willis Street/BNRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
22,600.0
22,600.0
139,300.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
369,681.0
369,681.0
Non-Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
139,300.0
139,300.0
Total Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
508,981.0
508,981.0
Baseline Funding - Estimated Available Funds
Street Fund & Utility Tax
-
-
-
-
93.0
148.0
32,700.0
32,941.0
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
93.0
148.0
32,700.0
32,941.0
SOLID WASTE
The City of Kent has entered into an inter-local agreement (ILA) with King
County Solid Waste and most jurisdictions in King County. This inter-local
agreement expires in 2040. As a partner to the ILA, all municipal solid waste
generated in the City of Kent must be taken to King County’s Cedar Hills
Landfill located near Maple Valley. This landfill was originally permitted in
1960 and is King County’s last active landfill; King County has worked to
extend the life of the landfill through waste diversion. At the present time,
Cedar Hills is expected to close around 2028, however increased diversion
may extend that time frame. The King County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan identifies several landfills that are potential locations for
solid waste disposal following the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Table CF.17
Potential Locations for Out-of-County Landfill Disposal
Landfill Name Location Capacity (tons) Year of Estimated
Closure
Columbia Ridge
Landfill
Gilliam County, OR 201,000,000 2135+
351
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 39
Roosevelt Regional
Landfill
Klickitat County,
WA
205,000,000 2075+
Finley Buttes
Regional Landfill
Morrow County, OR 124,000,000 2100+
Simco Road
Regional Landfill
Elmore County, ID 200,000,000+ 2100+
Eagle Mountain
Landfill
Riverside County,
CA
708,000,000 2125
Mesquite Regional
Landfill
Imperial County,
CA
600,000,000 2110
Following the closure of the Cedar Hills landfill, waste will be exported out of
the county via train to one of the landfills identified above or via waste to
energy conversion technology such as anerobic digestion. As the closure of
the landfill nears, King County Solid Waste division will follow the technology
to identify what process or processes would be best suited to King County.
Technology for waste to energy conversion is likely to have significant
improvements over the next decade.
Kent contracts solid waste collection for municipal garbage, recycling and
yard and food waste with a contractor. The contractor collects solid waste in
Kent and disposes the garbage directly to the Cedar Hills landfill or a King
County Solid Waste transfer station. Co-mingled recycling is processed at
the contractor’s materials recycling facility in Seattle. All yard and food
waste collected by Kent’s contractor is taken Cedar Grove to be converted
into compost.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water
The principal sources of water supply for the City's municipal water system are
Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, supplemental
well facilities are activated. These sources meet the 6.2 million gallon average
daily demand (ADD) and the approximately 12.1 million gallon peak daily
demand (PDD). To meet long-term demands, the City executed an agreement
in 2002 to partner with Tacoma Water, Covington Water District and Lakehaven
Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water Project. This additional
water source will meet the City’s long-term peak day demand projections
identified in the Water System Plan of approximately 18 million gallons based
upon growth projections to 2030. In fact, existing water supply can produce 30
million gallons per day; however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to
deliver this water to customers. Please see the Utilities Element and 2011
Water System Plan for additional information.
352
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 40
The 2011 Kent Water System Plan estimated water demands through 2030.
To estimate future water demands, historic consumption, land use and
population forecasts were used. Kent has municipal water supplies of
approximately 30 MGD which is sufficient to the meet the Average Daily
Demand and the Peak Day Demand through the planning period in the 2011
Kent Water System Plan as outlined in the table below.
NOTE: For security reasons, water sources and capacity are combined in the
tables below.
Table CF.18
Water
Current Facilities Inventory – Water (2011)
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Gallons Per Day)
Various springs, wells, and
partnerships
Citywide 30 million gallons/day in municipal
water
Source: 2011 Water System Plan
Table CF.19
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Water Supply
Time Period ERU
Average Daily
Demand (ADD) and
Peak Day Demand
(PDD)] Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
[Average Daily
Demand (ADD)]
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 197 gallons PER ERU per day ADD and 358 gallons PER ERU per day PDD
2015 43,460 7.43 MGD (ADD) –
13.83 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
22.57 MGD
(ADD) – 16.17
MGD (PDD)
2016 43,881 7.74 MGD (ADD) –
14.27 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
22.26 MGD
(ADD) – 15.73
MGD (PDD)
2017 44,302 8.05 MGD (ADD) –
14.7 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.95 MGD
(ADD) – 15.30
MGD (PDD)
353
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 41
2018 44,723 8.35 MGD (ADD) –
15.13 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.65 MGD
(ADD) – 14.87
MGD (PDD)
2019* 45,144 8.66 MGD (ADD) –
15.57 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.34 MGD
(ADD) – 14.43
MGD (PDD)
2020 45,567 8.97 MGD (ADD) –
16.0 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.03 MGD
(ADD) – 14.00
MGD (PDD)
2035 52,801 10.4 MGD (ADD) –
19.0 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
19.60 MGD
(ADD) – 11.00
MGD (PDD)
ERU – Equivalent Residential Unit
Note* - 2035 data estimated from the 2008 Water System Plan
Source: 2011 Water System Plan – Table 6 Appendix D and Figure 3-6 - with straight-line extrapolation to 2035
FIRE FLOW
Fire flow is the measure of sustained flow of available water for fighting fire
at a specific building or within a specific area at 20 psi residual pressure.
When fire flow is provided, WAC 246-290-230(6) requires the water
distribution system to provide a maximum day demand (MDD) plus the
required fire flow at a pressure of at least 20 psi (140 kPa) at all points
throughout the distribution system, and under the condition where the
designated volume of fire suppression and equalizing storage has been
completed.
Table CF.20 below shows the minimum fire flow rates and duration for the
residential, commercial and industrial uses within the city. The 2008 Water
System Plan included modeling based on the land use types in the service
area, and consistent with the development of the demand projections as
presented and used in the development of the plan. Fire flow analyses
resulted in deficiencies within the 590 pressure zone. It was determined that
pipe upsizing and looping would not drastically improve flow, and thus
justified a new pressure zone. This new pressure zone will be the 640
pressure zone which will take a number of years to fund and complete. The
640 Zone Creation Report, 2008, is located in Appendix F of the 2008 Water
System Plan.
354
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 42
Table CF.20
Water
City of Kent Minimum Fire Flow Rates and Duration
Classification
Rate and Duration
Residential (1)
Commercial
Industrial
1,000 gpm or 1,500 gpm for 60 minutes
3,500 gmp for 180 minutes
3,250 gpm for 240 minutes
(1) Where fire flow availability is greater than 1,000 gpm but less than 1,500 gpm, the Fire Marshal requires the
residence to be sprinkled.
Source: 2011 Water System Plan
Table CF.21
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List – Water
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
640 Pressure Zone
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
Water Revenue
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
HCP Implementation
(Clark Springs)
-
95.0
240.0
895.0
215.0
240.0
1,800.0
3,485.0
Tacoma Pipeline
-
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
450.0
600.0
Water Conservation
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
750.0
1,000.0
Landsburg Mine
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
Water System
Improvements
-
620.0
625.0
170.0
200.0
175.0
12,415.0
14,205.0
Large Meter & Vault
Repl.
-
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
1,125.0
1,500.0
Hydrant Replacements
-
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
450.0
600.0
Water Generators
-
-
200.0
-
-
-
800.0
1,000.0
Wellhead Protection
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4,550.0
5,050.0
Reservoir Maintenance
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
1,250.0
1,500.0
Security Impv. Water
Sites
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
750.0
1,000.0
Transmission Mains
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3,260.0
3,760.0
SCADA
-
-
-
-
-
-
900.0
900.0
Guiberson Reservoir
2,800.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,800.0
Water Revenue
2,800.0
1,300.0
1,650.0
1,650.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
30,000.0
39,400.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
355
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 43
Non-Capacity Projects
2,800.0
1,300.0
1,650.0
1,650.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
30,000.0
39,400.0
Total Costs
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Water Revenues
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Total Revenues
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Sewer
The City of Kent sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately
twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as
well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the
existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area,
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which
will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
improvement districts.
The City’s sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance
with the growing needs of the City. Because Kent’s sewer service area is not
coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future population forecast for
the actual area served by Kent sewer. The sanitary sewer system in Kent has
been designed assuming the tributary areas have been fully developed in
accordance with the land use plan and no further growth could be
accommodated. Please see the Utilities Element and the 2000 Sanitary Sewer
Plan for additional information.
The City of Kent has inter-local agreements with King County METRO to treat
sanitary sewer from Kent and other municipalities in south King County via
the large sewer interceptors that run through the City. As such, Kent does
not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs
for sanitary sewer treatment.
The City has eight sanitary sewer pump stations located throughout the city
to pump waste into the King County METRO interceptors that take the waste
to the treatment plant.
The sanitary sewer system is designed to provide a level of service of; 60
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for residential; 2,000 gallons per acre per
day (gpad) for light industrial; 4,000 gpad for heavy industrial; 3,000 gpad
for light commercial; and 7,000 gpad for heavy commercial. During the
design of any sewer system, calculations are made assuming the tributary
area is fully developed in accordance with the land use plan and no further
356
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 44
growth can be accommodated. As such, the City is meeting the level of
service for the sanitary sewer utility.
Table CF.22
Sewer
Current Facilities Inventory – Sewer (2015)
Pump Station Location
Size/Amount
(Pump Capacity*)
Horseshoe Acres 7942 S. 261st St. Two 650 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Linda Heights 3406 S. 248th St. Two 330 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Lindental 26432 118th Pl. SE Three 2,000 gpm
pumps which run
alternately
Skyline 3301 S. 222nd Pl. Two 150 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Victoria Ridge 4815 S. 272nd Pl. Two 100 gpm pumps
which run alternately
212th St. Pump Station 9001 S. 212th St. Two 100 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Frager Road 21233 Frager Road S. Two 650 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Mill Creek 26710 104th Ave. SE Two 150 gpm pumps
which run alternately
*If needed, pumps at the pump station can operate concurrently to meet capacity.
Table CF.23
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Sewer Capital Facility
Time Period Total Acreage Served
by system
Gallons per Day
(GPD) Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
[Gallons Per Day
(GPD) Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 4,546 Gallons per acre per day (GPAD)
2015 9,030 41.05 MGD 68.42 MGD 27.37 MGD
2016 9,218 41.91 MGD 68.42 MGD 26.51 MGD
2017 9,406 42.76 MGD 68.42 MGD 25.66 MGD
357
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 45
2018 9,594 43.62 MGD 68.42 MGD 24.80 MGD
2019 9,783 44.47 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.95 MGD
2020 9,971 45.33 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.09 MGD
2035 12,793 58.16 MGD 68.42 MGD 10.26 MGD
Source: 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan - with straight-line extrapolation to 2035
Table CF.24
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Sewer
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Misc Sewer
Replacement
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
23,800.0
30,375.0
Linda Heights
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
1,900.0
-
1,900.0
Skyline
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,200.0
2,200.0
Horseshoe
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,000.0
2,000.0
Derbyshire
Improvement
-
2,000.0
2,000.0
Sewer Revenue
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-Capacity
Projects
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Total Costs
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Sewer Revenue
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Total Revenues
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Storm Drainage
The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches,
pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect
individual parcels with the City’s surface water systems. The City also owns,
358
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 46
operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities.
The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments
of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements
before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after
increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes
within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum
requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted
within the 2009 Drainage Master Plan (DMP).
The DMP included an evaluation of watersheds and drainage basins, analysis of
open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, and a
determination and prioritization of projects needed to reduce flood risks,
improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats,
and efficiently serve planned growth in a cost–effective way. Further details on
each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs
range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars.
Land development activities requiring approval from the City of Kent must
meet the requirements of Kent’s Surface Water Design Manual. When
discharging to streams or open channels, runoff rates from development
sites are required to meet certain water quality and flow control standards.
Details of design criteria and core requirements can be found in the current
Surface Water Design Manual. The city ensures development activities meet
the requirements of the SWDM.
The level of service for the maintenance of the stormwater system is
measured by meeting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Phase II permit for Western Washington, issued by the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The city is currently meeting this
level of service.
The King County Flood Control District (KCFCD) has primary responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the Green River levees. However, the city is
leading the effort to obtain FEMA accreditation for the levees, which
documents that they meet federal standards for design, construction,
operation and maintenance. The city is partnering with the KCFCD to make
improvements to the levees in the valley and maintain them as needed to
meet accreditation requirements.
359
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 47
Table CF.25
Regional Stormwater Detention and Water Quality Facilities
Current Facilities Inventory – Stormwater (2015)
Pump Station Location
Size/Amount
(Pump Capacity*)
Green River Natural
Resources Area
East of Russell Road,
north of S. 228th Street
Detention and Water
Quality
Upper Mill Creek
Detention Facility
East of 104th Avenue SE
near SE 267th Street
Detention
Lower Mill Creek
Detention Facility
Within Earthworks Park Detention
98th Avenue/Garrison
Creek Detention Facility
98th Avenue at SE 233rd
Street
Detention and Water
Quality
Meridian Meadows
Detention Facility
East of 128th Avenue at
266th Street
Detention
South 259th Street
Detention Facility
North of S. 259th Street
between 1st and 3rd
Avenues
Detention and Water
Quality
Table CF.26
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Stormwater
Project and
Cost/Revenu
e 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands
$)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Green River
Levees
500.0
6,795.0
6,190.0
6,185.0
6,180.0
6,125.0
8,425.0
40,400.0
Mill/Garrison/S
pring & GR
Tributaries
4,100.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
58,925.0
68,025.0
NPDES
-
205.0
210.0
215.0
220.0
225.0
3,975.0
5,050.0
Soos Creek &
Tributaries
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,875.0
12,875.0
Storm
Maintenance &
Replacement
3,400.0
-
-
-
-
32,200.0
35,600.0
West Hill
Drainage
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,700.0
4,700.0
360
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 48
Drainage
Revenue
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity
Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-Capacity
Projects
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Total Costs
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Drainage
Revenue
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Total
Revenues
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunications in Kent include both wired and wireless telephone
services, cable and satellite television, and high-speed broadband
technology. With expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, new
technologies and competition, telecommunications utilities are expected to
meet voice, video and broadband demands during the planning period. (See
also the Utilities Element in this Plan.)
Table CF.27
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Current Facilities Inventory – (2015)
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Num, Sq Ft, Acres)
Type 1 – Office Locations
City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 5,110 Sq. Ft.
Annex Building 302 W Gowe St, Kent 98032 4,600 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 1
9,710 Sq. Ft.
Type 2 – Data Center
Fire Station 74 24611 116th Ave SE, Kent, WA 98030 800 Sq. Ft,
City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 1,240 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 2
2,040 Sq. Ft.
Type 3 – Print Shop
City Hall 1st Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 1,332 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 2 1,332 Sq. Ft.
Total All Types 13,082 Sq. Ft.
Source: XXX
361
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 49
Table CF.28
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Level of Service Requirements Analysis –Capital Facility Type
Time Period
Population
(IT Employees,
including temps)
Square Feet
requirements
Needed to Meet
LOS standard
Current
[Square Feet]
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE POPULATION
2015 34 9,977 13,082 3,105
2021 40 11.027 13,082 2,205
2035 46 12,077 13,082 1,005
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD
2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX
Source: http://operationstech.about.com/od/startinganoffice/a/OffSpaceCalc.htm
Table CF.29
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and
Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS – Level of Service)
Hardware Lifecycle
Cost $939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,650
Revenue
Source 1
$939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,650
Software Lifecycle
Cost $303,750 $744,900 $1,125,000 $1,175,000 $875,000 $975,000 $21,425,000 $26,623,650
Revenue
Source 1
$303,750 $744,900 $625,000 $625,000 $125,000 $175,000 $2,970,000 $5,568,650
Revenue
Source 3
$500,000 550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,000 $21,055,000
Tech Plan
Cost $203,500 $193,200 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $3,000,000 $4,196,700
Revenue
Source 1
$6,500 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $45,000 $63,500
Revenue
Source 2
$197,000 $193,200 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $2,955,000 $4,133,200
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Project 1
Cost $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 1
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
362
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 50
Project and
Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
Revenue
Source 2
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Project 2
Cost $X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 1
$X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 2
$X $X $X $X
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity
Projects
$1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
Non-
Capacity
Projects
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Total Costs $1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
Source 1 -
Cable Utility
Tax
$1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000
$1,250,000 $750,000 $800,000 $12,300,000 $18,850,000
Source 2 -
Tech Fees $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $3,940,000
Source 3 -
Internal
Utility Tax
$500,000
$550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,000
$21,100,000
Total Revenues $1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District No. 415.
However, Kent residents are also served by the Auburn, Federal Way, Highline
and Renton School Districts. Detailed inventories of school district capital
facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
of each school district. The CFPs of the Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and Highline
School Districts and associated school impact fees are adopted annually. The
CFP for the Renton School District is incorporated by reference, although no
school impact fees are collected for the Renton School District for residential
development within Kent. Estimated total student enrollment figures of Kent’s
Planning Area households for each school district are provided in Table CF.4
below.
Locations of schools within the Kent School District and the boundaries of other
school districts serving Kent’s Planning Area are illustrated in Figure CF-4.
363
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 51
Figure CF-4
Educational Service Areas and Facilities
Table CF.30
SCHOOL DISTRICT KENT STUDENT ENROLLMENT - 2015
Kent
School
District
Auburn
School
District
Federal Way
School
District
Highline
School
District
Renton
School
District
Estimated Total Kent
Planning Area Resident
Student Enrollment
20,642 42 2,083 291 119
To accommodate projected growth, the school districts have noted the following
projects in their 2014 Capital Facilities Plan:
Kent: Temporary reopening of former Kent Elementary School (now Kent
Valley Early Learning Center) to house kindergarten and early child
education classes for Kent and Neely-O’Brien Elementary; Voter-
approved funding for Elementary School #31 reallocated to capital
projects for safety and security; Expansion of Neely-O’Brien
Elementary School; Replacement of Covington Elementary School.
Anticipated funding is through local and state funds and impact fees.
Federal Way: Replace Federal Way high school; increase capacity at Decatur
High. Norman Center (Employment Transition Program)
financed through state-approved LOCAL program through 2020.
Phased in full-day kindergarten and decreased K-3 class size
create need for additional classes. Funding for improvements
would be through land sale funds, bond funds, state match, and
impact fees.
Auburn: 1 Elementary School and 1 Middle School construction;
Acquisition of future school site: Technology Modernization;
Facility Improvements – Funded through capital levy, bonds and
impact fees
Highline: New elementary school and two new middle schools –
dependent upon voter-approved capital bonds
364
SE 192 ST
SR 516
JAMES ST
S 212 ST
SW 43 ST
S 228 ST
S 216 ST
S 2 5 9 PL
132AVESES 272 ST
SE 248 ST
S 240 ST 116AVESEK
E
N
T
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
R
D
SE 288 ST
SE 240 ST
124AVESESR 16794AVESSE 256 ST
V E T E R A N S DR
S 196 ST
S 260 ST
S 298 STREIT HR D
SE 274 WAYEASTVALLEYHWY80PLSWMEEKERST
S 208 ST 124AVESE116AVESESE 208 ST
S 200 ST 140AVESES 200 ST
SE 183ST
S 277 ST
S 223 ST
SE 196 StTALBOT RD S116AVES104AVESE34AVESS 277 ST
S 180
S
T
S 296 ST
S E C A R R R D
S 178 ST
37 ST NW
S 188 ST
112AVESEEAST VALLEY HWYMILITARYRDS4AVEN64AVESS 288 ST SR 515AUBURNWAYNORILLIARDSSR 181144AVESE108AVESECENTRALAVE108AVESE152AVESESE2 0 4 W A Y
76AVESRUSSELLRD24AVESPacificHwyS148AVESEWEST VALLEY HWY55AVESS 218 ST 98 AVE SSMITH ST
GOWE ST
WILLIS ST
SR 18C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
R
Ken
t
-
K
a
n
g
l
e
y
R
d
Kent-Kangley Rd
S
S
T
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.B.N. R.R.B.N. R.R.U.P. R.R.P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
Clark Lake
Star Lake Lake Fenwick
Angle Lake
La
k
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Lake JolieBow Lake
Ham Lake
§¨¦
§¨¦
#*
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
&(
THOMASJEFFERSONHIGH SCHOOL
PINE TREEELEMENTARY
VALHALLAELEMENTARY MEADOW RIDGE ELEMENTARY HORIZONELEMENTARY
MARK TWAINELEMENTARY
MILLENIUMELEMENTARY
STAR LAKEELEMENTARY
TOTEMMIDDLESCHOOL
KENTPHOENIXACADEMY
SCENIC HILLELEMENTARY MERIDIANELEMENTARY
KENT-MERIDIANHIGH SCHOOL
MARTINSORTUNELEMENTARY
GEORGE TDANIELELEMENTARY
KENTELEMENTARYSUNNYCRESTELEMENTARY
EAST HILLELEMENTARY
HIGHLINECOMMUNITYCOLLEGE
MERIDIANMIDDLESCHOOL
NEELY-OBRIENELEMENTARY PARK ORCHARDELEMENTARY
PACIFICMIDDLESCHOOL
MIDWAYELEMENTARY KENT MOUNTAINVIEW ACADEMY
SUNRISEELEMENTARY
SOOS CREEKELEMENTARY
PANTHER LAKEELEMENTARY EMERALD PARKELEMENTARY
KENTRIDGEHIGH SCHOOL
MADRONAELEMENTARY
SPRINGBROOKELEMENTARY
LAKE YOUNGSELEMENTARY
GLENRIDGEELEMENTARY
MEEKERMIDDLESCHOOLBENSONHILL ELEMENTARY
CHINOOKMIDDLESCHOOL
TYEE HIGHSCHOOL
CARRIAGECRESTELEMENTARY
BOW LAKEELEMENTARY
KENTLIBRARY
5
5
167
99
99
181
515
99
516
516
516
This map is a graphic aid only and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no warrenty to the accuracy of the labeling, dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement or location of any map features depicted
thereon. The City of Kent disclaims and shall not be held liable for any and all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct or indirect, or consequential, which
arises or may arise from use of this product.
LEGEND
EDUCATIONAL SERVICEAREAS & FACILITIESFigure xx.x
124AVESESE 304 ST
116AVESEInsertAnnexed to Kent
Ord. #2743
¯SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
#*LIBRARY
SCHOOL
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT - 415
HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT - 401
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT - 210
RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT - 403
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT - 408
¯plan15-1f.mxd
365
366
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 52
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
The City of Kent is served by the King County Library
System in the 22,600 square feet Kent Library
building at 212 2nd Avenue North. The library opened
in 1991 and renovation was completed in March,
2010. The project included interior remodeling such
as relocating the meeting rooms, restrooms, and
front entrance. An Automated Materials Handling
system was also installed in the back room to speed
delivery. .Detailed information regarding the King
County Library System is available on the internet at
www.kcls.org.
Goals and Policies
GENERAL
Goal CF-7:
As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate
supply and range of public services and capital facilities are available to provide
satisfactory standards of public health, safety, and quality of life.
Policy CF-7.1: Assess impacts of residential, commercial and
employment growth on public services and facilities in a manner
consistent with adopted levels-of-service.
Policy CF-7.2: Ensure that public services and capital facilities needs
are addressed in updates to Capital Facilities Plans and Capital
Improvement Programs, and development regulations as appropriate.
Policy CF-7.3: To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public
services and facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the
City has the authority to require others to provide.
Policy CF-7.4: Periodically review the Land Use Element to ensure that
public services and capital facilities needs, financing and levels-of-service
of the Capital Facilities Element are consistent and adequate to serve
growth where it is desired.
Policy CF-7.5: With the 2016 update of the Park and Open Space Plan
and the 2017 update of the Transportation Master Plan, adopt one or
367
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 53
more of the following options to ensure the City can accommodate the
projected 20-year growth in households and jobs: Demand
Management, Revised Level of Service, Land Use Revisions,
Partnering, or Phasing.
Policy CF-7.6: Coordinate the review of non-City managed capital
facilities plans to ensure consistency with the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy CF-7.7: Ensure that the planning, design, construction and
operation of public facilities projects will not result in conflicts or
substantial inconsistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies.
Goal CF-8:
Base standards for levels-of-service upon the appropriate provision of public
services and facilities as outlined in the operating comprehensive plans of the
City and other providers of services and facilities to Kent and its Potential
Annexation Area.
Policy CF-8.1: Establish levels-of-service appropriate to the core
mission of the City and City departments in their provision of services
and access of facilities to the public.
Policy CF-8.2: When appropriate and beneficial to the City, its citizens,
businesses, and customers, pursue national organizational accreditation
for all City of Kent agencies providing public services and facilities. Such
accreditation should be linked with performance standards applied by
City agencies.
Policy CF-8.3: Coordinate with other jurisdictions and providers of
services and facilities to ensure that the provision of services and
facilities are generally consistent for all Kent residents, businesses, and
others enjoying City services and facilities.
Goal CF-9:
Encourage effective non-capital alternatives to maintain or improve adopted
levels-of-service. Such alternatives could include programs for community
education and awareness, energy conservation, or integration of methods and
technologies to improve service delivery.
368
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 54
Goal CF-10:
Ensure that appropriate funding sources are available to acquire or bond for the
provision of needed public services and facilities.
Related Information
KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment
Plan: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Capital Facilities and
Equipment Plan_Proposed-2015LOS-
Changes.pdf
KFDRFA Mitigation and Level of Service
Policy: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Mitigation and LOSC
Policy_September2014.pdf
KFDRFA Mitigation Policy adopting
documents: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Adoption Resolution and
Supporting Documents.pdf
KFDRFA 2014 Standard of Cover:
S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\KFDRFA-2014-SOC-Draft.pdf
2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plans of
Kent, Federal Way, Auburn and Highline
School Districts
2015-2020 City of Kent 6-year Capital
Improvements Program
Capital Facilities Element
Background Report
POLICE
Police Services
K-9
The K-9 team consists of a sergeant and three officers. The generalist teams
are used for a variety of applications. They are primarily used to locate
suspects. This is done through tracking the suspects from crime scenes,
performing building searches, or searching areas. The generalist teams are
369
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 55
also able to locate evidence that would have otherwise one undetected. The
use of the K9’s also increase the safety of officers. The use of police dogs in
these roles greatly enhances the ability of the Kent Police Department to
aggressively fight crime.
Traffic
The Traffic Unit is tasked with providing safe and efficient vehicular,
pedestrian and bicyclist movement throughout the city. The unit works to
prevent and reduce injury and death related to vehicle collisions through
aggressive traffic enforcement and education. Comprised of one sergeant,
eight officers and one parking enforcement officer, the unit utilizes
motorcycle, marked, and unmarked traffic vehicles to conduct enforcement,
respond to collisions and other traffic/parking related calls for service. The
officers, who also serve as members of our Collision Analysis and
Reconstructions Squad (CARS), respond to collisions that result in life
threatening injuries or death. They utilize advanced investigative techniques
and equipment to complete these complex investigations.
The Traffic Unit is actively engaged in community presentations and
meetings, conducting training at the Kent Police Traffic School and partnering
with the City’s traffic engineers to address road design issues. They also
partner with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and neighboring
agencies to conduct various traffic emphases, including DUI and speed
patrols, illegal street racing, pedestrian crossing, seatbelt enforcement and
others.
Special Operations Unit (SOU)
The Special Operations Unit is a team of four bicycle officers that are
supervised by a patrol sergeant. The unit was formed to tackle issues and
situations that are not as accessible to regular patrol officers in vehicles.
These areas include bike trails, city parks and business venues.
This year bike officers concentrated most of their efforts in the downtown
core of the city. Their focus was criminal behavior and quality of life issues.
They worked closely with the downtown business association, parks
department, public works department and Kent Corrections to clean up areas
of illegal camps and dumped garbage helping make the community safe and
enjoyable for all.
Bicycle officers are the primary team that works on the police patrol boat and
in the park at Lake Meridian during the summer months. They provide police
services at community events including 4th of July Splash, Dragon Boat
Races and Cornucopia Days. They provide marine enforcement and conduct
370
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 56
safety inspections on Lake Meridian to educate the public and promote safe
boating practices on the water.
In 2014 the SOU unit will be expanding to eight officers and a full time
sergeant. This will ensure better unit coverage and the ability to address
many more of the criminal and quality of life issues in the City of Kent.
Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU)
The Kent CDU is made up of 13 officers, two sergeants and one commander.
The CDU is trained to effectively deal with large crowds and to minimize
criminal behavior during civil unrest. The unit is a part time team made up of
officers from all different divisions of the police department.
Kent CDU is part of the regional Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (VCDU) which
consists of officers from Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD
and Port of Seattle PD. Together the unit is able to bring over 90 officers
together if there is civil unrest or a threat of civil unrest. VCDU is comprised
of a command element, line officers, bike officers, a CUT team (specially
equipped and trained to safely cut or dismantle protestor devices and chains)
and SART (special munitions deployment team).
VCDU also partners with Bellevue PD, WA State Patrol, North Pierce Metro
and local Homeland Security teams for training and large incidents that
require more resources. An example was an operation in Tukwila where 160
CDU officers participated.
SWAT
The Kent Police Department participates in a regional SWAT team with five
other agencies from the South King County area. Partners in the Valley SWAT
team (VSWAT) include Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD
and Port of Seattle PD. This participation allows Kent PD to have access to
one of the largest, best equipped and well trained team in the state. VSWAT
is comprised of six officers from each agency for a total of 36 tactical officers.
Each agency also provides a Commander for oversight and leadership.
Detectives
The Detective Unit consists of two detective sergeants, 15 detectives and one
six month rotating detective position that is staffed by a patrol officer as a
contractually bid position. One detective sergeant and eight detectives are
responsible for investigating crimes against people; this unit includes a
forensics expert who is responsible for the retrieval and analysis of
technological evidence. The remaining personnel investigate crimes against
property including burglaries, frauds and stolen vehicles. The rotating
detective position is often utilized for both types of investigations and gives
371
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 57
patrol officers experience in the handling cases on a more in-depth level than
is possible while working in a patrol environment. The rotating detective then
returns to their patrol crew and can help teach their co-workers the advanced
investigative techniques that they have learned.
The Detective Unit includes one detective who is assigned to ensure that all
sexually violent offenders residing in Kent have a current residential address
on file. Detectives physically verify the residency of every offender within the
city limits to ensure compliance.
Special Investigations Unit (SIU)
SIU uses covert investigative techniques to combat high impact offenders,
identify and apprehend violent offenders and solve problems in the city. SIU
focuses on gang activity, prostitution operations and narcotics investigations.
SIU has two members that are currently assigned part time to the FBI’s Child
Exploitation Task Force and one member who is assigned to the Homeland
Security Investigations District 10 for Operation Community Shield. The unit
also assists detectives with shooting investigations, homicides, and
robberies.
Neighborhood Response Team (NRT)
This team addresses crime trends and neighborhood problems through
intense interaction with community members, landlords, and businesses. One
way NRT addresses neighborhood problems is through the use of crime
notification letters. These letters go out to the owners of nuisance properties.
Community Education Unit (CEU)
Crime prevention is a vital component of the Intelligence Led Policing
approach to law enforcement and is a powerful tool in accomplishing the
department’s mission. Community Education Coordinators work closely with
the Neighborhood Response Team, focusing on crime prevention and quality
of life issues.
Providing police services outside of traditional methods, the unit focuses on
crime prevention, traffic safety education, youth outreach, youth
drug/alcohol prevention and other problem solving strategies working directly
with Kent residents. The unit works with neighborhood block watches,
businesses, and schools to solve problems and enhance the effectiveness of
the police department. These community partnerships improve
communication and increase awareness; resulting in a reduction of crime.
372
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 58
Some of the outreach programs facilitated by CEU include graffiti cleanup
events, block and business watch meetings, and prescription drug take back
program. Annual events for CEU include National Night Out, the Game of Life
Youth Leadership Conference, and Safety Street at Cornucopia Days.
Through partnerships with the Kent Drug Free Coalition and the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission, CEU focuses on DUI enforcement, alcohol
compliance checks, school prevention programs, and other environmental
strategies that drive community change.
Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET)
VNET is a combination of seven local law enforcement jurisdictions including;
Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Port of Seattle, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila -
along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on the federal level. Their
focus is primarily mid- to-upper level drug trafficking organizations. VNET
also includes one DEA group supervisor, two DEA federal agents, seven task
force officers (detectives from local jurisdictions), one National Guard officer,
two support staff, and one King County prosecutor.
Recruitment
The department has taken several steps to pursue high quality police
candidates to fill vacant positions due to retirements, attrition and city
growth. The recruiting officer is chosen to lead the review of hiring practices
in order to attract well-qualified candidates, while also maintaining a focus on
enhancing agency diversity. Our partnership with various community groups
has been an integral part of attracting more candidates. The agency
continues to hire both lateral experienced officers and entry-level officers to
help maintain an agency that is well balanced with experience levels.
Chaplaincy Program
The Kent Police/Fire Chaplaincy Program has grown considerably since it
began several years ago. The program has been a huge success for both
residents and city employees. Historically, a full-time chaplain has facilitated
the program, but in 2012 a part-time, volunteer chaplain was added to meet
additional needs.
The chaplains are available to respond 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to
emergency scenes involving serious injury or death of a community member
or city employee and its purpose is to bring short-term care and compassion
to everyone involved.
The chaplain services have proven to be a valuable resource, far exceeding
original expectations. In fact, chaplains instruct classes at the state basic
academy so every new corrections officer in the state is trained on how to
deal with critical incident stress management. Nationally recognized for their
373
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 59
efforts, Kent’s chaplains have been invited to speak at or facilitate state and
national events.
Records
The Records Unit has two records supervisors and nine records specialists,
who provide the public with non-emergency information services, distribute
court orders, maintain case files, run criminal background checks for officers,
and maintain the police-reporting database. Walk-in services include case
copies, fingerprinting and concealed pistol licensing.
Evidence
The Evidence Unit consists of one supervisor and two custodians. Besides
documentation, storage, and proper disposal, the supervisor is responsible
for crime scene response, processing items for fingerprints and forwarding
items to the Washington State Crime Lab for examination.
Training
The Training Unit includes one sergeant and a range master which provides
training and maintains training records for more than 192 sworn and civilian
employees. The Training Unit hosts several in-service training days per year.
These consist of state required training classes such as first aid and dealing
with the mentally ill. Also offered is specific training such as EVOC
(Emergency Vehicle Operations Course), PIT (Precision Immobilization
Technique), and rifle training. Kent also participates in regional training such
as active shooter, SWAT, and civil disturbance.
The Kent training facility also hosts regional training. Agencies from all
around Washington and surrounding states come to attend classes taught by
national training instructors. The courses range from interview and
interrogation techniques to a variety of leadership courses. The facility also
houses a five lane indoor shooting range where all sworn employees are
required to pass a variety of courses in both handgun and rifle ranges at a
level 10% higher than state standards.
Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS)
VIPS volunteer their time under the guidance of staff members. Their
primary activities involve disabled parking enforcement, graffiti removal,
Hands of Friendship in-home visits, Citizen Patrol, and fingerprinting services.
They also assist with crowd or traffic control at public events such as Kent
Cornucopia Days and the Fourth of July Splash. They assist with clerical work
in the station, allowing patrol officers to handle calls for service. VIPS are
trained to assist with vehicle lockouts, stranded motorists, and a number of
other non-emergency related calls for services. These dedicated volunteers
374
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 60
give thousands of hours of work to the Kent community every year and save
the city tens of thousands of dollars.
Corrections Division
The Corrections Division is responsible for the booking and housing of all
misdemeanor arrests made by the Kent and Maple Valley Police
Departments. Felony arrests are held at the Kent Jail for a short time until
they are transferred to the King County Jail.
The division consists of a commander, six sergeants, 17 officers and one
civilian staff. There are also four contract employees from Occupational
Health Services that staff the medical clinic and two contract employees from
Consolidated Food Management that staff the full service kitchen.
Corrections Volunteers
Many community members volunteer their time to meet with inmates in an
attempt to help them with alcohol, drug, or other issues that impede their
lives and cause them to return to jail. Hundreds of hours of volunteer
services are donated by local church members and volunteers from Alcoholics
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous organizations.
Inmate Programs
The Corrections Division has a sergeant and two officers to supervise inmate
programs. Alternatives to incarceration include work release, supervised
work crew, work crew and electronic home detention.
Work release inmates work at their personal job in the community and return
to the facility during non-work hours. In 2014, the work release program will
be offered to offenders with misdemeanor sentences from outside agency
courts. Supervised work crew inmates are supervised by a correctional officer
and clean garbage from roadways, remove graffiti and clean up homeless
camps within the community. Work crew inmates are assigned to work at
local non-profit organizations. Participating non-profits include the Tahoma
National Cemetery, Kent Police Department, Kent and Auburn Food Banks
and the Kent Senior Center. Inmates on electronic home detention are
restricted to their homes except to work and to attend treatment or school.
All inmates submit to a thorough screening process before being accepted to
participate in any of the alternatives to incarceration.
375
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 61
KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
Community Risk Types
Urban (High-Risk) Service Area:
Is a geographically area or group of occupancy types where potential
loss of life is high and fire has the potential to spread beyond the
original unit or structure. These geographic areas have zoning and
land uses that allow more than six dwelling units per acre with little or
no separation between occupancies or contain commercial structures
built prior to modern fire code. Six units per acre zoning with
roadways and open space will net between 2.7 and 3 units per built
acre of development and may produce population densities greater
than 3,000 people per square-mile.
Suburban (Low to Moderate Risk) Service Area:
A geographic area or occupancy where potential loss of life is limited to
a small number of occupants and property damage is unlikely to
spread beyond the original structure. Buildings are small to large in
size, and include detached single-family homes. These areas have a
minimum zoning of R-4 (four homes per acre) and a maximum zoning
of R-6, including communities of older rambler style homes with
spacing between houses of 15 to 30 feet. Suburban (moderate) risk
can also include commercial occupancies such as grocery stores,
smaller strip malls, low hazard industrial/commercial, churches,
schools and other associated, buildings, but most commercial
structures of any size or consequence have fire suppression and
notification systems installed. Population density in the suburban (low
to moderate risk) area, generally range from 1,000 to 3,000 people
per square mile.
Rural (Low-Risk) Service Area:
Is a geographic area or occupancy with little potential for exposure risk
and includes low-density residential areas located outside the
designated Urban Growth Boundary. Zoning is less than 3 homes per
acre. Population densities are typically less than 1,000 people per
square mile.
376
Shoreline Element 13-1
Chapter Ten - SHORELINE ELEMENT
The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is a planning document that outlines
goals and policies for the shorelines of the City, pursuant to the Shoreline Management
Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA) and the Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173-26) and also
establishes regulations for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. The
goals and policies associated with the SMP are summarized below.
The SMP addresses a broad range of uses that could be proposed in the shoreline area.
This breadth is intended to ensure that the Kent shoreline area is protected from activities
and uses that, if unmonitored, could be developed inappropriately and could cause
damage to the ecological system of the shoreline, displace “preferred uses” as identified
in Chapter 90.58 RCW, or cause the degradation of shoreline aesthetic values.
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION POLICIES
Pursuant to the Shoreline Guidelines, shorelines of the state that meet the criteria
established in WAC 173-26-211 are given a shoreline environment designation. The
purpose of the shoreline designation system is to ensure that land use, development, or
other activity occurring within the designated shoreline jurisdiction is appropriate for that
area and that consideration is given to the special requirements of that environment.
Policies related to each environment designation are found below. The policies are
numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP.
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural
character of the designated wetland area should be prohibited.
2. New land division, development or shoreline modification that would reduce
the capability of the wetlands to perform normal ecological functions should
not be allowed.
Shoreline Element 13-2
3. Uses that are consumptive of physical, visual, and biological resources should
be prohibited.
Access and Improvements
4. Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and
low-intensity water-oriented recreational purposes such as nature study that
do not impact ecological functions, provided that no significant ecological
impact on the area will result.
5. Physical alterations should only be considered when they serve to protect or
enhance a significant, unique, or highly valued feature that might otherwise
be degraded or destroyed or for public access where no significant ecological
impacts would occur.
Implementing Regulations
6. The ecological resources in the Natural-Wetlands environment should be
protected through the provisions in the Critical Areas section of this SMP.
2. "High-Intensity" (H-I) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. In regulating uses in the "High-Intensity" environment, first priority should be
given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Given the fact that commercial
navigation on the Green River is limited by the channel configuration,
nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed on shorelands separated from the
shoreline by other properties, such as the Green River Trail corridor, and
where public access improvements and/or shoreline restoration is included as
part of the development. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be permitted
where water-dependent uses, public access, and shoreline restoration is
infeasible, as determined by the City’s Shoreline Administrator.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or
public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that
which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the
“High-Intensity” environment.
Shoreline Element 13-3
2. Developments in the “High-Intensity” environment should be managed so
that they enhance and maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban uses, with
priority given to water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses.
Public Access and Aesthetics
3. Existing public access ways should not be blocked or diminished.
4. Aesthetic objectives should be actively implemented by means such as sign
control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and
architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. These
objectives may be implemented either through this SMP or other City
ordinances.
5. In order to make maximum use of the available shoreline resource and to
accommodate future water-oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or public
access, the redevelopment and renewal of substandard, degraded, obsolete
urban shoreline areas should be encouraged.
3. "Urban Conservancy–Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented recreational uses should be given priority over nonwater-
oriented uses. Water-dependent recreational uses should be given highest
priority.
2. Commercial activities enhancing the public’s enjoyment of publically
accessible shorelines may be appropriate.
3. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
4. Development that hinders natural channel movement in channel migration
zones should not be allowed (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,
Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
Ecological Restoration and Public Access
3. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts, as determined
by the City, should be taken to restore ecological functions.
Shoreline Element 13-4
4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures,
vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the
"Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
5. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented
whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
4. "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses.
For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters,
water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.
2. Uses in the "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" environment should be
limited to those which are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of
the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses that do not
substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of
the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental
enhancement are preferred uses.
3. Agricultural practices, when consistent with provisions of this chapter, may be
allowed. Except as a Conditional Use, nonwater-oriented commercial and
industrial uses should not be allowed.
4. Where allowed, commercial uses should include substantial shoreline
restoration and public access.
5. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete
the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing
trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant
ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.
6. Developments and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently
deplete habitat or the physical or biological resources of the area or inhibit
stream movement in channel migration zones should not be allowed. (Refer to
the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
Shoreline Element 13-5
Ecological Management and Restoration
7. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be
taken to restore ecological functions. Where feasible, restoration should be
required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed
shorelines.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required.
The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given
the specific circumstances of development in the “Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity” environment.
8. Regulatory standards should be established for shoreline stabilization
measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications
within the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
9. Where appropriate, standards for landscaping and visual quality should be
included.
Shoreline Modification and Development Impacts
10. Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works
should not be allowed except where there is a documented need to protect
public safety, an existing structure or ecological functions and mitigation is
applied (See Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions). New
development should be designed and located to preclude the need for
structural shoreline stabilization or flood control.
11. Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a
maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area, unless an alternative
standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the
provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions.
12. New shoreline stabilization, flood control measures, vegetation removal, and
other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that
the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time.
Shoreline ecological restoration should be required of new nonwater-
dependent development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological
functions have been degraded.
13. Activities or uses that would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover, cause
substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely affect wildlife or aquatic
life should be prohibited.
Shoreline Element 13-6
14. Preservation of ecological functions should be balanced with public access
and recreation objectives and should have priority over development
objectives whenever a conflict exists.
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses and not
conflict with the residential character of lands in the “Shoreline Residential”
environment.
2. Water-oriented recreational uses should be allowed.
3. Adequate land area and services should be provided.
4. Land division and development should be permitted only 1) when adequate
setbacks or buffers are provided to protect ecological functions and 2) where
there is adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and
public services available and 3) where the environment can support the
proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions.
5. Development standards for setbacks or buffers, shoreline stabilization,
vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be
established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has
occurred, restore ecological functions over time.
6. Multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels should provide community access for residents of that development.
7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future
shoreline stabilization is not required.
6. "Aquatic" Environment
c. Management Policies
1. New over-water structures should be prohibited except for water-dependent
uses, public access, or ecological restoration.
2. The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum
necessary to support the structure's intended use.
Shoreline Element 13-7
3. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective
use of water resources, multiple uses of over-water facilities should be
encouraged.
4. Provisions for the “Aquatic” environment should be directed towards
maintaining and restoring habitat for aquatic species.
5. Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the
objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to
the sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
6. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic
conditions.
7. Abandoned and neglected structures that cause adverse visual impacts or are
a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare should be removed or restored
to a usable condition consistent with this SMP.
GENERAL POLICIES
General policies are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of shoreline
environment designation) that may occur along the City’s shorelines. General Provisions
policies are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the
SMP.
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations
b. Policies
1. The City should periodically review conditions on the shoreline and conduct
appropriate analysis to determine whether or not other actions are necessary
to protect and restore the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions, protect human health and safety, upgrade the visual qualities, and
enhance residential and recreational uses on the City’s shorelines. Specific
issues to address in such evaluations include, but are not limited to:
a. Water quality.
b. Conservation of aquatic vegetation (control of noxious weeds and
enhancement of vegetation that supports more desirable ecological
and recreational conditions).
c. Upland vegetation.
Shoreline Element 13-8
d. Changing visual character as a result of new residential
development, including additions, and individual vegetation
conservation practices.
e. Shoreline stabilization and modifications.
2. The City should keep records of all project review actions within shoreline
jurisdiction, including shoreline permits and letters of exemption.
3. Where appropriate, the City should pursue the policies of this SMP in other
land use, development permitting, public construction, and public health and
safety activities. Specifically, such activities include, but are not limited to:
a. Water quality and storm water management activities, including
those outside shoreline jurisdiction but affecting the shorelines of
the state.
b. Aquatic vegetation management.
c. Health and safety activities, especially those related to sanitary
sewage.
d. Public works and utilities development.
4. The City should involve affected federal, state, and tribal governments in the
review process of shoreline applications.
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources
b. Policies
1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource, public or private
uses, activities, and development should be prevented from destroying or
damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value as
identified by the appropriate authorities and deemed worthy of protection and
preservation.
3. Critical Areas
Critical Areas in SMP jurisdiction are regulated under Kent’s Critical Areas
Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805 (08/15/06), codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC.
The policies and goals for critical areas are found in section 11.06.020 KCC and in
the Land Use Element: LU-21, LU-22 LU-25, LU-26, LU-27, and LU-28.
4. Environmental Impacts
b. Policies
1. In implementing this SMP, the City should take necessary steps to ensure
Shoreline Element 13-9
compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971, and its implementing guidelines.
2. All significant adverse impacts to the shoreline should be avoided or, if that is
not possible, minimized to the extent feasible and provide mitigation to ensure
no net loss of ecological function.
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management
b. Policies
1. The City should implement a comprehensive program to manage the City’s
riparian corridors that integrates the following City ordinances and activities:
a. Regulations in this SMP.
b. The City’s Critical Area Regulations.
c. The City’s zoning code.
d. The City’s Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual,
and implementing regulations.
e. The City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
and compliance with the State’s floodplain management law at
Chapter 86.16. RCW.
f. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including
roads, dikes, utilities, bridges, and other structures.
g. The ecological restoration of selected shoreline areas.
2. In regulating development on shorelines within SMA jurisdiction, the City
should endeavor to achieve the following:
a. Maintenance of human safety.
b. Protection and, where appropriate, the restoration of the physical
integrity of the ecological system processes, including water and
sediment transport and natural channel movement.
c. Protection of water quality and natural groundwater movement.
d. Protection of fish, vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat
vital to the aquatic food chain.
e. Protection of existing legal uses and legal development (including
nonconforming development) unless the City determines relocation
or abandonment of a use or structure is the only feasible option or
that there is a compelling reason to the contrary based on public
concern and the provisions of the SMA.
f. Protection of recreation resources and aesthetic values, such as
point and channel bars, islands, and other shore features and
scenery.
Shoreline Element 13-10
g. When consistent with the provisions a. through f. above, provide
for public access and recreation, consistent with Chapter 3 Section
B.7.
3. The City should undertake flood hazard planning, where practical, in a
coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and
consider entire drainage systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes, or
marine shorelines. This planning should consider the off-site erosion and
accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or
protection structures or activities. Flood hazard management planning
should fully employ nonstructural approaches to minimizing flood hazard to
the extent feasible.
4. The City should give preference to and use nonstructural solutions over
structural flood control devices wherever feasible, including prohibiting or
limiting development in historically flood-prone areas, regulating structural
design and limiting increases in peak storm water runoff from new upland
development, public education, and land acquisition for additional flood
storage. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline hazard should be allowed
only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to
reduce the hazard.
Where structural solutions are rebuilt, fish-friendly structures such as setback
levees should be used. In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be
taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
5. In designing publicly financed or subsidized works, the City should provide
public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-impact outdoor recreation.
6. The City should encourage the removal or breaching of dikes to provide
greater wetland area for flood water storage and habitat; provided, such an
action does not increase the risk of flood damage to existing human
development.
6. Parking
b. Policies
1. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible, parking
should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on weekends,
commercial uses on weekdays).
2. Where feasible, parking for shoreline uses should be provided in areas outside
shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Low-impact parking facilities, such as permeable pavements, are encouraged.
Shoreline Element 13-11
7. Public Access
b. Policies
1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public
developments with the exception of the following:
a. One- and two-family dwelling units; or
b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and
environmental concerns.
2. Developments, uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair
or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation.
3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge
without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4. Opportunities for public access should be identified on publicly owned
shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities
and rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced.
5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and
to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy.
There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating
public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict.
6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and
preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive
removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views.
7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly
funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be
avoided.
8. City parks, trails and public access facilities adjacent to shorelines should be
maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans.
9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to
provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area
wherever feasible.
10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to
publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged.
Shoreline Element 13-12
11. The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in
the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline.
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance
b. Policies
In implementing the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide
significance, the City will base decisions in preparing and administering this SMP
on the following policies in order of priority, 1 being the highest and 6 being
lowest.
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals
representing state-wide interests by circulating the SMP, and any
proposed amendments affecting shorelines of state-wide
significance, to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's
advisory committees and local officials and state-wide interest
groups.
b. Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs
and recommendations in developing and administering use
regulations and in approving shoreline permits.
c. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with
expertise in ecology and other scientific fields pertinent to
shoreline management.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
a. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use
regulations to protect and restore the ecology and environment of
the shoreline as a result of man-made intrusions on shorelines.
b. Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development
already exists in order to reduce adverse impact on the
environment and to accommodate future growth rather than
allowing high intensity uses to extend into low-intensity use or
underdeveloped areas.
c. Protect and restore existing diversity of vegetation and habitat
values, wetlands and riparian corridors associated with shoreline
areas.
d. Protect and restore habitats for State-listed “priority species.”
3. Support actions that result in long-term benefits over short-term benefits.
Shoreline Element 13-13
a. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of
developments relative to the long-term and potentially costly
impairments to the natural shoreline.
b. In general, preserve resources and values of shorelines of state-
wide significance for future generations and restrict or prohibit
development that would irretrievably damage shoreline resources.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
a. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed
and managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse
impacts to wildlife resources, including spawning, nesting, rearing
and habitat areas and migratory routes.
b. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new
development, redevelopment of existing facilities or general
enhancement of shoreline areas.
c. Shoreline development should be managed to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.
a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas,
linear access along the shorelines, especially to the maintenance
and enhancement of the Green River Trail, which is a regional
recreational and transportation resource.
b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so
that access is enhanced.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline.
a. Plan for and encourage development of facilities for recreational
use of the shoreline.
b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well
away from the shorelines with provisions for nonmotorized access
to the shoreline.
9. Signage
b. Policies
1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the
aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses.
2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the water
or shorelands.
Shoreline Element 13-14
10. Utilities (Accessory)
b. Policies
1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline
and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the
shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a
shoreline location, they should be placed underground.
3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which
preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and
functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses.
11. Ve getation Conservation
b. Policies
1. Vegetation within the City shoreline areas should be enhanced over time to
provide a greater level of ecological functions, human safety, and property
protection. To this end, shoreline management activities, including the
provisions and implementation of this SMP, should be based on a
comprehensive approach that considers the ecological functions currently and
potentially provided by vegetation on different sections of the shoreline, as
described in Chapter 5 of the June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline
Inventory and Analysis Report.
2. This SMP in conjunction with other City development regulations should
establish a coordinated and effective set of provisions and programs to
protect and restore those functions provided by shoreline vegetation.
3. Aquatic weed management should stress prevention first. Where active
removal or destruction is necessary, it should be the minimum to allow water-
dependent activities to continue, minimize negative impacts to native plant
communities, and include appropriate handling or disposal of weed materials.
4. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replacement with native
vegetation should be encouraged. Removal of noxious or invasive weeds
should be conducted using the least-impacting method feasible, with a
preference for mechanical rather than chemical means.
Shoreline Element 13-15
12. Water Quality and Quantity
b. Policies
1. All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to avoid significant ecological impacts that alter water quality,
quantity, or hydrology.
2. The City should require reasonable setbacks, buffers, and storm water storage
basins and encourage low-impact development techniques and materials to
achieve the objective of lessening negative impacts on water quality.
3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates, or flood waters
through the use of stream control works should be located, designed,
constructed, and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do
not degrade the existing water quality and quantity.
4. As a general policy, the City should seek to improve water quality, quantity
(the amount of water in a given system, with the objective of providing for
ecological functions and human use), and flow characteristics in order to
protect and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
shorelines within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The City should
implement this policy through the regulation of development and activities,
through the design of new public works, such as roads, drainage, and water
treatment facilities, and through coordination with other local, state, and
federal water quality regulations and programs. The City should implement
the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as updated and adopted
by City ordinance.
5. All measures to treat runoff in order to maintain or improve water quality
should be conducted on-site before shoreline development creates impacts to
water.
6. Shoreline use and development should minimize the need for chemical
fertilizers, pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent
contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects
on shoreline ecological functions and values.
SHORELINE MODIFICATION POLICIES
Shoreline modifications are structures or actions which permanently change the physical
configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water
meet. Shoreline modification activities include, but are not limited to, structures such as
Shoreline Element 13-16
revetments, bulkheads, levees, breakwaters, docks, and floats. Actions such as clearing,
grading, landfilling, and dredging are also considered shoreline modifications.
Generally, shoreline modification activities are undertaken for the following reasons:
1. To prepare a site for a shoreline use
2. To provide shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection
3. To support an upland use
The policies in this section are intended to prevent or mitigate the adverse environmental
impacts of proposed shoreline modifications. Policies related to each shoreline
modification are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the
SMP.
1. General Policies and Regulations
b. Policies
1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where they are
demonstrated to be necessary:
a. To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally
existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial
damage, or;
b. For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or
enhance the shoreline ecology.
2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as
possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent.
3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of
shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed.
4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually
and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated
in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary
shoreline modifications, by giving preference to those types of shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by
requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline
modifications.
5. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and
technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions
provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231.
Shoreline Element 13-17
6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and
appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WAC 173-26-
231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible
measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes.
7. In reviewing shoreline permits, the City should require steps to reduce
significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC
173-26-201(2)(e).
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads)
b. Policies
1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over “soft” structural
measures. “Soft” structural shoreline stabilization measures are strongly
preferred over hard structural shoreline stabilization Proposals for hard
and soft structural solutions, including bulkheads, should be allowed only
when it is demonstrated that nonstructural methods are not “feasible”, as
defined in Chapter 6. Hard structural shoreline stabilization measures
should be allowed only when it is demonstrated that soft structural measures
are not feasible.
2. Bulkheads and other structural stabilizations should be located, designed,
and constructed primarily to prevent damage to existing development and
minimize adverse impacts to ecological functions.
3. New development requiring bulkheads and/or similar protection should not be
allowed. Shoreline uses should be located in a manner so that bulkheads and
other structural stabilization are not likely to become necessary in the future.
4. Shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively shall not result in a net
loss of ecological functions. This is to be achieved by giving preference to
those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological
functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from
shoreline modifications.
3. Over-Water Structures – Including Piers and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and
Boating Facilities
b. Policies
1. Moorage associated with a single-family residence is considered a water-
dependent use provided that it is designed and used as a facility to access
watercraft.
Shoreline Element 13-18
2. New moorage, excluding docks accessory to single family residences, should
be permitted only when the applicant/proponent has demonstrated that a
specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent or public access
use.
3. To minimize continued proliferation of individual private moorage, reduce the
amount of over-water and in-water structures, and reduce potential long-term
impacts associated with those structures, shared moorage facilities are
preferred over single-user moorage. New subdivisions of more than two (2)
lots and new multifamily development of more than two (2) dwelling units
should provide shared moorage.
4. Docks, piers, and other water-dependent use developments including those
accessory to single family residences, should be sited and designed to avoid
adversely impacting shoreline ecological functions or processes, and should
mitigate for any unavoidable impacts to ecological functions.
5. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be spaced and
oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to public
navigation rights and corollary rights thereto such as, but not limited to,
fishing, swimming and pleasure boating.
6. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be restricted to
the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use. The length,
width and height of over-water structures and other developments regulated
by this section should be no greater than that required for safety and
practicality for the primary use.
7. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be constructed
of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals in the long term.
4. Fill
b. Policies
1. Fills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support
allowed water-dependent or public access uses, cleanup and disposal of
contaminated sediments, and other water-dependent uses that are consistent
with this SMP.
2. Shoreline fill should be designed and located so there will be no significant
ecological impacts and no alteration of local currents, surface water
drainage, channel migration, or flood waters which would result in a hazard
to adjacent life, property, and natural resource systems.
Shoreline Element 13-19
5. Dredging and Disposal
b. Policies
1. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize
interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses,
properties, and values.
2. When allowed, dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the
minimum amount necessary.
3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall be
discouraged. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in
the Inventory and Analysis Report).
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement
b. Policies
1. The City should consider shoreline enhancement as an alternative to
structural shoreline stabilization and protection measures where feasible.
2. All shoreline enhancement projects should protect the integrity of adjacent
natural resources including aquatic habitats and water quality.
3. Where possible, shoreline restoration should use maintenance-free or low-
maintenance designs.
4. The City should pursue the recommendations in the shoreline restoration plan
prepared as part of this SMP update. The City should give priority to projects
consistent with this plan.
5. Shoreline restoration and enhancement should not extend waterward more
than necessary to achieve the intended results.
7. Dikes and Levees
b. Policies
1. Dikes and levees should be constructed or reconstructed only as part of a
comprehensive flood hazard reduction program
2. Environmental enhancement measures should be a part of levee
improvements.
Shoreline Element 13-20
SHORELINE USE POLICIES
The provisions in this section apply to specific common uses and types of development to
the extent they occur within shoreline jurisdiction. Policies related to each shoreline use
are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP.
1. General Policies
b. Policies
1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or
are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas.
2. The City should ensure that all proposed shoreline development will not
diminish the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land or its
vegetation and wildlife, and should endeavor to protect property rights while
implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
3. The City should reduce use conflicts by prohibiting or applying special
conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or
dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision,
preference should be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-
related uses and water-enjoyment uses.
4. The City should encourage the full use of existing urban areas before
expansion of intensive development is allowed.
2. Agriculture
b. Policies
1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes,
channel migration zones, and associated marshes, bogs, and swamps should
be prohibited.
2. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and
water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and
resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality, reduce flood hazard, and
maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
3. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste
and manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and
Shoreline Element 13-21
constructed to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of the
adjacent shoreline environment.
4. Appropriate farm management techniques should be utilized to prevent
contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant,
fish, and animal life from fertilizer and pesticide use and application.
5. Where ecological functions have been degraded, new development should be
conditioned with the requirement for ecological restoration to ensure no net
loss of ecological functions.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration. The
extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the
specific circumstances of an agricultural development.
3. Boating Facilities
b. Policies
1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide
maximum feasible protection and restoration of ecological processes and
functions and all forms of aquatic, littoral, or terrestrial life—including
animals, fish, shellfish, birds, and plants—and their habitats and migratory
routes. To the extent possible, boating facilities should be located in areas of
low biological productivity.
2. Boating facilities should be located and designed so their structures and
operations will be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected and
will not unreasonably impair shoreline views. However, the need to protect
and restore ecological functions and to provide for water-dependent uses
carries higher priority than protection of views.
3. Boat launch facilities should be provided at appropriate public access sites.
4. Existing public moorage and launching facilities should be maintained.
4. Commercial Development
b. Policies
1. Multi-use commercial projects that include some combination of ecological
restoration, public access, open space, and recreation should be encouraged
in the High-Intensity Environment consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Shoreline Element 13-22
2. Where possible, commercial developments are encouraged to incorporate
Low Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
5. Industry
b. Policies
1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented
industrial development.
2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
6. In-Stream Structures
b. Policies
1. In-stream structures should provide for the protection, preservation, and
restoration of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and
water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas. Within the City of Kent, in-stream structures should be
allowed only for the purposes of environmental restoration or water quality
treatment.
7. Recreational Development
b. Policies
1. The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning should be
encouraged to satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline recreational
developments should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open
space plans.
2. Recreational developments and plans should promote the conservation of the
shoreline’s natural character, ecological functions, and processes.
3. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be
encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs.
4. Water-dependent recreational uses, such as angling, boating, and swimming,
should have priority over water-enjoyment uses, such as picnicking and golf.
Water-enjoyment uses should have priority over nonwater-oriented
recreational uses, such as field sports.
Shoreline Element 13-23
5. Recreation facilities should be integrated and linked with linear systems, such
as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements, and scenic drives.
6. Where appropriate, nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in
floodplain areas. Nonintensive recreational uses include those that do not do
any of the following:
a. Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems.
b. Create any flood hazards.
c. Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as
structural shoreline stabilization or vegetation removal.
7. Opportunities to expand the public’s ability to enjoy the shoreline in public
parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued.
8. Residential Development
b. Policies
1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas including, but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, and
buffers.
2. The overall density of development, lot coverage, and height of structures
should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site and consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
3. Recognizing the single-purpose, irreversible, and space consumptive nature of
shoreline residential development, new development should provide adequate
setbacks or open space from the water to provide space for community use of
the shoreline and the water, to provide space for outdoor recreation, to
protect or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to
preserve views, to preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics, to protect the
privacy of nearby residences, and to minimize use conflicts.
4. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of groundwater supplies,
erosion control, stormwater drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat,
ecosystem-wide processes, and open space.
5. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, shall be provided
in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations.
6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring
will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential
lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed
without:
Shoreline Element 13-24
a. Constructing shoreline stabilization structures (such as
bulkheads).
b. Causing significant erosion or slope instability.
c. Removing existing native vegetation within 20 feet of the shoreline.
9. Transportation
b. Policies
1. Circulation system planning on shorelands should include systems for
pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation
planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses
that are consistent with the SMP.
2. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines and should be
constructed in a manner compatible with the natural character, resources,
and ecology of the shoreline.
3. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned, they should be reused
for water-dependent use or public access.
10. Utilities
b. Policies
1. New utility facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline
protection works.
2. Utility facilities and corridors should be located so as to protect scenic views,
such as views of the Green River from the Green River Trail. Whenever
possible, such facilities should be placed underground, or alongside or under
bridges.
3. Utility facilities and rights-of-way should be designed to preserve the natural
landscape and to minimize conflicts with present and planned land uses.
SHORELINE RESTORATION
Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values of the
shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the proponent of that
activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the
baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be
improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally,
degraded?
Shoreline Element 13-25
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines says:
“master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing
policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any
additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its
goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and
meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that
contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the
direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local,
state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from
shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards.”
In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master Program (with mitigation of project-
related impacts) in combination with this Restoration Plan (for restoration of lost
ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project) should result in a net
improvement in the City of Kent’s shoreline environment in the long term.
RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to major engineering
changes, land use changes which have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon
habitat, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and industrial discharges,
erosion, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides (WRIA 9 Steering Committee
2002). The June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report
provides supporting information that validates these claims specifically in the City’s
shoreline jurisdiction. The WRIA 9 Near Term Action Agenda established three high
priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery:
“Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River
watershed and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves
several types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat,
restoring degraded habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water
quality and flows.
Shoreline Element 13-26
Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles)
to and from the Upper Green River subwatershed.”
The following recommended policy for the lower Green River subwatershed, including
Kent, is also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005).
In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back
levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat
rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the
river.
The WRIA 9 restoration goals, in combination with the results of the City’s Final
Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, the direction of Ecology’s Shoreline Master
Program Guidelines, and the City’s commitment to support the Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making our Watershed Fit for a King, are the foundation for the following goals and
objectives of the City of Kent’s restoration strategy. Although the Green/Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon
Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a
King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in ecosystem -wide processes
and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures those processes and
functions that benefit all fish and wildlife.
Goal 1: Maintain, restore or enhance watershed processes, including sediment, water,
wood, light and nutrient delivery, movement and loss.
Goal 2: Maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat during all life stages and maintain
functional corridors linking these habitats.
Goal 3: Contribute to conservation and recovery of chinook salmon and other
anadromous fish, focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat with
the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse,
harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon.
1. System-Wide Restoration Objectives
a. Improve the health of shoreline waterbodies by managing the quality and
quantity of stormwater runoff, consistent at a minimum with the latest
Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for
Shoreline Element 13-27
Western Washington. Make additional efforts to meet and maintain state and
county water quality standards in contributing systems.
b. Increase quality, width and diversity of native vegetation in protected
corridors and shorelines adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe
migration pathways for fish and wildlife, food, nest sites, shade, perches, and
organic debris. Strive to control non-indigenous plants or weeds that are
proven harmful to native vegetation or habitats.
c. Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 9 to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for
a King.
d. Base local actions and future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate
local government activities on the best available science presented in the
WRIA 9 scientific foundation and habitat management strategy.
e. Use the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the
Plan, as a source of potential site-specific projects and land use and public
outreach recommendations.
f. Use the start-list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years
of Plan implementation, and to implement start-list actions through local
capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities.
g. Seek federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities for various
restoration actions and programs independently or with other WRIA 9
jurisdictions and stakeholders.
h. Develop a public education plan to inform private property owners in the
shoreline area and in the remainder of the City about the effects of land
management practices and other unregulated activities (such as vegetation
removal, pesticide/herbicide use, car washing) on fish and wildlife habitats.
i. Develop a chemical reduction plan which focuses on reducing the application
of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides near shoreline waterbodies or
tributary streams and otherwise emphasizes only their localized use.
j. Where feasible, protect, enhance, and restore riparian areas surrounding
wetlands where functions have been lost or compromised.
2. Green River Restoration Objectives
a. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by identifying
hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent feasible with
bioengineered stabilization solutions.
Shoreline Element 13-28
b. Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and
erosion control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline
processes. Where levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set
back due to infrastructure considerations, maintain and repair them using
design approaches that maximize the use of native vegetation and large
woody debris (LWD).
c. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing
LWD recruitment potential through plantings of trees, particularly conifers, in
the riparian corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs.
d. Improve the health of the Green River by reestablishing and protecting side
channel habitat.
e. Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
3. Lakeshore Restoration Objectives
a. Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in-water structures
through minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials.
b. Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce populations of non-native aquatic
vegetation.
c. Where feasible, improve the health of lake shorelines by removing bulkheads
and utilizing bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to
improve aquatic conditions.
RESTORATION PRIORITIES
The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of the City’s
shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific
constraints. Briefly restated, the City’s environmental protection and restoration goals
include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)
contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include
a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline
along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial
development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may alread y offer fairly good
ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA),
they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals
and constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different
types of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic
Shoreline Element 13-29
actions, like continuing WRIA 9 involvement and conducting outreach programs to local
residents, tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to restoration actions involving
private landowners. Other factors that influenced the hierarchy are based on scientific
recommendations specific to WRIA 9, potential funding sources, and the projected level
of public benefit.
Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section
(Table 14), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the
priority level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety of
obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their
perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are
relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and
intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving
extensive shoreline restoration or large-scale capital improvement projects.
Straightforward projects with available funding should be initiated immediately for the
worthwhile benefits they provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while permitting,
design, site access authorization, and funding for the larger, more complicated, and more
expensive projects are under way.
1. Priority 1: Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection
Because of the isolation of the Green River floodplain from the Green River by
the levee, floodplain habitats, including off-channel and side channel habitats, are
typically described as the most diminished types of salmonid fish habitat relative
to the pristine condition. The lack of these habitat types is a limiting factor for
chinook salmon recovery. As discussed above, the historic use and prevalence of
levees has greatly diminished the habitat value of extended floodplains.
Restoration of these areas has been found to be one of the most beneficial of all
types of stream and river enhancements. Projects in this category include the
WRIA 9 recommended projects listed in Table 11 in Chapter 8 of the SMP:
Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River)
Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek
Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
Project LG-9 - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation and Riparian
Restoration Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank) [being implemented by
City as “Lower Green River Property Acquisition” in nearby locations]
Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee
Setback and Habitat Rehabilitation) Between RM 20.5 and 16.3
Shoreline Element 13-30
Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
2. Priority 2: Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation
Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin-wide
programs and initiatives such as the WRIA 9 Forum. Continue to work
collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 9 to implement
the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King (Habitat
Plan). This process provides an opportunity for the City to keep in touch with its
role on a basin-wide scale and to influence habitat conditions beyond its borders,
which, in turn, come back to influence water quality and quantity and habitat
issues within the City.
3. Priority 3: Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant
Delivery
Although most of the streams and their basins located within the City are outside
of shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted.
Many of these streams have the potential to provide fish and wildlife habitat.
They are also a common receiving body for non-point source pollution, which in
turn delivers those contaminants to shoreline waterbodies.
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include four
actions focused on addressing water quality and stormwater controls:
Program WW-11: Expand/Improve incentives Programs
Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
Program WW-13: Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Porous
Concrete
Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built
Green™ Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
These recommendations emphasize the use of low impact development
techniques, on-site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and
control of point sources that discharge directly into surface waters. They involve
protecting and restoring forest cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths
Shoreline Element 13-31
by revising and enforcing Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools.
4. Priority 4: Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries
Expanding available fish habitat and rearing opportunities for anadromous fish is
a high priority for the City. One of the key mechanisms is to improve fish
passage by reconnecting mainstem river habitat to local tributaries.
The City is currently involved with improving fish habitat within the outlet from
Lake Meridian (Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project). This project
involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian, otherwise known as Cow
Creek, through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos
Creek. This project currently is funded through Phase 2 of 3, with Phase 2
expected to begin in 2009.
Recommended projects from the Habitat Plan include:
Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River)
Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek
Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks)
5. Priority 5: Public Education and Involvement
Public education and involvement has a high priority in the City. While this is
especially important for areas directly affected by residential development (i.e.
Lake Meridian) or floodplain and levee management (i.e. Green River), it has
already resulted in vast improvements to the GRNRA and Green River projects.
Opportunities for restoration outside of residential property are extensive along
most shoreline areas in the City. Only Lake Meridian is highly impacted by
residential development. Therefore, in order to achieve the goals and objectives
set forth in this Chapter 8, “Restoration Plan,” most of the restoration projects
(except for those on Lake Meridian) would likely occur on public property. Thus,
providing education opportunities and involving the public is key to success, and
would possibly entail coordinating the development of a long-term Public
Education and Outreach Plan to gain public support.
Shoreline Element 13-32
6. Priority 6: Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration,
or Enhancement Purposes
The City should explore opportunities to protect natural areas or other areas with
high ecological value via property acquisition. Mechanisms to purchase property
would likely include collaboration with other stakeholder groups including
representatives from local government, businesses and the general public in order
to develop a prioritized list of actions. Such a coordinated effort is listed as a
watershed-wide programmatic action in the Habitat Plan:
Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural
Areas
The Habitat Plan also includes the following specific acquisition project:
Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
7. Priority 7: Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage
Similar to Priority 3, Section G.3 above, to improve water quality and reduce
sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in
impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Habitat Plan. All of the
specific projects listed in Table 11 (LG No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13) include some
form of protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide
programmatic actions also described in the Habitat Plan include many references
to improving vegetative conditions and reducing impervious surface coverage.
Specific reference to planting vegetation is listed in Program WW -5: Promote the
Planting of Native Trees.
In addition to the items listed in the Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many
areas where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in
impervious surfaces are warranted.
8. Priority 8: Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance
Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions
The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat
conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of
the key limiting factors along the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). While
it is recognized that levees and revetments cannot practically be removed in all
Shoreline Element 13-33
circumstances, considerations should be made to maintain and repair them using
design approaches that incorporate native vegetation and large woody debris.
Improvements to levees and revetments are discussed in Priority 1, Section G.1
above.
It is also recognized that reduction in shoreline armoring along lakes is also
important (i.e. Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick). While no specific lake project
sites have been identified under this restoration priority, emphasis should be given
to future project proposals that involve or have the potential to restore shoreline
areas to more natural conditions. The City should explore ways in which to team
with local property owners, whether through financial assistance, permit
expedition, or guidance, to restore multiple contiguous lots.
9. Priority 9: Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures
Reduction of in- and over-water cover by piers, docks, and other boat-related
structures is one mechanism to improve shoreline ecological functions. While not
necessarily prevalent along the Green River, pier and docks are extensive along
Lake Meridian with nearly 90 percent of all parcels having a pier or dock. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife already regulates the size and
materials for in- and over-water structures throughout the State and generally
recommends finding ways to reduce both the size and density of these structures.
Although no specific project sites to reduce in-water and over-water structures
within residential areas are identified here, future project proposals involving
reductions in the size and/or quantity of such structures should be emphasized.
Such future projects may involve joint-use pier proposals or pier reconstruction
and may be provided with an expedited permit process.
10. Priority 10: Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes
While not specifically listed in the Habitat Plan, reduction of aquatic invasive
weeds from the City’s lakes is emphasized in Section E.2. All three lakes (Lake
Fenwick, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake) have experienced growth of non-
native and often invasive aquatic vegetation. Problem species include Eurasian
watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea and water lily. Future mechanisms to control weed
growth range from possible substrate blankets (Lake Meridian) to introduction of
grass carp (Lake Fenwick). Not only are aquatic weeds a problem for boats and
Shoreline Element 13-34
swimmers, but they also tend to reduce dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish,
hampering foraging opportunities.
11. Priority 11: City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies
City policies and development regulations are listed as being of lower priority in
this case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and
have recently been updated accordingly. Notably, the City’s Critical Areas
Ordinance was recently updated (August 2006) consistent with the Best Available
Science for critical areas, including those within the shoreline area.
The City received its final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II permit in January 2007 from Department of Ecology. The
NPDES Phase II permit is required to include the City’s stormwater discharges
into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit, the City
must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach,
detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal
dumping, wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff,
management and regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment,
and pollution prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include three
actions focused on regulatory mechanisms to restore ecological functions:
Program WW-11: Expand/Improve Incentives Programs
Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other
Regulations
Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built
Green™ Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon