HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 07/08/2019 (2)
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic and Community Development Committee meets at 5
p.m. on the second Monday of each month in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East,
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.
For additional information please contact Rhonda Bylin at 253-856-5457 or via email at
RBylin@KentWA.gov.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at
253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommun ications Relay
Service at 7-1-1.
Economic and Community
Development Committee
Agenda
Chair - Bill Boyce
Satwinder Kaur– Marli Larimer
Monday, July 8, 2019
5:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time
1. Call to Order Chair 01 MIN.
2. Roll Call Chair 01 MIN.
3. Changes to the Agenda Chair 01 MIN.
4. Approval of May 13, 2019
Minutes
YES Chair 05 MIN.
5. Reappoint Lew Sellers to the
Public Facilities District Board
YES Matt Gilbert 05 MIN.
6. Economic Development Activity
Update
NO Bill Ellis 05 MIN.
7. Housekeeping Code
Amendments (ZCA-2019-4)
YES Sara Ullman 10 MIN.
8. Rally the Valley Update NO Danielle Butsick 10 MIN.
9. Economic Development
Partnership Agreement with The
Port of Seattle
YES Danielle Butsick 05 MIN.
10. Shoreline Master Program
Update
YES Danielle Butsick, AICP,
Sr Long Range Planner
15 MIN.
11. Impact of Permit Center Process NO Barb Napier/Matt
Gilbert
10 MIN.
12. Adjournment Chair 01 MIN.
Page 1 of 3
Pending Approval
Economic and Community
Development Committee
CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 13, 2019
Date: May 13, 2019
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers East
Attending: Bill Boyce, Committee Chair
Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
Marli Larimer, Councilmember
Agenda:
1. Call to Order 5:08 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Bill Boyce Committee Chair Present
Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present
Marli Larimer Councilmember Present
3. Changes to the Agenda
Item 8 was moved up to Item 5, to provide Mr. Haffner the option of
departing rather than sit through most of the meeting.
4. Approval of Minutes dated April 8, 2019
MOTION: Move to approve the Minutes dated April 8, 2019
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
AYES: Boyce, Kaur, Larimer
5. Appoint Greg Haffner to the Public Facilities District Board
If approved by full council Mr. Haffner will fill the vacancy created by Mike
Miller's retirement. That term expires in August 31, 2021.
MOTION: Authorize the appointment of Greg Haffner to fill the
recently vacated Position Number 2 of the Public Facilities District
Board, for the remainder of the 4-year term that will expire on
August 31, 2021.
4
Packet Pg. 2
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 13, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 3
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/21/2019
7:00 PM
MOVER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES: Boyce, Kaur, Larimer
6. Economic and Community Development Update
Bill Ellis provided commentary on two recent news stories published in
Reuters International. First, Jeff Bezos is building a lunar lander and is on
board with plans to colonize the moon. A fair bit of that design and
construction will likely take place in Kent.
Another article reports on changes coming to warehousing and fulfillment
industries. An Italian company, which has a local (unnamed) client,
operating somewhere within driving distance of Seattle, has created a robot
which can pack boxes at a rate of 600 boxes per hour, or 8 times the rate of
a human. This is very good evidence that the face of employment will be
changing in the Valley as employers invest in new technologies and the
capitalization of their assets shift accordingly.
7. Lunar Rover Landmark Nomination - Approve
A Community Landmark designation is sought for the 3 Lunar rovers sitting
on the moon. KDP and the City seek this designation to highlight the history
of innovation in Kent, and also to highlight the distinct contribution the Lunar
Rovers represent in the history of space exploration. Prior to the Appolo
Missions 15, 16 and 17, man had walked on the moon, but had been very
limited in what they could see and do, because they needed to stay in very
close proximity to the command module. They were also very limited in
terms of payload to bring home samples. The lunar rovers enabled
Astronauts to travel much farther but also to do much more sampling of the
materials on the surface for purposes of research and scientific discovery.
The rover missions were game changers in terms of scientific achievement.
There will be a public hearing on the nomination in July.
MOTION: Approve the nomination of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 Lunar
Roving Vehicles as Kent Community Landmarks.
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/21/2019
7:00 PM
MOVER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
AYES: Boyce, Kaur, Larimer
8. Memorandum of Understanding with Kent Downtown Partnership for
the Lunar Rover Replica Capital Campaign - Authorize
4
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 13, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 3
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Kent and the Kent Downtown
Partnership to conduct a capital campaign to purchase and install an
interactive lunar rover replica as part of the planned redevelopment
of Kherson Park in the heart of Kent’s historic downtown, subject to
terms and conditions acceptable to the Economic and Community
Development Department Director and City Attorney.
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/21/2019
7:00 PM
MOVER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES: Boyce, Kaur, Larimer
9. Rally the Valley Update
Danielle Butsick offered an update on the Rally the Valley initiatives including
the outcomes from the first full meeting of the advisory panel. This stake
holder group were asked to discuss their impressions of what the valley has
to offer in terms of assets to themselves and their employees. The
availability of flat land and its proximity to the regions major ports, Kent and
the regions parks and trails are also considered a valuable asset; however, a
perceived lack of connection from the employment centers in the valley to
the amenities and resources available in Downtown Kent is a source of
frustration.
Residential uses for land in the valley also came up a lot during the first
meeting, and staff plan to dig deeper on those topics in future meetings.
10. Adjournment 5:58 p.m.
Rhonda Bylin
Committee Secretary
4
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Reappoint Lew Sellers to the Public Facilities District Board
MOTION: Recommend the Council reappoint Lew Sellers to Position Number 5 of
the Public Facilities District Board, for a 4-year term that will expire on August 31,
2023.
SUMMARY: In May of 2019, Lew Sellers expressed his desire to continue serving
on the Public Facilities District Board.
On May 7, 2019, the City Clerk received an application to serve on the board from
Van A. Hurst.
RCW 35.57.010 requires that the members appointed must be based on
recommendations received from local organizations that may include, but are not
limited to the local chamber of commerce, local economic development council, and
the local labor council.
The City Clerk provided the application of Mr. Hurst and information regarding Lew
Seller’s terms on the board to the Kent Chamber of Commerce, Kent Downtown
Partnership and Laborers Local 242. All three organizations expressed their support
for reappointing Lew Sellers to the board for a 4-year term that will be effective
September 1, 2019 and expire on August 31, 2023.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Innovative Government, Sustainable Services
5
Packet Pg. 5
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Economic Development
SUBJECT: Economic Development Activity Update
6
Packet Pg. 6
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Housekeeping Code Amendments (ZCA-2019-4)
MOTION: Approve/Deny/Modify the Land Use and Planning Board
recommendations on the 2018 Housekeeping Code Amendments as provided in the
draft ordinance.
SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on June 24, 2019, the Land Use and
Planning Board recommended to City Council approval of the following 2018
Housekeeping Code Amendments, as revised at the meeting:
1. Correct error in Noise Ordinance to reference current zoning districts rather
than out dated zones;
2. Change mailing radius from 200’ to 300’ for the notice of application (NOA)
and the public meeting notice for Short Subdivision Plats to be consistent
with public notice procedures for Long Subdivision Plats;
3. Change the date range of Construction Cost Index Change for which school
impact fees are assessed to be from August to August rather than October to
October, to allow enough time to adopt the school district’s Capital Facilities
Plans (CFPs) with the city budget;
4. Modify definition of Building Height to clarify that height is measured from
“average finished grade” and include a diagram;
5. Standardize building height maximums for residential zones to be 2.5 story/
35 feet for single family and duplex products, and 3 story/ 40 feet for multi-
family products, exclusive of multifamily in MR-H; and,
6. Change wording of inoperable vehicle regulations to enhance clarity and
avoid confusion.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Evolving Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Housekeeping Ordinance 6.18 FINAL. (DOCX)
7
Packet Pg. 7
1 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending sections
8.05.080, 12.04.140, 12.04.155, 12.13.170,
15.02.065, 15.04.170 and 15.08.090 of the Kent
City Code to correct errors and provide clarity as
part of the City’s annual code cleanup.
RECITALS
A. The City considers annual amendments to plans or
development regulations that are suggested by interested persons or are
requested by staff via a docket process. These annual amendments are
part of a comprehensive effort to clean up the City’s municipal code by
correcting errors, providing clarification, and making other similar
housekeeping changes throughout the code.
B. On October 16, 2018, the City Council approved the 2018
Annual Docket list which included three site-specific requests and seven
code amendments, four of which are included in this ordinance.
C. The table housed in Kent City Code (KCC) 8.05.080 of the
City’s Noise Ordinance incorrectly references out of date zoning. The
correction is included in this ordinance.
D. The regulatory language of KCC 15.08.090, pertaining to the
parking or storage of inoperable vehicles, has led to confusion regarding
7.a
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
2 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
inoperable vehicles in residential areas. The amendment clarifies that each
residentially zoned property may have only one inoperable vehicle on it for
more than 30 days, and only if the inoperable vehicle is properly stored
and hidden from view.
E. The definition of building height in KCC 15.02.065 does not
specify the type of grade to base the measurement from. This lack of
information has resulted in confusion for the public. The amendment
clarifies that building height is measured from “average finished grade”
instead of “grade”. Diagrams are included for ease of calculation and
additional verbiage explains how average finished grade is measured.
F. KCC 15.04.170 establishes inconsistent development
standards for maximum allowed building height in residential zones for
single family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family. It is believed that
some of these inconsistencies are scrivener’s errors which were never
identified or corrected. This amendment increases the maximum building
height in SR-8, MR-D, MR-T12, MR-T16, MR-G, MR-M and MR-H zones to
be 2.5 story/ 35 feet for single family and duplex products, and 3 story/ 40
feet for multi-family products, exclusive of multifamily in MR-H.
G. On November 20, 2018, City Council passed Ordinance No.
4290, which amended KCC 12.13.160 and 12.13.170 to implement a
school impact fee schedule and maximum fees. School impact fees are set
annually through the adoption of the school districts’ Capital Facilities Plans
(CFP). The Capital Facilities Plans of school districts are submitted to the
City for review, and this review must occur in conjunction with the City’s
update of its Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan which
typically happens in November. The maximum annual increase in school
impact fees generally corresponds to the previous calendar year's increase
in construction costs as calculated from October 1st through September
30th. Due to the timing of the comprehensive plan update in November,
7.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
3 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
utilization of this date range has created a very short window for staff and
City Council to review the proposed school impact fees and Capital
Facilities Plans prior to adoption of the City budget in December. The
amendment of the date range in KCC 12.13.170 to August to August,
rather than October to October, would better provide appropriate time for
review of the proposed fees and plans, and would avoid a backlog with
other city processes.
H. On November 21, 2017, City Council passed Ordinance No.
4257 which amended KCC 12.01.145 as a part of the 2016 Docketed Code
Amendments. The amendment changed the public notice mailing radius
for short subdivisions from 200 to 300 feet in order to match the radius
used for long subdivisions. Additional inconsistencies were discovered
after the fact in KCC 12.04.155A and 12.04.140C. This amendment
corrects these inconsistencies by also changing the public notice mailing
radius in these code sections from 200 feet to 300 feet for the notice of
application (NOA) and the public meeting notice for short subdivisions.
I. On June 18, 2019, pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.106, a request
for expedited review was sent to the Washington State Department of
Commerce, which acknowledged that the request was received on June __,
2019. On ____, 2019, the City was granted expedited review.
J. On June 18, 2019, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued
a Determination of Nonsignificance for the 2018 Housekeeping
Amendments (ENV-2019-18, KIVA #RPSW-2191525).
K. The Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop to discuss
these code amendments on April 22, 2019. After appropriate public
notice, the board held a public hearing on June 24, 2019 to consider the
proposed code amendments. The Land Use and Planning Board
7.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
4 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
recommended approval to the City Council of all items as presented by
staff.
L. On July 8, 2019, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendation of the Board and made a
recommendation to the full City council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 8.05.080. Section 8.05.080 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Zoning classification for EDNA,” is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 8.05.080 Zoning classification for EDNA.
The following land use zoning classifications as found in the zoning code
are assigned the EDNA classification below:
Zone EDNA
RA, R1, MR-D, MR-M, MR-
H, MR-G, MHP, PUD
SR-1, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6,
SR-8, MR-D, MR-T12, MR-
T16, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H,
MHP
Class A
O, NCC, CC, DC, HC,
GC,CM
NCC, CC, DC, DCE, MTC-1,
MTC-2, MCR, CM-1, CM-2,
GC
Class B
7.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
5 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
Zone EDNA
MA, M1, M2, M3, SU, A-10,
AG
(Extractive industries)
Class C
SECTION 2. – Amendment – KCC 12.04.140. Section 12.04.140 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Notice of application,” is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 12.04.140 Notice of Application.
The applicant shall place at least one (1) public notice board on the
property to be subdivided. The public notice board shall be placed on the
property as directed by planning services no later than fourteen (14)
calendar days after a determination of completeness. If the property to be
subdivided is located adjacent to more than one (1) public street or has
more than one (1) potential access route, one (1) public notice board shall
be placed on the property adjacent to each street or potential access
route. A notice of application shall be issued for land segregation
applications within fourteen (14) calendar days after the city has made a
determination of completeness, and at least fifteen (15) calendar days
prior to the short subdivision committee meeting date for short
subdivisions or the public hearing for subdivision applications. The notice
of application shall include the tentative date of the public meeting or
public hearing and shall be mailed, published and posted on the same day,
in the following manner:
A. The city shall publish the notice of application in a newspaper
of general circulation within the city.
B. The city shall post the notice of application on the public
notice board(s) placed on the property and shall also post the notice of
application at Kent City Hall and in the register for public review at the
planning services office.
7.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
6 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
C. The city shall mail the notice of application listing the date of
the short subdivision committee meeting, or the date of public hearing for
subdivisions, to the applicant and all owners of real property as shown by
the records of the county assessor’s office within two hundred (200) three
hundred (300) feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed short
subdivision and within three hundred (300) feet of any portion of the
boundary of the proposed subdivision. In addition, if the property to be
short subdivided abuts parcels greater than two (2) acres which have other
properties abutting them, these additional properties shall also be mailed a
notice of application.
D. The city shall mail or send the notice of application to all
agencies with jurisdiction, city departments, and to any person who
requests such notice in writing.
E. One notice of application shall be prepared for all permit
applications related to the same project at the time of the earliest
complete project permit application.
SECTION 3. – Amendment – KCC 12.04.155. Section 12.04.155 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Public meeting/hearing notice,” is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 12.04.155 Public meeting/hearing notice.
A. Notice of the short subdivision committee meeting shall be given in
the following manner:
1. The date of the short subdivision committee meeting shall be
listed on the notice of application, which shall be mailed in accordance with
KCC 12.04.140 to the applicant and all owners of real property as shown
by the records of the county assessor’s office within two hundred (200)
three hundred (300) feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed
7.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
7 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
subdivision. In addition, if the property to be short subdivided abuts
parcels greater than two (2) acres which have other properties abutting
them, these additional properties shall also be mailed a notice of
application. Seven (7) calendar days prior to the short subdivision
committee meeting, the city shall mail the short subdivision committee
agenda and staff report(s) to the applicant, all owners of the real property,
and any person who provided written comments on the application.
B. The notice of public hearing for a subdivision shall be given in the
following manner:
1. The notice of public hearing shall be mailed, published
and posted on the same day, not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to
the hearing date.
2. The city shall post the notice of public hearing on the
public notice board(s) on the property.
3. The city shall publish the notice of public hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation within the city.
4. The city shall mail a notice of public hearing to the
applicant, any person who submits written comments on an application,
and all owners of real property as shown by the records of the county
assessor’s office within three hundred (300) feet of any portion of the
boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the owner of the real property
proposed to be subdivided also owns another parcel or parcels of real
property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be subdivided,
the notice shall be mailed to all owners of real property located within
three hundred (300) feet of such adjacently owned parcels. Seven (7)
calendar days prior to the public hearing, the city shall mail the public
hearing agenda and staff report(s) to the applicant, all owners of the real
7.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
8 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
property, and any person who provided written comments on the
application.
SECTION 4. – Amendment – KCC 12.13.170. Section 12.13.170 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Maximum allowable fees,” is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.13.170 Maximum allowable fees.
School impact fees provided by this chapter shall be assessed based on the
calculation set forth in KCC 12.13.140, unless they exceed a maximum
allowable fee as set forth in this section. There shall be an increase in the
maximum allowable fee each year by the same percentage as the
percentage change in the previous calendar year’s average monthly
Engineering News Record (ENR) Seattle Area Construction Cost Index
values, relative to the corresponding average monthly ENR Construction
Cost Index values for the preceding year, as calculated from October 1st
through September 30th August 1st through July 31st.
The maximum allowable fee is set at $8,591 for single-family dwelling
units and a maximum of $8,755 for multifamily dwelling units for 2019.
SECTION 5. – Amendment – KCC 15.02.065. Section 15.02.065 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Building Height,” is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 15.02.065 Building height.
Building height means the vertical distance from the average finished
grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of
a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or
hip roof as depicted in Diagram A below. The average finished grade shall
be determined by first delineating the smallest square or rectangle that
can enclose the building and then averaging the elevations taken at the
7.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
9 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
midpoint of each side of the square or rectangle as depicted in Diagram B
below; provided that the measured elevations do not include berms.
Diagram A
7.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
10 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
Diagram B
7.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
11 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
SECTION 6. – Amendment – KCC 15.04.170. Section 15.04.170 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Agricultural and residential zone development
standards,” is hereby amended as follows:
7.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
12 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
Sec. 15.04.170 Agricultural and residential zone development standards.
Zoning Districts
A-10
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
SR
-1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
SR
-3
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-4.
5
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-6
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-8
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-D
D
u
p
l
e
x
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-T1
2
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
MR
-T1
6
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
al
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
MR
-G
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-M
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-H
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MH
P
M
o
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
b
i
n
i
n
g
SF Duplex SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF
Maximum density:
dwelling units per
acre
1
du/
10
ac
1
du/ac
3.63
dus/ac
4.53
dus/ac
6.05
dus/ac
8.71
dus/ac
8.71
dus/ac
10.89
dus/ac
12.0
dus/ac
12.0
dus/ac
16.0
dus/ac
16.0 dus/ac 16.0
dus/ac
16.0
dus/ac
23.0
dus/ac
23.0
dus/ac
40.0
dus/ac
40.0
dus/ac
Minimum lot area:
square feet or
acres, as noted
10
ac
34,700
sq ft
9,600
sq ft
7,600
sq ft
(37)
5,700
sq ft
(37)
4,000
sq ft
(37)
4,000
sq ft
8,000
sq ft
none 8,000
sq ft
8,500/
3,500
sq ft
(27)
none 8,000
sq ft
(35)
8,500/3,500
sq ft (35)
none 8,000
sq ft
8,500/
2,500
sq ft
(1)
none 8,000
sq ft
8,500/
1,600
sq ft
(2)
none 8,000
sq ft
8,500/
900
sq ft
(3)
Minimum lot
width: feet (4)
60 ft 60 ft 50 ft 50 ft
(37)
50 ft
(37)
40 ft
(37)
25 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft
Maximum site
coverage: percent
of site
30% 30% 45%
(5)
45%
(5)
50%
(5)
55%
(5)
55%
(5)
40%
(5)
55%
(5)
40%
(5)
45%
(5)
55%
(5)
40%
(5)
45%
(5)
55%
(5)
40%
(5)
45% 55%
(5)
40%
(5)
45% 55%
(5)
40%
(5)
50%
Minimum yard
requirements: feet
(22)
Front yard
20 ft
(6)
20 ft
(6)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft 10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft 10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft 10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft 10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
(6)
(8)
(9)
10 ft
Side yard 15 ft 15 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft
(30)
5 ft 5 ft
(30)
5 ft (11) 5 ft
(30)
5 ft (11) 5 ft
(30)
5 ft (11) 5 ft
(30)
5 ft (11) 5 ft
(30)
5 ft (11)
Side yard on
flanking street of
a corner lot
20 ft 20 ft 10 ft
(9)
10 ft
(9)
10 ft
(9)
10 ft
(9)
10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 15 ft 10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 15 ft 10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 15 ft 10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 15 ft 10 ft
(9)
10 ft (9) 15 ft
Rear yard 20 ft 15 ft 5 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 5 ft 8 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft
Additional
setbacks/distances
between buildings
(12) (12) (32) (32) (14)
(15)
(32)
(31)
(32)
(31)
(32)
(14)
(15)
(31)
(32)
(31) (31) (14)
(15)
(31)
(14)
(15)
(14)
(15)
SF Duplex SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF
Height limitation:
in stories/not to
exceed in feet
2.5
stry/
35 ft
(16)
2.5
stry/
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2 stry/
30 ft
2.5
stry/ 35
ft
3
stry/
30 ft
40 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2 stry/
30 ft
2.5
stry/ 35
ft
3 stry/ 30 ft
40 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
3
stry/
40 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
3
stry/
40 ft
2.5
stry/
30 ft
35 ft
2.5
stry/
35 ft
4
stry/
50 ft
7.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
13 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
Zoning Districts
A-10
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
SR
-1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
SR
-3
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-4.
5
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-6
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SR
-8
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-D
D
u
p
l
e
x
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-T1
2
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
MR
-T1
6
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
al
T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
MR
-G
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-M
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MR
-H
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
MH
P
M
o
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
b
i
n
i
n
g
Maximum
impervious
surface: percent
of total parcel
area
40%
(19)
40%
(19)
50%
(23)
60%
(23)
70%
(23)
75%
(23)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
70%
(19)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
70%
(19)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
75%
(19)
70%
(19)
Zero lot line and
clustering (24)
The provisions in KCC 15.08.300, 15.08.310, 15.08.320, and 15.08.330 shall apply.
Signs The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 KCC shall apply.
Off-street parking The off-street parking requirements of Chapter 15.05 KCC shall apply.
Landscaping The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 KCC shall apply.
Design review
(26)
(39)
(40)
(25)
(26)
(39)
(40)
(25)
(26)
(39)
(40)
(25)
(26)
(39)
(40)
(25)
(26)
(39)
(40)
(25)(40) (26)(40) (26)(34)(40) (25)(26)(40) (25)(26)(34)(40) (25)(26)(40)
Additional
standards
Additional standards for specific uses are contained in Chapters 15.08 and 15.09 KCC.
(20) (31)
(33)
(36)
(33)
(36)
(33)
(36)
(33)
(36)
(33)
(36)
(36) (36) (28)
(29)
(36)
(28)
(29)
(36)
(36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36)
[End KCC 15.04.170]
7.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
14 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
SECTION 7. – Amendment – KCC 15.08.090. Section 15.08.090 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Parking or storage of inoperable vehicles,” is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 15.08.090 Parking or storage of inoperable vehicles.
No more than one (1) vehicle of any kind in inoperable condition not
licensed nor legally operable upon roadway shall be stored or parked on
any residentially zoned property for more than thirty (30) days unless said
vehicle is stored in an enclosed area and hidden from view of surrounding
neighbors. Only one vehicle of any kind in an inoperable condition, not
licensed nor legally operable upon the roadway, may be stored or parked
on a residentially zoned property for more than thirty (30) days. Such
vehicle must be stored or parked in an enclosed area and hidden from
view of surrounding neighbors.
SECTION 8. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 9. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 10. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
7.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
15 Housekeeping Ordinance -
Re: Annual Code Cleanup
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
7.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
.
1
8
F
I
N
A
L
.
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
8
:
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
9
-
4
)
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Rally the Valley Update
INFORMATION ONLY: The Rally the Valley effort to develop a subarea plan for
Kent’s industrial valley is underway. Staff and consultants have now held three
meetings of the Rally the Valley advisory panel, and have defined a strategic
framework for the planning process. The strategic framework includes an overall
vision, strategic issues, and goals for addressing each strategic issue identified. The
strategic framework will be presented at a City Council workshop on July 16.
The advisory panel has weighed in on the strategic framework and provided
guidance for staff in developing well-defined strategic issues and realistic,
achievable goals. The advisory panel has also helped to advise the project team in
developing specific strategies to achieve each of the goals, including financial tools
and potential improvements to the public realm.
Upcoming advisory panel meetings will focus on design, aesthetics, and diversity of
uses in Kent’s industrial valley. These discussions will likely result in recommended
changes to the City’s zoning code and development standards.
Staff will be available at the July 8 meeting to provide information and answer
questions from committee members.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure
8
Packet Pg. 23
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: Economic Development Partnership Agreement with The Port
of Seattle
MOTION: Recommend Council authorize the Mayor to accept the Port of
Seattle’s Economic Development Partnership Program Grant in the amount
of $65,000, authorize expenditures of the grant funds and any matching
funds accordingly, and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary
documents, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and ECD Director.
SUMMARY: The City of Kent's economic development department is working
across departments and jurisdictional lines on a series of actions intended to
strategically reposition its industrial areas. Assembling an interdisciplinary team of
outside experts in fields from marketing to architecture, urban planning, and
engineering, the City will study existing conditions, plan for development of new
assets, and message undertakings in Kent Valley to business media to build upon
its comparative advantages and pivot the City to more sustainable footings. Major
tasks will include:
i. Rally the Valley. Rally the Valley is a major long-range planning effort to
effectuate economic development outcomes in the industrial areas scoped and
initiated by the City of Kent.
ii. Interurban Trail Intermodal Opportunity Study. A key component of the
Rally the Valley planning effort is a transformation of transportation networks to
better accommodate multi-modal travel, with an emphasis on moving people rather
than motor vehicles and trucks. The Interurban Trail runs north-south the entire
length of the Kent Industrial Valley, through its geographic center - forming a
perfect spine to the multi-modal transportation network. It is an underutilized piece
transportation infrastructure, often considered simply a recreational asset.
iii. Marketing and Media Messaging, Business Recruitment Website. The
Cities of Auburn, Kent, Pacific, Renton and Tukwila are pursuing development of a
shared business recruitment website to supply businesses and/or investors seeking
real estate with information (supplied with a GIS web tool), or those reading Kent
Valley storylines (Boeing Space Center property for sale, satellite manufacturer
9
Packet Pg. 24
moves to Auburn or Tukwila, Blue Origin expands its HQ presence, etc.) in business
publications to have a place to learn more.
This website will complement a proactive marketing strategy which aims to position
Kent Valley as a premier business destination based on its rich history and ongoing
legacy as a center for aerospace innovation and advanced manufacturing
technologies.
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a contractual arrangement under
which the Port will pay the Agency Program funds in the amount set forth on
Section 2 solely for the purpose of carrying out the local initiative described in
Exhibit A, attached and incorporated hereto by this reference (the "Project").
BUDGET IMPACT: $32,500 in 50% matching funds, forecasted and budgeted for
at the beginning of year for this purpose, and part of the initiatives for
strengthening Kent Valley. This will enable the Port of Seattle to contribute 2:1 for
every City dollar spent on our initiatives of Rally the Valley, Interurban Trail and
Intermodal Opportunity Study, and a website targeting site selectors, business
recruitment, developers, and real estate investors.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Kent Agreement with The Port of Seattle (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 25
Agreement S-00319917 Page 1 of 11
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE PORT OF SEATTLE AND CITY OF KENT
S-00319917
This Economic Development Partnership Agreement (the " Agreement") is made by and between the Port of Seattle (the "Port") and the City of Kent ("Agency"), both municipal corporations of the State of Washington (each, a "Party" or, collectively, the "Parties").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, engaging in the promotion of economic development is a
recognized Port purpose authorized under RCW 53.08.245; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.703 similarly authorizes cities to engage in economic
development programs; and
WHEREAS, RCW 53.08.240(2) permits the Port to contract with another
municipality to perform such undertakings each is authorized to perform; and
WHEREAS, the Port Commission of the Port of Seattle established the
Economic Development Partnership Program (the "Program"), to advance the Port' s
Century Agenda, promote a dramatic growth agenda, support the creation of middle
class jobs and help address the lack of economic development funding for local
projects; and
WHEREAS, grant funding across the region is very limited for cities that want to
pursue economic development projects or initiatives, and Washington State has not
had an economic development grant program for over 20 years; and
WHEREAS, the Program will provide 38 King County cities per capita funding to
advance local economic development throughout the region, and requires a 50% local
match by the cities that receive the grants; and
WHEREAS, the Program will help the Port advance regional economic vitality
through focused partnerships with King County cities; and
WHEREAS, the Program will make grants to cities that pursue programs and
projects that stimulate business development, job creation and community
revitalization, such as small business development, industry retention and expansion,
and other economic development projects that support new investment and job
9.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 2 of 11
creation;
NOW, THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a contractual
arrangement under which the Port will pay the Agency Program funds in the
amount set forth on Section 2 solely for the purpose of carrying out the local
initiative described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated hereto by this reference
(the "Project"). This Agreement shall be interpreted in furtherance of this purpose.
2. Responsibilities of the Port. The Port shall contribute Sixty-five Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($65,000.00) (the "Grant Funds") to assist the Agency in funding the
Project. The Port shall disburse the Grant Funds to the Agency no later than thirty (30)
days after receipt of a complete and correct invoice detailing those Project deliverables
completed in accordance with Exhibit A. Subject to the requirements of this Section
and of Section 18 (where applicable), the Port shall make the final payment of the
Grant Funds to the Agency no later than November 1, 2019, or receipt of the final
report, whichever occurs later.
3. Responsibilities of the Agency.
3.1 The Agency shall contribute local funds equivalent to at least fifty
percent (50%) of the Grant Funds towards the Project.
3.2 The Agency may contract with local non-profits to complete the Project or
elements of the Project; provided, that the Port shall not, under any
circumstance, disburse the Grant Funds to any of the Agency's contractors or
subcontractors.
3.3 The Agency shall complete the Project by November 1, 2019.
4. Term. This Agreement shall be become effective as of the date the Port
executes this Agreement and shall terminate on November 1, 2019, unless earlier
terminated under another provision of this Agreement.
5. Termination for Convenience. The Port may terminate this Agreement at
any time for any reason, by giving the Agency thi rty (30) days' written notice. In
the event the Agency has completed any portion of the Project by the time it
receives the Port's notice of termination, the Port shall pay the Agency the
percentage of the Grant Funds attributable to the Agency's completed portion of
the Project.
6. Termination for Default. Except in the case of delay or failure resulting from
circumstances beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Agency,
the Port shall be entitled, by written or oral notice to the Agency, to terminate
Agreement for breach of any of the terms and to have all other rights against the
Agency by reason of the Agency's breach as provided by law.
7. Waiver. Failure at any time of the Port to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such provision or prejudice the right of the
9.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 3 of 11
Port to enforce such provision at any subsequent time. No term or condition of this
Agreement shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by a written
amendment signed by the Parties
8. Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is or becomes void or
unenforceable by force or operation of law, all other provisions hereof shall remain
valid and enforceable.
9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. The Agency shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Port, its Commissioners, officers, employees, and
agents (hereafter, collectively, the "Port") from all liability, claims, damages, losses,
and expenses (including, but not limited to attorneys' and consultants' fees and
other expenses of litigation or arbitration) arising out of or related to the fulfillment
of this Agreement; provided, however, if and to the extent that this Agreement is
construed to be relative to the construction, alternation, repair, addition to,
subtraction from, improvement to, or maintenance of, any building, highway, road,
railroad, excavation, or other structure, project, development, or improvement
attached to real estate, including moving or demolition in connection therewith, and
therefore subject to Section 4.24.115 of the Revised Code of Washington, it is
agreed that where such liability, claim, damage, loss or expense arises from the
concurrent negligence of (i) the Port, and (ii) the Agency, its agents, or its
employees, it is expressly agreed that the Agency's obligations of indemnity under
this paragraph shall be effective only to the extent of the Agency's negligence.
Such obligations shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce
any other right or obligation of indemnity which would otherwise exist as to any
person or entity described in this paragraph. This paragraph shall not be construed
so as to require the Agency to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the Port from
such claims, damages, losses or expenses caused by or resulting from the sole
negligence of the Port.
In any and all claims against the Port, by any employee of the Agency, its agent,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or anyone for whose acts any
of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation of this paragraph shall not be
limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation
benefits payable by or for the Agency, or other person under applicable industrial
insurance laws (including, but not limited to Title 51 of the Revised Code of
Washington), it being clearly agreed and understood by the Parties hereto that the
Agency expressly waives any immunity the Agency might have had under such laws.
By executing this Agreement, the Agency acknowledges that the foregoing waiver has
been mutually negotiated by the parties.
The Agency shall pay all attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Port in
establishing and enforcing the Port's right under this paragraph, whether or not suit was
instituted.
10. Comply with All Laws. The Agency shall at all times comply with all federal,
state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to all
environmental laws, which in any manner apply to the performance of this
9.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 4 of 11
Agreement.
11. Integration. This Agreement, together with the attached Exhibit A,
constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and unless modified in
writing by an amendment executed by the Parties, shall be implemented only as
described herein.
12. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in
King County.
13. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between the
Agency and the Port.
14. No Entity Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to create a joint entity between the Agency and the Port.
15. Notices. Notices to the Port shall be sent to the following address:
Port of Seattle
Economic Development Division
P. O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
Notices to the Agency shall be sent to the following address:
City of Kent
William Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer
220 4th Ave S
Kent WA 98032
9.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 5 of 11
16. Audits and Retention of Records. The Agency shall retain and make all
books, records and documents (the "Records") relating to the performance of this
Agreement open to inspection or audit by representatives of the Port or
Washington State during the term of this Agreement and for a period of not less
than six (6) years after termination of the Agreement; provided, that if any
litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with or related to this
Agreement is initiated, the Agency shall retain such Records until the later of
(a) resolution or completion of litigation, claim or audit; or (b) six (6) years after
the termination of this Agreement.
17. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the
Parties.
18. Dispute Resolution. The Parties shall use their best, good faith efforts to
cooperatively resolve disputes that arise in connection with this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this agreement as of
the date first set forth above.
PORT OF SEATTLE CITY OF KENT
By: Paul Reed William Ellis
Sr. Manager, Purchasing Chief Economic Development Officer
_____________________ ________________________
Signature Signature
____________________________ ________________________________
Dated Dated
9.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT A - PROJECT
Project Description:
Project Description and Budget
a. Project Description: Summarize the project(s) you plan to support through the
economic development partnership program. Include a brief description of the goal(s)
and/ or issues to be addressed with each project.
The City of Kent's economic development department is working across departments and
jurisdictional lines on a series of actions intended to strategically reposition its industrial
areas. Assembling an interdisciplinary team of outside experts in fields from marketing to
architecture, urban planning, and engineering, the City will study existing conditions, plan
for development of new assets, and message undertakings in Kent Valley to business
media to build upon its comparative advantages and pivot the City to more sustainable
footings.
i. Rally the Valley. Rally the Valley is a major long-range planning effort
to effectuate economic development outcomes in the industrial areas
scoped and initiated by the City of Kent.
The City of Kent has partnered with Auburn, Renton, and Pacific,
forming a staff working group tasked with guiding the planning process
and strategy development. Other cities with portions of their municipal
lands within the Kent Industrial Valley, including Tukwila, SeaTac, Des
Moines, Federal Way, Algona and Sumner are consulted partners and
have expressed support for Kent's planning efforts.
The Port of Seattle grant would support the Rally the Valley Economy
and Employment analysis and research (Task 4 of work scope), which
will complement the broader planning process.
ii. Interurban Trail Intermodal Opportunity Study. A key component of
the Rally the Valley planning effort is a transformation of transportation
networks to better accommodate multi-modal travel, with an emphasis
on moving people rather than motor vehicles and trucks. The
Interurban Trail runs north-south the entire length of the Kent Industrial
Valley, through its geographic center - forming a perfect spine to the
multi-modal transportation network. It is an underutilized piece
transportation infrastructure, often considered simply a recreational
asset.
iii. Marketing and Media Messaging, Business Recruitment Website.
The Cities of Auburn, Kent, Pacific, Renton and Tukwila are pursuing
9.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 7 of 11
development of a shared business recruitment website to supply
businesses and/or investors seeking real estate with information
(supplied with a GIS web tool), or those reading Kent Valley storylines
(Boeing Space Center property for sale, satellite manufacturer moves to
Auburn or Tukwila, Blue Origin expands its HQ presence, etc.) in
business publications to have a place to learn more.
This website will complement a proactive marketing strategy which aims
to position Kent Valley as a premier business destination based on its
rich history and ongoing legacy as a center for aerospace innovation
and advanced manufacturing technologies.
Neighboring jurisdictions are choosing to participate financially in this
effort. The Cities of Renton and Auburn are looking to dedicate $5,000
and $10,000 from their community's budgets, where the Cities of Pacific
and Tukwila seek to contribute through redirecting $1718.75 and $7,000
respectively of their eligible funding from the Port Partnership program
to the City's marketing effort.
b. Project Scope of Work: Outline project components, goal, desired outcomes
and timelines using the table below (attach additional information if necessary):
Project or Project goal(s): Outcome(s) and final Estimated : Metrics or measures of
component: deliverable(s): completion: success:
Rally the Valley
Economy and
Employment
• Work with consultant to
provide data and
information to the Rally
the Valley (RTV) advisory panel and members of the
• Task4
Employment
Analysis and
Strategies Research
• November, 2019 • Comprehensiveness of economic development and
employment needs
analysis.
public to develop
economic development
and employment goals for
the Kent Industrial Valley.
• • Short-, medium- and long-term
implementability of
economic
development
strategies resulting
from superior
information and
analytical tools.
9.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 8 of 11
Interurban Trail
lntermodal
Opportunity Study
• Assess opportunities for integration of the
Interurban Trail with other
transportation modes and
infrastructure for the
benefit of employment
lands
• Respond to urgent and long term identified need
by the City to improve
transportation choices in
the industrialized areas of
south King County
• Produce design typologies for ramps and transfer
environments, to be used
by King County Parks
during planning for
Interurban Trail
improvements and City of Kent transportation
• Report and presentation identifying ride
hailing nodes,
bike share nodes,
opportunities to
integrate with
transit and other
modes, potential
new access
points, crossing
improvements,
and any
infrastructure or
right-of-way
issues.
• Report and presentation
complete by
August
2019.
• Quality and executability of
designs for
upcoming projects.
• Support for recommendations
and designs from
community and
primary
implementing
agency (King County
Parks).
• An effective alternative
transportation
facility-beyond just
recreation-in
complement to other
modes for the use
by the thousands of
companies it
traverses past and
the tens of
thousands of
employees it could
potentially service
planning. I
I
Website Targeting:
Site • As a center of aerospace innovation, with hundreds • Besides information about
Kent Valley's
amenities,
demographic
data, and
specialized
workforce, the
I site will provide a
window to Kent
Valley's
innovators and
their business
activity.
• An available real estate directory
i.e. GIS Webtech
to showcase Kent
Valley
opportunities
• A business directory, utilizing
business license
data, to illustrate
the high number
• Website targeting to
go live July
2019
• A sustained marketing effort will
direct target
audiences to the
site, compelling
businesses/investors
to learn more about
Kent Valley where
currently, no central
repository of
information exists.
• Google Analytics will be utilized to track
visitor behavior.
Selectors, Business
Recruitment, Real
Estate Investors,
Development
Community
of established and
emerging companies,
Kent Valley needs a
centralized economic
development/business
recruitment website.
Developed in partnership
with the Cities of Auburn,
Pacific, Renton and
Tukwila, the site will serve
as an information hub
to promote the region to
site
selectors, real estate
investors and companies
looking to locate, or
relocate to the area.
9.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 9 of 11
of innovative
companies, and
their specialized
talent base,
located in Kent
Valley.
• Site development on WordPress
platform.
• Site optimized for desktop, tablet,
and mobile
devices
• SEO plugin and setup with
specified
keywords • Google Analytics installation
c. Connection to Port of Seattle interests: Explain how your project benefits the Port of
Seattle and ties to the Port's business interests?
Rally the Valley. The Kent Industrial Valley is a widely recognized leader in the
manufacturing and logistics industries. Outcomes of Rally the Valley will include actionable
economic development strategies to ensure that the Kent Industrial Valley continues to be
competitive on a national and global scale, and that the City is able to sustainably finance
the infrastructure necessary to support its firms' operations. Firms currently choose to
locate their operations in the Valley near the Port of Seattle for convenience or access; the
Valley is also a place where businesses can be confident in their ability to attract and retain
a highly- qualified workforce with top of class industrial land amenities aimed at the
workers-not just the turning radii for trucks at intersections. The Port and its partners will
share in the direct and indirect benefits of the job growth and economic development,
potentially including increased exports of manufactured products and growth in freight,
business, and leisure travel.
The Rally the Valley effort will engage representatives from prominent firms in these
industries to understand industry needs for business growth and workforce recruitment and
retention. This effort will help guide the City of Kent in tailoring its long range planning and
capital budget policies to address these needs.
a. Interurban Trail lntermodal Opportunity Study. A companion study to the
Rally the Valley effort, the Interurban Trail lntermodal Opportunity Study will
focus specifically on maximizing the transportation utility of King County's
Interurban Trail system in the Kent Industrial Valley. The Kent Industrial Valley
is an industrial employment center of statewide significance, home to industry-
leading firms in logistics, manufacturing technology and aerospace. Modern
workforce demands include multi-modal transportation options, and to be
competitive Kent Industrial Valley businesses must be able to provide access to
travel choices other than motorized vehicles.
The Interurban Trail lntermodal Opportunity Study will help the City of Kent and its agency
partners better understand how to capitalize on a significant existing regional investment to
9.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 10 of 11
support Kent Industrial Valley employers in attracting a highly capable, highly discerning,
workforce and retain them long-term. It will also provide more viable transportation options
to the existing Kent Industrial Workforce in an area that has historically been underserved
by high-quality non- motorized transportation infrastructure-likely due to the area's
perceived monoculture of 9-5 workday activity (although there is much shift work, and Rally
the Valley will examine how the City and regional policies may have impacted extension of
business hours). This substantially advances the Port of Seattle's goals to promote
opportunity, equity, and livable communities. It will also offer workers in the Kent Industrial
Valley a chance to reduce their environmental footprint by choosing more environmentally
friendly modes of travel.
b. Business Recruitment Website/Marketing. This Kent Valley subregional
messaging can help consolidate an industrial storyline of mutual benefit to
these municipalities and be a building block to the greater Seattle innovation
narrative.
*Port business interests tie closely to the health of aviation, maritime/logistics,
manufacturing, and construction/trades clusters. Tourism is another important industry to the
Port.
d. Project Budget: Identify each project budget category, total funds (including the monetary
value of in-kind resources), Port of Seattle funds and City monetary and in-kind matching
funds. Include the total funds from each column in the second to last row. Include the
percentage contributions to the Port of Seattle's contribution in the last row.
Category: Port of
Seattle
Funds:
City
Monetary
Matching
Funds:
City In-kind
Matching
Funds: •
Total
Funds
(Including
In- Kind):
Rally the Valley: Consultants
City of Kent Funds
$25,000 $125,000 $150,000
Interurban Trail Opportunity Study
Consultant
City of Kent Funds
$30,000 $12,000 $42,000
Business Recruitment/Marketing
Website
City of Kent Funds
$10,000 $20,000 $30,000
Total Funds: $65,000 $157,000 $222,000
Percentage Funds 100% 242%
e. Collaboration with partners: Please identify any community organizations (chamber of
commerce, neighborhood associations, Small Business Development Centers, SCORE,
Greater Seattle Partners, etc.) you plan to work with to complete all or part of your
project(s)?
9.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agreement S-00319917 Page 11 of 11
a. Center of Excellence: Global Trade and Supply Chain Management (advisory
panel member)
b. King County Communities of Opportunity Program (advisory panel member)
c. City of Auburn
d. City of Pacific
e. City of Renton
f. City of Tukwila
g. King County Parks
h. King County Metro
i. Transportation Choices Coalition
j. NW Seaport Alliance (advisory panel member)
f. Use of consultants or contractors: If you plan to use consultants or contractors to
complete all or part of the project, please identify the firm or type of firm you plan to hire for
this project.
a. Rally the Valley. Mackenzie and subconsultant ECONorthwest, an industrial
planning and design firm, and economics and public policy firm, respectively,
have been selected to carry out the technical components of the Rally the
Valley project.
b. Interurban Trail lntermodal Opportunity Study. Staff will select a transportation
planning and engineering firm with substantial experience in non- motorized
facility design to lead this project.
c. Website/Marketing. The Medium; partnered with Barokas Communications.
The Medium will build the site and manage content on behalf of the largest
jurisdictions comprising the submarket that the private industrial brokerage
community defines, and already refers to, as Kent Valley.
9.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
(
1
8
5
7
:
P
o
r
t
o
f
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: ECD
SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Update
MOTION: Recommend City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Shoreline
Master Program as presented by staff.
SUMMARY: The city’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) adopted in 2009 is due for
a required periodic review by June 30, 2019. The update includes minor changes to
ensure consistency between the SMP and Kent’s Comprehensive Plan, updated
development regulations, and state regulations adopted since the plan was
developed.
A gap analysis has been completed to summarize changes necessary to maintain
consistency. Proposed changes include: updated references to critical areas
regulations, updates to definitions and substantial development cost thresholds,
and inclusion of language pertaining to exemptions from local review for certain
projects, as specified by the State. Additional revisions include minor adjustments
to provisions regarding vegetation conservation and use conflicts, removal of
references to the Panther Lake Potential Annexation Area, fixing a mapping error in
Shoreline Environment Designations, and minor edits to improve functionality and
readability.
Staff will be available at the July 8 meeting to present information and answer
questions about the SMP update.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Shoreline Master Program – Periodic Update (PDF)
2. Shoreline Master Program – Periodic Update - Presentation (PDF)
10
Packet Pg. 37
1 Shoreline Master Program Update
ORDINANCE NO.________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting amendments to
the Shoreline Master Program to be approved by
the Department of Ecology.
RECITALS
A. The Washington State Legislature has mandated that the City
of Kent periodically review its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and update
it as necessary pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58
RCW, and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, WAC 173-26.
B. The Shoreline Management Act is a cooperative program
between local governments and the state, and is administered by the
Department of Ecology, which must review and approve all SMPs.
Shoreline Master Programs govern properties 200 feet landward of each
shoreline’s ordinary high water mark and are intended to balance use and
protection of shorelines. Shorelines consist of lakes greater than 20 acres
in size as well as streams and rivers with flows greater than 20 cubic feet
per second.
C. The Growth Management Act in RCW 36.70A.480 provides
10.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
2 Shoreline Master Program Update
that the goals and policies of a local SMP shall be considered an element
of a local government’s comprehensive plan. This update to the SMP will
be integrated with the City’s comprehensive plan during the City’s annual
docket cycle later this year.
D. The SMP update has consisted of a joint review process with
the Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-26-104. The process has
involved early and extensive public participation, including an online public
survey and a public open house, held November 5, 2018. The process also
involved outreach to and consultation with other agencies, tribes, and
other interested groups. A joint public comment period was also held with
the Department of Ecology from February 22, 2019 through March 25,
2019. The City received four comments, all from the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe, and provided responses which were subsequently included in the
final submission to the Department of Ecology.
E. On June 25, 2019, the Department of Ecology determined
through written concurrence that the City’s proposed amendments are
consistent with applicable laws and rules, subject to and including
Ecology’s required and recommended changes, itemized in Ecology’s Initial
Determination letter.
F. The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible
official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on February 22, 2019 for
this update to the SMP.
G. The City notified the Washington State Department of
Commerce of the proposed amendments, per RCW 36.70A.106, on March
21, 2019. No comments were received from the Department of
Commerce.
10.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
3 Shoreline Master Program Update
H. After a joint public hearing with Ecology, on March 25, 2019,
the Land Use and Planning Board recommended adoption of the updates.
The Economic and Community Development Committee recommended
adoption of the amendments on ______________.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Adopt. The City hereby approves and adopts the
updated Shoreline Master Program as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached
and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more sections,
subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional
or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 3.– Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4. - Effective Date. The effective date of the approved
Shoreline Master Program is dependent on approval by the Washington
10.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
4 Shoreline Master Program Update
State Department of Ecology per WAC 173-26-120(7), but shall in no
event be sooner than thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage
of this ordinance, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
10.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson
Director
22O4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6454WaSHtNGToN
PHONET 253-a56-5454
April 24,zOLg
Misty Blair, Senior Shoreline Planner
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452
KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
GRANT FUNDING NUMBER EG180568
Dear Ms. Blair:
Attached please find the following deliverables for the City of Kent's Shoreline Master
Program periodic review and update:
. Periodic Review Checklisto Gap Analysis. Final Draft Revised Shoreline Master Program Document. Response to Comments. 2015 Critical Areas Ordinance, KCC 11.06
All references to Kent City Code within the documents can be found online at
www. kentcitycode. com.
A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance was issued for Kent's SMP update on
February 22, 2OL9, and a 60-day notice of intent to adopt was submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce on March 2L,2Ot9. A joint public comment
period was held February 22 through March 25, 2OL9, and a joint public hearing was
held on March 25, 2OL9. Comments received during the public comment period are
enclosed along with City of Kent responses. No comments were received during the
public hearing,
We look forward to receiving your initial determination within 30 days. Please feel free
to contact me at (253) 856-5443 should you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
t
ielle Butsick, AICP
Sr. Long-Range Planner
City of Kent
Mayor Dana Ralph
City of Kent Economic & Community Development
RE
ogt
=+JcoY
o
EXHIBIT A 10.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Encl
cc:
Periodic Review Checklist, Gap Analysis, Response to Comments, Final Draft Shoreline Master Program, KCC
11.06
Hayley Bonsteel, AICP, Long-Range Planning Manager
Erin George, AICP, Current Planning Manager
10.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 1
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
City of Kent 2019 Periodic Review Checklist
Introduction
This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns conducting the “periodic review” of
their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local
circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology’s rule outlining procedures for conducting these
reviews is at WAC 173-26-090.
This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted
between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews.
How to use this checklist
See Section 2 of Ecology’s Periodic Review Checklist Guidance document for a description of each item,
relevant links, review considerations, and example language.
At the beginning: Use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local
amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
At the end: Use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP
addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-
090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information
on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.
10.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 2
Row Summary of change Review Action
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
Review:
In Chapter 1, the SMP
references an outdated cost
threshold ($5,000) for
substantial development;
however, the SMP indicates
that the cost threshold is
updated every five years. The
definition of “Substantial
Development” in Chapter 6
references the definition in the
RCW 90.58.030.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the SMP
/ D. How the Shoreline Master
Program is Used / 1. When Is
a Permit Required? (p. 8)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Substantial Development”
(p. 116)
• Section 1.D.1: Revised
language to reference WAC
173-27-040(2)(e) for the
exemption for development
not meeting the cost
threshold.
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that the definition of
“development” does not include
dismantling or removing
structures.
Review:
The SMP does not clarify that
removing structures does not
constitute development.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the SMP
/ D. How the Shoreline Master
Program is Used / 1. When Is
a Permit Required? (p. 7)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Development” (p. 107)
Section 1.D.1: Revised
language to cite WAC 173-27-
030(6) for definition of
development and added
Ecology’s example language
to clarify that removing
structures does not
constitute development.
Chapter 6 – Defintions:
Revised definition of
“Development” to include
Ecology’s example language
to clarify that removing
structures does not
constitute development.
c. Ecology adopted rules that clarify
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
Review:
The SMP does not refer to
exceptions to local review
under WAC 173-27-044 or -045
(though it does refer to
Section 7.A.1: Created
section with Ecology’s
example language to clearly
set forth exceptions to local
review.
10.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 3
Row Summary of change Review Action
exemptions under WAC 173-
27-040).
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B. Substantial
Development / 1. Exemptions
from a Substantial
Development Permit (p. 119)
d. Ecology amended rules that
clarify permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
Review:
The SMP does not describe the
filing process, but indicates
that filing with Ecology shall be
done pursuant to WAC 173-27-
130.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / B. Substantial
Development / 2. Substantial
Development Permit Process /
f. Filing with Department of
Ecology (p. 120)
No change.
e.
Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
“developments” and do not
require SDPs.
Review:
The SMP indicates that forest
practices are prohibited and
contains no provisions specific
to forest practices.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use Provisions
/ C. Shoreline Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
No change.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
Review:
The SMP does not address
lands with exclusive federal
jurisdiction.
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the SMP
/ C. Geographic Applications
No change.
10.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 4
Row Summary of change Review Action
of the SMA / 1. Applicable
Area (p. 5)
g.
Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
Review:
The SMP adopts by reference
the nonconforming use and
development provisions in
WAC 173-27-080, with one
exception.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / E.
Nonconforming Uses (p. 123)
Section 7.F: Removed
existing timing restrictions
for the exception to the
provisions of WAC 173-27-
080.
h. Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
Review:
The SMP does not include
language specific to conducting
periodic review of the SMP
pursuant to RCW 90.58.080
and WAC 173-26-090.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G. Amendments
to This Shoreline Master
Program (p. 123)
No change.
i. Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
Review:
The SMP does not include
language regarding the process
for SMP amendments.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G. Amendments
to This Shoreline Master
Program (p. 123)
Section 7.H: Revised
language to reference WAC
173-26-104 for the optional
joint review process for SMP
amendments.
j. Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
Review:
SMP does not include a
description of the SMP
amendment submittal process.
Current SMP:
No change.
10.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 5
Row Summary of change Review Action
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
2016
a.
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structures to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Review:
The SMP references the
Substantial Development
Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which
include this revised exemption
language.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B. Substantial
Development / 1. Exemptions
from a Substantial
Development Permit (p. 119)
No change.
b. Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
Review:
The current SMP critical areas
regulations refer to the 2004
Ecology wetlands rating
system. The critical areas
regulations proposed for
inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to 2014 Ecology wetlands
rating system. Other review
findings related to compliance
with updated wetlands critical
area guidance are provided in
Section 3 of this report.
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Section 3.B.3: Revised
language to adopt Kent’s
current CAO by reference.
KCC 11.06.580.A adopts the
2014 wetlands rating system.
2015
a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Review: Section 7.E.1: Created
section to define special
procedures for WSDOT
10.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 6
Row Summary of change Review Action
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
The SMP does not address this
target.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
projects using Ecology’s
example language.
2014
a. The Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) for replacement docks on
lakes and rivers to $22,500 (from
$11,200).
Review:
The SMP references the
Substantial Development
Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which
include this revised exemption
language.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B. Substantial
Development / 1. Exemptions
from a Substantial
Development Permit (p. 119)
No change.
b. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on-water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
Review:
City has no floating homes.
Residential development is
prohibited over water.
Moorage of floating homes is
prohibited.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline Modification
Provisions / C. Policies and
Regulations / 3. Over-Water
Structures - Including Piers
and Docks, Floats,
Boardwalks and Boating
Facilities (p. 58)
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use Provisions
/ C. Shoreline Use Policies and
Regulations / 3. Boating
Facilities (p. 79)
No change.
10.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 7
Row Summary of change Review Action
2012
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
Review:
The SMP does not address SMP
appeal procedures (the SMP
addresses appeals of shoreline
permit decisions, but not the
SMP itself).
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
No change.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring
that wetlands be delineated in
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
Review:
The current SMP critical areas
regulations refer to the
Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation
Manual (1997). The critical
areas regulations proposed for
inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to “the approved federal
wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional
supplements.”
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.530
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.230
Section 3.B.3: Revised
language to adopt Kent’s
current CAO by reference.
KCC 11.06.230 includes the
mandatory wetland
delineation manual provision.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
Review:
City has no saltwater
shorelines.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use Provisions
/ C. Shoreline Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
No change.
10.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 8
Row Summary of change Review Action
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
2011.
Review:
The SMP prohibits residential
uses over water and does not
contain provisions for such
uses, including floating homes.
The term “floating home” is
used in the SMP; however, it is
not defined.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use Provisions
/ C. Shoreline Use Policies and
Regulations / 8.
No change.
d. The Legislature authorized a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
Review:
The SMP does not exercise this
option.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use Provisions
/ C. Shoreline Use Policies and
Regulations / 8. Residential
Development (p. 88)
No change.
2010
a. The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act – Shoreline
Management Act clarifications.
Review:
SMP does not clearly indicate
that critical areas in shorelines
must be regulated to assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological
function. See Section 3 of this
report for further discussion.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 3 / B. Policies and
Regulations / 3. Critical Areas
(p. 28)
Section 3.B.3: Revised
language to indicate that
regulation of shoreline
critical areas must assure no
net loss of shoreline
ecological function.
2009
a.
The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High Water
Mark.
Review:
The SMP does not address such
relief procedures.
Section 4.C.6.c.5: Added
regulation with Ecology’s
example language to
reference the relief
procedures identified in WAC
173-27-215.
10.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 9
Row Summary of change Review Action
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline Modification
Provisions / C. Policies and
Regulations / 6. Shoreline
Restoration and Ecological
Enhancement (p. 69)
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
Review:
Both current and proposed
critical areas regulations allow
the use of mitigation banks.
The proposed critical areas
regulations make it clear that
mitigation banks must be
certified.
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.660.F
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.660.G
Section 3.B.3: Revised
language to adopt Kent’s
current CAO by reference.
KCC 11.06.660.G allows for
the use of certified wetland
mitigation banks.
c. The Legislature added moratoria
authority and procedures to the
SMA.
Review:
The SMP does not address
moratoria.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
No change.
2007
a.
The Legislature clarified options
for defining "floodway" as either
the area that has been
established in FEMA maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the SMA.
Review:
The definition of “floodway” in
the SMP is based on the
floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act.
This definition is essentially a
biological definition.
Current SMP:
Chapter 6 – Definitions:
Revised definition of
“Floodway” to include
Ecology’s example language
to utilize FEMA maps to
define the floodway.
10.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 10
Row Summary of change Review Action
• Ch. 6 Definitions / “Floodway”
(p. 107)
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
Review:
While the SMP appears to refer
to all streams and lakes in
shoreline jurisdiction,
particularly in Chapter 2, a
concise list of jurisdictional
streams and lakes is not
provided. Chapter 1 of the SMP
includes a map of streams and
lakes in shoreline jurisdiction.
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the SMP
/ C. Geographic Applications
of the SMA / 1. Applicable
Area / Figure 1. Shoreline
Management Act jurisdiction
in the City of Kent. (p. 6)
• Ch.2 Environment Designation
Provisions / C. Policies and
Regulations (p. 11)
Section 1.C.a: Revised
language to include a consise
list of jurisdictional streams
and lakes.
c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement
projects that conform to the
provisions of RCW 77.55.181.
Review:
The SMP references the
Substantial Development
Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which
include this revised exemption
language.
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B. Substantial
Development / 1. Exemptions
from a Substantial
Development Permit (p. 119)
No change.
10.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent Shoreline Master Program
Gap Analysis Report
Prepared on behalf of:
City of Kent
Economic and Community Development Department
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Prepared by:
October 2018
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
180507
10.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Consistency with State Laws ................................................................................................... 2
3. Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations ................................................................. 10
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other Development Regulations ........................ 12
5. Other Issues to Consider ....................................................................................................... 13
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document. ..................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions. 2
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and
associated recommended SMP revisions. ............................................................. 11
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP, KCC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to
improve consistency. ............................................................................................. 12
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP. ............ 13
10.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
1
1. Introduction
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with
“Shorelines of the State” are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-090). The periodic review is
intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and
regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
Shorelines of the State in the City of Kent (City) include: Green River, Big Soos Creek, Lake
Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Green River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and
Jenkins Creek.
The City’s most recent update of its SMP took place in 2009 (Ordinance No. 3931). The City’s
SMP outlines goals and policies for the shorelines of the City, and also establishes regulations
for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s current SMP incorporates
by reference the City-wide critical areas regulations of Ordinance No. 3805 (2006), with some
exceptions.
Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide critical areas regulations have been amended by
multiple ordinances (Ordinance No. 4019 [2011], Ordinance No. 4159 [2015], and Ordinance No.
4249 [2017]). The City-wide critical areas regulations are currently codified as Kent City Code
(KCC) Chapter 11.06 Critical Areas. The City anticipates referencing the most recent version of
the City-wide critical areas regulations in the updated SMP.
As a first step in the periodic review process, the City’s current SMP was reviewed by City staff
and consultants. The purpose of this Gap Analysis Report is to provide a summary of the
review and inform updates to the SMP. This report is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2 identifies gaps in consistency with state laws. This analysis is based on a list of
amendments between 2007 and 2017 as summarized by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) in its Periodic Review Checklist.
• Section 3 identifies issues with integrating the City’s most recent (2017) critical areas
regulations into the updated SMP.
• Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
implementing development regulations other than critical areas regulations.
• Section 5 identifies other issues to consider as part of the periodic update process to
produce a more effective SMP.
This report includes several tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential
revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows:
• “Mandatory” indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws.
10.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
2
• “Recommended” indicates revisions that would improve consistency with state laws,
but are not strictly required.
This document attempts to minimize the use of abbreviations; however, a select few are used to
keep the document concise. These abbreviations are compiled below in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document.
Abbreviation Meaning
City City of Kent
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
KCC Kent City Code
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SMP Shoreline Master Program
WAC Washington Administrative Code
2. Consistency with State Laws
Table 2-1 summarizes potential revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of consistency
with amendments to state laws identified in the Periodic Review Checklist provided by
Ecology. Topics are organized broadly by SMP subject area.
Only a limited number of revisions in Table 2-1 are classified as “mandatory.” Further, the
revisions classified as “mandatory” are anticipated to be minor in effect.
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions.
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Applicability
1 Office of Financial
Management adjusted the
cost threshold for
substantial development to
$7,047. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the
SMP / D. How the
Shoreline Master Program
is Used / 1. When Is a
Permit Required? (p. 8)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Substantial
Development” (p. 116)
Review:
In Chapter 1, the SMP references an
outdated cost threshold ($5,000) for
substantial development; however, the
SMP indicates that the cost threshold is
updated every five years. The definition of
“Substantial Development” in Chapter 6
references the definition in the RCW
90.58.030.
Action:
Recommended: Update the language in
Chapter 1 to refer to the most recent cost
threshold, or just reference the WAC
exemption for development not meeting
10.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
3
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
the cost threshold and the location where
the cost threshold can be found. (Note:
City anticipates doing the latter.)
2 Ecology permit rules
clarified the definition of
“development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the
SMP / D. How the
Shoreline Master Program
is Used / 1. When Is a
Permit Required? (p. 7)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Development” (p. 107)
Review:
The SMP does not clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development.
Action:
Recommended: Revise definition of
“Development” to clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development. Example language from
Ecology is available.
3 Ecology adopted rules
clarifying exceptions to
local review under the
Shoreline Management
Act. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development /
1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not refer to exceptions to
local review under WAC 173-27-044 or -
045 (though it does refer to exemptions
under WAC 173-27-040).
Action:
Recommended: Create a new section that
clearly sets forth exceptions to local
review. Example language from Ecology is
available.
4 Ecology amended forestry
use regulations to clarify
that forest practices that
only involves timber cutting
are not Shoreline
Management Act
“developments” and do not
require Substantial
Development Permits.
(2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
Review:
The SMP indicates that forest practices are
prohibited and contains no provisions
specific to forest practices.
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent, as forest practices are
prohibited by the SMP.
5 Ecology clarified the
Shoreline Management Act
does not apply to lands
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the
SMP / C. Geographic
Applications of the SMA /
1. Applicable Area (p. 5)
Review:
The SMP does not address lands with
exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Action:
Recommended: If City faces questions
about the applicability of the SMP on lands
10.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
4
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
with exclusive federal jurisdiction, consider
adding clarifying language.
6 The Legislature created a
new shoreline permit
exemption for retrofitting
existing structure to comply
with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (2016)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
7 The Legislature raised the
cost threshold for requiring
a Substantial Development
Permit for replacement
docks on lakes and rivers to
$20,000 (from $10,000).
(2014)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
8 The Legislature clarified
options for defining
"floodway" as either the
area that has been
established in Federal
Emergency Management
Agency maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act.
(2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Floodway” (p. 107)
Review:
The definition of “floodway” in the SMP is
based on the floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act. This definition
is essentially a biological definition.
Action:
Recommended: If the City typically uses
Federal Emergency Management Agency
maps to define the floodway, consider
revising the definition of “floodway” to
reflect this. Example language from
Ecology is available. (Note: City anticipates
defining the “floodway” as the area
established in Federal Emergency
Management Agency Maps adopted by the
City.)
10.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
5
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
9 Ecology amended rules to
clarify that comprehensively
updated SMPs shall include
a list and map of streams
and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
(2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the
SMP / C. Geographic
Applications of the SMA /
1. Applicable Area / Figure
1. Shoreline Management
Act jurisdiction in the City
of Kent. (p. 6)
• Ch.2 Environment
Designation Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
(p. 11)
Review:
While the SMP appears to refer to all
streams and lakes in shoreline jurisdiction,
particularly in Chapter 2, a concise list of
jurisdictional streams and lakes is not
provided. Chapter 1 of the SMP includes a
map of streams and lakes in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Action:
Recommended: Provide a concise list of
jurisdictional streams and lakes. Update
map as needed.
10 Ecology’s rule listing
statutory exemptions from
the requirement for a
Substantial Development
Permit was amended to
include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions
of Revised Code of
Washington (RCW)
77.55.181. (2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
Use and Development
11 Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance
including implementation
guidance for the 2014
wetlands rating system.
(2016)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Review:
The current SMP critical areas regulations
refer to the 2004 Ecology wetlands rating
system. The critical areas regulations
proposed for inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to 2014 Ecology wetlands rating
system. Other review findings related to
compliance with updated wetlands critical
area guidance are provided in Section 3 of
this report.
Action:
Mandatory: Include implementation
guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating
system in the updated SMP, which would
be achieved by including the proposed
critical areas regulations.
10.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
6
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
12 The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating on-water
residences legally
established before
7/1/2014. (2014)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline
Modification Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
/ 3. Over-Water Structures
- Including Piers and
Docks, Floats, Boardwalks
and Boating Facilities (p.
58)
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 3. Boating
Facilities (p. 79)
Review:
City has no floating homes. Residential
development is prohibited over water.
Moorage of floating homes is prohibited.
Action:
None necessary: Not applicable.
13 Ecology adopted a rule
requiring that wetlands be
delineated in accordance
with the approved federal
wetland delineation
manual. (2011)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.530
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.230
Review:
The current SMP critical areas regulations
refer to the Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual
(1997). The critical areas regulations
proposed for inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to “the approved federal wetland
delineation manual and applicable regional
supplements.”
Action:
Mandatory: Require wetlands be
delineated in accordance with the
approved federal wetland delineation
manual, which would be achieved by
including the proposed critical areas
regulations.
14 Ecology adopted rules for
new commercial geoduck
aquaculture. (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
Review:
City has no saltwater shorelines.
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent.
15 The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating homes
permitted or legally
established prior to January
1, 2011. (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 8.
Review:
The SMP prohibits residential uses over
water and does not contain provisions for
such uses, including floating homes. The
term “floating home” is used in the SMP;
however, it is not defined.
10.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
7
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Residential Development
(p. 88)
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent.
16 The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for
instances in which a
shoreline restoration
project within an Urban
Growth Area creates a shift
in Ordinary High Water
Mark. (2009)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline
Modification Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
/ 6. Shoreline Restoration
and Ecological
Enhancement (p. 69)
Review:
The SMP does not address such relief
procedures.
Action:
Recommended: Reference the relief
procedures in Shoreline Restoration and
Ecological Enhancement section of the
SMP (though the relief process is still
available even if not included). Example
language from Ecology is available.
17 Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland
mitigation banks. (2009)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.660.F
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.660.G
Review:
Both current and proposed critical areas
regulations allow the use of mitigation
banks. The proposed critical areas
regulations make it clear that mitigation
banks must be certified.
Action:
Recommended: Continue to allow the use
of mitigation banks, which would be
achieved by including the proposed critical
areas regulations.
Nonconformance
18 Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for
nonconforming uses and
development. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / E.
Nonconforming Uses (p.
123)
Review:
The SMP adopts by reference the
nonconforming use and development
provisions in WAC 173-27-080, with one
exception.
Action:
Recommended: Review the revised WAC
173-27-080 to determine whether or how
to modify how nonconforming use and
development is regulated in the City.
(Note: City anticipates continuing to adopt
by reference the nonconforming use and
development provisions in WAC 173-27-
080, with one exception [existing timing
10.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
8
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
restrictions for exception anticipated to be
removed]).
19 SMPs may classify legally
established residential
structures and appurtenant
structures as conforming
even if they do not meet
dimensional or bulk
standards. Redevelopment,
expansion, and
replacement consistent
with the SMP would be
allowed (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 8.
Residential Development
(p. 88)
Review:
The SMP does not exercise this option.
Action:
Recommended: The City may wish to
review these provisions and consider
revising to more clearly classify existing
structures as conforming. This change is
optional. (Note: City does not anticipate
exercising this option.)
Administration
20 Ecology amended rules
clarifying permit filing
procedures consistent with
a 2011 statute. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / B. Substantial
Development / 2.
Substantial Development
Permit Process / f. Filing
with Department of
Ecology (p. 120)
Review:
The SMP does not describe the filing
process, but indicates that filing with
Ecology shall be done pursuant to WAC
173-27-130.
Action:
None necessary: SMP consistent with
statute.
21 Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that
allows for a shared
local/state public comment
period. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G.
Amendments to This
Shoreline Master Program
(p. 123)
Review:
The SMP does not include language
regarding the process for SMP
amendments.
Action:
Recommended: If the City anticipates using
the optional SMP amendment process, the
City should confirm that there are no local
impediments to using it; additionally,
language could be added to the SMP to
identify and explicitly allow the optional
process, though this is not required. (Note:
City anticipates using the optional
amendment process.)
22 Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the
scope and process for
conducting periodic
reviews. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G.
Amendments to This
Review:
The SMP does not include language
specific to conducting periodic review of
the SMP pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and
WAC 173-26-090.
10.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
9
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Shoreline Master Program
(p. 123)
Action:
None necessary: Description of the scope
and process for conducting periodic
reviews is not required in SMP.
23 Submittal to Ecology of
proposed SMP
amendments. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
SMP does not include a description of the
SMP amendment submittal process.
Action:
None necessary: Description of the SMP
amendment submittal process not
required.
24 The Legislature adopted a
90-day target for local
review of Washington State
Department of
Transportation projects.
(2015)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address this target.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending
Chapter 7 to define special procedures for
Washington State Department of
Transportation projects to help ensure the
SMP is implemented consistent with
statute. Example language from Ecology is
available.
25 The Legislature amended
the Shoreline Management
Act to clarify SMP appeal
procedures. (2012)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address SMP appeal
procedures (the SMP addresses appeals of
shoreline permit decisions, but not the
SMP itself).
Action:
None necessary: Description of SMP
appeal procedures not required in SMP.
26 The Legislature adopted
Growth Management Act –
Shoreline Management Act
clarifications. (2010)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 3 / B. Policies and
Regulations / 3. Critical
Areas (p. 28)
Review:
SMP does not clearly indicate that critical
areas in shorelines must be regulated to
assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
function. See Section 3 of this report for
further discussion.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the language in
relevant location identified at left to
10.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
10
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
indicate that regulation of shoreline critical
areas must assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological function.
27 The Legislature added
moratoria authority and
procedures to the Shoreline
Management Act. (2009)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address moratoria.
Action:
None necessary: Moratoria procedures not
required to be included in SMP. City may
rely on statute.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location (s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
2 Locations in italics indicate that the location does not actually address the specific content described in the
Summary of Change column; these locations are listed to indicate where generally related content is found.
3. Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations
The City’s current SMP incorporates by reference the City-wide critical areas regulations of
Ordinance No. 3805 (2006), with some exceptions. Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide
critical areas regulations have been amended by multiple ordinances, most recently in 2017 by
Ordinance No. 4249. These critical areas regulations are codified as KCC Chapter 11.06 Critical
Areas. Therefore, the City’s current SMP includes critical areas regulations that are out of date
and no longer consistent with the critical areas regulations that currently apply in non-shoreline
areas of the City.
Accordingly, the City anticipates referencing the current City-wide critical areas regulations in
the updated SMP. However, as with the 2006 critical areas regulations, these critical areas
regulations include some regulations that are inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act.
The inconsistent regulations need to be identified and resolved as part of the periodic SMP
update process.
Table 3-1 below summarizes issues to be resolved in order to properly reference the City’s
current critical areas regulations into the updated SMP. The table is organized by critical areas
regulations subject area.
10.a
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
11
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and associated
recommended SMP revisions.
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
Applicability
1 Non-applicable sections of
critical areas regulations
Current SMP:
• Chapter 3, General
Provisions, Section B.3,
Critical Areas
Review:
Chapter 3, Section B.3 currently references
the 2006 CAO ordinance (No. 3805). While
most of the exceptions to the critical areas
regulations currently listed in Section B.3
are still applicable, subsection B.3.2.e
could be modified since the reference to
Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek is
outdated.
Action:
Mandatory: Given the City’s intention to
reference the critical areas regulations, the
SMP will need to be updated to correctly
reference the most recently adopted
critical areas regulations. The exclusions
currently included in SMP Chapter 3,
subsection B.3.2 should be carried forward
although subsection B.3.2.e could be
modified as noted above.
2 Amendments to the Growth
Management Act and
Shoreline Management Act
clarified that critical areas in
shorelines must be
regulated to “assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological
function” as provided in
Ecology’s SMP Guidelines.
Current SMP:
• Chapter 3, General
Provisions, Section B.3,
Critical Areas
Review:
In the context of critical areas, the phrase
“no net loss” is not used in Chapter 3,
subsection B.3.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the language in
subsection B.3 to indicate that regulation
of shoreline critical areas must assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological function.
Wetlands
3 Ecology modified the
habitat ranges in their
wetland buffer tables.
Current critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.600, Wetland
buffers and building
setbacks
Review:
Ecology provided revised wetland buffer
guidance in July of 2018. The revised
guidance indicates that wetlands scoring 5
habitat points may use the same standard
buffer width as wetlands scoring 3-4
habitat points, and standard buffers for
wetlands scoring 6-7 habitat points may be
set at 110 feet rather than 165 feet.
10.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
12
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider revising the
existing wetland buffer provisions in KCC
11.06.600 of the critical areas regulations
for consistency with Ecology guidance
related to habitat scores and wetland
buffers. (Note: City anticipates revising
SMP wetland buffer provisions after the
next required update to its City-wide
critical areas regulations.)
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other
Development Regulations
Table 4-1 below summarizes recommended revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the KCC. The Kent Comprehensive Plan contains
a Shoreline Element (Chapter 10) which includes the goals and policies originally established in
the 2009 comprehensive SMP update.
The KCC (Chapter 11.04) adopts the SMP by reference and does not directly integrate the SMP
regulations into its code. Table 4-1 below summarizes changes that can improve the consistency
and administration of the SMP.
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP, KCC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to improve
consistency.
# Topic Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
1 Shoreline element • Comprehensive Plan
(2015)
Review:
Section 3, Critical Areas under General
Policies in the Shoreline Element includes
the original reference to Critical Areas
Regulations, Ordinance No 3805. This
reference should be updated to the most
recent set of critical areas regulations.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the adopting
ordinance number when the City adopts
the most recent critical areas regulations.
2 KCC cross references Current SMP:
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
Review:
SMP references to Ordinance No. 3805
(2006 Critical Areas Regulations) should be
updated to reflect the most recent
10.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
13
# Topic Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
ordinance. Such references are included in
the following locations.
• Definition of
o Buffer and buffer area
o Compensatory mitigation
o Critical Areas Regulations
o Wetland or wetlands
o Wetland category
o Wetland delineation
o Wetland rating system
Action:
Recommended: Search, verify, and correct
references to the KCC in the SMP.
3 Definitions Zoning Code:
• KCC 15.02 Definitions
SMP:
KCC Chapter 6 - Definitions
Review:
KCC 15.02 (zoning code) and SMP Chapter
6 form a complementary set of definitions
that comprehensively apply within
shoreline jurisdiction. This relationship is
not defined in either section.
Action:
Recommended: Consider introducing
Chapter 6 of the SMP with the following
text or similar: “Unless otherwise defined
in this chapter, the definitions provided in
KCC Chapter 15.02 shall apply. If there is a
conflict, the definitions in this section shall
govern.”
5 . Other I ssues to Consider
In addition to the issues discussed in the previous sections of this report, several other issues in
the current SMP could be addressed as part of the periodic update process to produce a more
effective SMP. These other issues are described in Table 5-1 below.
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP.
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
General
1 Definitions Current SMP:
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
Review:
The following definitions are not used in
the SMP and can be deleted:
• Average grade level
10.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
14
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
• Berm
• Littoral drift
• Nonpoint pollution
• Shoreline sub-unit (duplicative to
definition of “sub-unit”)
Action:
Recommended: Verify and remove
unnecessary terms.
Use and Development
2 Setbacks – can clarity be
included (i.e. diagram) to
help in the determination of
setbacks
Current SMP:
• Chapter 5 – Table 7
• Chapter 5 – Subsection
C.8.c.
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
(see Building Setback and
Setback)
Review:
Two definitions (setback and building
setback) help define what a setback is
intended for and how it is calculated.
There is an existing diagram in the
Residential section Chapter 5, subsection
C.8.c, but more clarity could be included in
relation to setbacks identified in Table 7.
Action:
Recommended: Assess utility of adding
additional diagram in association with
Table 7.
3 Vegetation Conservation –
specific to potential use
conflicts with regional trails
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.11.c.6
Review:
In the context of a recreational area (e.g.
trail or park facility), there may be few
native plant species that meet project
requirements in regards to future
maintenance, human safety, or shading.
Action:
Recommended: Provide clarity on when
native revegetation is required and when it
may be waived due to infeasibility or
incompatibility.
4 Setback for public
developments
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.1.c.7.b
Review:
Add recreation spaces and trails to the list
of public developments.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
10.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
15
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
5 Flood Hazard Reduction and
River Corridor Management
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.5.b.1
Review:
Add the Park and Open Space Plan and the
Kent Valley Loop Trail Master Plan to the
list of ordinances and activities.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
6 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.a
Review:
Add reference to future park
developments (e.g. Panther Lake
Community Park).
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
7 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.b
Review:
Consider adding language about the
aesthetics of development along the Green
River Corridor and ensuring that things like
flood walls will not detract from the
natural beauty of the corridor.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding emphasis
to Policy 7.b.6 to ensure that shoreline
modifications do not degrade aesthetic
conditions.
8 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.c.7
Review:
Include language to encourage public
access, where feasible and required, across
shoreline jurisdiction, potentially across
landward parcels.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding emphasis
to encourage such access.
9 Vegetation Conservation Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.11.c
Review:
Public safety issues. Ensure language exists
that allows for cleanup of camps as well as
vegetation removal (not tree removal) to
improve visibility into problem areas.
10.a
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
16
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider allowance for
selective vegetation removal for such
purposes under provision B.11.c.10.
10 Overwater Structures Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.3.c.37
Review:
Per Parks Department, it is difficult to
reconfigure docks due to permitting
hurdles. Consider adding flexibility to allow
reconfiguration.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding a new
provision which would allow
reconfiguration of conforming public docks
and piers. If the proposal is to reconfigure
a non-conforming structure, require
significant reduction of non-conformity
with the reconfigured structure.
11 Overwater Structures Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.3.c.38
Review:
Existing language would preclude a new
pier where one didn’t already exist.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending to
allow for new public piers based on
demand of the site rather than use of an
existing structure.
12 Dikes and Levees Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.7.c.5
Review:
Emphasis could be added to this
subsection to ensure consideration of
aesthetic impacts of levee project in
relation to public access.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending
regulation 5 of this subsection to include
emphasis on aesthetics.
13 Agriculture Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – subsection
C.2.b.2
Review:
Shade could be added as an additional goal
provided by vegetation between
agricultural lands and waterbodies. Many
such areas are on the south side of the
river where shade is most critical.
10.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Watershed Company
October 2018
17
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding “shade”
as a factor provided by vegetation.
14 Recreational Development Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – subsection
C.7.b.6.c
Review:
Consider adding the term such as
“significant” or “substantial” in relation to
structural shoreline stabilization or
vegetation removal.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
Mapping
15 Shoreline Environment
Designation (SED) Maps
Current SMP
• SED maps
Review:
Consider adjusting the following:
• Several privately owned parcels west of
Frager Road were mistakenly grouped in
with the golf course for the Urban
Conservancy-Open Space (UC-OS)
designation, but should've been Urban
Conservancy-Low Intensity (UC-LI).
• If any of the Marquee on Meeker
development is within 200 feet of the
river, consider re-designating from UC-OS
to Shoreline Residential. If, however, the
entire 200 feet is trail, no change needed.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending maps
as noted. Additionally, consider removing
the tables in Chapter 2 that describe the
locations of environment designations as
high-resolution mapping makes these
tables unnecessary.
16 Shoreline Environment
Designation (SED) Maps
Current SMP
• SED maps
Review:
Recent zoning changes should be reviewed
to ensure consistency with the SEDs.
Action:
Recommended: Consider reviewing maps
for consistency, but not necessarily
included in periodic update.
Other
10.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
18
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
17 Introduction Current SMP
• Chapter 1 – subsection C
Review:
Reference to “Chapter 2 Section B.1”
should really be to “Chapter 2 Section B”.
There is no subsection 1.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
18 Development Standards
table
Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – Table 7
Review:
Presentation of information in Table 7
could be clearer.
Action:
Recommended: Consider ways in which
Table 7 could be revised to better convey
information to the user.
19 Panther Lake Potential
Annexation Area (PAA)
Current SMP
• Various locations
Review:
Since the current SMP went into effect, the
Panther Lake PAA has been annexed by the
City, making references to it obsolete.
Action:
Recommended: Remove all references to
the Panther Lake PAA in the SMP.
20 Geographic application Current SMP
• Chapter 1 – subsection C
Review:
This subsection includes unclear language
regarding associated wetlands and the
100-year floodplain.
Action:
Recommended: Clarify language regarding
associated wetlands and the 100-year
floodplain.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
10.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Grant No. G00800311
Ordinance No. 3931
Kent Shoreline
Master Program
September 15, 2009 (with Draft 2019 Amendments)
Prepared by:
City of Kent
Planning Services
400 W Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032
1904 3rd Ave, Suite 725
Seattle, Washington 98101
750 6th Street South
Kirkland, WA 98033
This report was
funded in part
through a grant from
the Washington
Department of
Ecology.
10.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
This page intentionally left blank
10.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table of Contents Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the SMP .............................................................................. 1
A. History of the SMA ...................................................................................................... 1
B. Implementation of the SMA ........................................................................................ 2
C. Geographic Applications of the SMA .......................................................................... 4
1. Applicable Area .............................................................................................................. 5
D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used ............................................................... 7
1. When Is a Permit Required? ........................................................................................... 8
2. The Permit Process ........................................................................................................ 9
3. The Shoreline Permit ...................................................................................................... 9
4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other Plans ...................................... 10
Chapter 2: Environment Designation Provisions ...................................................... 11
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11
B. Shoreline Environment Designation Maps ................................................................ 11
C. Policies and Regulations .......................................................................................... 11
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment ........................................................................ 11
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 11
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 12
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 12
2. "High-Intensity" (H-I) Environment ................................................................................ 12
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 12
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 12
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 13
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 13
3. "Urban Conservancy–Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment .......................................... 15
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 15
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 15
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 15
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 16
4. "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment ............................................ 18
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 18
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 18
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 18
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 20
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment .................................................................... 22
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 22
b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 22
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 22
d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 23
10.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page ii Kent Shoreline Master Program
6. "Aquatic" Environment ................................................................................................... 24
a. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 24
b. Designation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 24
c. Management Policies .............................................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3: General Provisions ................................................................................... 25
A. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 25
B. Policies and Regulations .......................................................................................... 25
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations ............................................................ 25
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 25
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 25
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 26
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources ......................................................................... 28
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 29
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 29
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 29
3. Critical Areas ................................................................................................................. 30
4. Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................. 31
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 31
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 31
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 31
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management ............................................ 32
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 32
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 33
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 34
6. Parking .......................................................................................................................... 36
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 36
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 36
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 36
7. Public Access ................................................................................................................ 37
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 37
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 38
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 39
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance Regulations ....................................................... 40
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 40
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 41
9. Signage ......................................................................................................................... 42
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 42
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 42
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 42
10. Utilities (Accessory) ....................................................................................................... 44
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 44
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 44
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 44
11. Vegetation Conservation ............................................................................................... 45
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 45
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 45
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 45
12. Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................... 49
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 49
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 49
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 50
10.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table of Contents Page iii
Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions........................................................... 51
A. Introduction and Applicability .................................................................................... 51
B. Shoreline Modification Matrix.................................................................................... 51
C. Policies and Regulations .......................................................................................... 53
1. General Policies and Regulations ................................................................................. 53
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 53
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 53
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 53
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads) ............................................................... 54
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 54
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 55
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 56
3. Over-Water Structures - Including Pier and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and Boating
Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 60
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 60
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 60
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 61
4. Fill ................................................................................................................................. 68
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 68
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 68
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 68
5. Dredging and Disposal ................................................................................................. 69
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 69
b. Exemptions ............................................................................................................................. 69
c. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 69
d. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 69
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement ..................................................... 71
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 71
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 72
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 72
7. Dikes and Levees ......................................................................................................... 72
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 72
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 73
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 73
Chapter 5: Shoreline Use Provisions ......................................................................... 75
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 75
B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices .............................................. 75
C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations ................................................................... 79
1. General Policies and Regulations ................................................................................. 79
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 79
b. Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 79
c. Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 79
2. Agriculture .................................................................................................................... 80
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 80
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 80
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 81
3. Boating Facilities .......................................................................................................... 82
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 82
10.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page iv Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 82
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 82
4. Commercial Development ............................................................................................. 84
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 84
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 84
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 85
5. Industry ......................................................................................................................... 86
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 86
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 87
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 87
6. In-Stream Structures ..................................................................................................... 88
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 88
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 88
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 88
7. Recreational Development ............................................................................................ 89
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 89
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 89
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 90
8. Residential Development .............................................................................................. 91
a. Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 91
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................... 91
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 92
9. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 100
a. Applicability ........................................................................................................................... 100
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................. 100
c. Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 100
10. Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 102
a. Applicability ........................................................................................................................... 102
b. Policies .................................................................................................................................. 103
c. Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 6: Definitions ............................................................................................... 106
Chapter 7: Administrative Provisions ...................................................................... 120
A. Purpose and Applicability ....................................................................................... 120
B. Substantial Development ....................................................................................... 121
1. Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit ................................................... 121
2 Substantial Development Permit Process .................................................................... 121
3. Appeals ....................................................................................................................... 122
C. Conditional Use Permits ......................................................................................... 123
1. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits .............................................................................. 123
2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria ................................................................... 123
D. Variances ............................................................................................................... 123
1. Shoreline Variances .................................................................................................... 123
2. Shoreline Variance Criteria.......................................................................................... 124
3. Revisions to Permits .................................................................................................... 124
E. Nonconforming Uses .............................................................................................. 125
10.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table of Contents Page v
F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and Changing Conditions in
Shoreline Areas ...................................................................................................... 125
G. Amendments to This Shoreline Master Program .................................................... 125
H. Severability ............................................................................................................. 126
I. Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 126
1. Violations ...................................................................................................................... 126
2. Duty to Enforce ........................................................................................................... 126
3. Investigation and Notice of Violation ........................................................................... 127
Chapter 8: Shoreline Restoration Plan .................................................................... 129
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 129
B. Shoreline Inventory Summary ................................................................................ 130
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 130
2. Shoreline Boundary .................................................................................................... 130
3. Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 131
a. Land Use and Physical Conditions ....................................................................................... 131
b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas ............................................................................... 134
C. Restoration Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 134
1. System-wide restoration objectives ............................................................................. 136
2. Green River restoration objectives .............................................................................. 136
3. Lakeshore restoration objectives ................................................................................ 137
D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs .............................................. 137
1. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation .............................................. 137
2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project....................................................... 143
3. King County Flood Control District .............................................................................. 144
4. Comprehensive Plan Policies ..................................................................................... 144
5. Critical Areas Regulations ........................................................................................... 146
6. Stormwater Management and Planning ...................................................................... 147
7. Public Education ......................................................................................................... 148
8. Kent Parks Foundation ............................................................................................... 149
9. Other Kent Parks Programs ........................................................................................ 149
a. Adopt-A-Park ......................................................................................................................... 150
b. Releaf .................................................................................................................................... 150
c. Eagle Scouts ......................................................................................................................... 150
d. Make A Difference Day ......................................................................................................... 150
e. Youth Tree Education Program ............................................................................................ 150
f. Best Management Practices ................................................................................................. 151
10. Public Works Engineering Programs .......................................................................... 151
11. Adopt-A-Stream Foundation ....................................................................................... 151
12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects ............................................................................... 152
a. Springbrook Creek ................................................................................................................ 152
b. GRNRA ................................................................................................................................. 152
c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project ........................................................................... 152
d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction ................................................................................. 153
10.a
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page vi Kent Shoreline Master Program
13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities ............................................. 154
E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to Achieve Local Restoration Goals ....... 155
1. Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects ............................................................................. 155
2. Other Recommended Projects .................................................................................... 155
a. Green River ........................................................................................................................... 156
b. Big Soos Creek ..................................................................................................................... 159
c. Lake Meridian ........................................................................................................................ 159
d. Lake Fenwick ........................................................................................................................ 160
e. GRNRA ................................................................................................................................. 160
f. Springbrook Creek ................................................................................................................ 160
g. Jenkins Creek ....................................................................................................................... 160
h. Panther Lake ......................................................................................................................... 160
3. Public Education/Outreach .......................................................................................... 161
4. Other Environmental Organizations ............................................................................. 161
F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods .................................. 162
G. Restoration Priorities .............................................................................................. 164
1. Priority 1 – Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection .................................... 165
2. Priority 2 – Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation.............. 166
3. Priority 3 –Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery ......... 166
4. Priority 4 – Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries ................................. 167
5. Priority 5 – Public Education and Involvement ............................................................. 167
6. Priority 6 – Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or
Enhancement Purposes .............................................................................................. 167
7. Priority 7 – Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage ..................... 168
8. Priority 8 – Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline
and Streambank Conditions ........................................................................................ 168
9. Priority 9 – Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures ...................................... 168
10. Priority 10 – Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes .............................................. 169
11. Priority 11 – City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies ....................................... 169
H. References ............................................................................................................. 171
Appendix A: Shoreline Environment Designation Maps
Appendix B: Council Resolution No. 1714 Ratifying the WRIA Salmon
Habitat Plan
Appendix C: Restoration Plan Map
Commented [BD1]: Maps will be updated to remove segments
and segment labels due to removal of shoreline environment
designation tables.
10.a
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table of Contents Page vii
List of Tables
Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions .................................... 141313
Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation Descriptions ...... 161415
Table 3. Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions .. 201619
Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions ........................ 231822
Table 5. Shoreline Modification Matrix ......................................................................... 524550
Table 6. Shoreline Use Matrix ..................................................................................... 746772
Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix ...................................................... 777075
Table 8. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes ............................ 918488
Table 9. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers
or Streams ..................................................................................................... 979094
Table 10. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementation in Kent ............................................................................. 137130134
Table 11. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent ............................................................................. 139132136
Table 12. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project projects, associated with
Shorelines, in the City of Kent not part of the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making
Our Watershed Fit for a King. ................................................................... 142135139
Table 13. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent ............................................................................. 153145149
Table 14. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs
and Plans. ................................................................................................. 161153157
Table 1. Shoreline Modification Matrix ................................................................................. 52
Table 2. Shoreline Use Matrix ............................................................................................. 75
Table 3. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix .............................................................. 78
Table 4. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes .................................... 92
Table 5. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers
or Streams ............................................................................................................. 98
Table 6. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementation in Kent ........................................................................................ 138
Table 7. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent ........................................................................................ 140
Table 8. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project projects, associated with
Shorelines, in the City of Kent not part of the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making
Our Watershed Fit for a King. .............................................................................. 143
Table 9. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent ........................................................................................ 154
Table 10. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs
and Plans. ............................................................................................................ 162
10.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page viii Kent Shoreline Master Program
10.a
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the SMP
A. History of the SMA
In 1969, the Washington State Supreme Court decided in the case of Wilbur v. Gallagher
(77 Wn.2d 302), commonly known as the "Lake Chelan Case," that certain activities along
shorelines were contrary to the public interest. The court findings required that the public
interest be represented in the proper forum for determining the use of shoreline properties.
The ramifications of this decision were significant in that developers, environmentalists,
and other interested parties began to recognize—although probably for different reasons—
the need for a comprehensive planning and regulatory program for shorelines.
Wilbur v. Gallagher was a case primarily involving property rights. It was decided at a
time of heightened environmental awareness. At the same time, Congress was considering
environmental legislation and subsequently passed a number of laws relating to protection
of the environment including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) and the
Coastal Zone Management Act (1972). "Earth Day" and the concept of "spaceship earth"
were part of the American scene. "Conservationists" had become "environmentalists" and
some had even gone so far as to call themselves "ecologists." Whatever the name or
concept, concern for fragile ecological areas became important, along with the rights
associated with property ownership.
Voters of the state, seeing the failure of the Seacoast Management Bill in the state
legislature, validated an initiative petition commonly titled the "Shoreline Protection Act."
The state legislature, choosing between adoption of the people’s initiative petition or its
own alternative, passed into law the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971" (SMA)
effective June 1, 1971, which contained the provision for both statutes to be deferred to the
electorate in the November 1972 election. The election issue required that voters respond
to two questions: (1) Did they favor shoreline management? and (2) Which alternative
management program did they prefer? Most Washington voters favored both shoreline
management and the legislature's alternative (providing greater local control), by an
approximately 2-to-1 margin. It is important to keep in mind that the SMA was a response
to a people’s initiative and was ratified by the voters, giving the SMA a populist
foundation as well as an environmental justification.
The SMA's paramount objectives are to protect and restore the valuable natural resources
that shorelines represent and to plan for and foster all "reasonable and appropriate uses"
that are dependent upon a waterfront location or that offer opportunities for the public to
enjoy the state's shorelines. With this clear mandate, the SMA established a planning and
regulatory program to be initiated at the local level under State guidance.
This cooperative effort balances local and state-wide interests in the management and
development of shoreline areas by requiring local governments to plan (via shoreline
10.a
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 2 Kent Shoreline Master Program
master programs) and regulate (via permits) shoreline development within SMA
jurisdiction. (See “Geographic Applications of the SMA” below.) Local government
actions are monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), which
approves new or amended shoreline master programs (SMPs), reviews substantial
development permits, and approves Conditional Use permits and variances.
After the SMA’s passage in 1971, Ecology adopted Chapter 173-18 WAC to serve as a
standard for the implementation of the SMA and to provide direction to local governments
and Ecology in preparing SMPs. Two hundred forty-seven cities and counties have
prepared SMPs based on that WAC chapter. Over the years, local governments, with the
help of Ecology, developed a set of practices and methodologies, the best of which were
collected and described in the 1994 Shoreline Management Guidebook.
In 1995, the state legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724, which included
several RCW amendments to better integrate the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The bill also
directed Ecology to review and update the state SMA guidelines every five years. In
response, Ecology undertook a primarily in-house process to prepare a new WAC chapter
(also referred to in this SMP as the “Guidelines”). After meeting with a series of advisory
committees and producing a number of informal drafts, Ecology formally proposed a new
WAC rule for the SMA in April 1999. Subsequently, in 2003, the Legislature further
clarified the integration of the SMA and GMA.
The rule was appealed and then-Governor Gary Locke and former Attorney General
Christine Gregoire cosponsored a year-long mediation effort in 2002 that culminated in a
third draft, which was issued for public comment in July 2002. That proposal had the
endorsement of the Association of Washington Business, the Washington Aggregates &
Concrete Association, the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) and other
environmental organizations – all of whom were parties to the lawsuit.
Ecology received about 300 comments on the version proposed in 2003. Seventeen
changes were made in response to those comments, to clarify language and to delete
obsolete or duplicative references. The final version was adopted December 17, 2003.
The City’s Shoreline Master Program was most recently amended in 2004, although major
substantive amendments have not occurred since 1999comprehensively amended in 2008.
Areas of the shoreline were designated as Urban-River Resources (applied to the Green
River), Urban-Stream Corridor (applied to Soos Creek), and Urban-Lake Residential
(applied to Lake Meridian).”Natural Wetlands (N-W)”, “High-Intensity (H-I)”, “Urban
Conservancy – Open Space (UC-OS)”, “Shoreline Residential (SR)”, and “Aquatic”.
B. Implementation of the SMA
RCW 90.58.020 clearly states how the Shoreline Management Act shall be implemented in
the following statement:
10.a
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 3
“The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and
fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating
to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever
increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating
increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state.
The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands
adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately
owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and
therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest
associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and
protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefore, a
clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by
federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and
piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to
insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited
reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the
public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public
health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic
life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental
thereto.
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the
management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting
guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing
master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in
the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate
or necessary.
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent
feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To
this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and
prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use
10.a
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 4 Kent Shoreline Master Program
of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in
those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family
residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but
not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to
shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly
dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development
that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the
shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands
of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state
shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when
circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through
man-made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural
condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state no longer meeting the definition of
"shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water.”
C. Geographic Applications of the SMA
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of
the state plus their associated “shorelands.” At a minimum, the waterbodies designated as
shorelines of the state are streams whose mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second
(cfs) or greater and lakes whose area is greater than 20 acres. Shorelands are defined as:
“those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as
measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark;
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such
floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams,
lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this
chapter…Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-
hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its SMP as long as such
portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land
extending landward two hundred feet therefrom… Any city or county
may also include in its SMP land necessary for buffers for critical areas
(RCW 90.58.030)”
In addition, rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines of
statewide significance.
The lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined for specific cases based
on the location of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), floodway, and presence of
associated wetlands.
The City’s shoreline boundaries have been updated (subject to City Council and Ecology
approval) concurrent with this assessment. Several changes have been made to the maps Commented [MD2]: Obsolete.
10.a
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 5
based on new information regarding associated wetlands and waterbody size (area and
flow). Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA) pond,
Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn floodway are new additions
to shoreline jurisdiction. During the review of aerial photographs, GIS mapping, and a
field visit, it was determined that Lake Fenwick is larger than 20 acres (just over 23). GIS
mapping also shows that the combined area of the two primary GRNRA cells is slightly
more than 50 acres. As part of the shoreline jurisdiction assessment, Springbrook Creek,
Big Soos Creek and Jenkins Creek were reviewed. Recent USGS mapping of the 20 cfs
cut-off points and USGS field notes identified small areas of Springbrook and Jenkins
Creeks that meet shoreline criteria. The extent of Big Soos Creek shoreline jurisdiction
did not change appreciably. While Mill Creek in Auburn does not reach 20 cfs, it is located
within the Green River’s floodway and is therefore located within shoreline jurisdiction.
The approximate shoreline jurisdiction in Kent is identified in Figure 1. Not all Wwetlands
are not shown on this map, however. Chapter 2 Section CB.1 generally designates
associated wetlands, including and those within the 100-year floodplain, as the Natural-
Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps identifies all wetlands
in the City and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the
Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
1. Applicable Area
The City of Kent is located in south King County. The City is surrounded by seven
incorporated cities (Des Moines, Auburn, SeaTac, Tukwila, Federal Way, Renton and
Covington), with pockets of unincorporated King County to the northeast, east and
south. Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 167 pass through the City from north to
south at the western and central portions of the City.
The applicable area for this shoreline master program includes all land currently
within the City’s proposed shoreline jurisdiction, as well as minimal treatment of
shorelines in the PAA currently regulated under King County’s SMP.
The City’s shoreline jurisdiction currently includes all or portions of the following
waters:
Green River
Green River Natural Resources Area
Lake Fenwick
Lake Meridian
Panther Lake
Big Soos Creek
Jenkins Creek
Springbrook Creek
Commented [MD3]: Section 5 comment #17 indicated this
should be “Chapter 2 Subsection B,” however I believe this should
be as now indicated.
Commented [MD4]: Section 2 comment #9
10.a
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 6 Kent Shoreline Master Program
The City’s PAAlatter includes the south half of Lake Fenwick, all of Panther Lake,
and portions of the Green River at the south end of the City. The PAA shoreline area,
although minimally discussed in this report, will continue to be regulated by King
County’s recently updated SMP until they are annexed by the City of Kent.
Commented [AC5]: Section 5 comment #19
10.a
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 7
Figure 1. Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction in the City of Kent.
D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used
The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program is a planning document that outlines goals and
policies for the shorelines of the City, and also establishes regulations for development
occurring within shoreline jurisdiction.
In order to preserve and enhance the shorelines of the City of Kent, it is important that all
development proposals relating to the shoreline are evaluated in terms of the City’s
Shoreline Master Program, and the City Shoreline Administrator is consulted. The
Shoreline Administrator for the City of Kent is the Planning Director or his/her designee.
Commented [MD6]: Figure should be replaced to reflect
updated boundaries.
10.a
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 8 Kent Shoreline Master Program
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) defines for local jurisdictions the content and
goals that should be represented in the Shoreline Master Programs developed by each
community; within these guidelines, it is left to each community to develop the specific
regulations appropriate to that community. Pursuant to the Guidelines, shorelines of the
state that meet the criteria established in WAC 173-26-211 are given a shoreline
environment designation. The purpose of the shoreline designation system is to ensure
that land use, development, or other activity occurring within the designated shoreline
jurisdiction is appropriate for that area and that consideration is given to the special
requirements of that environment.
The Kent Shoreline Master Program addresses a broad range of uses that could be
proposed in the shoreline area. This breadth is intended to ensure that the Kent shoreline
area is protected from activities and uses that, if unmonitored, could be developed
inappropriately and could cause damage to the ecological system of the shoreline, displace
“preferred uses” as identified in Chapter 90.58 RCW, or cause the degradation of shoreline
aesthetic values. The Kent Shoreline Master Program provides the regulatory parameters
within which development may occur. In addition, it identifies those uses deemed
unacceptable within Kent shoreline jurisdiction, as well as those uses which may be
considered through a discretionary permit such as a Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline
Variance.
1. When Is a Permit Required?
A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) is required when a development
or activity meets the definition of “substantial development” contained within
Chapter 6 of this SMP. Substantial development is discussed in more detail in Section
7.B of this SMP. A development or activity is exempt if it meets the criteria listed in
WAC 173-27-040. Some development may require a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit, if listed as such in the Use Tables contained in Section 5.B of this SMP; or a
Shoreline Variance. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and Shoreline Variances are
discussed in more detail in Sections 7 C and D, respectively. However, ALL new
development, uses, and activities must comply with the policies and regulations set
forth in the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program, including those developments,
uses, and activities that are exempt from permits. Review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) may also be required.
“Development,” is defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as in WAC
173-27-030(6):. “Development” does not include dismantling or removing structures
if there is no other associated development or re-development. (WAC 173-27-
030(6))
A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures;
dredging, drilling; dumping; filling; removal or any sand, gravel, or minerals;
bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a
permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of
the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter 90.58 RCW at any
stagte of water level (RCW 90.58.030(3d)). “Development” does not include
Commented [MD7]: Section 2 comment #2
Commented [BD8]: Revised per Erin George’s comments
3/28/2019
10.a
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 9
dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development
or re-development. (WAC 173-27-030(6))
This definition indicates that the “development” regulated by the Shoreline
Management Act includes not only those activities that most people recognize as
“development,” but also those activities that citizens may do around their own home.
While the impact of these potential “developments” may seem inconsequential at
first, they may have unwanted and damaging affects on the river ecology, the
property of others, and the shoreline aesthetics.
Projects that are identified as “developments,” but not “substantial developments,” do
not require a shoreline Substantial Development Permit; however, they must still
comply with all applicable regulations in the City’s Shoreline Master Program,
including Critical Areas Regulations. In addition, some developments may require a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance from the Shoreline Master
Program’s provisions, although they do not meet the definition of “substantial
development.”
“Substantial development” is any development which meets the criteria of RCW
90.58.030(3)(e). “development” where the total cost or fair market value exceeds five
thousand dollars ($5,000), or any development that materially interferes with the
normal public use of the water or shoreline of the state. The five thousand dollar
($5,000) threshold will be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial
management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the
consumer price index during that time period. Under the Shoreline Management Act,
some types of development are exempt from the requirement to apply for and receive
a permit before beginning work per RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). This may include
development for which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed a
periodically adjusted dollar threshold (WAC 173-27-040(2)(a)). City staff can assist
you with determining the most recent dollar threshold..A complete list of
developments and uses that are not considered “substantial development” is found in
Chapter 8: Definitions under “substantial development.”
2. The Permit Process
The City’s Shoreline Administrator can help determine if a project is classified as a
substantial development, determine if a permit is necessary or if a project is exempt
from permit requirements, and identify which regulations in the SMP may apply to
the proposed project. The Administrator can also provide information on the permit
application process and how the SMP process relates to, and can coordinate with, the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process.
3. The Shoreline Permit
There are three types of permits: the Substantial Development Permit, the Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, and the Shoreline Variance. All of these permits use the
same application form; however, they are processed slightly differently and have
Commented [MD9]: Section 2 comment #2
Commented [MD10]: Section 2 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 10 Kent Shoreline Master Program
different criteria for approval. Shoreline Exemptions require City review to
determine whether the proposal is indeed exempt from shoreline permits, and whether
the proposal meets the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program.
Requests for Shoreline Exemption are made on a separate application form.
Requests for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are reviewed by the
Shoreline Administrator. Requests for a Shoreline Variance or Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit require review by the City of Kent Hearing Examiner (per Section
12.01.040 KCC, as amended). There may be instances where a Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit or Shoreline Variance may be approved without the need for a Substantial
Development Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on the
proposal and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Hearing
Examiner’s decision is final, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to the procedures
described in Section 7.B.3. Requests for Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and
Shoreline Variances require final approval by DOE.
A map of the shoreline jurisdiction is presented in Appendix A and descriptions of the
various shoreline designations are presented in Chapter 2 of this SMP.
4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other
Plans
In addition to compliance with the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act of
1971, the Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) must be mutually consistent with
local plans and policy documents, specifically, the Kent Comprehensive Plan and the
City’s Critical Areas Regulations (Section 11.06 KCC). The Kent SMP must also be
mutually consistent with the regulations developed by the City to implement its plans,
such as the zoning code and subdivision code, as well as building construction and
safety requirements.
Submitting an application for a shoreline development, use, or activity does not
exempt an applicant from complying with any other local, county, state, regional, or
federal statutes or regulations, which may also be applicable to such development or
use.
10.a
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 11
CHAPTER 2
Environment Designation Provisions
A. Introduction
The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and Shoreline Guidelines (Chapter
173-26 WAC) provide for shoreline environment designations to serve as a tool for
applying and tailoring the general policies of the SMA to local shorelines. Shoreline
environment designations provide a means of adapting broad policies to shoreline sub-
units while recognizing different conditions and valuable shoreline resources, and a way to
integrate comprehensive planning into SMP regulations. In accordance with WAC 173-
26-211, the following shoreline environment designation provisions apply; including
purpose, designation criteria, and management policies. Where there is a contradiction
between the matrices and another SMP text provision, the text provision shall apply.
All areas not specifically assigned a shoreline environment designation shall be designated
“Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity” (UC-LI).
B. Shoreline Environment Designation Maps
The Shoreline Environment Designation Maps can be found in Appendix A. Pursuant to
RCW 90.58.040, the maps illustrate the shoreline environment designations that apply to
all shorelines of the state within the City of Kent’s jurisdiction. The lateral extent of the
shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined for specific cases based on the location of the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), floodway, and presence of associated wetlands. The
maps should be used in conjunction with the Environment Designation tables in Section C
below. In the event of a mapping error, the City will rely upon the boundary descriptions
and the criteria in Section C below.
C. Policies and Regulations
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Natural-Wetlands" environment is to protect and restore all
wetlands associated with shoreline areas by applying the City of Kent Critical
Areas Regulations. These systems require development restrictions to maintain
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
Commented [MD11]: Section 5 comment #15
10.a
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 12 Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. Designation Criteria
A "Natural-Wetlands" environment designation will be assigned to all wetlands in
shoreline jurisdiction except for those wetlands within the Green River Natural
Resources Area, which are designated “Urban Conservancy-Open Space.”
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural
character of the designated wetland area should be prohibited.
2. New land division, development or shoreline modification that would reduce
the capability of the wetlands to perform normal ecological functions should
not be allowed.
3. Uses that are consumptive of physical, visual, and biological resources should
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
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "High-Intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity
water-oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting
existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have
been previously degraded. Because the Green River shoreline has been diked and
offers few, if any, opportunities for water-dependent uses, a “High-Intensity”
designation is also used for appropriate lands that are either separated from the
shoreline or are not suitable for water-oriented use.
b. Designation Criteria
A "High-Intensity" environment designation will be assigned to shorelands
designated for commercial or industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan if they
currently support or are suitable and planned for high-intensity commercial,
10.a
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 13
industrial, or institutional uses that either include, or do not detract from the
potential for water oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or public access.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. In regulating uses in the "High-Intensity" environment, first priority should be
given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Given the fact that commercial
navigation on the Green River is limited by the channel configuration,
nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed on shorelands separated from the
shoreline by other properties, such as the Green River Trail corridor, and
where public access improvements and/or shoreline restoration is included as
part of the development. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be permitted
where water-dependent uses, public access, and shoreline restoration is
infeasible, as determined by the City’s Shoreline Administrator.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or
public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that
which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the
“High-Intensity” environment.
2. Developments in the “High-Intensity” environment should be managed so that
they enhance and maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban uses, with
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.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 1.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a
“High Intensity” environment. See attached Shoreline Environment Designation
Maps (Appendix A).
Commented [MD12]: Section 5 comment #15
10.a
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 14 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions
Environment Designation Sub-Unit Begins
(parcel No.) Ends
(parcel No.)
High Intensity with an Urban
Conservancy – Open Space
parallel environment for the trail
corridor, including the new
section of trail between S 266th St
and S 259th St.
GR B-1. Industrial area
north of the river from
commercial lot east of
Central Ave, generally
west and north to Foster
Park
Eastern edge
of 3462800260
Western edge
of 0006600017
(or City
boundary)
High Intensity GR B-2. Industrial area
south of the river just
east of the Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
Eastern edge
of 0004400005
(or City
boundary)
Western edge
of 0200000110
(or edge of SR
167)
High Intensity with an Urban
Conservancy – Open Space
parallel environment for the trail
corridor
GR B-3. Industrial area
north of the river just
east of the Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
located between Foster
Park and Riverview
Park
Eastern edge
of 2611000200
Western edge
of 2611000190
(or SR 167)
High Intensity with a parallel
environment Urban Conservancy
– Open Space for the trail
corridor.
GR B-4. Small mixed
use area north of the
river between the Valley
Freeway (SR 167) and
SR 181.
Eastern edge
2422049114
and
5436200843
Western
boundary of
SR 181
Southern edge
of 2422049178
High Intensity with a parallel
environment of Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the Green River Trail corridor.
GR B-5. Industrial area
located along Russell
Rd. north of S. 228th St
and south of the
GRNRA
Southern edge
of 0006200023
(S 228 St)
Southern edge
of 0006200018
High Intensity with a parallel
environment of Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the Green River Trail corridor.
GR B-5. Small industrial
area located along
Russell Rd. adjacent to
the GRNRA.
Southern edge
of 0006200017
Northern edge
of 1022049016
High Intensity with a parallel
environment of Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the Green River Trail corridor.
GR B-6. Industrial area
along east side of the
river north of S 200th St.
Southern edge
of 7888800210
(Russell Rd S,
S 200 St)
Western edge
of 7888800090
High Intensity GR B-7. Industrial and
commercial area east of
SR 181 and south of
SW 43rd St
Southern edge
of 6407600130
Northern edge
of 0000200017
(SW 43 St)
High Intensity GR PAA-B-1.
Shorelands in the
potential annexation
area (PAA) generally
south of the river and
west of the Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
Southern edge
of 0004400031
Western edge
of 2522046666
10.a
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 15
Environment Designation Sub-Unit Begins
(parcel No.) Ends
(parcel No.)
High Intensity Springbrook Creek –
this area has a parallel
designation of UC-OS
for the Springbrook
Creek Greenbelt.
3623049018 1253710010
3. "Urban Conservancy–Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy-Open Space" environment is to protect
and “restore”, as defined in this SMP, ecological functions in urban and
developed settings, while allowing public access and a variety of park and
recreation uses.
b. Designation Criteria
An "Urban Conservancy-Open Space" environment designation will be assigned
to shorelands that are within public and private parks and natural resource areas,
including golf courses, the Green River Natural Resource Area, the Green River
Trail and park lands on Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, and Springbrook Creek.
Lands planned for park uses or resource conservation areas with no other
commercial or residential land uses should also be designated “Urban
Conservancy-Open Space.”
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented recreational uses should be given priority over nonwater-
oriented uses. Water-dependent recreational uses should be given highest
priority.
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 16 Kent Shoreline Master Program
4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures,
vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the
"Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new
development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an
overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat.
5. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented
whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 2.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as an
“Urban Conservancy – Open Space” environment. See also the attached maps.
Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation
Descriptions
Environment Designation Sub-Unit
Begins
(parcel No.)
Ends
(parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space.
The Green River Trail
receives a parallel
designation for much of
the Green River
NA NA
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space.
GR A-2. Foster Park is
on the north side of the
river generally west of
the railroad line and
east of the Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
2611000200
(includes trail
portion of
2611000190)
2611000200
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-5. The Riverbend
Golf Complex
Western edge
of 2322049011
(includes
portions of
2322046666)
Northeastern
edge of
2322049027
Urban Conservancy –Open
Space
GR A-6. Golf course
and open space on the
south and west side of
the river from the city
limits south of W.
Meeker St. to the
industrial area north of
the golf complex
City limits
(located in
2322049029)
Southern
boundary of
2222049176
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR B5. Part of this
sub-unit is the
horticultural center and
nursery for the GRNRA
so is designated UC-
Open Space.
Southern edge
of 0006200018
Southern edge
of 0006200017
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-8. Green River
Natural Resource Area
Southern edge
of 1022049196
Southern edge
of 1122049065
Commented [MD13]: Section 5 comment #15
10.a
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 17
Environment Designation Sub-Unit
Begins
(parcel No.)
Ends
(parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-9. Valley Floor
Community Park
Northern edge
of S 212 St
(southern
edge of
1122049008)
Northern edge
of 1122049008
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-10. Green River
Trail north of S 212th St
and south of Russell
Road
Northern edge
of S 212 St
(southern
edge of
6600210330
Southern edge
of Russell Rd
S
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-11. Future North
Green River Park on
the east shoreline just
south of the City limits.
Includes
0000200044
Includes
0000200044
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
GR A-3. Riverview Park
is on the north and east
side of the river just
west of the Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
2522049001
Includes
2522046666
Southern
boundary of
2422049178
All areas located in the North
Green River Park are Urban
Conservancy – Open Space. All
areas that are designated US
are Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
GR PAA-A-1. Area
within the PAA and City
Limits north and east of
the river at the eastern
most area of the Green
River shorelands within
the City and PAA
On west side
of river:
3022059054
On west side
of river:
North of S 277
St (south edge
of
3122056666)
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Lake Meridian - Unit A
– Open Space -Lake
Meridian Park
Western edge
of parcel
number
6648500840
Northern edge
of parcel
number
2622059044
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Lake Fenwick – Unit A
– Open Space
Eastern edge
of parcel
number
2722049057
Southern edge
of parcel
number
2722049042
(City
boundary) and
Includes:
Parcel number
2622049045
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Green River Natural
Resource Area
Includes those
areas of the
following
parcels in
shoreline
jurisdiction:
1122049005,
1122049083,
1122049015,
1122049017,
1122049025,
Includes those
areas of the
following
parcels in
shoreline
jurisdiction:
1122049064,
0006200001,
0006200018,
1122049026
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Jenkins Creek 3622059152 3622059152
10.a
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 18 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designation Sub-Unit
Begins
(parcel No.)
Ends
(parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Springbrook Creek
Greenbelt
Western edge
of parcel
number
1253710060
The northwest
corner of
parcel number
1253720016
Urban Conservancy – Open
Space
Lands acquired by the
City of Kent for parks
and recreation uses
after the adoption of the
SMP.
To be
determined
To be
determined
4. "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment is to protect
and restore ecological functions in low intensity settings, while allowing a variety
of low impact uses, such as nurseries, low intensity residential and agriculture
support uses.
b. Designation Criteria
An "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment designation will be
assigned to shorelands appropriate and planned for development that are not
generally suitable for water-dependent uses and that lie in lands designated as
“Urban Separator,” “Agricultural Resource,” and “Agricultural Support” in the
Comprehensive Plan, with any of the following characteristics:
1. They are suitable for low impact uses;
2. They are flood plains or other areas that should not be more intensively
developed;
3. They have potential for ecological restoration;
4. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed;
or
5. They are designated for low impact development.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For
shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water-dependent
uses should be given highest priority.
2. Uses in the "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" environment should be
limited to those which are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of
the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses that do not
substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of
10.a
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 19
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).
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 20 Kent Shoreline Master Program
11. Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a
maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area, unless an alternative
standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the
provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions.
12. New shoreline stabilization, flood control measures, vegetation removal, and
other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that
the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time. Shoreline
ecological restoration should be required of new nonwater-dependent
development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological functions have
been degraded.
13. Activities or uses that would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover, cause
substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely affect wildlife or aquatic
life should be prohibited.
14. Preservation of ecological functions should be balanced with public access
and recreation objectives and should have priority over development
objectives whenever a conflict exists.
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 3.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as an
“Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity” environment. See also the attached
shoreline designation maps (Appendix A).
Table 3. Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity Environment Designation
Descriptions
Environment Designation Sub-Unit
Begins
(parcel No.)
Ends
(parcel No.)
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
GR A-1. Open space
area on the east side of
the river to the north
and south of South
277th Street bounded by
the City limits
3122059021 3122059008
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity. A portion of this
area is a designated wetland
and is therefore protected
under the Critical Area
Ordinance.
GR A-4. Undeveloped
area on south river
bank with tributary west
of Valley Fwy (SR 167)
Eastern
boundary of
2522049023
(includes portion
of 2522046666)
Northern
boundary of
2522049019
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
GR A-7. Open space on
the west side of the
river from Cottonwood
Grove Park to the
residential area
approximately 2,400’
north of S 228th Street
Eastern edge of
0002000021
Northern edge
of 1022049210
Commented [MD14]: Section 5 comment #15
10.a
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 21
Environment Designation Sub-Unit
Begins
(parcel No.)
Ends
(parcel No.)
All areas located in the North
Green River Park are Urban
Conservancy – Open Space.
All areas that are designated
US are Urban Conservancy –
Low Intensity
GR PAA-A-1. Area
within the PAA and City
Limits north and east of
the river at the eastern
most area of the Green
River shorelands within
the City and PAA
On west side of
river:
3022059054
On west side of
river:
North of S 277
St (south edge
of 3122056666)
Urban Conservancy - Low
Intensity
GR D-1. South of the
river just west of Valley
Freeway (SR 167)
Southern
boundary of
2522049014
City boundary in
2422049089
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
GR D-2. Agricultural
activities on the west
side of the river from
Riverbend Golf Course
to Cottonwood Grove
Park
Southern
boundary
of2222049176
Western edge of
2322049006
Urban Conservancy –Low
Intensity
GR D-4. Agricultural
lands north of Valley
Floor Community Park
Southern edge
of 1122049007
Northern edge of
0222049017
(City boundary)
Urban Conservancy –Low
Intensity
Big Soos Creek Unit D
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
Panther Lake – Unit A –
Open Space
Southern edge
of 6623400360
Southern edge
of 0422059023
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
Panther Lake – Unit A –
Open Space
Western edge of
0422059149
Eastern edge of
0422059068
Urban Conservancy – Low
Intensity
Green River/Mill Creek
Auburn Floodway
As mapped
based on the
Flood Hazard
Areas map in
the Inventory &
Analysis Report
As mapped
based on the
Flood Hazard
Areas map in
the Inventory &
Analysis Report
10.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 22 Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate
residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this
chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate community access and
recreational uses.
b. Designation Criteria
A "Shoreline Residential" environment designation will be assigned to City of
Kent’s shorelands if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily
residential development or are planned for residential development.
c. Management Policies
Uses
1. Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses and not
conflict with the residential character of lands in the “Shoreline Residential”
environment.
2. Water-oriented recreational uses should be allowed.
3. Adequate land area and services should be provided.
4. Land division and development should be permitted only 1) when adequate
setbacks or buffers are provided to protect ecological functions and 2) where
there is adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and
public services available and 3) where the environment can support the
proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions.
5. Development standards for setbacks or buffers, shoreline stabilization,
vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be
established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has
occurred, restore ecological functions over time.
6. Multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels should provide community access for residents of that development.
7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future
shoreline stabilization is not required.
10.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 23
d. Specific Environment Designations
The following table (Table 4.) assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a
“Shoreline Residential” environment. See also the attached maps.
Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions
Environment Designation Sub-Unit Begins
(parcel No.) Ends
(parcel No.)
Shoreline Residential for the
residential area and Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the trail corridor.
GR C-1. Residential
area north and west
side of the Green River
east of Central Ave
Eastern edge
of 9183706000
Western edge
of 2890600000
Shoreline Residential with a
parallel designation of Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the trail portion of the sub-unit.
GR C-2. Residential
area on north side of
the river from SR 181
to the golf course at
Russell Rd
Eastern edge
of
5436200843
and
2422049114
Western
edge of
2322046666,
2322049049
Shoreline Residential with a
parallel designation of Urban
Conservancy – Open Space for
the trail portion of the sub-unit.
GR C-3. Residential
area on east side of
River from James
Street north to S 228th
Street
Southern edge
of 1085670000
Northern edge
of
00062200016
Shoreline Residential GR C-4. Residential
area on west side of
River south of S 216
Street
Southern edge
of 1022049206
Northern edge
of 1022049015
(South of S
216 St)
Shoreline Residential. GR D-3. Agricultural
area on west side of
river south of S. 212th
Street
Southern edge
of 1122049011
(S 216 St)
Northern edge
of 2632000070
(S 212 St)
Shoreline Residential with a
parallel designation of Urban
Conservancy - Open Space for
the trail portion.
GR C-5. RV camp-
ground (KOA) on east
side of the river south of
S. 212th St. and north of
the GRNRA.
Southern edge
of 1122049065
Northern edge
of 1122049065
(S 212 St)
Shoreline Residential Lake Meridian – Unit C Southern edge
of parcel
number
2622059066
Western edge
of parcel
number
6648500840
Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick – Unit C -
Residential
Northern
boundary of
parcel number
4016800009
Northern
boundary of
parcel number
2622049038
Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick – Unit C -
Residential
Southern edge
of parcel
number
2722049071
Western edge
of parcel
number
2722049202
Shoreline Residential Panther Lake – Unit C –
Residential
Eastern edge
of 0522059040
Southern edge
of 6623400360
Commented [MD15]: Section 5 comment #15
10.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 24 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designation Sub-Unit Begins
(parcel No.) Ends
(parcel No.)
Shoreline Residential Panther Lake – Unit C –
Residential
Northern edge
of 6624037777
Eastern edge
of 0422059068
6. "Aquatic" Environment
a. Purpose
The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the
unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high
water mark.
b. Designation Criteria
An "Aquatic" environment designation will be assigned to shoreline areas
waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
c. Management Policies
1. New over-water structures should be prohibited except for water-dependent
uses, public access, or ecological restoration.
2. The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum
necessary to support the structure's intended use.
3. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective
use of water resources, multiple uses of over-water facilities should be
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 25
CHAPTER 3
General Provisions
A. Introduction
General policies and regulations are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of
shoreline environment designation) that may occur along the City's shorelines.
This chapter is broken up into twelve different topic headings and is arranged
alphabetically. Each topic begins with a discussion of background SMP issues and
considerations, followed by general policy statements and regulations. The intent of these
provisions is to be inclusive, making them applicable over a wide range of environments
as well as particular uses and activities.
B. Policies and Regulations
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
The following regulations describe the requirements for all shoreline uses and
modifications in all shoreline environment designations.
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.
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 26 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
c. Regulations
1. All proposed shoreline uses and development, including those that do not
require a shoreline permit, must conform to the Shoreline Management Act,
Chapter 90.58 RCW, and to the policies and regulations of this SMP.
2. All new shoreline modifications must be in support of an allowable shoreline
use that conforms to the provisions of this SMP. Except as otherwise noted,
all shoreline modifications not associated with a legally existing or an
approved shoreline use are prohibited.
3. Shoreline uses, modifications, and conditions listed as "prohibited" shall not
be eligible for consideration as a shoreline variance or shoreline Conditional
Use permit. See Chapter 5 for Shoreline Use Regulations, including
exemptions, variances, Conditional Uses, and nonconforming uses.
4. The "policies" listed in this SMP will provide broad guidance and direction
and will be used by the City in applying the "regulations." The policies, taken
together, constitute the Shoreline Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
5. Where provisions of this SMP conflict, the provisions most directly
implementing the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, as determined
by the City, shall apply unless specifically stated otherwise.
6. The regulations of Chapters 2, 4, 5 and sections 2, and 4 through 12 of
Chapter 3 in this SMP shall not apply to those land areas that are outside
shoreline jurisdiction as of the date of adoption of this SMP but which do fall
within shoreline jurisdiction due solely to a human-constructed shoreline
restoration project, pursuant to the provisions of Washington State House Bill
2199 Chapter 405, 2009 Laws. That is, if a shoreline restoration project
causes the expansion of shoreline jurisdiction onto a neighboring property or
portion of the subject property, then SMP regulations noted above do not
apply to the area of expanded jurisdiction. However, if the area newly falling
into shoreline jurisdiction is a critical area, then the critical area provisions of
this SMP do apply.
7. All private development along the Green River must be set back from the
Green River OHWM according to the following:
10.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 27
a. Where there is an existing levee or where flood control measures are
planned (generally on the north and east banks of the river), private
development, including buildings, building additions and pavements shall
be set back sufficiently to allow for the construction of levee
improvements. See Figure X below for a map of existing and future levee
improvements. In most areas, this setback will be 140’ from the OHWM.
The City may increase or decrease the required setback according to the
design of the levee improvements at the particular stretch of river in
question. New public development associated with levee construction,
including trail, public access, recreation spaces, and environmental
restoration improvements may be located within this setback.
b. Where there is no levee and no public plans to construct or improve a
levee (generally on the south and west banks of the river), all new private
development shall be set back 150’ from the OHWM. New public
development such as road improvements, recreation spaces, trails, and
environmental restoration may be constructed within this setback provided
they meet the requirements of this SMP.
Commented [BD16]: Insert figure number.
Commented [BD17]: Inserted image below.
Commented [BD18]: Per the map included below, there are
portions of the west side that also need to be updgraded.
Commented [AC19]: Section 5 comment #4
10.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 28 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 29
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to archaeological and historic resources that are
either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by local
jurisdictions or have been inadvertently uncovered. Archaeological sites located
both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Chapter 27.44 RCW
(Indian graves and records) and Chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and
records) and shall comply with Chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the provisions of
this chapter.
b. Policies
1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource, public or private
uses, activities, and development should be prevented from destroying or
damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value as
identified by the appropriate authorities and deemed worthy of protection and
preservation.
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline permits shall contain provisions which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify the City if any phenomena of possible
archaeological value are uncovered during excavations. In such cases, the
developer shall be required to provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a
professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological
data are properly salvaged or mapped.
2. Permits issued in areas known to contain archaeological artifacts and data
shall include a requirement that the developer provide for a site inspection and
evaluation by an archaeologist. The permit shall require approval by the City
before work can begin on a project following inspection. Significant
archaeological data or artifacts shall be recovered before work begins or
resumes on a project.
3. Significant archaeological and historic resources shall be permanently
preserved for scientific study, education and public observation. When the
City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural, scientific or
historical value, a Substantial Development Permit shall not be issued which
would pose a threat to the site. The City may require that development be
postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential
and/or retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts.
4. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency as defined in
RCW 90.58.030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or
data identified above, the project may be exempted from the permit
requirement of these regulations. The City shall notify the State Department
of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State Historic
Preservation Office of such a waiver in a timely manner.
10.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 30 Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. Archaeological sites located both in and outside the shoreline jurisdiction are
subject to RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) and RCW 2753
(Archaeological Sites and Records) and shall comply with WAC 25-48 as
well as the provisions of this SMP.
6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provisions of this
program.
7. Identified historical or archaeological resources shall be included in park,
open space, public access and site planning, with access to such areas
designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and
surrounding environment.
8. Clear interpretation of historical and archaeological features and natural areas
shall be provided when appropriate.
9. The City will work with affected tribes and other agencies to protect Native
American artifacts and sites of significance and other archaeological and
cultural resources as mandated by Chapter 27.53 RCW.
3. Critical Areas
Critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations,
Ordinance No. 3805 (08/15/06), codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC through
Ordinance 4159 (07/21/15)in effect on the effective date of this SMP, which areis
herein incorporated by reference into this SMP except as noted below. Pursuant to
WAC 173-26-221(2)(a), critical areas in shorelines must be regulated to assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources.
Exceptions to the applicability of the Critical Areas Regulations in shoreline
jurisdiction are provided below.
1. If provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations and other parts of the SMP
conflict, the provisions most protective of the ecological resource shall apply,
as determined by the City.
2. Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations that are not consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.85 RCW, and supporting Washington
Administrative Code chapters shall not apply in shoreline jurisdiction, as
follows:
a. The provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations do not extend shoreline
jurisdiction beyond the limits specified in this SMP. For regulations
addressing critical area buffer areas that are outside shoreline jurisdiction,
see Critical Areas Regulations, Chapter 11.06 KCC.
b. Provisions of the Critical Area Regulations that include a “reasonable use
determination” shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. Specifically,
Section 11.06.90 KCC, as amended does not apply.
c. Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations relating to variance
procedures and criteria do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. Within
shoreline jurisdiction, the purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to
Commented [MD20]: Section 3 comment #1
Commented [MD21]: Section 2 comment #26, section 3
comment #2
10.a
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 31
granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards
set forth in the SMP where there are extraordinary circumstances relating
to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict
implementation of the SMP will impose unnecessary hardships on the
applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Specifically,
Section 11.06.100 KCC shall not apply. Variance procedures and criteria
have been established in this SMP, Chapter 7 Section D and in
Washington Administrative Code WAC 173-27-170.4. Environmental
Impacts.
d. Exemption 11, describing exceptions for approved plats and legally
created lots in Section 11.06.040 KCC, shall not apply.
e. The Critical Areas Regulations refer to all shorelines identified in the SMP
as Type 1 Waters and defers all setbacks for Type 1 Waters to the Kent
SMP (Section 11.06.680 KCC). Since the Critical Areas Regulations were
adopted, new waterbodies were added to the SMP, including a portion of
both Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek. The portion of Springbrook
Creek that is identified in this SMP shall be a Type 1 water rather than
subject to the valley stream buffer per Section 11.06.680 KCC.
4. Environmental Impacts
a. Applicability
The following policies and regulations apply to all uses and development in
shoreline jurisdiction that are not within the jurisdiction of the Critical Areas
Regulations as addressed in Section B.3 above.
b. Policies
1. In implementing this SMP, the City should take necessary steps to ensure
compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971, and its implementing guidelines.
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.
c. Regulations
1. All project proposals, including those for which a shoreline permit is not
required, shall comply with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act.
2. Projects that cause significant ecological impacts, as defined in Definitions,
are not allowed unless mitigated according to the sequence in subsection c. 4
below to avoid reduction or damage to ecosystem-wide processes and
ecological functions.
Commented [MD22]: Section 3 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 32 Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Projects that cause significant adverse impacts, other than significant
ecological impacts, shall be mitigated according to the sequence in subsection
c.4 below.
4. The City will set mitigation requirements or permit conditions based on
impacts identified per this SMP. In order to determine acceptable mitigation,
the City Shoreline Administrator may require the applicant to provide the
necessary environmental information and analysis, including a description of
existing conditions/ecological functions and anticipated shoreline impacts,
along with a restoration plan outlining how proposed mitigation measures
would result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
When applying mitigation to avoid or minimize significant adverse effects and
significant ecological impacts, the City will apply the following sequence of
steps in order of priority, with (a) being top priority:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations;
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects (from subsection e.
above) and taking appropriate corrective measures.
5. Exception to the sequencing noted above: The City may provide for or allow
mitigation of an environmental impact through a comprehensive mitigation
program such as a mitigation banking program if such mitigation measures
will result in a greater benefit in terms of ecological functions and values.
Such a program must be based on a comprehensive analysis of ecological
systems such as provided by the analysis and restoration plan accomplished as
part of this SMP.
6. All shoreline development shall be located and constructed to avoid locally-
specific significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management
a. Applicability
The provisions in this section apply to those areas within shoreline jurisdiction
lying along the Green River floodplain corridor, including rivers, streams,
associated wetlands in the floodplain, and river deltas.
10.a
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 33
The provisions in this section are intended to address two concerns especially
relevant to river shorelines:
1. Protecting human safety and minimizing flood hazard to human activities and
development.
2. Protecting and contributing to the restoration of ecosystem-wide processes
and ecological functions found in the applicable watershed or sub-basin.
b. Policies
1. The City should implement a comprehensive program to manage the City’s
riparian corridors that integrates the following City ordinances and activities:
a. Regulations in this SMP.
b. The City’s Critical Area Regulations.
c. The City’s zoning code.
d. The City’s Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual, and
implementing regulations.
e. The City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and
compliance with the State’s floodplain management law at Chapter 86.16.
RCW.
f. The City’s Park and Open Space Plan and Kent Valley Loop Trails Master
Plan.
gf. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including roads,
dikes, utilities, bridges, and other structures.
hg. 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.
Commented [AC23]: Section 5 comment #5
10.a
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 34 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
c. Regulations
1. New development must be consistent with “a” through “d” below in addition
to the provisions of this SMP. In cases of inconsistency, the provisions most
protective of shoreline ecological functions and processes shall apply:
a. The City’s Flood Hazard Regulations, Chapter 14.09 KCC.
b. The flood insurance study for King County, Washington, prepared by
FEMA in accordance with Chapter 86.16 RCW and the National Flood
Insurance Program.
c. The City’s Surface Water Utility Regulations, Chapter 7.05 KCC, as
amended.
d. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, which may be incorporated into permits
issued for flood protection.
10.a
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 35
2. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, including dikes, levees, and
overflow channels, may be allowed only when consistent with Chapter 14.09
KCC and all of the following can be demonstrated:
a. The project does not further restrict natural channel movement, except that
flood hazard reduction measures that protect an existing building,
roadway, bridge, or utility line may be installed, provided the measure is
placed as close to the existing structure as possible;
b. Other, nonstructural measures would not be feasible or adequate;
c. The measures are necessary to protect existing development or new public
development, such as a roadway, that cannot be located further from the
stream channel; and
d. Shoreline vegetation necessary to provide ecological functions is protected
or restored.
3. New flood hazard reduction measures, including dikes and levees, may be
constructed to protect properties as part of a shoreline environmental
restoration project, such as the breaching of a dike to create additional
wetlands.
4. Otherwise allowed shoreline modifications in the 100-year floodplain and
flood hazard reduction measures shall employ the type of construction or
measure that causes the least significant ecological impacts. When
authorizing development within the 100-year floodplain, the City will require
that the construction method with the least negative significant ecological
impacts be used. For example, the City will not allow rock revetments to be
used for erosion control if a “softer” approach using vegetation plantings and
engineered woody debris placement is possible.
5. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as
streams, tributaries, wetlands, and dry channels, shall be maintained. Where
feasible, obstructed channels shall be re-established as a condition of
nonwater-dependent uses, development in the 100-year floodplain, and
structural flood hazard reduction measures.
6. Re-establishment of native vegetation waterward of a new structure on the
Green River is required where feasible. The City Shoreline Administrator
may require re-establishment of vegetation on and landward of the structure if
it determines such vegetation is necessary to protect and restore ecological
functions.
7. Designs for flood hazard reduction measures and shoreline stabilization
measures in river corridors must be prepared by qualified professional
engineers (or geologists or hydrologists) who have expertise in local riverine
processes.
8. Structural flood hazard reduction projects that are continuous in nature, such
as dikes or levees, shall provide for public access unless the City determines
10.a
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 36 Kent Shoreline Master Program
that such access is not feasible or desirable according to the criteria in Chapter
3.Section B.7., “Public Access.”
9. Shoreline modification and development standards shall be as outlined in the
matrices in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 for allowable uses and modification and
development standards such as setbacks and clearing and grading within each
shoreline environment designation.
10. Bridges, culverts, and other river, stream, and waterway crossings shall be
designed and constructed so they do not restrict flood flows such that flood
elevations are increased. Where a bridge, culvert, or other waterway crossing
replaces an existing crossing, the replacement structure shall not increase
flood heights over those caused by the original structure.
11. The removal of gravel for flood control may be allowed only if a biological
and geomorphological study demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood hazard
reduction, no net loss of ecological functions, and extraction is part of a
comprehensive flood management solution.
6. Parking
a. Applicability
Parking is the temporary storage of automobiles or other motorized vehicles.
Except as noted the following provisions apply only to parking that is "accessory"
to a permitted shoreline use. Parking as a "primary" use and parking which serves
a use not permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction is prohibited.
b. Policies
1. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible, parking
should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on weekends,
commercial uses on weekdays).
2. Where feasible, parking for shoreline uses should be provided in areas outside
shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Low-impact parking facilities, such as permeable pavements, are encouraged.
c. Regulations
1. Parking as a primary use or that serves a use not permitted in the applicable
shoreline environment designation shall be prohibited over water and within
shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Parking in shoreline jurisdiction must directly serve a permitted shoreline use.
3. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse
impacts upon the adjacent shoreline and abutting properties. A minimum of
15 feet of Type II landscaping, as defined in Section 15.07.050 KCC, as
amended, between the parking and the shoreline shall be provided.
Landscaping shall consist of native vegetation and plant materials approved
by the City Shoreline Administrator and shall be planted before completion of
10.a
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 37
the parking area in such a manner that plantings provide effective screening
between parking and the water body within five years of project completion.
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify landscaping requirements to
account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
4. Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be located
landward, if feasible, to minimize adverse impacts on the shoreline.
5. Parking facilities for shoreline activities shall provide safe and convenient
pedestrian circulation within the parking area and to the shorelines.
6. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to prevent surface water
runoff from contaminating water bodies, as per the most recent edition of the
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
7. Lighting associated with parking lots shall be beamed, hooded, or directed to
minimize and avoid illumination of the water, setback areas, wetlands, and
other wildlife habitat areas.
8. See Chapter 5 Section B. Development Standards Matrix, for setback
requirements.
7. Public Access
a. Applicability
Shoreline public access is the physical ability of the general public to reach and
touch the water's edge and the ability to have a view of the water and the
shoreline from upland locations. Public access facilities may include picnic areas,
pathways and trails, floats and docks, promenades, viewing towers, bridges, boat
launches, and improved street ends. The City of Kent has extensively and
comprehensively planned for and implemented public access plans for its
shorelines.
The City of Kent has numerous and varied public access facilities along its
shorelines. The City and King County have established a regional trail with park
and recreation facilities following nearly the entire Green River, and many
existing developments along the Green River also include public access points.
There are public parks and public access facilities including docks, floating
walkways and boat launches on both Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick. The
Green River Natural Resources Area includes extensive wildlife viewing areas,
including two view towers and the Interurban Trail along its southern edge.
Along Springbrook Creek two undeveloped City owned park properties connect
to the Springbrook Greenbelt, containing a user-made trail, and Gary Grant Soos
Creek Park is located on Big Soos Creek. A public boat launch and fishing access
is located on Panther Lake as well as an informal street-end access point. These
public access facilities, along with identified future public land acquisition, are
sufficient to meet public access needs along the shorelines.
10.a
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 38 Kent Shoreline Master Program
In addition to the above examples, comprehensive documentation of existing
parks and recreation facilities, public access points and trails are identified and
mapped in detail in the Park & Open Space Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. This element also identifies future park acquisition and development needs.
The City’s Parks and Open Space Plan (2016) complements the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Parks and Open Space Plan discusses the current
condition of the park system, lays out a vision for transformation and provides a
reinvestment strategy to achieve the vision. A new park at Panther Lake that
includes public access to the lake is identified in the plan as a strategic project, as
are the relocation of Van Doren’s Park, Signature Pointe Levee Project, Green
River Trail improvements, Frager Road Trail improvements, and Green River
Levee and habitat improvement work. Similarly, chapter 4 of the Shoreline
Inventory & Analysis Report identifies existing and potential public access sites
for each of the City’s shoreline waterbodies. The City’s public access planning
process provided by these documents provides more effective public access than
individual project requirements for public access, as provided for in WAC 173-
26-221(4)(d)(iii)(A).
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has federally-protected treaty rights to fisheries
resources in rivers and streams within their usual and accustomed areas (“U&A”),
including access to these resources. Kent’s regulated shoreline areas are a subset
of the Muckleshoot Tribe’s larger “U&A” area. Activities and development
regulated under this Shoreline Master Program have the potential to impact treaty-
protected fisheries resources and tribal members’ ability to access to these
resources. Accordingly, the City will work with the Muckleshoot Tribe to ensure
that permitted projects do not unduly impede or impair in-water or upland tribal
fishing 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 and
should not impede in-water or upland tribal fishing access.
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.
Commented [MD24]: Section 5 comment #6
City: Any other future developments to mention?
Commented [AP25]: New Revision – 4/22/19
Commented [AP26]: New Revision – 4/22/19
10.a
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 39
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. To the greatest extent feasible, the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical
and aesthetic qualities of shorelines should be protected. 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. Development in shorelines should not
adversely affect the aesthetic qualitities of the shoreline.
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. Shoreline public access sites should connect to public areas, undeveloped
right-of-way, and other pedestrian or public thoroughfares. Where such
connections are precluded, the City should consider measures to establish
such connections. The partial or full acquisition of suitable upland shoreline
properties to provide access to publicly owned shorelands should be
encouraged.
11. The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in
the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline.
c. Regulations
1. Shoreline substantial development (including land division into more than
four lots and PUDs) or conditional uses, either of which fronts directly on the
shoreline, shall provide physical public access where any of the following
conditions are present:
a. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access
way. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or
discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses.
b. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands
unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety,
security, or impact to the shoreline environment or where more effective
public access is identified in the City’s Comprehensive Parks &
Recreation Plan or the Park & Open Space Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Commented [MD27]: Language based on WAC 173-26-
221(4)(b)
Commented [MD28]: Section 5 comment #7
Commented [MD29]: Section 5 comment #8
Commented [MD30]: Such a park appears to be in progress.
Annexation has occurred. Revision not in gap analysis.
10.a
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 40 Kent Shoreline Master Program
The shoreline permit file shall describe the impact, the required public access
conditions, and how the conditions address the impact. Mitigation for public
access impacts shall be in accordance with the definition of mitigation and
mitigation sequencing in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
2. For multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four
parcels, public access need not be provided, however, community access for
residents of that development shall be provided.
3. Shoreline substantial development (including land division into more than
four lots and PUDs) or conditional uses shall minimize impact to public views
of shoreline waterbodies from public land or substantial numbers of
residences.
4. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights-of-
way shall not be diminished (This is a requirement of RCW 35.79.035 and
RCW 36.87.130).
5. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street or
public right-of-way and shall include provisions for physically impaired
persons, where feasible.
6. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public
use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity.
7. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded as a covenant
against the title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running
contemporaneous with the authorized land use. Said recording with the
County Assessor’s Office shall occur prior to permit approval (section
58.17.110 RCW).
8. Minimum width of public access easements shall be 20 feet, unless the City
Shoreline Administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such
cases, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary
to relieve the hardship.
9. The standard state approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the
public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed and
maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites.
Signs may control or restrict public access as a condition of permit approval.
10. Future actions by the applicant, successors in interest, or other parties shall not
diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided.
11. Public access facilities may be developed over water provided that all
ecological impacts are mitigated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance
a. Applicability
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as
shorelines of state-wide significance. Within the City of Kent's jurisdiction, The
10.a
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 41
Green River is a shoreline of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated
are important to the entire state. Because these shorelines are major resources
from which all people in the state derive benefit, this jurisdiction gives preference
to uses which favor long-range goals and support the overall public interest.
b. Policies
In implementing the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide
significance, the City will base decisions in preparing and administering this SMP
on the following policies in order of priority, 1 being the highest and 6 being
lowest.
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing
state-wide interests by circulating the SMP, and any proposed
amendments affecting shorelines of state-wide significance, to state
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.
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 42 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
a. Applicability
A sign is defined as a device of any material or medium, including structural
component parts, which is used or intended to be used to attract attention to the
subject matter for advertising, identification or informative purposes. The
following provisions apply to any commercial or advertising sign directing
attention to a business, professional service, community, site, facility, or
entertainment, conducted or sold either on or off premises.
b. Policies
1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the
aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses.
2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the water
or shorelands.
c. Regulations
1. Prohibited Signs: The following types of signs are prohibited:
a. Off-premises detached outdoor advertising signs.
10.a
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 43
b. Commercial signs for products, services, or facilities located off-site.
c. Spinners, streamers, pennants, flashing lights and other animated signs
used for commercial purposes. Highway and railroad signs are
exceptions.
d. Signs placed on trees or other natural features, unless the City’s Shoreline
Administrator finds that these signs are necessary for public safety
reasons.
2. Allowable Signs: The following types of signs may be allowed in all
shoreline environments:
a. Water navigational signs, and highway and railroad signs necessary for
operation, safety and direction.
b. Public information signs directly relating to a shoreline use or activity.
Public information signs shall include public park signs, public access
identification signs, and warning signs.
c. Off-premise, free-standing signs for community identification,
information, or directional purposes.
d. National, site and institutional flags or temporary decorations customary
for special holidays and similar events of a public nature.
e. Temporary directional signs to public or quasi-public events if removed
within 10 days following the event.
3. All signs shall be located and designed to avoid interference with vistas,
viewpoints and visual access to the shoreline.
4. Over-water signs, signs on floats or pilings, and signs for goods, services, or
businesses not located directly on the site proposed for a sign are prohibited.
5. Lighted signs shall be hooded, shaded, or aimed so that direct light will not
result in glare when viewed from surrounding properties or watercourses.
6. Signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in surface area. On-site freestanding
signs shall not exceed 6 feet in height. When feasible, signs shall be flush-
mounted against existing buildings.
7. Temporary or obsolete signs shall be removed within 10 days of elections,
closures of business, or termination of any other function. Examples of
temporary signs include: real estate signs, directions to events, political
advertisements, event or holiday signs, construction signs, and signs
advertising a sale or promotional event.
8. Signs that do not meet the policies and regulations of this section B.9 shall be
removed or shall conform within two years of the adoption of this SMP.
9. No signs shall be placed in a required view corridor.
10.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 44 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10. Utilities (Accessory)
a. Applicability
Accessory utilities are on-site utility features serving a primary use, such as a
water, sewer or gas line connecting to a residence. Accessory utilities do not
carry significant capacity to serve other users and are considered a part of the
primary use. They are addressed in this section because they concern all types of
development and have the potential to impact the quality of the shoreline and its
waters.
b. Policies
1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline
and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions.
2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the
shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a
shoreline location, they should be placed underground.
3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which
preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and
functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses.
c. Regulations
1. In shoreline areas, accessory utility transmission lines, pipelines and cables
shall be placed underground unless demonstrated to be infeasible. Further,
such lines shall utilize existing rights-of-way and/or bridge crossings
whenever possible. Proposals for new corridors in shoreline areas involving
water crossings must fully substantiate the infeasibility of existing routes.
2. Accessory utility development shall, through coordination with government
agencies, provide for compatible multiple uses of sites and rights-of-way.
Such uses include shoreline access points, trails and other forms of recreation
and transportation systems, providing such uses will not unduly interfere with
utility operations or endanger public health and safety.
3. Sites disturbed for utility installation shall be stabilized during and following
construction to avoid adverse impacts from erosion and, where feasible,
restored to pre-project configuration and replanted with native vegetation.
4. Utility discharges and outfalls shall be located, designed, constructed, and
operated in accordance with best management practices to ensure degradation
to water quality is kept to a minimum.
5. Utilities that need water crossings shall be placed deep enough to avoid the
need for bank stabilization and stream/riverbed filling both during
construction and in the future due to flooding and bank erosion that may occur
over time. Boring is a preferred method of utility water crossing over open
trenching.
10.a
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 45
11. Vegetation Conservation
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to any activity that results in the removal of or
impact to shoreline vegetation, whether or not that activity requires a shoreline
permit. Such activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, and trimming of
vegetation. These provisions also apply to vegetation protection and
enhancement activities. They do not apply to forest practices managed under the
Washington State Forest Practices Act. See Chapter 6 for definitions of
“significant vegetation removal,” “ecological functions,” “clearing,” “grading,”
and “restore.”
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.
c. Regulations
For All Shoreline Environments:
1. In order to create a new lot partially or wholly within shoreline jurisdiction,
the applicant must demonstrate that development can be accomplished
without significant vegetation removal within the required SMP setback area.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator may make exceptions to this standard for
water dependent development and for development in the High Intensity
environment only.
2. New development, including clearing and grading, shall minimize significant
vegetation removal in shoreline jurisdiction to the extent feasible. In order to
implement this regulation, applicants proposing development that includes
10.a
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 46 Kent Shoreline Master Program
significant vegetation removal, clearing, or grading within shoreline
jurisdiction must provide, as a part of a substantial development permit or a
letter of exemption application, a site plan, drawn to scale, indicating the
extent of proposed clearing and/or grading. The City’s Shoreline
Administrator may require that the proposed development or extent of
clearing and grading be modified to reduce the impacts to ecological
functions.
3. Vegetation restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded
shall use native plant materials with a diversity and type similar to that which
originally occurred on-site unless the City’s Shoreline Administrator finds that
native plant materials are inappropriate or not hardy in the particular situation.
Placement of trees on the Green River shall consider provision of public views
and the need for shade as identified in the 2016 King County Flood District
Systemwide Improvement Framework (SWIF) Interim Report, or as
subsequently amended.
4. In addressing impacts from significant vegetation removal, the City’s
Shoreline Administrator will apply the mitigation sequence described in
Chapter 3 Section B.4.
5. Where shoreline restoration is required, the vegetation plantings shall adhere
to the following specifications, unless the City’s Shoreline Administrator finds
that another method is more appropriate:
Property owners must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the
Shoreline Administrator that:
a. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan;
b. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and
groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions;
c. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect water quality; and
d. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded with the King County assessor’s office as a
covenant against the real property and a copy shall be provided to the
Shoreline Administrator.
6. A condition of all development shall be that those areas within the required
SMP setback area that have been cleared or where significant vegetation
removal has occurred and that are not otherwise occupied by approved
structures or uses shall be revegetated with native vegetation. The City’s
Shoreline Administrator may require replanting of previously cleared areas or
removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replanting with native vegetation as
part of mitigation of ecological impacts.
a. In public recreational areas, native vegetation is preferred; however, in
limited instances the Shoreline Administrator may approve the use of non-
Commented [AP31]: New Revision – 4/22/19
10.a
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 47
native vegetation where such vegetation would better achieve project
objectives. In all cases revegetation shall not result in a net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
7. Snags and living trees (i.e., large cottonwoods) shall not be removed within
the required SMP setback area unless an arborist determines them to be
extreme hazardous and likely to fall into a park use area, a location that
would present a safety hazard, or unless removal is part of an approved
development that includes mitigation for impacts to ecological functions.
Snags and living trees within the setback which do not present an extreme
hazard shall be retained. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view
protection is allowed. The City Shoreline Administrator may make
exceptions to this standard for water dependent development and for
development in the High Intensity environment, or where the City determines
that the removal of such vegetation is in the public interest and is consistent
with the goals of the Shoreline Management Act as stated in section 90.58.020
RCW.
For Shorelines in the Urban Conservancy-Open Space and Urban Conservancy-Low
Intensity Environments
8. For properties within areas planned for residential development within the
Urban Conservancy–Open Space or Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity
environments, new development that will cause significant vegetation removal
within the required setbacks specified in Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 and
Chapter 5 Sections B and C.8 shall not be allowed except where the
dimensions of existing lots or parcels are not sufficient to accommodate
permitted primary residential structures outside of the vegetation conservation
area or where the denial of reasonable use would result in a takings. In these
instances the City’s Shoreline Administrator will apply the mitigation
sequence in Chapter 3 Section B.4 to minimize ecological impacts. Generally,
this will mean placing the development away from the shoreline as far as
possible, locating the development to avoid tree cutting, and modifying
building dimensions to reduce vegetation removal.
9. The enhancement of vegetation shall be a condition of all nonwater-dependent
development, dike or levee construction, and shoreline modifications in the
Urban Conservancy environments, except where the City’s Shoreline
Administrator finds that:
a. Vegetation enhancement is not feasible on the project site. In these cases
the City’s Shoreline Administrator may require off-site vegetation
enhancement that performs the same ecological functions. Enhancement
opportunities on the same waterbody shall be explored first, prior to
consideration of enhancement opportunities in the same basin or
watershed.
Commented [MD32]: Section 5 comment #3
10.a
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 48 Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. The restoration of ecological processes and functions can be better
achieved through other measures such as the removal of channel
constraints.
c. Sufficient native vegetation already exists.
10. Minor vegetation removal may be done to provide for development and
maintenance of public access and trails on public property, as well as to
address public health and safety concerns, provided impacts are mitigated.
For Shorelines in the High-Intensity Environment
11. The impacts due to significant vegetation removal shall be mitigated
according to the sequence described in Chapter 3 Section B.4.
12. A condition of all development shall be that those shorelands on the site not
occupied by structures, shoreline uses, or human activities shall be
revegetated, in accordance with subsection c.5 above. Vegetation within the
required setbacks specified in Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 and Chapter 5 Section
B of the shoreline, to the extent the setback extends onto the subject
development site, must be native vegetation or species approved by the City’s
Shoreline Administrator.
For Shorelines in the Shoreline Residential Environment
13. Development is subject to requirements in Chapter 5 Section C.8, “Residential
Development.”
For Shorelines in the Aquatic Environment
. Aquatic weed control shall only occur when native plant communities and
associated habitats are threatened or where an existing water dependent use is
restricted by the presence of weeds. Aquatic weed control shall occur in
compliance with all other applicable laws and standards.
15. The control of aquatic weeds by hand pulling, mechanical harvesting, or
placement of aqua screens, if proposed to maintain existing water depth for
navigation, shall be considered normal maintenance and repair and therefore
exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development
permit.
16. The control of aquatic weeds by derooting, rotovating or other method which
disturbs the bottom sediment or benthos shall be considered development for
which a substantial development permit is required, unless it will maintain
existing water depth for navigation in an area covered by a previous permit for
such activity, in which case it shall be considered normal maintenance and
repair and therefore exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial
development permit.
17. Where large quantities of plant material are generated by control measures,
they shall be collected and disposed of in an appropriate, identified upland
location.
Commented [MD33]: Section 5 comment #9
10.a
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 49
18. Use of herbicides to control aquatic weeds shall be prohibited except for those
chemicals specifically approved by the Department of Ecology for use in
aquatic situations and where no reasonable alternative exists and weed control
is demonstrated to be in the public's interest. Application of herbicides for the
control of aquatic weeds requires approval from the Department of Ecology.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator must be notified of all herbicide usage in
aquatic areas and supplied with proof of approval from the Department of
Ecology. Additionally, all herbicides shall be applied by a licensed
professional.
12. Water Quality and Quantity
a. Applicability
The following section applies to all development and uses in shoreline jurisdiction
that affect water quality, as defined below.
1. As used in this SMP, “water quality” means the physical characteristics of
water within shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity and hydrological,
physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological characteristics.
Where used in this SMP, the term “water quantity” refers only to development
and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as
impermeable surfaces and storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for
purposes of this SMP, does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or
diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
Because the policies of this SMP are also policies of the City’s comprehensive
plan, the policies also apply to activities outside shoreline jurisdiction that affect
water quality within shoreline jurisdiction, as determined by the City’s Shoreline
Administrator. However, the regulations apply only within shoreline jurisdiction.
b. Policies
1. All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to avoid significant ecological impacts that alter water quality,
quantity, or hydrology.
2. The City should require reasonable setbacks, buffers, and storm water storage
basins and encourage low-impact development techniques and materials to
achieve the objective of lessening negative impacts on water quality.
3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates, or flood waters
through the use of stream control works should be located, designed,
constructed, and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do not
degrade the existing water quality and quantity.
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
10.a
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 50 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline development, both during and after construction, shall avoid or
minimize significant ecological impacts, including any increase in surface
runoff, through control, treatment, and release of surface water runoff so that
water quality and quantity are not adversely affected. Control measures
include, but are not limited to, low impact development techniques, dikes,
catch basins or settling ponds, oil interceptor drains, grassy swales, planted
buffers, and fugitive dust controls.
2. All development shall conform to local, state, and federal water quality
regulations, provided the regulations do not conflict with this SMP.
3. Uses and development that require the application of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers and other chemicals that could adversely affect water quality
(except for those chemicals specifically approved by the Department of
Ecology for use in aquatic situations) are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
4. The application of pesticides or herbicides in shoreline jurisdiction is
prohibited except for those products specifically approved for use by the
Department of Ecology in aquatic situations, and then only if used according
to approved methods of and standards for application.
10.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 51
CHAPTER 4
Shoreline Modification Provisions
A. Introduction and Applicability
Shoreline modifications are structures or actions which permanently change the physical
configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water
meet. Shoreline modification activities include, but are not limited to, structures such as
revetments, bulkheads, levees, breakwaters, docks, and floats. Actions such as clearing,
grading, landfilling, and dredging are also considered shoreline modifications.
Generally, shoreline modification activities are undertaken for the following reasons:
1. To prepare a site for a shoreline use
2. To provide shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection
3. To support an upland use
The policies and regulations in this chapter are intended to prevent or mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts of proposed shoreline modifications. General provisions, which
apply to all shoreline modification activities, are followed by provisions tailored to
specific shoreline modification activities. This chapter provides policies and regulations
for shoreline modification features including shoreline stabilization measures and docks
and floats.
If a shoreline development entails more than one shoreline modification, then all of the
regulations pertaining to each type of modification apply.
Even though a shoreline modification may not require a shoreline substantial development
permit, it must still conform to the regulations and standards in this SMP. The City
requires that a property owner contemplating a shoreline modification contact the City’s
Shoreline Administrator and apply for a “letter of exemption”. No shoreline modification
shall be undertaken without either a shoreline permit or a letter of exemption.
B. Shoreline Modification Matrix
The following matrix (Table 51) is the shoreline modification matrix. The matrix
provides the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in all shoreline environmental
designations. The numbers in the matrix refer to footnotes which may be found
immediately following the matrix. These footnotes provide additional clarification or
conditions applicable to the associated modification. Where there is a conflict between the
matrix and the written provisions in this Chapter, the written provisions shall apply.
10.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 52 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Table 51. Shoreline Modification Matrix
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a conditional
use only
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible for
a variance or conditional use permit
N/A = Not applicable
Na
t
u
r
a
l
-We
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Lo
w
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
Shoreline stabilization:
Environmental restoration/enhancement P P P P P P
Bioengineering C P P P P C
Revetments X P C C P C
Bulkheads X P C C P C
Breakwaters/jetties/rock weirs/groins X X X X X X
Dikes, levees X P P P CP C5
Clearing and Grading X P P P P NA
Dredging N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C
Hazardous waste cleanup P P P P P P
Fill1 X P P P3 P3 C2
Piers, docks4 X P P P P P
Moorage piles and mooring buoys X X X X X X
All shoreline modifications are subject to other provisions in this SMP. See, especially, Section
C “Policies and Regulations” below.
Shoreline Modification Matrix Notes:
1. Fill in the floodplain must meet all federal, state, and local flood hazard reduction
regulations.
2. Fill in aquatic areas for the purposes of shoreline ecological restoration may be allowed as a
permitted use if the Shoreline Administrator determines that there will be an increase in
desired ecological functions.
3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall require a conditional use
permit (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
4. New non-public piers and docks are prohibited on the Green River.
5. See Section C.7.c.6.
Commented [BD34]: New revision – 03-25-2019
Commented [BD35]: New revision – 03-25-2019
10.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 53
C. Policies and Regulations
1. General Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to all shoreline modification activities whether
such proposals address a single property or multiple properties.
b. Policies
1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where they are
demonstrated to be necessary:
a. To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing
shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage, or;
b. For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or enhance the
shoreline ecology.
2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as
possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent.
3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of
shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed.
4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually
and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated
in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary
shoreline modifications, by giving preference to those types of shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by
requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline
modifications.
5. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and
technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions
provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231
6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and
appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WAC 173-26-
231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible
measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes.
7. In reviewing shoreline permits, the City should require steps to reduce
significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC
173-26-201(2)(e).
c. Regulations
1. All shoreline modification activities must be in support of a permitted
shoreline use or to provide for human health and safety. Shoreline
modification activities which do not support a permitted shoreline use are
10.a
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 54 Kent Shoreline Master Program
considered “speculative” and are prohibited by this SMP, unless it can be
demonstrated that such activities are necessary to protect human health and
safety, ecological functions, and the public interest.
2. Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if
nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose or are not
feasible (See Chapter 6 for definition of “feasible”). Nonstructural measures
considered shall include alternative site designs, increased setbacks, drainage
improvements, relocation of proposed structures, and vegetation enhancement.
3. Stream channel modification (i.e., realignment) shall be prohibited as a means
of shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection, unless it is the only feasible
alternative and includes environmental enhancement.
4. All new shoreline development shall be located and designed to prevent or
minimize the need for shoreline modification activities.
5. Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable
federal and state permits and shall meet all permit requirements.
6. Shoreline modification materials shall be only those approved by the City
and applicable state agencies. No toxic (e.g.: creosote) or quickly degradable
materials (e.g., plastic or fiberglass that deteriorates under ultraviolet
exposure) shall be used.
7. In channel migration zones, natural geomorphic and hydrologic processes
shall not be limited and new development shall not be established where
future shoreline modifications will be required and shall include appropriate
protection of ecological function (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map,
Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads)
a. Applicability
Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to
property, dwellings, businesses, or essential structures caused by manmade
processes such as boat wakes and natural processes, such as current, flood, wind,
or wave action. These include structural and nonstructural methods.
Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be
protected, erosion and ground water management, planning and regulatory
measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization.
Structural methods include “hard” and “soft” structural stabilization measures.
Hard Structural Shoreline Stabilization means erosion control practices using
hardened structures that armor and stabilize the shoreline from further erosion.
Hard structural shoreline stabilization typically uses concrete, boulders,
dimensional lumber or other materials to construct linear, vertical or near-vertical
faces. These include bulkheads, rip-rap, groins, and similar structures.
10.a
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 55
Soft Structural Shoreline Stabilization means erosion control and restoration
practices that contribute to restoration, protection or enhancement of shoreline
ecological functions. Soft shoreline stabilization typically includes a mix of
gravels, cobbles, boulders, logs and native vegetation placed to provide stability
in a non-linear, sloping arrangement. On lakes such as Lake Meridian, Lake
Fenwick and Panther Lake, non-structural and “soft” structural stabilization
measures can be cost-effective and practicable solutions.
Generally, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on
shoreline processes, including sediment transport, geomorphology, and biological
functions.
WAC 173-27-040(2)(b) defines normal maintenance and repair of existing
structures and notes that many maintenance and repair activities are exempt from
the requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit. As indicated in
that section, normal maintenance and repair actions are not exempt from
substantial development permits if they “cause substantial adverse effects to
shoreline resources or the environment.” Additions to or increases in size of
existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
Some shoreline stabilization measures for single family residences may be exempt
from a shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with WAC 173-
27-040(2). However, such measures must comply with the provisions of this
SMP.
b. Policies
1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over “soft” structural
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 56 Kent Shoreline Master Program
c. Regulations
New Development
1. New development shall, where feasible, be located and designed to eliminate
the need for concurrent or future shoreline stabilization. New non-water
dependent development that would require shoreline stabilization that would
cause significant adverse impacts to adjacent or down-current properties or
restrict channel migration in Channel Migration Zones is prohibited. (Refer to
the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and
Analysis Report).
2. New development, including single-family residences, that includes structural
shoreline stabilization will not be allowed unless all of the conditions below are
met:
a. The need to protect the development from damage due to erosion caused
by natural processes, such as currents, waves, and by manmade processes
such as boat wakes, is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.
b. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as loss of
vegetation and drainage.
c. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development farther from the
shoreline, planting vegetation, low impact development measures, or
installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
d. The structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
3. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to
ensure that shoreline stabilization will not be needed during the life of the
structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis by a geotechnical
engineer or related professional licensed and in good standing in the State of
Washington.
New or expanded shoreline stabilization measures
4. New stabilization measures are not allowed except to protect or support an
existing or approved development, as necessary for human safety , for the
restoration of ecological functions, or for hazardous substance remediation
pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW. The construction of a bulkhead for the
primary purpose of retaining or creating dry land that is not specifically
authorized as a part of the permit is prohibited.
5. New or replacement structural shoreline stabilization measures are allowed on
Green River shorelines for necessary flood hazard reduction provided that all
feasible steps are taken to minimize adverse impacts to the natural
environment. The structures must be in conformance with a City-approved
flood hazard reduction program.
6. New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing
development or residence shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive
evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis (see definition in Chapter 6),
that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents,
10.a
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 57
waves, or boat wakes. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline
erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis by a licensed
geotechnical engineer or related licensed professional, is not demonstration of
need. The geotechnical report must include estimates of erosion rates and
damage within three years and must evaluate on-site drainage issues and
address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering
structural shoreline stabilization. The project design and analysis must also
evaluate vegetation enhancement and low impact development measures as a
means of reducing undesirable erosion.
7. “Hard” structural shoreline stabilization measures, such as bulkheads, are not
allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate through a geotechnical analysis
that “soft” structural measures such as vegetation or beach enhancement, or
nonstructural measures, such as additional building setbacks, are not feasible.
8. Where structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be
necessary, as described in subsections c.6 and 7 above, the size of stabilization
measures shall be limited to the minimum necessary. The City’s Shoreline
Administrator may require that the proposed structure be altered in size or
design or impacts otherwise mitigated. Impacts to sediment transport shall be
avoided or minimized.
9. The City’s Shoreline Administrator will require mitigation of adverse impacts
to shoreline functions in accordance with the mitigation sequence defined in
Chapter 3 Section B.4 of the General Provisions. The City’s Shoreline
Administrator may require the inclusion of vegetation conservation, as
described in Chapter 3 Section B.11, as part of shoreline stabilization, where
feasible. In order to determine acceptable mitigation, the City’s Shoreline
Administrator may require the applicant to provide necessary environmental
information and analysis, including a description of existing
conditions/ecological functions and anticipated shoreline impacts, along with
a restoration plan outlining how proposed mitigation measures would result in
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
10. Shoreline stabilization measures that incorporate ecological restoration
through the placement of rocks, gravel or sand, and native shoreline
vegetation may be allowed. Soft shoreline stabilization that restores
ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the OHWM.
11. Following completion of shoreline modification activities, disturbed shoreline
areas shall be restored to pre-project conditions to the greatest extent possible.
Vegetation conservation measures, including the planting of native vegetation
along the shoreline, are a condition of all new bulkhead and replacement
construction. Plantings shall consist of native grasses, shrubs, and trees as
approved by the City’s Shoreline Administrator in keeping with preexisting or
typical naturally occurring bank vegetation. Vegetation shall be fully
reestablished within three years. All revegetation projects shall include a
program for monitoring and maintenance. Areas which fail to adequately
10.a
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 58 Kent Shoreline Master Program
reestablish vegetation shall be replanted with approved plants until the
plantings are viable.
12. New or expanded shoreline stabilization measures in channel migration zones
require a thorough analysis performed by a licensed geologist with an
appropriate specialty license and fluvial geomorphic experience, in addition to
a professional engineer, to ensure that the measure does not interfere with
fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in
natural conditions. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No.
10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
Replacement and Repair
13. An existing shoreline stabilization structure shall not be replaced with a
similar structure unless there is need to protect primary structures from
erosion caused by currents or waves and a nonstructural measure is not
feasible. At the discretion of the City’s Shoreline Administrator, the
demonstration of need does not necessarily require a geotechnical report by a
geotechnical engineer or related professional licensed and in good standing in
the State of Washington. The replacement structure shall be designed,
located, sized, and constructed to minimize harm to ecological functions.
Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM
or existing structures unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1,
1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such
cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization
structure.
14. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired or replaced by construction of a
vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no farther
waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new
footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been
established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead,
then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM.
Design of Shoreline Stabilization Measures
15. Bulkhead design and development shall conform to all other applicable City
and state agency policies and regulations, including the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria governing the design of bulkheads.
16. Gabions (wire mesh filled with concrete or rocks) are prohibited, except as a
Conditional Use where it is determined that gabions are the least
environmentally disruptive method of shoreline stabilization.
17. Stairs and other allowed structures may be built as integral to a bulkhead but
shall not extend waterward of the bulkhead or structure unless it is necessary
to access the shoreline or a use or structure is otherwise allowed over water.
18. Bulkheads shall be designed to permit the passage of surface or ground water
without causing ponding or over-saturation of retained soil/materials of lands
above the OHWM.
10.a
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 59
19. Adequate toe protection and proper footings shall be provided to ensure
bulkhead stability without relying on additional riprap.
20. Materials and dimensional standards:
a. New bulkheads and other shoreline stabilization structures shall not be
constructed higher than 24 inches (twenty-four inches) above the OHWM
or, if the bulkhead is set back from the shoreline, 24 inches above grade at
the base of the bulkhead or structure. On steep slopes, new bulkheads
may be built taller than 24 inches high if necessary to meet the existing
slope. Replacement bulkheads may be built to the height of the original
bulkhead.
Exception: The City’s Shoreline Administrator may waive this provision
for flood hazard minimization measures conforming to this SMP.
b. While structural materials are not the preferred method of shoreline
stabilization, if structural shoreline measures are allowed according to
subsections c.6 and 7 above, the following are examples of acceptable
materials for shoreline stabilization structures, listed in order of preference
from top to bottom:
i. Large stones, with vegetation planted in the gaps. Stones should not
be stacked steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope.
ii. Timbers or logs. Note the prohibition against toxic wood treatments.
iii. Stacked masonry units (e.g., interlocking cinder block wall units).
iv. Cast-in-place reinforced concrete.
c. The following materials are not acceptable for shoreline stabilization
structures:
i. Degradable plastics and other nonpermanent synthetic materials.
ii. Sheet materials, including metal, plywood, fiberglass, or plastic.
iii. Broken concrete, asphalt, or rubble.
iv. Car bodies, tires or discarded equipment.
21. Fill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of 1 cubic yard per
running foot of bulkhead. Any filling in excess of this amount shall be
considered landfill and shall be subject to the provisions for landfill and the
requirement for obtaining a shoreline substantial development permit.
Bioengineering
22. Bioengineering projects shall use native trees, shrubs, and grasses or ground
cover, unless such an approach is not feasible.
23. All bioengineering projects shall include a program for monitoring and
maintenance.
10.a
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 60 Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Over-Water Structures - Including Piers and Docks,
Floats, Boardwalks and Boating Facilities
a. Applicability
Over-water structures for moorage, boat-related, and other direct water-dependent
uses or development, including docks, piers, boat launches, and swimming/diving
platforms, public access boardwalks, fishing piers and viewpoints, in shoreline
areas shall be subject to the following policies and regulations.
b. Policies
1. Moorage associated with a single-family residence is considered a water-
dependent use provided that it is designed and used as a facility to access
watercraft.
2. New moorage, excluding docks accessory to single family residences, should
be permitted only when the applicant/proponent has demonstrated that a
specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent or public access
use.
3. To minimize continued proliferation of individual private moorage, reduce the
amount of over-water and in-water structures, and reduce potential long-term
impacts associated with those structures, shared moorage facilities are
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 61
c. Regulations
General Regulations for Private and Public Structures
1. All new, reconstructed, repaired, or modified over-water structures shall be
allowed only in support of an allowed water dependent use and must comply
with all other regulations as stipulated by State and Federal agencies.
2. All moorage and other over-water structures shall be designed and located so
as not to constitute a hazard to navigation or other public uses of the water.
3. Proposed private over-water structures which do not comply with the
dimensional standards contained in this chapter may only be approved if they
obtain a variance.
4. No portion of the deck of a pier shall, during the course of the normal
fluctuations of the elevation of the waterbody, protrude more than five (5) feet
above the OHWM.
5. Docks, piers, and other developments for water-dependent uses shall be
located at least ten (10) feet from the extended side property lines, except for
joint-use structures which may abut property lines provided the adjacent
property owners have mutually agreed to the structure location in a contract
recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office and provided to the City of
Kent Planning Department with the appropriate applications for the structure.
6. No residential use may occur over water, including houseboats, live-aboards,
or other single- or multi-family dwelling units.
7. Only piers and ramps are permitted in the first 30 feet of the OHWM. All
floats, ells and fingers must be at least 30 feet waterward of the OHWM.
8. All pier and dock dimensions shall be minimized to the maximum extent
feasible. The proposed length must be the minimum necessary to support the
intended use.
9. No skirting is permitted on any structure except to contain or protect floatation
material.
10. All piers, docks, floats, and similar structures shall float at all times on the
surface of the water or shall be of fixed-pile construction. Floating structures
shall at no time rest on the lake substrate.
11. All over-water structures and other water-dependent use developments shall
be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or
unsafe structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner.
12. Lighting associated with overwater structures shall be beamed, hooded or
directed to avoid causing glare on adjacent properties or waterbodies.
Illumination levels shall be the minimum necessary for safety.
13. Piles, floats and other over water structures that are in direct contact with
water or over water shall not be treated or coated with herbicides, fungicides,
10.a
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 62 Kent Shoreline Master Program
paint, or pentachlorophenol. Use of wood members treated with arsenate
compounds or creosote is prohibited.
14. Temporary moorages shall be permitted for vessels used in the construction of
shoreline facilities. The design and construction of temporary moorages shall
be such that upon termination of the project, the aquatic habitat in the affected
area can be returned to its original (pre-construction) condition within one (1)
year at no cost to the environment or the public.
15. Covered moorage, boathouses, or other walled covered moorage are
prohibited.
16. If a dock is provided with a safety railing, such railing shall not exceed 36
inches in height and shall be an open framework that does not unreasonably
interfere with shoreline views of adjoining properties.
17. Moorage facilities shall be marked with reflectors, or otherwise identified to
prevent unnecessarily hazardous conditions for water surface users during the
day or night. Exterior finish shall be generally non-reflective.
New Private Piers
18. A new private pier or dock may be permitted on lots owned for residential or
for private recreational use, provided:
a. The applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage.
b. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shoreline
Administrator that a shared or joint-use pier is not feasible.
i. On lots with less than fifty (50) feet of waterfront, joint-use piers shall
be required, except when both lots abutting the subject lot have legal
pre-existing piers or docks and the applicant provides written
verification from the owners of the adjacent lots that they will not
consent to a shared use agreement. Only in this case may the lot with
less than fifty (50) feet of waterfront be permitted an individual pier.
ii. On waterfront lots subdivided to create additional waterfront lots,
upland lots with waterfront access rights, or lots with waterfront
multifamily development, joint-use piers shall be required. One joint-
use pier is allowed per 60 feet of shoreline frontage.
c. No more than one (1) pier for each single-family residence or private
recreational lot is permitted.
19. A new, joint-use pier may be permitted on a community recreation lot shared
by a number of waterfront or upland lots provided the applicant has
demonstrated a need for moorage or other allowed water-dependent use.
20. New floating docks located within the first 30 feet of shoreline measured
waterward of the OHWM are prohibited. Piers that terminate in a waterward
float are allowed provided that the landward edge of the float is over water
with a depth of eight (8) feet or more and is at least 30 feet waterward of the
OHWM. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated.
10.a
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 63
21. Development Standards for New Piers
a. Length.
i. The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of the pier shall be
the point where water depth reaches 12 feet as measured from the
ordinary high water mark. If the water depth reaches 12 feet within 40
feet of the OHWM, then a 40-foot pier may be allowed. In no case
may a pier be shorter than 40 feet or longer than 100 feet. (Note: The
12-foot depth is to accommodate the 3- to 4-foot fluctuation in water
depth caused by storm water management practices.)
ii. The maximum length of ells, fingers and floats is 20 feet.
Additionally, the maximum extent of all piers, docks and floats as
measured parallel to the shoreline shall not be greater than 50% of the
lot width measured along the shoreline.
b. Width.
i. The maximum width of a pier walkway is four (4) feet for the first 30
feet waterward of the OHWM and six (6) feet for the remainder of the
walkway.
ii. The maximum width of ells and floats is six (6) feet.
iii. Any additional fingers must be no wider than two (2) feet.
iv. The maximum width of a ramp connecting a pier to a float is four (4)
feet.
c. Area. Surface coverage of private residential piers, including all floats,
ramps, ells and fingers, shall be limited to the following:
i. Four hundred twenty (420) square feet for a single property owner;
ii. Six hundred sixty (660) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized by
two residential property owners; or
iii. Seven hundred forty (740) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized
by three or more residential property owners.
d. Decking: All new piers must be fully grated. Decking shall have a
minimum open space of 40%, and shall result in at least 60% ambient
light beneath the pier.
e. Piles. Piles shall be either maximum 5-inch-diameter steel or 5-inch-
diameter untreated wood, and shall be spaced a minimum of 12 feet apart
except when shown not to be feasible for site-specific engineering or
design considerations.
f. Pier Spacing. Piers, including fingers, ells, floats, boatlifts, or canopies,
shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from adjacent piers or 10 feet from
the side yard, whichever distance provides the maximum separation
between piers.
10.a
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 64 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Figure 2. Development dimensional standards for new private piers.
Replacement of Existing Private Pier or Dock
22. Proposals involving replacement of the entire private pier or dock, or 50
percent or more of the pier-support piles can be replaced up to 100% of the
size of the existing pier or dock and shall comply with the following
standards:
a. Decking: All replacement piers must be fully grated as described in
subsection c.21.d. above.
b. Replacement piles must be sized as described above under 22.e, and must
achieve the minimum 12-foot spacing to the extent allowed by site-
specific engineering or design considerations.
Additions to Private Pier or Dock
23. Additions to existing piers or docks may be permitted under the following
circumstances:
a. When additional length is required to reach 10 feet of water depth as
measured at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM);
b. When a single-use pier is converted to a joint-use pier; or
c. When the addition of an ell or finger will increase safety and usability.
24. When proposed additions to a private residential pier result in a pier that does
not exceed the maximum total square footage allowances, the addition must
comply with the dimensional and material standards described above in
subsection c.21.
25. When proposed additions to a private residential pier result in a pier that
exceeds the maximum total square footage allowances described above, the
addition may be approved as a Variance and subject to the following
provisions:
a. The applicant must remove any in-water structures rendered obsolete by
the addition;
b. The additional length of walkway or ell must be 4 feet wide;
10.a
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 65
c. The decking on any pier element (i.e. pier walkway, ell, float, etc.)
exceeding 8 feet in width must be fully grated as described in subsection
c.21.d. above; and
d. Any proposed new piles must comply with standards under subsection
c.21.e. above.
Repair of Existing Private Pier or Dock
26. Repair proposals which replace less than 50 percent of the existing pier-
support piles must comply with the following:
a. If the width of pier element is wider than 8 feet in the area where the piles
will be replaced, the decking that would be removed in order to replace the
piles shall be replaced with grated decking as described in subsection
c.21.d. above.
b. Replacement piles must be sized as described above under subsection
c.21.e. above, and must achieve the minimum 12-foot spacing to the
extent allowed by site-specific engineering or design considerations.
27. Repair proposals which replace 50 percent or more of the decking on any pier
element (i.e. pier walkway, ell, float etc.) greater than 8 feet wide must use
grated decking for the entire portion of that element that is wider than 8 feet as
described in subsection c.21.d. above.
28. Other repairs to existing legally established moorage facilities where the
nature of the repair is not described in the above subsections shall be
considered minor repairs and are permitted, consistent with all other
applicable codes and regulations.
29. If the cumulative repair proposed over a three-year period exceeds thresholds
established in subsection c.22 above, the current repair proposal shall be
reviewed under subsection c.22 above.
Boatlifts, Boatlift Canopies, and Covered Moorage
30. Boatlifts and boatlift canopies may be permitted as an accessory to residential
development provided that:
a. Boatlifts are movable equipment employed to temporarily lift boats above
the water for protection and storage. Residential piers may have one
boatlift per single-family lot having legal use of the structure.
b. All lifts are placed as far waterward as feasible and safe, within the limits
of the dimensional standards for docks in this chapter.
c. Boatlift canopies must not be constructed of permanent structural material.
The bottom of a boatlift canopy is elevated above the boatlift to the
maximum extent practicable, the lowest edge of the canopy must be at
least 4 feet above the ordinary high water mark, and the top of the canopy
must not extend more than 4 feet above the adjacent pier.
10.a
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 66 Kent Shoreline Master Program
d. Boatlift canopies must be made of translucent fabric material.
e. Any platform lifts are fully grated.
f. The lifts and canopies comply with all other regulations as stipulated by
State and Federal agencies.
g. Covered moorage. No covered pier, covered float, or other covered
structure is permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
Boat Launches
31. The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of any launching ramp or
lift station shall be the point where the water depth is eight (8) feet below the
ordinary high water mark.
32. Boat ramps are only permitted for public access, public or joint recreational
uses, and emergency access. Any asphalt or concrete launch that solidly
covers the substrate below the ordinary high water mark are not permitted
accessory to private residential uses.
33. Launching rails are prohibited.
Recreational Floats/Swim Platforms
34. A maximum of eight new recreational floats/swim platforms are allowed on
Lake Meridian, as of the date of adoption of this SMP. No new recreational
floats/swim platforms are allowed on Lake Fenwick or Panther Lake. All new
recreational floats on Lake Meridian are subject to the following:
a. New floats/platforms shall be up to a maximum of 150 square feet.
b. New floats shall be located:
i. In water with a depth of 10 feet or more measured from ordinary high
water mark at the landward end of the float and may be located up to a
maximum waterward distance of 150 feet, whichever is reached first.
ii. So as not to constitute a hazard to navigation or other public use of the
water.
c. Floats/platforms shall be designed and intended for swim use or other non-
motorized, but water-oriented, use.
d. Height. Floats/platforms must be built so that the deck surface is one (1)
foot above the water’s surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime
visibility.
e. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water.
f. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated.
35. Existing recreational floats/swim platforms on all lakes may be repaired
and/or replaced subject to the standards in 34.b – f. above in addition to the
following:
10.a
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 67
a. Replacement floats shall be of the same size as the existing float up to a
maximum of 150 square feet.
Public Over-Water Structures – including Docks and Piers
36. Existing public over-water structures such as docks, piers, or boardwalks may
be repaired and/or replaced in the same location as the existing structure.
37. Existing public over-water structures may be reconfigured if the total
overwater coverage and the total length are not increased. Reconfigured
portions of structures shall be subject to the standards under 38c. and 38d. If
otherwise nonconforming, such structures shall not increase the extent of
nonconformity.
387. Public over-water structures may be expanded in size subject to the
following:
a. The existing structure is not large enough to support the intended use.
b. The applicant must remove any in-water structures rendered obsolete by
the expansion.
c. Piles. Piles shall be either maximum 6-inch-diameter galvanized steel or
6-inch-diameter untreated wood, and shall be spaced a minimum of 12
feet apart except when shown not to be feasible for site-specific
engineering or design considerations.
d. At no point shall any new portion of the pier exceed 12 feet in width.
Areas of pier over 8 feet in width shall provide grating for the remaining
width, up to 12 feet maximum.
The length of the pier is the minimum necessary to accommodate the
intended public usage of the pier.
e.
389. New public docks or piers may be permitted if a specific need exists to
support the intended water-dependent usesincreased public usage of existing
structures has required the need for additional overwater cover. If a public
entity involving water-dependent uses has performed a needs analysis or
comprehensive master plan projecting the future needs for pier or dock space,
and if the plan or analysis is approved by the City and consistent with the
SMP, it may serve as the necessary justification for pier design, size, and
construction.
3940. New public over-water structures shall be subject to the standards under
387c. through 387e.
Commented [MD36]: Section 5 comment 10
Commented [MD37]: Section 5 comment 11
City: Note proposed language is based on language in WAC 173-
26-231(3)(b).
10.a
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 68 Kent Shoreline Master Program
4. Fill
a. Applicability
Fill is the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure,
or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on
shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Any fill
activity conducted within shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the following
provisions.
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.
c. Regulations
1. Fill waterward of OHWM requires a Conditional Use Permit and may be
permitted only when:
a. In conjunction with a water-dependent or public use permitted by this
SMP;
b. In conjunction with a levee, bridge, or navigational structure for which
there is a demonstrated public need and where no feasible upland sites,
design solutions, or routes exist; or
c. As part of an approved shoreline restoration project.
2. Waterward of OHWM, pile or pier supports shall be utilized whenever
feasible in preference to fills. Fills for approved road development in
floodways or wetlands shall be permitted only if pile or pier supports are
proven not feasible.
3. Fills are prohibited in floodplains where they would alter the hydrologic
characteristics, flood storage capacity, or inhibit channel migration that would,
in turn, increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Fills are
prohibited in floodway, except when approved by Conditional Use permit
and where required in conjunction with a proposed water-dependent or other
use specified in Regulation No. 2 above.
4. Fill shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the proposed action
will not:
a. Result in significant ecological damage to water quality, fish, shellfish,
and/or wildlife habitat; or
10.a
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 69
b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river
flows or significantly reduce flood water capacities.
c. Alter channel migration, geomorphic, or hydrologic processes.
5. Environmental cleanup action involving excavation/fill, as authorized by the
City’s Shoreline Administrator, may be permitted.
6. Sanitary fills shall not be located in shoreline jurisdiction.
7. Fills waterward of the ordinary high water mark that are for the purpose of
restoring ecological functions are a permitted use and do not require a
conditional use permit.
5. Dredging and Disposal
a. Applicability
Dredging is the removal or displacement of earth or sediment (gravel, sand, mud,
silt and/or other material or debris) from a stream, river, lake, marine water body,
or associated marsh, bog or swamp. Activities which may require dredging
include the construction and maintenance of navigation channels, levee
construction, recreation facilities, boat access, and ecological restoration.
Dredge material disposal is the depositing of dredged materials on land or into
water bodies for the purpose of either creating new or additional lands for other
uses or disposing of the by-products of dredging.
b. Exemptions
Pursuant to WAC 173-27-040, dredging or dredge disposal actions may be
exempt from the requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit, but
may still require a conditional use or variance permit.
c. Policies
1. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize
interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses,
properties, and values.
2. When allowed, dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the
minimum amount necessary.
3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall be
discouraged. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in
the Inventory and Analysis Report).
d. Regulations
General
1. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated
that the proposed actions will not:
10.a
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 70 Kent Shoreline Master Program
a. Result in significant or ongoing damage to water quality, fish, and
shoreline habitat;
b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river
flows, channel migration processes or significantly reduce flood water
capacities; or
c. Cause other significant ecological impacts.
2. Proposals for dredging and dredge disposal shall include all feasible
mitigating measures to protect marine habitats and to minimize adverse
impacts such as turbidity, release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides, organic
material or toxic substances, dissolved oxygen depletion, disruption of food
chains, loss of benthic productivity and disturbance of fish runs and important
localized biological communities.
3. Dredging and dredge disposal shall not occur in wetlands, except as authorized
by Conditional Use permit as a shoreline restoration project.
4. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be carefully scheduled to protect
biological productivity (e.g. fish runs, spawning, benthic productivity, etc.)
and to minimize interference with fishing activities.
5. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be prohibited on or in archaeological sites
that are listed on the Washington State Register of Historic Places until such
time that they have been released by the State Archaeologist.
6. Dredging shall utilize techniques which cause minimum dispersal and
broadcast of bottom material.
7. Dredging shall be permitted only:
a. For navigation or navigational access and recreational access;
b. In conjunction with a water-dependent use of water bodies or adjacent
shorelands;
c. As part of an approved habitat improvement project;
d. To improve water quality;
e. In conjunction with a bridge, navigational structure or wastewater
treatment facility for which there is a documented public need and where
other feasible sites or routes do not exist;
f. To improve water flow or manage flooding only when consistent with an
approved flood/storm water comprehensive management plan; or
g. To clean up contaminated sediments.
8. When dredging is permitted, the dredging shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate the proposed use.
9. New dredging activity is prohibited:
10.a
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 71
a. In shoreline areas with bottom materials which are prone to significant
sloughing and refilling due to currents, resulting in the need for continual
maintenance dredging, except by Conditional Use permit; and
b. In habitats identified as critical to the life cycle of officially designated or
protected fish, shellfish or wildlife.
10. Dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining material for landfill is
prohibited.
11. New development shall be located and designed to avoid or minimize the need
for new or maintenance dredging where feasible.
12. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels, public access
facilities and basins is restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or
existing authorized location, depth, and width.
Regulations -- Dredge Material Disposal
13. Depositing clean dredge materials in water areas shall be allowed only by
Conditional Use permit for one or more of the following reasons:
a. For wildlife habitat improvement or shoreline restoration; or
b. To correct problems of material distribution adversely affecting fish and
wildlife resources.
14. Where the City’s Shoreline Administrator requires, revegetation of land
disposal sites shall occur as soon as feasible in order to retard wind and water
erosion and to restore the wildlife habitat value of the site. Native species and
other compatible plants shall be used in the revegetation.
15. Proposals for disposal in shoreline jurisdiction must show that the site will
ultimately be suitable for a use permitted by this SMP.
16. The City’s Shoreline Administrator may impose reasonable limitations on
dredge disposal operating periods and hours and may require provision for
buffers at land disposal or transfer sites in order to protect the public safety
and other lawful interests from unnecessary adverse impacts.
17. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall require a
conditional use permit. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure
No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement
a. Applicability
Shoreline restoration and ecological enhancement are the improvement of the
natural characteristics of upland or submerged shoreline using native materials.
The materials used are dependent on the intended use of the restored or enhanced
shoreline area. An Ecological Restoration Plan accompanies this SMP and
recommends ecological enhancement and restoration measures.
10.a
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 72 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
c. Regulations
1. Shoreline enhancement may be permitted if the project proponent
demonstrates that no significant change to sediment transport or river current
will result and that the enhancement will not adversely affect ecological
processes, properties, or habitat.
2. Shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall use best available
science and management practices.
3. Shoreline restoration and enhancement shall not significantly interfere with
the normal public use of the navigable waters of the state without appropriate
mitigation.
4. Shoreline restoration and ecological enhancement projects may be permitted
in all shoreline environments, provided:
a. The project’s purpose is the restoration of natural character and ecological
functions of the shoreline, and
b. It is consistent with the implementation of a comprehensive restoration
plan approved by the City’s Shoreline Administrator, or the City’s
Shoreline Administrator finds that the project provides an ecological
benefit and is consistent with this SMP.
5. The City may grant relief from SMP development standards and use
regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects consistent with
criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215.
7. Dikes and Levees
a. Applicability
Dikes and levees are manmade earthen embankments utilized for the purpose of
flood control, water impoundment projects, or settling basins.
Commented [AC38]: Section 2 comment #16
10.a
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 73
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.
c. Regulations
1. Dikes and levees shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance
with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project
Approval, federal levee criteria, and in consideration of resource agency
recommendations.
2. Dikes and levees shall protect the natural processes and resource values
associated with streamways and deltas, including, but not limited to, wildlife
habitat.
3. Dikes and levees shall be limited in size to the minimum height required to
protect adjacent lands from the projected flood stage.
4. Dikes and levees shall not be placed in the floodway, except for current
deflectors necessary for protection of bridges and roads.
5. Public access to shorelines and aesthetics should be an integral
considerationscomponent of all levee improvement projects. Public access
shall be provided in accordance with public access policies and regulations
contained herein. New dikes or levees must not impede or diminish public
access on the Green River Trail. Fisherman access should be combined with
levee maintenance access to meet access needs for fishing equipment. The
City of Kent will work with the Muckleshoot Tribe to ensure that permitted
projects do not impede in-water or upland tribal fishing access.
6. DIn the aquatic environment, dikes and levees shall only be authorized by
Conditional Use permit , aand shall be consistent with the 2006 2013 King
County Flood Hazard Management Plan, as amended.
7. Dikes and levees shall be set back at convex (inside) bends to allow streams to
maintain point bars and associated aquatic habitat through normal accretion, if
feasible.
8. Proper diversion of surface discharge shall be provided to maintain the
integrity of the natural streams, wetlands, and drainages.
9. Underground springs and aquifers shall be identified and protected.
10. Where feasible, the construction, repair, or reconstruction of dikes or levees
shall include environmental restoration. The Kent Restoration Plan
accompanying this SMP provides guidance the City’s Shoreline Administrator
will use in determining the amount and type of restoration required.
Commented [MD39]: Section 5 comment 12
Commented [AP40]: New Revision – 4/22/19
Commented [BD41]: New Revision – 3/25/2019
10.a
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 74 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10.a
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 75
CHAPTER 5
Shoreline Use Provisions
A. Introduction
The provisions in this section apply to specific common uses and types of development to
the extent they occur within shoreline jurisdiction.
B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards
Matrices
The following matrices (Table 6 2 and Table 73) indicate the allowable uses and some of
the standards applicable to those uses and modifications. Where there is a conflict
between the matrices and the written provisions in Chapters 3, 4, or 5 of this SMP, the
written provisions shall apply. The numbers in the matrices refer to footnotes which may
be found immediately following the matrix. These footnotes provide additional
clarification or conditions applicable to the associated use or shoreline environment
designation.
Table 62. Shoreline Use Matrix
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a
conditional use only
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible
for a variance or conditional use
permit11
N/A = Not applicable
SHORELINE USE Na
t
u
r
a
l
-We
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
12
Ur
b
a
n
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Lo
w
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
12
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
13
Agriculture X P10 P10 P P10 X
Aquaculture X X X X X X
Boating facilities14 X P P X P P
Commercial:
Water-dependent X P P1 P9 X X
Water-related, water-enjoyment X P P1 P9 X X
Nonwater-oriented X C4 X C4,9 X X
Flood hazard management X P P P P C
Forest practices X X X X X X
Industrial:
Water-dependent X P X X X X
10.a
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 76 Kent Shoreline Master Program
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a
conditional use only
X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible
for a variance or conditional use
permit11
N/A = Not applicable
SHORELINE USE Na
t
u
r
a
l
-We
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
12
Ur
b
a
n
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Lo
w
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
12
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
13
Water-related, water-enjoyment X P X X X X
Nonwater-oriented X P4 X X X X
In-stream structures C C C C C C
Mining X X X X X X
Parking (accessory) X P P2 P2 P X
Parking (primary, including paid) X X X X X X
Recreation:
Water-dependent P3 P P P P P
Water-enjoyment P3 P P P P X
Nonwater-oriented X P4 P4 C4 P X
Single-family residential X X X P8 P X
Multifamily residential X P X C P X
Land subdivision P P P5 C P X
Signs:
On premises X P P6 C X X
Off premise X X X X X X
Public, highway X P P P X X
Solid waste disposal X X X X X X
Transportation:
Water-dependent X P P P C P
Nonwater-oriented X P C C P C7
Roads, railroads C7 P P7 P7 P C7
Utilities (primary) C7 P P7 P7 P C7
Use Matrix Notes:
1. Park concessions, such as small food stands, cafes, and restaurants with views and seating oriented
to the water, and uses that enhance the opportunity to enjoy publicly accessible shorelines are
allowed.
2. Accessory parking is allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if there is no other feasible option, as
determined by the City.
3. Passive activities, such as nature watching and trails, that require little development with no
significant adverse impacts may be allowed.
10.a
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 77
4. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water-
dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the
shoreline and water body or due to the underlying land use classification in the comprehensive plan.
5. Land division is only allowed where the City determines that it is for a public purpose.
6. Signs are allowed for public facilities only.
7. Roadways and public utilities are allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by
the City, and all significant adverse impacts are mitigated.
8. Residences are allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if it is not feasible, as determined by the City, to
locate the building on the portion of the property outside shoreline jurisdiction.
9. Commercial uses are only permitted as part of a residential PUD of at least 100 acres, located within
an SR zone, or at least 10 acres for residential PUDs located in other zones. Commercial uses shall
be limited to those uses permitted by Title 15 KCC, as amended, in the neighborhood convenience
commercial district.
10. Crop and tree farming only. See Section 15.04.130 KCC, as amended.
11. For the treatment of existing nonconforming development, see Chapter 7 Section E.
12. Development in channel migration zones is allowed only by conditional use permit where it can be
shown that such development would not prevent natural channel migration. (Refer to the Channel
Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Report).
13. Uses noted as allowed in the Aquatic environment are allowed only if allowed in the adjacent upland
environment.
14. Marinas are prohibited.
10.a
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 78 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Table 73. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix
Table 73 identifies shoreline development standards, organized by development type and
environment designation. See Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future
Green River levee reconstruction. For height regulations, see Chapter 15.04 KCC, as amended,
for the underlying zoning district.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS1,5
(See also section cited in parentheses) Na
t
u
r
a
l
-We
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Ur
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
-
Lo
w
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
Commercial Development (Ch. 5 Sec. C.4)
Water-dependent setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Water-related, water-enjoyment setback34 N/A 30’12 30’12 50’12 N/A N/A
Nonwater-oriented setback34 N/A 70’12 70’12 100’12 N/A N/A
Industrial Development (Ch. 5 Sec. C.5)
Water-dependent (Ch. 5. Sec C.5.c.9) N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Water-related and water-enjoyment34 (Ch. 5
Sec.C.5.c.9) N/A 50’12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nonwater-oriented34 (Ch. 5. Sec. C.5.c.9) N/A 100’12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Accessory Parking (Ch. 3 Sec. B.6)
Setbacks34 N/A 70’12 70’12 70’12 N/A2
3 N/A
Recreational Development
Water-dependent park structures setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Water-related, water enjoyment park structures
setback N/A 20’ 20’ 20’ N/A N/A
Nonwater-oriented park structures setback34 (Ch.
5 Sec. C.7.c.4) N/A 70’12 70’12 70’12 N/A N/A
Miscellaneous
New agricultural activities setback (Ch. 5 Sec.
C.2.c.4) N/A 20’12 20’12 20’12 20’12 N/A
Residential Development34 See regulations in Ch. 5 Sec. C.8.c
Other provisions in this SMP also apply.
Commented [MD42]: Section 5 comment #18
10.a
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 79
Development Standards Matrix Notes:
1. See Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future Green River levee reconstruction.
12. The City may reduce this dimension if it determines that the type of development allowed within this
SMP and other municipal, state, and federal codes cannot be accommodated within the allowed site
development area by reconfiguring, relocating, or resizing the proposed development. Where the
City reduces a requirement, compensatory mitigation, such as vegetation enhancement or shoreline
armoring removal, must be provided as determined by the City.
23. See regulation 5.C.8.c for residential development standards.
34. The setback for all development, except water dependent development, on the Green River not
separated from the shoreline by an existing or planned levee is 150 feet. See Chapter 3 Section
B.1.c.7.
5. For height regulations, see Chapter 15.04 KCC, as amended, for the underlying zoning district.
C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations
1. General Policies and Regulations
a. Applicability
The following provisions apply to all uses in shoreline jurisdiction.
b. Policy
1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or
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.
c. Regulations
1. Developments that include a mix of water-oriented and nonwater-oriented
uses may be considered water-oriented provided the City’s Shoreline
Administrator finds that the proposed development does give preference to
those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of
damage to the natural environment, are dependent on a shoreline location, or
enhance the public’s ability to enjoy the shoreline.
10.a
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 80 Kent Shoreline Master Program
2. All uses not explicitly covered in the SMP require a conditional use permit.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator should impose conditions to ensure that
the proposed development meets the policies of this SMP.
3. All development and uses must conform to all of the provisions in the SMP.
4. All development and uses shall conform to the shoreline use matrix and the
development standards matrix in Section B of this chapter unless otherwise
stated in this chapter.
5. In channel migration zones, natural geomorphic and hydrologic processes
shall not be limited and new development shall not be established where
future stabilization will be required. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone
Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and
Analysis Report).
6. As described in WAC 173-26-221 (3) (c), appropriate development may be
allowed in areas landward of Green River Road because the road prevents
active channel movement and flooding. This area is therefore not within a
channel migration zone (refer to Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No.
10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report).
2. Agriculture
a. Applicability
Agriculture includes, but is not limited to, the commercial production of
horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products
or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, or Christmas trees not subject to the
excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 thorough 84.33.140; finfish in upland
hatcheries, or livestock, that has long-term commercial significance.
Uses and shoreline modifications associated with agriculture that are identified as
separate use activities in this program, such as industry, shoreline stabilization,
and flood hazard management, are subject to the regulations established for those
uses in addition to the standards established in this section for agriculture.
b. Policies
1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes,
channel migration zones, and associated marshes, bogs, and swamps should
be prohibited.
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, provide shade, reduce flood
hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
3. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste and
manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and constructed
to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of the adjacent
shoreline environment.
Commented [MD43]: Section 5 comment #13
10.a
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 81
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.
c. Regulations
1. Agricultural development shall conform to applicable state and federal
policies and regulations, provided they are consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act and this SMP to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
2. New manure lagoons, confinement lots, feeding operations, lot wastes,
stockpiles of manure solids, aerial spraying, and storage of noxious chemicals
are prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction.
3. A buffer of natural or planted permanent native vegetation not less than 20
feet in width, measured perpendicular to the shoreline, shall be maintained
between areas of new development for crops, grazing, or other agricultural
activity and adjacent waters, channel migration zones, and marshes, bogs, and
swamps. The City’s Shoreline Administrator shall determine the extent and
composition of the buffer when the permit or letter of exemption is applied
for.
4. Stream banks and water bodies shall be protected from damage caused by
concentration and overgrazing of livestock. Provide fencing or other grazing
controls to prevent bank compaction, bank erosion, or the overgrazing of or
damage to buffer vegetation. Provide suitable bridges, culverts, or ramps for
stock crossing.
5. Agricultural practices shall prevent and control erosion of soils and bank
materials within shoreline areas and minimize siltation, turbidity, pollution,
and other environmental degradation of watercourses and wetlands.
6. Existing and ongoing agricultural uses may be allowed within a channel
migration zone or floodway provided that no new restrictions to channel
movement occur.
7. See Chapter 3 Section B.12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the
use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
10.a
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 82 Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Boating Facilities
a. Applicability
Boating facilities include dry storage and wet-moorage types; boat launch ramps;
covered moorage; boat houses; mooring buoys; and marine travel lifts. See also
Chapter 4 Section C.3for residential and public pier and dock structures.
Accessory uses found in boating facilities may include fuel docks and storage,
boating equipment sales and rental, wash-down facilities, fish cleaning stations,
repair services, public launching, bait and tackle shops, potable water, waste
disposal, administration, parking, groceries, and dry goods.
There are uses and activities associated with boating facilities but that are
identified in this section as separate uses (e.g., Commercial Development and
Industrial Development, including ship and boat building, repair yards, utilities,
and transportation facilities) or as separate shoreline modifications (e.g., piers,
docks, bulkheads, breakwaters, jetties and groins, dredging, and fill). These uses
are subject to the regulations established for those uses and modifications in
addition to the standards for boating facilities established in this section.
This section does not apply to residential moorage serving an individual single-
family residence. Chapter 4 Section C.3 does apply to single-family residential
docks and piers.
b. Policies
1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide
maximum feasible protection and restoration of ecological processes and
functions and all forms of aquatic, littoral, or terrestrial life—including
animals, fish, shellfish, birds, and plants—and their habitats and migratory
routes. To the extent possible, boating facilities should be located in areas of
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.
c. Regulations
1. It is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with all other applicable state
agency policies and regulations, including, but not limited to: the Department
of Fish and Wildlife criteria for the design of bulkheads and landfills; Federal
Marine Sanitation standards (EPA 1972) requiring water quality certification
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 10); U.S. Army Corps of
10.a
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 83
Engineers dredging standards (Section 404); and state and federal standards
for the storage of fuels and toxic materials.
2. New boating facilities shall not significantly impact the rights of navigation
on the waters of the state.
Location
3. Boating facilities shall not be located where their development would reduce
the quantity or quality of critical aquatic habitat or where significant
ecological impacts would necessarily occur.
4. Public launch ramps shall, where feasible, be located only on stable shorelines
where:
a. Water depths are adequate to eliminate or minimize the need for offshore
channel construction dredging, maintenance dredging, spoil disposal,
filling, beach enhancement, and other river, lake, harbor, and channel
maintenance activities.
b. There is adequate water mixing and flushing, and the facility is designed
so as not to retard or negatively influence flushing characteristics.
c. Adverse flood channel capacity or flood hazard impacts are avoided.
Design/Renovation/Expansion
5. Boating facilities shall be designed to avoid or minimize significant ecological
impacts. The City’s Shoreline Administrator shall apply the mitigation
sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section B.4 in the review of boating facility
proposals. On degraded shorelines, the City’s Shoreline Administrator may
require ecological restoration measures to account for environmental impacts
and risks to the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration
required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is
reasonable given the specific circumstances of the proposed boating facility.
6. Boating facility design shall:
a. Provide thorough flushing of all enclosed water areas and shall not restrict
the movement of aquatic life requiring shallow water habitat.
b. Minimize interference with geohydraulic processes and disruption of
existing shoreline ecological functions.
7. Dry moorage shall require a Conditional Use permit.
8. The perimeter of parking, dry moorage, and other storage areas shall be
landscaped to provide a visual and noise buffer between adjoining dissimilar
uses or scenic areas. See Chapter 15.07 KCC, as amended, for landscape
requirements.
9. Moorage of floating homes is prohibited.
10.a
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 84 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10. New covered moorage is prohibited.
Boat Launches
11. Launch ramps shall be permitted only on stable, non-erosional banks, where
no or a minimum number of current deflectors or other stabilization structures
will be necessary.
12. Boat ramps shall be placed and kept as flush as possible with the foreshore
slope to permit launch and retrieval and to minimize the interruption of
hydrologic processes.
4. Commercial Development
a. Applicability
Commercial development means those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail,
service, and business trade. Examples include hotels, motels, grocery markets,
shopping centers, restaurants, shops, offices, and private or public indoor
recreation facilities. Commercial nonwater-dependent recreational facilities, such
as sports clubs and amusement parks, are also considered commercial uses. This
category also applies to institutional and public uses such as hospitals, libraries,
schools, churches and government facilities.
Uses and activities associated with commercial development that are identified as
separate uses in this program include Mining, Industry, Boating Facilities,
Transportation Facilities, Utilities (accessory), and Solid Waste Disposal. Piers
and docks, bulkheads, shoreline stabilization, flood protection, and other shoreline
modifications are sometimes associated with commercial development and are
subject to those shoreline modification regulations in Chapter 4 in addition to the
standards for commercial development established herein.
b. Policies
1. Multi-use commercial projects that include some combination of ecological
restoration, public access, open space, and recreation should be encouraged in
the High-Intensity Environment consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Where possible, commercial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
10.a
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 85
c. Regulations
1. Water-oriented commercial developments may be permitted as indicated in
Chapter 5 Section B, “Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices.”
2. Nonwater-oriented commercial developments may be permitted only where
they are either separated from the shoreline by a structural levee designed to
minimize flood hazard or where all three (3) of the following can be
demonstrated:
a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the proposed
site due to topography, incompatible surrounding land uses, physical
features, or the site’s separation from the water.
b. The proposed development does not usurp or displace land currently
occupied by a water-oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent
water-oriented uses.
c. The proposed development will be of appreciable public benefit by
increasing ecological functions together with public use of or access to the
shoreline.
3. Commercial development shall be designed to avoid or minimize ecological
impacts, to protect human health and safety, and to avoid significant adverse
impacts to surrounding uses and the shoreline’s visual qualities, such as views
to the waterfront and the natural appearance of the shoreline. To this end, the
City’s Shoreline Administrator may adjust the project dimensions and
setbacks (so long as they are not relaxed below minimum standards without a
shoreline variance permit) or prescribe operation intensity and screening
standards as deemed appropriate.
4. All new commercial development proposals will be reviewed by the City’s
Shoreline Administrator for ecological restoration and public access
requirements consistent with Chapter 3 Section B.7. When restoration or
public access plans indicate opportunities exist, the City’s Shoreline
Administrator may require that those opportunities are either implemented as
part of the development project or that the project design be altered so that
those opportunities are not diminished.
All new water-related and water-enjoyment development shall be conditioned
with the requirement for ecological restoration and public access unless those
activities are demonstrated to be not feasible. (See definition of “feasible.”)
All new nonwater-oriented development, where allowed, shall be conditioned
with the requirement to provide ecological restoration and public access.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this 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 a commercial
development.
10.a
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 86 Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. All commercial loading and service areas shall be located or screened to
minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline environment (including visual
impacts, such as a view of loading doors or trash receptacles from the Green
River Trail) and public access facilities, including the Green River Trail. At a
minimum, parking and service areas shall be screened from the Green River
Trail by a 15’ strip of Type II landscaping as defined in Section 15.07.050
KCC, as amended, that is able to provide a full visual screen within 5 years of
planting. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping
requirements to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
6. All new nonwater-oriented commercial development located adjacent to the
Green River Trail shall provide the following:
a. A minimum of 15’ of Type II landscaping (as defined in Section
15.07.050 KCC, as amended) between the building and the shoreline. A
sight obscuring fence is not required.
b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of
building façade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this
standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety
and security.
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements
to account for legitimate safety and security concerns.
7. Commercial development and accessory uses must conform to the setback and
height standards established in Section B “Development Standards Matrix” in
this Chapter.
8. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be incorporated where
appropriate.
5. Industry
a. Applicability
Industrial developments and uses are facilities for processing, manufacturing, and
storing of finished or semi-finished goods. Included in industry are such activities
as log storage, log rafting, petroleum storage, hazardous waste generation,
transport and storage, ship building, concrete and asphalt batching, construction,
manufacturing, and warehousing. Excluded from this category and covered under
other sections of the SMP are boating facilities, piers and docks, mining
(including on-site processing of raw materials), utilities, solid waste disposal, and
transportation facilities.
Shoreline modifications and other uses associated with industrial development are
described separately in this SMP. These include dredging, fill, transportation
facilities, utilities piers and docks, bulkheads, breakwaters, jetties and groins,
shoreline stabilization and flood protection, and signs. They are subject to their
own regulations in Chapter 4 in addition to the provisions in this chapter.
10.a
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 87
b. Policies
1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented
industrial development.
2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low
Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects.
c. Regulations
1. The amount of impervious surface shall be the minimum necessary to provide
for the intended use. The remaining land area shall be landscaped with native
plants according to Chapter 3 Section B.11.c.5.
2. Water-dependent industry shall be located and designed to minimize the need
for initial and/or continual dredging, filling, spoil disposal, and other harbor
and channel maintenance activities.
3. Storage and disposal of industrial wastes is prohibited within shoreline
jurisdiction; PROVIDED, that wastewater treatment systems may be allowed
in shoreline jurisdiction if alternate, inland areas have been adequately proven
infeasible.
4. At new or expanded industrial developments, the best available facilities
practices and procedures shall be employed for the safe handling of fuels and
toxic or hazardous materials to prevent them from entering the water, and
optimum means shall be employed for prompt and effective cleanup of those
spills that do occur. The City’s Shoreline Administrator may require specific
facilities to support those activities as well as demonstration of a cleanup/spill
prevention program.
5. Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed, shielded, and operated to
avoid illuminating the water surface.
6. All industrial loading and service areas shall be located or screened to
minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline environment (including visual
impacts) and public access facilities, including the Green River Trail. At a
minimum, parking and service areas shall be screened from the Green River
Trail by a 15’ strip of Type II landscaping as defined in Section 15.07.050
KCC, as amended, that is able to provide a full visual screen within 5 years of
planting. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping
requirements to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
7. All new industrial development located adjacent to the Green River Trail shall
provide the following:
a. A minimum of 15’ of Type II landscaping (as defined in Section
15.07.050 KCC, as amended) between the building and the shoreline. A
sight obscuring fence is not required.
b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of
building façade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this
10.a
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 88 Kent Shoreline Master Program
standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety
and security.
The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements
to account for reasonable safety and security concerns.
8. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be incorporated where
appropriate.
9. Ship and boat building and repair yards shall employ Best Management
Practices (BMPs) concerning the various services and activities they perform
and their impacts on the surrounding water quality. Standards for BMPs are
found in the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended.
10. See Section B “Development Standards Matrix” of this Chapter for setback
requirements. See also setback requirements in Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7 to
accommodate levee construction on the Green River.
6. In-Stream Structures
a. Applicability
In-stream structures are constructed waterward of the OHWM and either cause or
have the potential to cause water impoundment or diversion, obstruction, or
modification of water flow. They typically are constructed for hydroelectric
generation and transmission (including both public and private facilities), flood
control, irrigation, water supply (both domestic and industrial), recreational, or
fisheries enhancement.
In Kent, the only in-stream structures applicable are for water treatment or
environmental restoration purposes, such as water treatment at the Green River
Natural Resources Area.
b. Policies
1. In-stream structures should provide for the protection, preservation, and
restoration of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and
water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas. Within the City of Kent, in-stream structures should be
allowed only for the purposes of environmental restoration or water quality
treatment.
c. Regulations
1. In-stream structures are permitted only for the purposes of environmental
restoration, water quality management, or maintenance of water levels.
2. The City’s Shoreline Administrator may require that projects with in-stream
structures include public access, provided public access improvements do not
create adverse environmental impacts or create a safety hazard.
10.a
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 89
7. Recreational Development
a. Applicability
Recreational development includes public and commercial facilities for
recreational activities such as hiking, photography, viewing, and fishing, boating,
swimming, bicycling, picnicking, and playing. It also includes facilities for active
or more intensive uses, such as parks, campgrounds, golf courses, and other
outdoor recreation areas. This section applies to both publicly and privately
owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club, group,
association or individual.
Recreational uses and development can be part of a larger mixed-use project. For
example, a resort will probably contain characteristics of, and be reviewed under,
both the “Commercial Development” and the “Recreational Development”
sections. Primary activities such as boating facilities, resorts, subdivisions, and
hotels are not addressed directly in this category.
Uses and activities associated with recreational developments that are identified
as separate use activities in this SMP, such as “Boating Facilities,” “Piers and
Docks,” “Residential Development,” and “Commercial Development,” are subject
to the regulations established for those uses in addition to the standards for
recreation established in this section.
Commercial indoor nonwater-oriented recreation facilities, such as bowling alleys
and fitness clubs, are addressed as commercial uses.
b. Policies
1. The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning should be
encouraged to satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline recreational developments
should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open space plans.
2. Recreational developments and plans should promote the conservation of the
shoreline’s natural character, ecological functions, and processes.
3. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be
encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs.
4. Water-dependent recreational uses, such as angling, boating, and swimming,
should have priority over water-enjoyment uses, such as picnicking and golf.
Water-enjoyment uses should have priority over nonwater-oriented
recreational uses, such as field sports.
5. Recreation facilities should be integrated and linked with linear systems, such
as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements, and scenic drives.
6. Where appropriate, nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in
floodplain areas. Nonintensive recreational uses include those that do not do
any of the following:
a. Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems.
10.a
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 90 Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. Create any flood hazards.
c. Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as
structural shoreline stabilization or significant vegetation removal.
7. Opportunities to expand the public’s ability to enjoy the shoreline in public
parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued.
c. Regulations
1. Water-oriented recreational developments and mixed-use developments with
water-oriented recreational activities may be permitted as indicated in Chapter
5 Section B, “Shoreline Use and Development Standard Matrices.” In
accordance with this matrix and other provisions of this SMP, nonwater-
oriented recreational developments may be permitted only where it can be
demonstrated that all of the following apply:
a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the proposed
site due to topography, surrounding land uses, physical features, or the
site’s separation from the water.
b. The proposed use does not usurp or displace land currently occupied by a
water-oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent water-oriented uses.
c. The proposed use and development will appreciably increase ecological
functions or, in the case of public projects, public access.
2. Accessory parking shall not be located in shoreline jurisdiction unless all of
the following conditions are met:
a. The City’s Shoreline Administrator determines there is no other feasible
option,
b. The parking supports a water-oriented use, and
c. All adverse impacts from the parking in the shoreline jurisdiction are
mitigated.
3. All new recreational development proposals will be reviewed by the City’s
Shoreline Administrator for ecological restoration and public access
opportunities. When restoration or public access plans indicate opportunities
exist for these improvements, the City’s Shoreline Administrator may require
that those opportunities are either implemented as part of the development
project or that the project design be altered so that those opportunities are not
diminished.
All new nonwater-oriented recreational development, where allowed, shall be
conditioned with the requirement to provide ecological restoration and, in the
case of public developments, public access. The City’s Shoreline
Administrator shall consult the provisions of this SMP and determine the
applicability and extent of ecological restoration and public access required.
Commented [MD44]: Section 5 comment 14
City: Note that “significant vegetation removal” is a term defined in
the SMP.
10.a
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 91
4. Nonwater-oriented structures, such as restrooms, recreation halls and
gymnasiums, recreational buildings and fields, access roads, and parking
areas, shall be set back from the OHWM at least 70 feet unless it can be
shown that there is no feasible alternative.
5. See Chapter 3 Section 12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the use
of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
8. Residential Development
a. Applicability
Residential development means one or more buildings, structures, lots, parcels or
portions thereof which are designed for and used or intended to be used to provide
a place of abode, including single-family residences, duplexes, other detached
dwellings, floating homes, multi-family residences, mobile home parks,
residential subdivisions, residential short subdivisions, and residential planned
unit development, together with accessory uses and structures normally applicable
to residential uses, including, but not limited to, garages, sheds, tennis courts,
swimming pools, parking areas, fences, cabanas, saunas, and guest cottages.
Residential development does not include hotels, motels, or any other type of
overnight or transient housing or camping facilities.
Single family residences are a preferred use under the Shoreline Management Act
when developed in a manner consistent with this Shoreline Master Program.
b. Policies
1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas including, but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, and
buffers.
2. The overall density of development, lot coverage, and height of structures
should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site and consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 92 Kent Shoreline Master Program
6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring
will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential
lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed
without:
a. Constructing shoreline stabilization structures (such as bulkheads).
b. Causing significant erosion or slope instability.
c. Removing existing native vegetation within 20 feet of the shoreline.
c. Regulations
Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Lakes
1. A summary of regulations for residential properties within shoreline
jurisdiction is presented in Table 8 4 below. Refer to written provisions
within this section for exceptions and more detailed explanations. See also
Chapter 3 Section B.11 for vegetation conservation provisions.
Table 84. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes
Regulation:
Standard Minimum Building Setback from OHWM 75 feet1
Standard Minimum Deck Setback from OHWM 50 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 35%
1 Standard 2.a.i. discussed below requires the averaging of the setbacks of adjacent
dwelling units with a minimum setback of 75 feet.
2. New residential development, including new structures, new pavement, and
additions, within shoreline jurisdiction on lakes shall adhere to the following
standards:
a. Setbacks:
i. Buildings: Set back all covered or enclosed structures and second
story decks the average of the setbacks of existing houses on adjacent
lots on both sides of the subject parcel, with a minimum setback of 75
feet from the OHWM. Setback distance shall follow the curvature of
the OHWM. Where the City’s Shoreline Administrator finds that an
existing site does not provide sufficient area to locate the residence
entirely landward of this setback, the City’s Shoreline Administrator
may allow the residence to be located closer to the OHWM, provided
all other provisions of this SMP are met and impacts are mitigated.
ii. Patios and decks: Uncovered patios or decks that are no higher than
2’ above grade may extend a maximum of 25 feet into the building
setback, up to within 50 feet of the OHWM. See Section d. below for
exception to this requirement.
10.a
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 93
Figure 3. Standard setback from residential development on lakes.
b. Maximum amount of impervious surface: The maximum amount of
impervious surface for each lot, including structures and pavement
(including gravel surfaces) shall be no greater than 35 percent of the total
lot area above OHWM.
In calculating impervious surface, pavers on a sand bed may be counted as
50 percent impervious and wood decks with gaps between deck boards
may be counted as permeable if over bare soil or loose gravel. Pervious
concrete and asphalt may be counted as per manufacturer’s specifications.
To calculate the net impervious surface, multiply the area of the pavement
by the percentage of imperviousness.
The City may determine the percentage of imperviousness for pavements,
such as compacted gravel, that are not specified here.
Figure 4. Illustration of maximum impervious surface.
Commented [BD45]: Replace diagram with one that shows a
curving OHWM that follows the curvature of the OHWM.
10.a
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 94 Kent Shoreline Master Program
c. Incentives to provide shoreline vegetation. The maximum amount of
impervious surface area can be increased if native vegetation, including
trees and shrubs, is included along the shoreline. For every five feet of
vegetation depth (measured perpendicular to the shoreline) added along
the OHWM, the percentage of total impervious surface area can increase
by 2 percent, up to a maximum of 50 percent for total impervious surface
area. Twenty-five percent of the native vegetated area may be left open
for views and access.
All property owners who obtain approval for increase in the impervious
surface cover in exchange for planting native vegetation must prepare, and
agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation management plan prepared by a
qualified professional and approved by the Shoreline Administrator that:
i. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs
and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
ii. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
iii. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after
approval by the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded covenant
shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
d. If there is no bulkhead, or if a bulkhead is removed, a small waterfront
deck or patio can be placed along the shoreline provided:
i. Waterfront deck or patio covers less than 25 percent of the shoreline
frontage (width of lot measured along shoreline) and native vegetation
covers a minimum of 75 percent of the shoreline frontage.
ii. Within 25 feet of the shoreline, for every 1 square foot of waterfront
deck or patio, 3 square feet of vegetated area shall be provided along
the shoreline.
iii. The total area of the waterfront deck or patio along the shoreline shall
not exceed 400 square feet.
iv. The deck or patio is set back 5 feet from the OHWM.
v. The deck or patio is no more than 2 feet above grade and is not
covered
All property owners who obtain approval for a waterfront deck or patio in
exchange for removing a bulkhead and retaining or planting native
vegetation must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by
the Shoreline Administrator that:
i. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan
ii. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs
and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
10.a
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 95
iii. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
iv. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after
approval by the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded
covenant shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
Figure 5. Waterfront deck bonus for lots with no bulkhead or if bulkhead is removed.
3. For new development on previously undeveloped lots, any existing native
vegetation shall be retained along the shoreline to 20 feet from the OHWM. If
little or no native vegetation exists on the previously undeveloped lot, native
vegetation shall be planted along the shoreline to 20 feet from the OHWM.
25 percent of the required vegetated area can be cleared or thinned for view
maintenance and waterfront access, provided 75 percent of the area remains
vegetated. Invasive species may be removed, vegetation trimmed, and trees
“limbed up” from the bottom to eye level to provide views. In the 25 percent
cleared area, pathways for access to the water are allowed.
Property owners must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation
management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the
Shoreline Administrator that:
a. Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan
b. Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and
groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions,
c. Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and
d. Includes a monitoring and maintenance program.
This plan shall be recorded as a covenant against the property after approval
of the Shoreline Administrator. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
provided to the Shoreline Administrator.
10.a
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 96 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Property owners who provide more native vegetation than the minimum
required can apply any additional vegetation over 20 feet to take advantage of
the incentives described in subsection c.2.c above. For example, if 30 feet of
vegetation is provided, 10 feet can be applied to the calculations described in
subsection c.2.c above, for a total increase in impervious surface area of 4%.
Figure 6. Standards for new development on previously undeveloped lots.
a. Maximum building footprint area: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
b. Height: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as amended.
c. Also see regulations for “Shoreline Stabilization” and “Docks and Floats”
in Chapter 4 for those structures.
4. For the purposes of maintaining visual access to the waterfront, the following
standards apply to accessory uses, structures, and appurtenances for new and
existing residences.
a. Fences:
i. Fences within 75 feet of the OHWM shall be no more than 4 feet high
when separating two residential lots.
ii. Fences within 75 feet of the OHWM shall be no more than 6 feet high
when separating a residential lot from public lands or community park.
iii. Fences aligned roughly parallel to the shoreline and within 75 feet of
the OHWM shall be no more than 4 feet high and shall be set back at
least 25 feet from the OWHM.
iv. Fences along a property line running roughly perpendicular to the
shoreline may extend to the OHWM.
v. The opaque portions (e.g., boards or slats) of a fence must not cover
more than 60 percent of the fence. That is, when looking at a fence,
not more than 60 percent of it may be opaque and at least 40 percent of
10.a
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 97
the fence must be open. Chain link fences are not permitted within 75
feet of the OHWM.
Figure 7. Fence standards for residential development on lakes.
b. Garages and pavements for motorized vehicles (drives and parking areas)
shall be set back at least 75 feet from the OHWM.
5. Accessory uses and appurtenant structures not addressed in the regulations
above shall be subject to the same conditions as primary residences.
6. The creation of new residential lots within shoreline jurisdiction on lakes shall
be prohibited unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the provisions of
this SMP, including setback and size restrictions, can be met on the proposed
lot. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The residence can be built in conformance with all applicable setbacks and
development standards in this SMP.
b. Adequate water, sewer, road access, and utilities can be provided.
c. The intensity of development is consistent with the City’s comprehensive
plan.
d. The development will not cause flood or geological hazard to itself or
other properties.
In addition, new residential development on new lots that contain intact native
vegetation shall conform to the regulations of c.3. above. (See also
Vegetation Conservation standards section in Chapter 3 Section 11).
7. The storm water runoff for all new or expanded pavements or other
impervious surfaces shall be directed to infiltration systems in accordance
with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended.
10.a
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 98 Kent Shoreline Master Program
8. See the Chapter 3 Section B.11 for regulations related to clearing, grading,
and conservation of vegetation.
Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers and Streams
9. Table 9 5 below is a summary of regulations for Residential Properties within
shoreline jurisdiction on rivers or streams:
Table 95. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction
on Rivers or Streams
Regulation:
Standard Minimum Building Setback
Green River 140 feet1
Big Soos Creek 200 feet2
Springbrook Creek NA3
Jenkins Creek NA3
Standard Minimum Deck Setback 120 feet
Standard Maximum Height See Kent
Zoning Code
1 This setback is established on the Green River to allow for levee reconstruction and
accompanying shoreline restoration. Buildings existing prior to the adoption of this
SMP are considered an allowed and conforming use (see 10.a.i below).
2 The City’s Shoreline Administrator may reduce this setback on lots existing prior to
the adoption of this SMP if it finds that such a setback prevents the development of
a single-family residence (see 10.a.ii below).
3 Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek do not have residential properties along the
shoreline, nor does the zoning allow for future residential structures.
10. New residential development within shoreline jurisdiction on rivers and
streams shall adhere to the following standards:
a. Setbacks:
i. Buildings on the Green River: All covered or enclosed structures shall
be set back a minimum of 140 feet to allow for levee reconstruction
and environmental restoration. The City’s Shoreline Administrator
may revise this setback in accordance with levee reconstruction
design. (See Chapter 3 Section B.1.c.7)
ii. Buildings on Big Soos Creek: Set back all covered or enclosed
structures a minimum of two hundred (200) feet inland from the
OHWM. Where the City’s Shoreline Administrator finds that an
existing site does not provide sufficient area to locate the residence
entirely landward of the setback, the City’s Shoreline Administrator
may allow the residence to be located closer to the OHWM, provided
all other provisions of this SMP are met and impacts are mitigated.
iii. Patios and decks: Uncovered patios or decks no higher than 2 feet
above grade may extend up to within 120 feet of the OHWM.
10.a
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 99
b. Maximum building footprint area: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
c. Maximum amount of impervious surface: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as
amended.
d. Height: See Section 15.04.170 KCC, as amended.
11. Also see regulations for “Shoreline Stabilization” and “Docks and Floats” in
Chapter 4 for those structures.
12. For the purposes of maintaining visual access to the waterfront, the following
standards apply to accessory uses, structures, and appurtenances for new and
existing residences.
a. Fences: All streams shall have a wildlife-passable fence installed at the
edge of the required SMP setback. Fencing shall consist of split rail cedar
fencing (or other nonpressure treated materials approved by the City’s
Shoreline Administrator). The fencing shall also include sensitive area
signage at a rate of one (1) sign per lot, or one (1) sign per one hundred
(100) feet and along public right-of-way, whichever is greater.
b. Garages and pavements for motorized vehicles (drives and parking areas)
shall be set back at least 200 feet from the OHWM.
13. The storm water runoff for all new or expanded pavements or other
impervious surfaces shall be directed to infiltration systems in accordance
with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
14. The creation of new residential lots within shoreline jurisdiction on rivers and
streams shall be prohibited unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the
provisions of this SMP, including setback and size restrictions, can be met on
the proposed lot. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The residence can be built in conformance with all applicable setbacks and
development standards in this SMP.
b. Adequate water, sewer, road access, and utilities can be provided.
c. The intensity of development is consistent with the City’s comprehensive
plan.
d. The development will not cause flood or geological hazard to itself or
other properties.
In addition, new residential development on new lots that contain intact native
vegetation shall conform to the regulations of c.3. above. (See also Chapter 3
Section B.11).
15. See Chapter 3 Section B.11 for regulations related to clearing, grading, and
conservation of vegetation.
10.a
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 100 Kent Shoreline Master Program
9. Transportation
a. Applicability
Transportation facilities are those structures and developments that aid in land and
water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and
highways, bridges and causeways, bikeways, trails, railroad facilities, airports,
heliports, and other related facilities.
The various transport facilities that can impact the shoreline cut across all
environmental designations and all specific use categories. The policies and
regulations identified in this section pertain to any project, within any
environment, that is effecting some change in present transportation facilities.
b. Policies
1. Circulation system planning on shorelands should include systems for
pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation
planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses that
are consistent with the SMP.
2. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines and should be
constructed in a manner compatible with the natural character, resources, and
ecology of the shoreline.
3. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned, they should be reused
for water-dependent use or public access.
c. Regulations
General
1. Development of all new and expanded transportation facilities in shoreline
jurisdiction shall be consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and
applicable capital improvement plans.
2. All development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall be
conditioned with the requirement to mitigate significant adverse impacts
consistent with Chapter 3 Section B.4 of this SMP. Development of new or
expanded transportation facilities that cause significant ecological impacts
shall not be allowed unless the development includes shoreline
mitigation/restoration that increases the ecological functions being impacted
to the point where:
a. Significant short- and long-term risks to the shoreline ecology from the
development are eliminated.
b. Long-term opportunities to increase the natural ecological functions and
processes are not diminished.
If physically feasible, the mitigation/restoration shall be in place and
functioning prior to project impacts. The mitigation/restoration shall include a
monitoring and adaptive management program that describes monitoring and
enhancement measures to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time.
10.a
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 101
Location
3. New nonwater-dependent transportation facilities shall be located outside
shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. In determining the feasibility of a non-
shoreline location, the City’s Shoreline Administrator will apply the definition
of “feasible” in Chapter 6 and weigh the action’s relative public costs and
benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
4. New transportation facilities shall be located and designed to prevent or to
minimize the need for shoreline protective measures such as riprap or other
bank stabilization, fill, bulkheads, groins, jetties, or substantial site grading.
Transportation facilities allowed to cross over water bodies and wetlands shall
utilize elevated, open pile, or pier structures whenever feasible. All bridges
must be built high enough to allow the passage of debris and provide three
feet of freeboard above the 100-year flood level.
5. Roads and railroads shall be located to minimize the need for routing surface
waters into and through culverts. Culverts and similar devices shall be
designed with regard to the 100-year storm frequencies and allow continuous
fish passage. Culverts shall be located so as to avoid relocation of the stream
channel.
6. Bridge abutments and necessary approach fills shall be located landward of
wetlands or the OHWM for water bodies without wetlands; provided, bridge
piers may be permitted in a water body or wetland as a conditional use.
Design/Construction/Maintenance
7. All roads and railroads, if permitted parallel to shoreline areas, shall provide
buffer areas of compatible, self-sustaining vegetation. Shoreline scenic drives
and viewpoints may provide breaks periodically in the vegetative buffer to
allow open views of the water.
8. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall include
provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate
as determined by the City’s Shoreline Administrator. Circulation planning
and projects shall support existing and proposed shoreline uses that are
consistent with the SMP.
9. Transportation and primary utility facilities shall be required to make joint use
of rights-of-way and to consolidate crossings of water bodies if feasible,
where adverse impact to the shoreline can be minimized by doing so.
10. Fills for development of transportation facilities are prohibited in water bodies
and wetlands; except, such fill may be permitted as a Conditional Use when
all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and the
transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with this
SMP.
11. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall not diminish
but may modify public access to the shoreline.
10.a
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 102 Kent Shoreline Master Program
12. Waterway crossings shall be designed to provide minimal disturbance to
banks.
13. All transportation facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to
contain and control all debris, overburden, runoff, erosion, and sediment
generated from the affected areas. Relief culverts and diversion ditches shall
not discharge onto erodible soils, fills, or sidecast materials without
appropriate BMPs, as determined by the City’s Shoreline Administrator.
14. All shoreline areas disturbed by construction and maintenance of
transportation facilities shall be replanted and stabilized with native, drought-
tolerant, self-sustaining vegetation by seeding, mulching, or other effective
means immediately upon completion of the construction or maintenance
activity. Such vegetation shall be maintained by the agency or developer
constructing or maintaining the road until established. The vegetation
restoration/replanting plans shall be as approved by the City’s Shoreline
Administrator.
Green River
15. New transportation and utility improvements near the Green River shall be set
back sufficiently, as determined by the City’s Shoreline Administrator, to
accommodate planned levee and shoreline restoration improvements.
16. Along the Green River shoreline:
a. Roads extending along the shoreline shall be developed as scenic
boulevards for slow-moving traffic;
b. Roads extending along the shoreline shall provide a trail system separated
from the roadway;
c. All lots and buildings must have road access without using scenic and
recreational roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Plan.
d. Development shall not include street connections to scenic and
recreational roads;
e. Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed
development to use a scenic or recreational road for access; and
f. Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed
development to use a scenic or recreational road for access.
g. Development consistent with this SMP may be allowed landward of Green
River Road because the road prevents active channel movement and
flooding and therefore is not within the channel migration zone.
10. Utilities
a. Applicability
Utilities are services and facilities that produce, transmit, carry, store, process, or
dispose of electric power, gas, water, sewage, communications, oil, and the like.
10.a
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 103
The provisions in this section apply to primary uses and activities, such as solid
waste handling and disposal, sewage treatment plants and outfalls, public high-
tension utility lines on public property or easements, power generating or transfer
facilities, and gas distribution lines and storage facilities. See Chapter 3 Section
B.10, "Utilities (Accessory)," for on-site accessory use utilities.
Solid waste disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid or hazardous waste on any land area or in the
water.
Solid waste includes solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, rubbish,
ashes, industrial wastes, wood wastes and sort yard wastes associated with
commercial logging activities, swill, demolition and construction wastes,
abandoned vehicles and parts of vehicles, household appliances and other
discarded commodities. Solid waste does not include sewage, dredge material,
agricultural wastes, auto wrecking yards with salvage and reuse activities, or
wastes not specifically listed above.
b. Policies
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.
c. Regulations
1. All utility facilities shall be designed and located to minimize harm to
shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape, and minimize
conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses while meeting the
needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth. The
City’s Shoreline Administrator may require the relocation or redesign of
proposed utility development in order to avoid significant ecological impacts.
2. Utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants or parts of
those facilities that are nonwater-oriented shall not be allowed in shoreline
areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is available.
In such cases, significant ecological impacts shall be avoided.
3. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines,
cables, and pipelines, shall be located to cause minimum harm to the shoreline
and shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Utilities
shall be located in existing rights-of-way and utility easements whenever
possible. New or expanded utilities installed near the Green River shall be set
10.a
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 104 Kent Shoreline Master Program
back and designed to accommodate planned levee and shoreline restoration
improvements.
4. Development of pipelines and cables on shorelines, particularly those running
roughly parallel to the shoreline, and development of facilities that may
require periodic maintenance or that cause significant ecological impacts shall
not be allowed unless no other feasible option exists. When permitted, those
facilities shall include adequate provisions to protect against significant
ecological impacts.
5. Restoration of ecological functions shall be a condition of new and expanded
nonwater-dependent utility facilities.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP
and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration
required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is
reasonable given the specific circumstances of utility development.
6. Utility development shall, through coordination with local government
agencies, provide for compatible, multiple uses of sites and rights-of-way.
Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems and other forms of
recreation and transportation, providing such uses will not unduly interfere
with utility operations, endanger public health and safety or create a
significant liability for the owner.
7. New solid waste disposal sites and facilities are prohibited. Existing solid
waste disposal and transfer facilities in shoreline jurisdiction shall not be
added to or substantially reconstructed.
8. New electricity, communications and fuel lines shall be located underground,
except where the presence of bedrock or other obstructions make such
placement infeasible or if it is demonstrated that above-ground lines would
have a lesser impact. Existing above ground lines shall be moved
underground during normal replacement processes.
9. Transmission and distribution facilities shall cross areas of shoreline
jurisdiction by the shortest, most direct route feasible, unless such route would
cause significant environmental damage.
10. Utility developments shall be located and designated so as to avoid or minimize
the use of any structural or artificial shoreline stabilization or flood protection
works.
11. Utility production and processing facilities shall be located outside shoreline
jurisdiction unless no other feasible option exists. Where major facilities must
be placed in a shoreline area, the location and design shall be chosen so as not
to destroy or obstruct scenic views, and shall avoid significant ecological
impacts.
12. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic
life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, unless no other
feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted by
10.a
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 105
Conditional Use, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of
the water body.
13. Filling in shoreline jurisdiction for development of utility facility or line
purposes is prohibited, except where no other feasible option exists and the
proposal would avoid or minimize adverse impacts more completely than
other methods. Permitted crossings shall utilize pier or open pile techniques.
14. Power-generating facilities shall require a Conditional Use permit.
15. Clearing of vegetation for the installation or maintenance of utilities shall be
kept to a minimum and upon project completion any disturbed areas shall be
restored to their pre-project condition.
16. Telecommunication towers, such as radio and cell phone towers, are
specifically prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
17. Utilities that need water crossings shall be placed deep enough to avoid the
need for bank stabilization and stream/riverbed filling both during
construction and in the future due to flooding and bank erosion that may occur
over time. Boring, rather than open trenching, is the preferred method of
utility water crossing.
10.a
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 106 Kent Shoreline Master Program
CHAPTER 6
Definitions
Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the definitions provided in KCC Chapter 15.02 shall
apply. If there is a conflict, the definitions in this section shall prevail. Where an RCW or WAC
reference is provided, the RCW or WAC shall prevail.
Accessory use. Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or development.
Adjacent lands. Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline jurisdiction).
Administrator. The City of Kent Planning Director or his/her designee, charged with the
responsibility of administering the Shoreline Master Program.
Anadromous. Fish species, such as salmon, which are born in fresh water, spend a large part of
their lives in the sea, and return to freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Appurtenance. A structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark
and also of the perimeter of any wetland. On a state-wide basis, normal appurtenances include a
garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fences and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty
cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the
ordinary high water mark. (WAC 173-27-040(2)(g))
Aquatic. Pertaining to those areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
Aquaculture. The cultivation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals or plants, including the
incidental preparation of these products for human use.
Archaeological. Having to do with the scientific study of material remains of past human life
and activities.
Associated Wetlands. Wetlands that are in proximity to and either influence, or are influenced
by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act. Refer to WAC 173-
22-030(1).
Average grade level. See “base elevation.”
Base elevation. The average elevation of the approved topography of a parcel at the midpoint on
each of the four sides of the smallest rectangle that will enclose the proposed structure, excluding
eaves and decks.
Beach. The zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves and wind currents,
extending landward to the shoreline.
Commented [AC46]: Section 4 comment #3
Commented [BD47]: Updated per Erin George’s comments
3/28/2019.
Commented [AC48]: Section 5 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 107
Beach enhancement/restoration. Process of restoring a beach to a state more closely resembling
a natural beach, using beach feeding, vegetation, drift sills and other nonintrusive means as
applicable.
Berm. A linear mound or series of mounds of sand and/or gravel generally paralleling the water
at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. Also, a linear mound used to screen an adjacent
activity, such as a parking lot, from transmitting excess noise and glare.
Bioengineering. The use of biological elements, such as the planting of vegetation, often in
conjunction with engineered systems, to provide a structural shoreline stabilization measure with
minimal negative impact to the shoreline ecology.
Biofiltration system. A stormwater or other drainage treatment system that utilizes as a primary
feature the ability of plant life to screen out and metabolize sediment and pollutants. Typically,
biofiltration systems are designed to include grassy swales, retention ponds and other vegetative
features.
Bog. A wet, spongy, poorly drained area which is usually rich in very specialized plants,
contains a high percentage of organic remnants and residues, and frequently is associated with a
spring, seepage area, or other subsurface water source. A bog sometimes represents the final
stage of the natural process of eutrophication by which lakes and other bodies of water are very
slowly transformed into land areas.
Buffer or buffer area. See definition in the Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. 38054159,
codified as Section 11.06.160 KCC.
Building height. See definition in Section 15.02.065 KCC, as amended.
Building Setback. An area in which structures, including but not limited to sheds, homes
buildings, and awnings shall not be permitted within, or allowed to project into. It is measured
horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark.
Bulkhead. A solid wall erected generally parallel to and near the ordinary high water mark for
the purpose of protecting adjacent uplands from waves or current action.
Buoy. An anchored float for the purpose of mooring vessels.
Channel. An open conduit for water, either naturally or artificially created; does not include
artificially created irrigation, return flow, or stockwatering channels.
Channel Migration Zone (CMZ). The area along a river within which the channel(s) can be
reasonably predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring
hydrological and related processes when considered with the characteristics of the river and its
surroundings. For locations of CMZ, refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2
in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
City. The City of Kent Washington.
Commented [AC49]: Section 5 comment #1
Commented [MD50]: Section 4 comment 2
10.a
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 108 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Clearing. The destruction or removal of vegetation ground cover, shrubs and trees including
root material removal and topsoil removal.
Compensatory Mitigation. See definition in the Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
38054159, codified as Section 11.06.180 KCC.
Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive plan means the document, including maps adopted by the
city council, that outlines the City’s goals and policies related to management of growth, and
prepared in accordance with RCW 36.70A. The term also includes adopted subarea plans
prepared in accordance with RCW 36.70A.
Conditional use. A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
Conditional Use; or a use development, or substantial development that is not specifically
classified within the SMP and is therefore treated as a Conditional Use.
Covered moorage. Boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a roof to protect the vessel.
Critical Areas Regulations. Refers to the City of Kent’s Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance
No. 3805, codified under Chapter 11.06 KCC through Ordinance 4159 (07/21/15in effect on the
effective date of this SMP.
Current deflector. An angled stub-dike, groin, or sheet-pile structure which projects into a stream
channel to divert flood currents from specific areas, or to control downstream current alignment.
Department of Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology.
Development. A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of
piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter
90.58 RCW at any stage of water level. (RCW 90.58.030(3)(d).) “Development” does not
include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re-
development. (WAC 173-27-030(6))
Development regulations. The controls placed on development or land uses by the City of Kent,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, Critical Areas Regulations, all portions of a
shoreline master program other than goals and policies approved or adopted under Chapter 90.58
RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan
ordinances, together with any amendments thereto.
Dock. A structure which abuts the shoreline and is used as a landing or moorage place for craft.
A dock may be built either on a fixed platform or float on the water. See also “development”
and “substantial development.”
Dredging. Excavation or displacement of the bottom or shoreline of a water body.
Commented [MD51]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD52]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD53]: Section 2 comment #2
10.a
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 109
Ecological functions (or shoreline functions). The work performed or role played by the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and
terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline’s natural ecosystem.
Ecosystem-wide processes. The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a
specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated
ecological functions.
EIS. Environmental Impact Statement.
Emergency. An unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment
which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the SMP.
Emergency construction is construed narrowly as that which is necessary to protect property and
facilities from the elements. Emergency construction does not include development of new
permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures
are deemed by the Administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation,
upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit
which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW or this
SMP, shall be obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of
Chapter 90.58 RCW and this SMP. As a general matter, flooding or seasonal events that can be
anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. (RCW
90.58.030(3eiii).)
Enhancement. Alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its characteristics,
functions, or processes without degrading other existing ecological functions.
Environment designation(s). See “shoreline environment designation(s).”
Erosion. The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces.
Exemption. Certain specific developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt from the
definition of substantial developments and are therefore exempt from the substantial
development permit process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial
development provisions of the SMA must still be carried out in compliance with policies and
standards of the SMA and the local SMP. Conditional Use and variance permits may also still be
required even though the activity does not need a substantial development permit. (RCW
90.58.030(3e); WAC 173-27-040.) (See also “development” and “substantial development.”)
Fair market value. The open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and
facilities, and purchase of the goods, services, and materials necessary to accomplish the
development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the
development from start to finish, including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility
usage, transportation, and contractor overhead and profit. The fair market value of the
development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found labor,
equipment, or materials.
10.a
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 110 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Feasible. An action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, is
feasible when it meets all of the following conditions:
(a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the
past, or studies or tests have demonstrated that such approaches are currently available and
likely to achieve the intended results.
(b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose.
(c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended use.
In cases where these regulations require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of
proving infeasibility is on the applicant.
In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and
public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
Fill. The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material
to an area waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner
that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
Floats. An anchored, buoyed object.
Floodplain. A term that is synonymous with the one hundred-year floodplain and means that
land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a
reasonable method which meets the objectives of the SMA.
Floodway. Those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of
a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under
normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of
vegetative groundcover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can
reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by
or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of
the state.Means the area that has been established in effective Federal Emergency Management
Agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that
can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices
maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
Gabions. Structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly together
usually by wire mesh so as to form blocks or walls. Sometimes used on heavy erosion areas to
retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties.
Geologically hazardous areas. Lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and
topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of potential risk of
landslides, erosion, or seismic or volcanic activity; and areas characterized by geologic and
Commented [MD54]: Section 2 comment #8
10.a
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 111
hydrologic conditions that make them vulnerable to contamination of groundwater supplies
through infiltration of contaminants to aquifers.
Geotechnical report (or geotechnical analysis). A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a
qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the
affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or
processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development
on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed
development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate
potential site-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed development, including the
potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical reports shall
conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified engineers or
geologists who are knowledgeable about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes.
If the project is in a Channel Migration Zone, then the report must be prepared by a professional
with specialized experience in fluvial geomorphology in addition to a professional engineer.
(Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the June 9, 2009 Final Shoreline
Inventory and Analysis Report).
Grade. See “base elevation.”
Grading. The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other
material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land.
Grassy Swale. A vegetated drainage channel that is designed to remove various pollutants from
storm water runoff through biofiltration.
Guidelines. Those standards adopted by the Department of Ecology into the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) to implement the policy of Chapter 90.58 RCW for regulation of
use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of shoreline master programs. Such standards
also provide criteria for local governments and the Department of Ecology in developing and
amending shoreline master programs. The Guidelines may be found under WAC 173-26.
Habitat. The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.
Height. See “building height.”
Hydrological. Referring to the science related to the waters of the earth including surface and
ground water movement, evaporation and precipitation. Hydrological functions in shoreline
include, water movement, storage, flow variability, channel movement and reconfiguration,
recruitment and transport of sediment and large wood, and nutrient and pollutant transport,
removal and deposition.
KCC. Kent City Code, including any amendments thereto.
Letter of exemption. A letter or other official certificate issued by the City to indicate that a
proposed development is exempted from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit as
provided in WAC 173-27-050. Letters of exemption may include conditions or other provisions
10.a
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 112 Kent Shoreline Master Program
placed on the proposal in order to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and
this SMP.
Littoral. Living on, or occurring on, the shore.
Littoral drift. The mud, sand, or gravel material moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore
zone by waves and currents.
Low Impact Development (LID)Technique. A stormwater management and land development
strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-
site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely
mimic pre-development hydrologic functions. Additional information may be found in the City
of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as amended, in addition to the 2005 Puget Sound Action
Team LID Manual, as amended.
May. Refers to actions that are acceptable, provided they conform to the provisions of this SMP
and the SMA.
Mitigation (or mitigation sequencing). The process of avoiding, reducing, or compensating for
the environmental impact(s) of a proposal, including the following, which are listed in the order
of sequence priority, with (a) being top priority.
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation
by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
(f) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
Moorage facility. Any device or structure used to secure a boat or a vessel, including piers,
docks, piles, lift stations or buoys.
Moorage pile. A permanent mooring generally located in open waters in which the vessel is tied
up to a vertical column to prevent it from swinging with change of wind.
Multi-family dwelling (or residence). A building containing two or more dwelling units,
including but not limited to duplexes, apartments and condominiums.
Must. A mandate; the action is required.
Commented [AC55]: Section 5 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 113
Native Plants or Native Vegetation. These are plant species indigenous to the Puget Sound
region that could occur or could have occurred naturally on the site, which are or were
indigenous to the area in question..
Nonconforming development. A shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of this SMP provision, and which no longer conforms to
the applicable shoreline provisions.
Nonpoint pollution. Pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land-based
or water-based activities, including, but not limited to, atmospheric deposition, surface water
runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, or forest lands, subsurface or underground sources,
or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System program.
Nonwater-oriented uses. Those uses that are not water-dependent, water-related, or
water-enjoyment.
Normal maintenance. Those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully
established condition. See also “normal repair.”
Normal protective bulkhead. Those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or
near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing
single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion.
Normal repair. To restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition,
including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance,
within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. (WAC 173-27-040.) See also
“normal maintenance” and “development.”
Off-site replacement. To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from
the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity.
OHWM. See “ordinary high water mark.”
Ordinary high water mark (OHWM). That mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so
long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the
abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may
naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by
the City or the Department of Ecology. (RCW 90.58.030(2)(b)).
Periodic. Occurring at regular intervals.
Person. An individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or
municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local governmental unit however designated.
(RCW 90.58.030(1d).)
Commented [AC56]: Section 5 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 114 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Pier element. Sections of a pier including the pier walkway, the pier float, the ell, etc.
Provisions. Policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria or designations.
Public Access. Public access is the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the
water’s edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from
adjacent locations. (WAC 173-26-221(4)).
Public interest. The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the
affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected such as an
effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or
development.
RCW. Revised Code of Washington.
Residential development. Development which is primarily devoted to or designed for use as a
dwelling(s).
Restore. To significantly re-establish or upgrade shoreline ecological functions through
measures such as revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or
treatment of toxic sediments. To restore does not mean returning the shoreline area to aboriginal
or pre-European settlement condition.
Revetment. Facing of stone, concrete, etc., built to protect a scarp, embankment, or shore
structure against erosion by waves or currents.
Riparian. Of, on, or pertaining to the banks of a river.
Riprap. A layer, facing, or protective mound of stones placed to prevent erosion, scour, or
sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so used.
Riverbank. The upland areas immediately adjacent to the floodway, which confine and conduct
flowing water during non-flooding events. The riverbank, together with the floodway, represents
the river channel capacity at any given point along the river.
Runoff. Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows along the ground surface
following the topography.
Sediment. The fine grained material deposited by water or wind.
SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act). SEPA requires state agencies, local governments and
other lead agencies to consider environmental factors when making most types of permit
decisions, especially for development proposals of a significant scale. As part of the SEPA
process an EIS may be required to be prepared and public comments solicited.
Setback. A required open space, specified in this SMP, measured horizontally upland from and
perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark.
Shall. A mandate; the action must be done.
10.a
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 115
Shorelands. All lands within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction lying upland or higher in
elevation of the OHWM.
Shoreline Administrator. City of Kent Planning Director or his/her designee charged with the
responsibility of administering the Shoreline Master Program.
Shoreline areas (and shoreline jurisdiction). The same as "shorelines of the state" and
"shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030.
Shoreline environment designation(s). The categories of shorelines established to provide a
uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline
areas. Shoreline environment designations include: Aquatic, High Intensity, Urban Conservancy
– Low Intensity, Urban Conservancy – Open Space, and Shoreline Residential.
Shoreline functions. See “ecological functions.”
Shoreline jurisdiction. The term describing all of the geographic areas covered by the SMA,
related rules and this SMP. See definitions of "shorelines", "shorelines of the state", "shorelines
of state-wide significance" and "wetlands." See also the “Shoreline Management Act Scope”
section in the “Introduction” of this SMP.
Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58
RCW, as amended.
Shoreline master program, master program, or SMP. This Shoreline Master Program ,as
adopted by the City of Kent and approved by the Washington Department of Ecology.
Shoreline modifications. Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the
shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater,
dock, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structures. They can include other
actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
Shoreline permit. A substantial development, Conditional Use, revision, or variance permit or
any combination thereof.
Shoreline property. An individual property wholly or partially within shoreline jurisdiction.
Shoreline restoration, or ecological restoration. The re-establishment or upgrading of impaired
ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures
including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal
or treatment of toxic materials. Shoreline restoration does not imply a requirement for returning
the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.
Shoreline sub-unit. An area of the shoreline that is defined by distinct beginning points and end
points by parcel number or other legal description. These sub-units are assigned environment
designations to recognize different conditions and resources along the shoreline.See “sub-unit.” Commented [AC57]: Section 5 comment #1
10.a
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 116 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Shorelines. All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of state-wide
significance; (ii) shorelines on areas of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow
is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream areas; and
(iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small
lakes.
Shorelines of the state. The total of all “shorelines” and “shorelines of state-wide significance”
within the state.
Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). A six member quasi-judicial body, created by the SMA,
which hears appeals by any aggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline permit, enforcement
penalty and appeals by local government on Department of Ecology approval of shoreline master
programs, rules, regulations, guidelines or designations under the SMA.
Shorelines of state-wide significance. A select category of shorelines of the state, defined in
RCW 90.58.030(2)(e), where special policies apply.
Should. The particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason,
based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this SMP, against taking the action.
Sign. A board or other display containing words and/or symbols used to identify or advertise a
place of business or to convey information. Excluded from this definition are signs required by
law and the flags of national and state governments.
Significant ecological impact. An effect or consequence of an action if any of the following
apply:
(a) The action measurably or noticeably reduces or harms an ecological function or ecosystem-
wide process.
(b) Scientific evidence or objective analysis indicates the action could cause reduction or harm to
those ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in (a) of this subsection
under foreseeable conditions.
(c) Scientific evidence indicates the action could contribute to a measurable or noticeable
reduction or harm to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in (a) of
this subsection as part of cumulative impacts, due to similar actions that are occurring or are
likely to occur.
Significant vegetation removal. The removal or alteration of native trees, shrubs, or ground
cover by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes
significant ecological impacts to functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of
invasive, non-native, or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree
pruning, not including tree topping, where it does not affect ecological functions, does not
constitute significant vegetation removal.
10.a
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 117
Single-family residence. A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family
including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal
appurtenance.
SMA. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended.
Storm water. That portion of precipitation that does not normally percolate into the ground or
evaporate but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels, or pipes into a defined surface water
channel or constructed infiltration facility.
Stream. A naturally occurring body of periodic or continuously flowing water where: a) the
mean annual flow is greater than twenty cubic feet per second and b) the water is contained
within a channel. See also “channel.”
Structure. That which is built or constructed, or an edifice or building of any kind or any piece
of work composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, and includes posts for fences
and signs, but does not include mounds of earth or debris.
Subdivision. The division or redivision of land, including short subdivision for the purpose of
sale, lease or conveyance.
Substantial development. Any development which meets the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e).
See also definition of "development" and "exemption".
Substantially degrade. To cause damage or harm to an area's ecological functions. An action is
considered to substantially degrade the environment if:
(a) The damaged ecological function or functions significantly affect other related functions or
the viability of the larger ecosystem; or
(b) The degrading action may cause damage or harm to shoreline ecological functions under
foreseeable conditions; or
(c) Scientific evidence indicates the action may contribute to damage or harm to ecological
functions as part of cumulative impacts.
Sub-unit. For the purposes of this SMP, a sub-unit is defined as an area of the shoreline that is
defined by distinct beginning points and end points by parcel number or other legal description.
These sub-units are assigned environment designations to recognize different conditions and
resources along the shoreline.
Swamp. A depressed area flooded most of the year to a depth greater than that of a marsh and
characterized by areas of open water amid soft, wetland masses vegetated with trees and shrubs.
Extensive grass vegetation is not characteristic.
Terrestrial. Of or relating to land as distinct from air or water.
10.a
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 118 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Transportation Facilities. A structure or development(s), which aids in the movement of people,
goods or cargo by land, water, air or rail. They include but are not limited to highways, bridges,
causeways, bikeways, trails, railroad facilities, ferry terminals, float plane – airport or heliport
terminals, and other related facilities.
Upland. Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the ordinary high water
mark.
Utility. A public or private agency which provides a service that is utilized or available to the
general public (or a locationally specific population thereof). Such services may include, but are
not limited to, storm water detention and management, sewer, water, telecommunications, cable,
electricity, and natural gas.
Utilities (Accessory). Accessory utilities are on-site utility features serving a primary use, such
as a water, sewer or gas line connecting to a residence. Accessory utilities do not carry
significant capacity to serve other users.
Variance. A means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards
set forth in this SMP and not a means to vary a use of a shoreline. Variance permits must be
specifically approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City’s Hearing Examiner and
the Department of Ecology.
Vessel. Ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for
navigation and do not interfere with normal public use of the water.
Visual Access. Access with improvements that provide a view of the shoreline or water, but do
not allow physical access to the shoreline.
WAC. Washington Administrative Code.
Water-dependent. A use or a portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is
dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-
dependent uses may include fishing, boat launching, swimming, and storm water discharges.
Water-enjoyment. A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as
a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the
use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the
physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,
the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project
must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary
water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to:
• Parks with activities enhanced by proximity to the water.
• Docks, trails, and other improvements that facilitate public access to shorelines of the
state.
• Restaurants with water views and public access improvements.
10.a
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 119
• Museums with an orientation to shoreline topics.
• Scientific/ecological reserves.
• Resorts with uses open to the public and public access to the shoreline; and any
combination of those uses listed above.
Water-oriented use. A use that is water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment, or a
combination of such uses.
Water quality. The physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction, including
water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological
characteristics. Where used in this SMP, the term "water quantity" refers only to development
and uses regulated under SMA and affecting water quantity, such as impervious surfaces and
storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this SMP, does not mean the
withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through
90.03.340.
Water-related use. A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront
location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
(a) The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment
of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
(b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses and the
proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more
convenient.
Weir: A structure generally built perpendicular to the shoreline for the purpose of diverting
water or trapping sediment of other moving objects transported by water.
Wetland or wetlands. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
38054159, codified under Section 11.06.530 KCC.
Wetland Category. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
38054159, codified under Section 11.06.533 KCC.
Wetland Delineation. Identification of a wetland boundary pursuant to the Wetland Delineation
Manual as defined and described in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
38054159, codified under Sections 11.06.230 KCC and 11.06.590 KCC.
Wetlands Rating System. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No.
38054159, codified under Section 11.06.580 KCC.
Zoning. The system of land use and development regulations and related provisions of the Kent
City Code, codified under Title 15 KCC, as amended.
In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030, as amended, and
implementing rules shall also apply as used herein.
Commented [AC58]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD59]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD60]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD61]: Section 4 comment 2
10.a
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 120 Kent Shoreline Master Program
CHAPTER 7
Administrative Provisions
A. Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an administrative system designed to assign
responsibilities for implementation of this SMP and to outline the process for review of
proposals and project applications. All proposed shoreline uses and development,
including those that do not require a shoreline permit, must conform to the Shoreline
Management Act and to the policies and regulations of this SMP. Where inconsistencies
or conflicts with other sections of the Kent City Code occur, this section shall apply.
1. Developments Not Required to Obtain Shoreline Permits
or Local Reviews
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit,
variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline
Management Act do not apply to the following:
a. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial
action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued
pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it
conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
b. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in
an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant
discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
c. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities
meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial
development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or
other local review.
d. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant
to RCW 90.58.045.
e. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process,
pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
Commented [MD62]: Section 2 comment #3
10.a
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 121
B. Substantial Development
Any person wishing to undertake substantial development within the shoreline shall
submit materials as required under Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended and shall apply to the
Administrator for a shoreline permit, as required in this chapter and Chapter 90.58 RCW.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms “development” and “substantial development”
are as defined in RCW 90.58.030 or as subsequently amended.
1. Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit
Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial
development permit. Such developments still may require a variance or Conditional
Use permit, and all development within the shoreline is subject to the requirements of
this SMP, regardless of whether a substantial development permit is required.
Developments which are exempt from requirement for a substantial development
permit are identified in WAC 173-27-040 or as subsequently amended.
2 Substantial Development Permit Process
a. Applicants shall apply for shoreline substantial development, variance, and
conditional use permits on forms provided by the City.
b. Shoreline substantial development permits are a Process II application and shall
be processed and subject to the applicable regulations of Chapter 12.01 KCC, as
amended. Shoreline conditional use permits and variances are classified as
Process III applications and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 12.01
KCC, as amended.
c. Public notice. A notice of application shall be issued for all shoreline permit
applications as provided for in Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended, excepting that
the public comment period for the notice of application for a shoreline permit
shall be not less than thirty (30) days, per WAC 173-27-1 10(2)(e).
d. Application review. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for
substantial development permits, and recommendations on applications for
conditional use and variance permits based upon: (1) the policies and procedures
of the Shoreline Management Act and related sections of the Washington
Administrative Code; and (2) this SMP.
e. Hearing Examiner action. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for
a shoreline variance and shoreline conditional use permit and make decisions
based upon: (1) this SMP; (2) the policies and procedures of the Shoreline
Management Act and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; (3)
written and oral comments from interested persons; (4) reports from the
Administrator; and (5) Chapters 2.32 and 12.01 KCC, as amended.
10.a
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 122 Kent Shoreline Master Program
f. Filing with Department of Ecology. All applications for a permit or permit
revision shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology, as required by WAC
173-27-130 or as subsequently amended.
After City approval of a Conditional Use or variance permit, the City shall submit
the permit to the Department of Ecology for the Department’s approval, approval
with conditions, or denial, as provided in WAC 173-27-200. The Department
shall transmit its final decision to the City and the applicant within thirty (30)
calendar days of the date of submittal by the City.
g. Hold on Construction. Each permit issued by the City shall contain a provision
that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until
twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, per
WAC 173-27-190 or as subsequently amended. “Date of filing” of the City’s
final decision on substantial development permits differs from date of filing for a
Conditional Use permit or variance. In the case of a substantial development
permit, the date of filing is the date the City transmits its decision on the permit to
the Department of Ecology. In the case of a variance or Conditional Use permit,
the “date of filing” means the date the Department of Ecology’s final order on the
permit is transmitted to the City.
h. Duration of permits. Construction, or the use or activity, shall commence within
two (2) years after approval of the permits. Authorization to conduct
development activities shall terminate within five (5) years after the effective date
of a shoreline permit. The Administrator may authorize a single extension before
the end of either of these time periods, with prior notice to parties of record and
the Department of Ecology, for up to one (1) year based on reasonable factors.
i. Compliance with permit conditions. When permit approval includes conditions,
such conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior
to commencement of a nonstructural activity.
3. Appeals
a. Shoreline Hearings Board. Any decision made by the Administrator on a
substantial development permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a Conditional Use
or variance permit shall be final unless an appeal is made. Persons aggrieved by
the grant, denial, rescission or modification of a permit may file a request for
review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process
established by RCW 90.5 8.180 or as subsequently amended, and with the
regulations of the Shoreline Hearings Board contained in Chapter 46 1-08 WAC
or as subsequently amended. The request for review must be filed with the
Hearings Board within twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing, as defined in
subsection 2.g above.
10.a
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 123
C. Conditional Use Permits
1. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
a. Purpose. The purpose of a Conditional Use permit is to allow greater flexibility
in varying the application of the use regulations of this SMP in a manner
consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use,
special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of
Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure
consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this SMP.
Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized
pursuant to WAC 173-27-160.
b. Process and Application. Shoreline conditional use permits are a Process III
application per Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended.
c. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are (1) specifically designated as
Conditional Uses elsewhere in this SMP, or (2) are not specifically classified as a
Permitted or Conditional Use in this SMP but the applicant is able to demonstrate
consistency with the requirements of WAC 173-27-160 and the requirements for
conditional uses in section C.2 below.
d. In the granting of all Conditional Use permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example,
if conditional use permits were granted to other developments in the area where
similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain
consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Shoreline Conditional Use permits may be granted, provided the applicant can satisfy
the criteria for granting conditional use permits as set forth in WAC 173-27-160 or as
subsequently amended.
D. Variances
1. Shoreline Variances
a. Purpose. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief
from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this SMP
and where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character
or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this SMP
would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline
Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances where a
variance is granted, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public
10.a
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 124 Kent Shoreline Master Program
interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Variances from the use
regulations of this SMP are prohibited.
b. Application. Shoreline variances are classified as Process III applications per
Chapter 12.01 KCC, as amended.
2. Shoreline Variance Criteria
Shoreline variance permits may be authorized, provided the applicant can
demonstrate satisfaction of the criteria for granting shoreline variances as set forth in
WAC 173-27-170.
3. Revisions to Permits
See WAC 173-27-100 for additional information regarding revisions to permits.
When an applicant seeks to revise a shoreline substantial development, conditional
use, or variance permit, the City shall request from the applicant detailed plans and
text describing the proposed changes in the permit. If the Administrator determines
that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the
revision may be approved, provided it is consistent with Chapter 173-27 WAC, the
SMA, and this SMP. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means the
following:
a. No additional over-water construction will be involved except that pier, dock, or
float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent
from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less.
b. Lot coverage and height may be increased a maximum of 10 percent from
provisions of the original permit, provided that revisions involving new structures
not shown on the original site plan shall require a new permit.
c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an application for a
new permit if consistent with the conditions attached to the original permit and
with this SMP.
d. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed.
e. No additional significant adverse environmental impact will be caused by the
project revision.
f. The revised permit shall not authorize development to exceed height, lot
coverage, setback, or any other requirements of this SMP except as authorized
under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof.
If the revision, or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions, will
violate the criteria specified above, the City shall require the applicant to apply for a
new substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit, as appropriate, in
the manner provided for herein.
10.a
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 125
E. Local Review Timelines
1. Special Procedures for WSDOT Projects
a. Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485,
the Legislature established a target of 90 days review time for local governments.
b. Optional process allowing construction to commence 21 days after date of filing.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation
projects that address significant public safety risks may begin 21 days after the
date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
FE. Nonconforming Uses
Nonconforming development shall be defined and regulated according to the provisions of
WAC 173-27-080; excepting that if a nonconforming development is damaged to the
extent of one hundred percent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may
be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the
development was damaged. In order for this replacement to occur, application must be
made for permits within six months of the date the damage occurred, and all restoration
must be completed within two years of permit issuance.
GF. Documentation of Project Review Actions and
Changing Conditions in Shoreline Areas
The City will keep on file documentation of all project review actions, including applicant
submissions and records of decisions, relating to shoreline management provisions in this
SMP.
HG. Amendments to This Shoreline Master Program
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, the City will review this SMP at least once every eight
years. If the City or Department of Ecology determines it necessary, the City will review
shoreline conditions and update this SMP within seven years of its adoption. The City
may elect to use the optional joint review process established by WAC 173-26-104 for
SMP amendments other than comprehensive updates.
Commented [MD63]: Section 2 comment #24
Commented [MD64]: Section 2 comment #18
Commented [MD65]: Updated language. Not in gap analysis.
Commented [MD66]: Section 2 comment #21
10.a
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 126 Kent Shoreline Master Program
IH. Severability
If any provision of this SMP, or its application to any person, legal entity, parcel of land,
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this SMP, or its application to other
persons, legal entities, parcels of land, or circumstances shall not be affected.
I. Enforcement
See Chapter 1.04 KCC, as amended for additional information regarding the City’s
enforcement regulations.
1. Violations
a. It is a violation of this SMP for any person to initiate or maintain or cause to be
initiated or maintained the use of any structure, land or property within the
shorelines of the City without first obtaining the permits or authorizations
required for the use by this Chapter.
b. It is a violation of this SMP for any person to use, construct, locate, or demolish
any structure, land or property within shorelines of the City in any manner that is
not permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this
SMP, provided that the terms or conditions are explicitly stated on the permit or
the approved plans.
c. It is a violation of this SMP to remove or deface any sign, notice, or order
required by or posted in accordance with this SMP.
d. It is a violation of this SMP to misrepresent any material fact in any application,
plans or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development
authorization.
e. It is a violation of this SMP for anyone to fail to comply with any other
requirement of this SMP.
2. Duty to Enforce
a. It shall be the duty of the Administrator to enforce this Chapter. The
Administrator may call upon the police, fire, health, or other appropriate City
departments to assist in enforcement.
b. Upon presentation of proper credentials, the Administrator or duly authorized
representative of the Administrator may, with the consent of the owner or
occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to lawfully issued inspection
warrant, enter at reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent
or warrant to perform the duties imposed by this SMP.
c. This SMP shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the
general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons.
10.a
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 127
d. It is the intent of this SMP to place the obligation of complying with its
requirements upon the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the
condition of the land and buildings within the scope of this SMP.
e. No provision of or term used in the SMP is intended to impose any duty upon the
City or any of its officers or employees which would subject them to damages in a
civil action.
3. Investigation and Notice of Violation
a. The Administrator or his/her representative shall investigate any structure,
premises or use which the Administrator reasonably believes does not comply
with the standards and requirements of this SMP.
b. If after investigation the Administrator determines that the SMP’s standards or
requirements have been violated, the Administrator shall follow the enforcement
provisions of Chapter 1.04 Kent City Code, as amended.
10.a
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 128 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10.a
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 129
CHAPTER 8
Shoreline Restoration Plan
A. Introduction
A jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program applies to activities in the jurisdiction’s
shoreline area. Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values
of the shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the proponent of that
activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the
baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be improved
over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally, degraded?
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines 1 says:
“master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify
existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and
identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to
achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make
real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs
that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately
consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs
under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may
flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards.”
However, degraded shorelines are not just a result of pre-Shoreline Master Program
activities, but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines
also require that “[l]ocal master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt
development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the
shoreline.” While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the
Shoreline Master Program should clearly state that those actions are not exempt from
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the local Shoreline Master Program.
Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking place outside of a
specific local master program’s jurisdiction (e.g., outside of city limits, outside of the
shoreline area within the city), assembly of out-of-jurisdiction actions, programs and
policies can be essential for understanding how the City fits into the larger watershed
context. The latter is critical when establishing realistic goals and objectives for dynamic
and highly inter-connected environments.
1 The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines were prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology and codified
as WAC 173-26. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020)
into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/guidelines/index.html
for more background.
10.a
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 130 Kent Shoreline Master Program
As directed by the Guidelines, the following discussions provide a summary of baseline
shoreline conditions, lists restoration goals and objectives, and discusses existing or
potential programs and projects that positively impact the shoreline environment. Finally,
anticipated scheduling, funding, and monitoring of these various comprehensive
restoration elements are provided. In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master
Program (with mitigation of project-related impacts) in combination with this Restoration
Plan (for restoration of lost ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project)
should result in a net improvement in the City of Kent’s shoreline environment in the long
term.
In addition to meeting the requirements of the Guidelines, this Restoration Plan is also
intended to support the City’s or other non-governmental organizations’ applications for
grant funding, and to provide the interested public with contact information for the various
entities working within the City to enhance the environment.
B. Shoreline Inventory Summary
1. Introduction
The City conducted a comprehensive inventory of its shoreline jurisdiction in 2008.
The purpose of the shoreline inventory was to facilitate the City of Kent’s compliance
with the State of Washington’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and updated
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and
biological conditions in the shoreline area within City limits, including
recommendations for restoration of ecological functions where they are degraded.
The full Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report is summarized below.
2. Shoreline Boundary
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain
waters of the state plus their associated “shorelands.” Shorelands are defined as:
“those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and
river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject
to the provisions of this chapter…Any county or city may determine that portion
of a one-hundred-year-floodplain 2 to be included in its master program as long as
such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land
extending landward two hundred feet therefrom (RCW 90.58.030)”
2 According to RCW 173-220-030, 100-year floodplain is “that land area susceptible to being inundated by stream
derived waters with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall
be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the act;”
10.a
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 131
In addition, rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines
of statewide significance.
Shorelands in the City of Kent include only areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of shoreline jurisdiction waters and any associated wetlands within
shoreline jurisdiction. Waters identified within jurisdiction include the Green River,
Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), Lake Meridian, Panther Lake,
Jenkins Creek, Big Soos Creek, Springbrook Creek and the north half of Lake
Fenwick. Panther Lake, tThe south half of Lake Fenwick, and portions of the Green
River at the south end of the City, which are all located outside the City limits in the
City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA), are also identified.
3. Inventory
The shoreline inventory is divided into seven main sections: Introduction, Current
Regulatory Framework Summary, Elements of the Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline-
Specific Conditions, Analysis of Ecological Functions and Ecosystem-wide
Processes, Land Use Analysis, and Shoreline Management Recommendations.
Several segments were established for each of the waterbodies within jurisdiction,
and have been delineated based on existing land use and current location within either
the City or the PAA. The areas within the PAA that are currently regulated by King
County’s SMP include all of Panther Lake, the south half of Lake Fenwick, and
portions of the Green River at the south of the City limits.
a. Land Use and Physical Conditions
1. Existing Land Use: Land uses within the City of Kent shoreline area vary
depending on the location within the city. Generally, land uses are defined by
various intensities, which include open space, high intensity, residential and
agricultural. While it is expected that some of the industrial areas along the
Green River Valley may redevelop over time, a majority of the land use
changes will be limited to new residential development on vacant lands and
infill development.
The City’s shoreline is zoned into multiple land use categories, most
predominately industrial along the valley floor and single-family residential in
the upland areas. The Green River’s shoreline has a variety of uses, including
parks, trails and open spaces, large scale industrial uses such as warehouses
and office buildings, residential areas consisting of single and multi-family
housing, and agricultural activities. Lands surrounding Lake Meridian, Lake
Fenwick and Panther Lake are primarily residential land uses, with some open
space areas. Big Soos Creek is primarily undeveloped shoreline, as is Jenkins
Creek, which is part of the City’s watershed. The shoreline of Springbrook
Creek is entirely surrounded by industrial uses.
2. Parks and Open Space/Public Access: The City provides fairly continuous
public access along the Green River with a network of parks, trails, and open
spaces. The public access sites provide for a number of activities, including
fishing, swimming, boating, biking and picnicking. Although there are a few
Commented [MD67]: Section 5 comment #19
Commented [AC68]: Section 5 comment #19
10.a
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 132 Kent Shoreline Master Program
gaps in the open space connections to the river, the majority of the corridor is
well-served by public access opportunities.
The Green River Trail is a substantial element of public recreation and open
space, and runs along 10 miles of the river within shoreline jurisdiction. Parks
located along the trail provide parking and public access for trail users. The
parks along the corridor include: Briscoe Park, Three Friends Fishing Hole,
Valley Floor Community Park, Anderson Park, Green River Natural
Resources Area, Van Doren’s Landing Park, BMX Park, Russell Woods Park,
Cottonwood Grove, Riverbend Golf Complex, Old Fishing Hole, Riverview
Park, Foster Park and North Green River Park.
There are also a number of other public access areas within shoreline
jurisdiction. These include Lake Meridian Park, Lake Fenwick, Green River
Natural Resources Area (GRNRA) and Panther Lake. Shoreline areas along
Springbrook, Big Soos, and Jenkins Creeks have no public access.
Lake Meridian Park is a 16-acre park located on the southeast tip of a
primarily residential lake. The park provides a boat launch, swimming
and fishing areas. Future public access along the lake is limited due to the
residential build-out of shoreline.
Lake Fenwick Park, located on the northern half of the lake, is 140 acres
and provides a boat launch, swimming, picnic areas, fishing, trails and a
disc golf course.
The GRNRA is a 304-acre wildlife refuge park that serves both as a
stormwater detention and enhanced wetland facility. The park provides a
trail system, viewing towers, and bike paths.
Panther Lake , located in King County and within the City’s PAA, has one
public boat launch located on the southwestern shoreline. However, the
lake is almost completely covered by water lilies which severely limit
recreational opportunities.
Big Soos Creek does not have any public access within the shoreline area.
However, upstream of the 20 cfs cutoff point the Gary Grant Soos Creek
Park, owned by King County, surrounds the majority of the creek. This
500-acre park provides access to the 7-mile Soos Creek Trail, and also
provides picnic areas.
Springbrook Creek does not have public access within the shoreline area
other than a viewing opportunity from SW 43rd Street. Upstream from the
20 cfs cutoff point is the 5-acre Springbrook Greenbelt.
Jenkins Creek public access is strictly prohibited, as this area is part of the
City’s protected watershed, Armstrong Springs.
3. Shoreline Modifications: The Green River shoreline is one of the most heavily
modified river systems in the Puget Sound region. As early as the 1850s,
early settlers altered habitats in the lower river valley. A series of levees,
diversion dams, and bank hardening activities permanently altered and
diverted water from historic flow patterns. Through the City of Kent, over 80
percent of the riverbanks are lined with levees or revetments. These prevent
natural geomorphic processes from occurring.
Commented [AC69]: Section 5 comment #19
10.a
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 133
Big Soos Creek does not have any shoreline modifications within the City of
Kent. However, modifications have occurred at both SR 516 and SR 18
highway crossings, each bordering the City. The SR 516 span, estimated at 80
feet long, has a gravel bar on the east side of the creek under the bridge, and
bridge footings are likely armored to prevent erosion. Two SR 18 bridge
spans modify Soos Creek shoreline areas immediately downstream (south) of
Kent shoreline jurisdiction. Modifications include floodplain clearing,
placement of road embankment fill, armoring, footings, pilings, and the bridge
spans. The south span has no pilings and the stream banks are armored with
quarry spalls. The north span includes some concrete piling supports outside
of the active channel and the banks are lined with only gravelly soils. The
floodplain has also been constricted considerably at the SR 18 crossing
location.
Lake Meridian has been altered with a variety of armoring and alteration
types, including piers, boatlifts, boathouses, and moorage covers. It is
estimated that 50 percent of the shoreline is armored, primarily along the
southwest shore, and 90 percent of private residences have a dock. The
largest pier on the lake is owned by the City at Lake Meridian Park.
Lake Fenwick has very minimal shoreline modification within City
jurisdiction. Approximately 350 linear feet of shoreline is armored, mostly in
scattered short sections associated with a small fishing pier, the boardwalk
trail crossing and a boat launch. Additional armoring is found along the
shoreline adjacent to the parking lot, with vertical timbers and with inset steps
for lake access. Other access points with no vegetation are armored with
either timbers or boulders. Small gravel is found along the boat launch area
with pre-cast concrete slabs in the water. In the PAA portion of the lake,
several of the single-family homes found along the lake have a small floating
dock and/or minor shoreline armoring.
The GRNRA pond complex, which serves as a flood and stormwater facility,
is a constructed facility with weirs and culverts.
Springbrook Creek passes underneath SW 43rd Street in a large corrugated
metal culvert. The banks for a short distance on either side of the culvert inlet
are armored with angular boulders. The channel itself is a deep, excavated,
canal-like feature.
Jenkins Creek does not have any shoreline modifications within Kent’s
jurisdiction. However, extensive channel modifications exist less than one-
half mile within the City of Covington at the Bonneville Power
Administration property, as well as culverts and other modifications farther
upstream.
Panther Lake does not appear to have any shoreline modifications, with the
exception of the public boat launch.
10.a
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 134 Kent Shoreline Master Program
The full shoreline inventory includes a more in-depth of discussion of the above
topics, as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater
utilities, impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others.
b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas
With the exception of Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake and short stretches of Big
Soos and Jenkins Creeks, the shoreline area itself within the City of Kent is
generally deficient in high-quality biological resources and critical areas,
primarily because of the extensive residential and commercial development and
their associated shoreline modifications. The highest-functioning shoreline area is
the Jenkins Creek segment, which has a natural shoreline and is protected for the
City of Kent’s watershed. Landslide hazard areas are located along the East and
West Hill areas, specifically along short stretches of the Green River, along the
northwest end of Lake Meridian, and entirely around Lake Fenwick. Virtually the
entire valley floor is a seismic hazard area.
Wetlands mapped within shoreline jurisdiction include large wetland areas and
scattered small patches along the Green River corridor, many of which are located
within developed industrial and manufacturing areas. Wetland areas include the
following:
Over 70 acres of wetland along Big Soos Creek
Small wetlands located around the Lake Meridian fringe and along the south end
The western shoreline of Lake Fenwick
Wetlands of the GRNRA
Springbrook Greenbelt
Panther Lake and surrounding fringe areas
Important non-shoreline streams in the City include Mill Creek and Garrison
Creek, both tributaries to the Green River, and a second Mill Creek that is
tributary to Springbrook Creek. These streams are used by salmon, but have been
impacted extensively by basin development, resulting in increased peak flows,
unstable and eroding banks, loss of riparian vegetation, and fish and debris
passage barriers. These changes have altered their contributions of sediment,
organic debris, and invertebrates into the Green River. These systems continue to
be targeted for restoration by one or more local or regional restoration groups.
WDFW mapping of Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2007) also indicates the
presence of other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas within and
adjacent to the shoreline area. These include pileated woodpecker breeding areas,
historic and current bald eagle nest locations, bull trout, Chinook salmon, chum
salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout,
wetlands, urban natural open space, and riparian zones.
C. 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
10.a
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 135
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.
• 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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 136 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 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.
10.a
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 137
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.
D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and
Programs
The following series of existing projects and programs are generally organized from the
larger watershed scale to the City-scale, including City projects and programs and finally
non-profit organizations that are also active in the City of Kent area. Many of these site-
specific projects are mapped in Appendix C.
1. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation
The City was one of 16 members of the WRIA 9 Forum, which participated in
financing and developing the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a
King. The Plan includes the City of Kent’s implementation commitment in the form
of City Council Resolution 1714, approved November 15, 2005 (Appendix B).
The City’s preparation of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for City of
Kent’s Shorelines: Green River, Big Soos Creek, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick,
Green River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and Jenkins Creek
(The Watershed Company 2008) and this Shoreline Restoration Plan are important
steps toward furthering the goals and objectives of the WRIA 9 Plan. In its
10.a
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 138 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Resolution, the City committed to, among other things, “using the scientific
foundation and the habitat management strategy as the basis for local actions
recommended in the plan for future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local
government activities.” The City’s Resolution also states that the City will use the
“Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population, and other
actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site specific projects and land
use and public outreach recommendations.” The City’s Shoreline Master Program
update relies heavily on the science included in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making Our Watershed Fit for a King report and related documents, and incorporates
recommended projects and actions from the WRIA 9 documents.
The Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King (Steering
Committee 2005), which was adopted by the City, lists a number of programs that can
and do occur in Kent, as well as across the entire watershed, and that would
contribute to the recovery of habitat basin-wide. The 16 WRIA-wide (WW) actions
listed in the Plan and in Table 10 6 below are programmatic in nature and range from
public education and stewardship to incentives to regulations and regulatory
enforcement. The status of the City’s projects and programs that support each of
these actions is provided in Table 106.
Table 106. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementation in Kent
Program
WW-No. Program Kent Implementation
1 Conduct Shoreline Stewardship
Workshops and Outreach
Ongoing. The City has recently discussed
soft shoreline stabilization and shoreline
planting with local residents around Lake
Meridian during a community meeting and
city-wide open houses related to the Shoreline
Master Program update.
2 Increase/Expand Water Conservation
Incentive Programs
The City provides rebates for water-efficient
washing machines and toilets. Water
conservation education includes: a water
festival targeting 4th and 5th grade students,
ad campaigns, pamphlets, free aerators and
shower timers. Improvements to the City's
website for water conservation are planned.
3 Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care
(NYC) Programs for Landscapers
Homeowners have been the City’s initial
target efforts - no progress to date on
landscapers.
4 Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care
Program for Single Family
Homeowners
The City currently targets two neighborhoods /
year (~2,000 - 4,000 homeowners) for a series
of three, 2-hour workshops on NYC. Over 400
households attended workshops in 2008.
5 Promote the Planting of Native Trees City sponsoring "2009 Trees in 2009" native
plant education program targeting grade
school kids for 10th consecutive year. Kids
are taught the importance of trees, then given
native bare-root plants to take care of for 6
months and then plant in a City park or at
home. Also, Parks and Public Works sponsor
numerous volunteer native planting events on
10.a
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 139
Program
WW-No. Program Kent Implementation
City property and require native plant
landscaping on all restoration projects.
6 Promote Better Volunteer Carwash
Practices
The City encourages the use of car-wash kits
(inserts in storm drains with pump to direct
effluent to sanitary sewer) during charity
carwash events. City staff supplies the car-
wash kits and also assist with setup and
operation.
7 Increase Public Awareness about What
Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like
and How to Enjoy Recreating on Them
The City is a partner in an annual Water
Festival for elementary students which
presents a diverse amount of topics related to
water resources. Salmon habitat and
resource protection topics are included.
8 Increase Involvement of Volunteers in
Habitat Stewardship
Parks and Public Works actively recruit
volunteers for native plant revegetation and
maintenance projects and are considering
implementing volunteer habitat steward
training program.
9 Green/Duwamish Volunteer
Revegetation Program
King County led effort
10 Support/Expand the Natural
Resource/Basin Steward Programs
King County led effort. The City of Kent works
with the Green River Steward on restoration
projects as well as other programs.
11 Expand existing incentives and develop
new incentives for property owners to
protect salmon habitat.
The proposed SMP includes incentives for
homeowners to plant along the shoreline of
Lake Meridian, which contains kokanee
salmon.
12 Improve Enforcement of Existing Land
Use and Other Regulations
The City updated code enforcement
regulations in May 2008 (Ordinance 3881)
increasing efficiency and prompt resolution of
code violations.
13 Increase Use of Low Impact
Development (LID) and Porous
Concrete
The City is anticipating updating its Surface
Water Design Manual in 2009 toupdated its
Surface Water Design Manual in 2017 to
comply with DOE's manual. The update will
include LID techniques, the extent of which is
unknown at this time.
Policy 12.b(2) in Chapter 3 of the proposed
SMP encourages the use of LID techniques.
The City also recently adopted a Cottage
Housing Demonstration Ordinance which
offers a density bonus in exchange for using
LID techniques, including porous concrete.
This will only allow up to two cottage
developments, but will likely lead to adoption
of a permanent ordinance. While it's only one
type of development, it's a first step in
demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of
LID techniques in Kent.
14 Provide Incentives for Developers to
Follow Built Green™ Checklist Sections
The City does not yet provide incentives for
Built Green, but will be pursuing development
10.a
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 140 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Program
WW-No. Program Kent Implementation
Benefiting Salmon of a program and policies as budget and staff
availability allow in the future. The City offers
discounts on its stormwater utility fee for sites
that operate infiltration facilities to manage
stormwater runoff.
15 Develop a Coordinated Acquisition
Program for Natural Areas
The City has targeted parcels for acquisition in
the Drainage Master Plan and WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan that will improve habitat
conditions as well as drainage and flood
storage.
16 Develop Salmon Restoration Tools
Consistent with Agricultural Land Uses
King County administered program
The following recommended project actions are taken from the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan:
Making Our Watershed Fit for a King for the lower Green River subwatershed, including Kent.
Table 117. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
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): This
suite of projects would be coordinated on lands that are adjacent to and/or share a floodplain. Overall goals
are to restore habitat along the mainstem and lower sections of Mill Creek and Mullen Slough by:
• Creating off-channel habitat for rearing and flood refugia and over-wintering habitat;
• Reconnecting mainstem and tributaries with portions of the floodplain;
• Setting back levees to improve bank conditions and create shallow water vegetated benches;
• Installing anchored large woody debris; and
• Controlling invasive plant species and planting with native plants.
These projects are being coordinated by the City of Kent, King County, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Sub-projects include:
Lower Mill Creek Floodplain Wetland and
Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation - This
project includes restoration of the lower 0.3
miles of Mill Creek and adjacent segments of
the currently armored riverbank. The project
would include excavation of off-channel habitat
on the right bank of Mill Creek and reshaping
the stream banks and the mainstem left bank
of the Green River. This would create a more
complex channel and aquatic edge habitat that
includes off-channel habitat and large woody
debris. Nine acres of off-channel and riparian
habitat would be created adjacent to lower Mill
Creek and approximately 1,600 lineal feet of
lower Mill Creek would be restored. [Note: this
project originated from the Green/Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Project list]
The City is currently completing a feasibility study and
30% design for floodplain wetlands and off channel
habitat restoration. The original side channel design
proved to not be feasible. The current feasibility
report is analyzing an alternative that will provide off-
channel habitat during high river flows, enhance
riparian habitat, increase low flow rearing habitat for
juvenile salmonids, increase wetland areas and
increase floodplain storage. The 30% design and
feasibility report will be completed in February
2009Complete (Leber Back Channel Project).
See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
implementation/SRFB-mill-creek.aspx)
Project No. 1 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park -
This project is located opposite from the mouth
of Mill Creek, on the right bank of the Green
In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed
a design evaluation report which provided a
background on the project history, evaluated
10.a
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 141
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
River. The project would provide summer
rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge
through excavation of an off channel area
combined with placement of large woody
debris and revegetation. Land is in public
ownership and belongs to the City of Kent.
[Note: this project is also identified as No. 12
by the Duwamish/Green River Ecosystem
Restoration Project]
alternatives and designs, and provided
recommendations on the selected alternatives based
on cost and habitat value. From this report, design
plans will be completed in 2009 with construction
anticipated in 2010.Complete.
See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
implementation/SRFB-riverview-park.aspx
Project No. 2 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Hawley Revetment - This project would set
back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment
between river miles 23.5 and 23.3, in order to
achieve a more stable slope angle, create a
low, vegetated bench, and allow the placement
of large woody debris. Land is in public
ownership and is immediately downstream of
Riverview Park.
This project is part of the City’s long-range plan –no
progress to dateComplete. Space retained for future
salmon habitat improvements.
Project No. 3 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Lower Mullen Slough (Prentice Nursery
Reach) at RM 21.4 (Left Bank) - This project
would improve fish passage and create a
natural habitat for rearing and refuge from high
flows in the Green River mainstem by restoring
the mouth of Mullen Slough and connecting it
with a nearby pond to create a new flatter-
gradient meandering outlet. Actions include
improving the channel to eliminate a summer
low flow fish passage blockage, clearing the
site of unnatural debris and Himalayan
blackberry, planting riparian vegetation, placing
large woody debris, and constructing dendritic,
branched channels for improved water
circulation and habitat diversity.
King County is leading this effort.
Project No. 4 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Mullen Slough (Slough Mile 1.8-0.3) - Habitat
for rearing and providing refuge from high flows
in the Green River mainstem would be created
by this project. Restoration along the slough
would include channel meandering, large
woody debris placement, and riparian
plantings. This project site is upstream from the
Prentice Nursery Reach project (previous sub-
project) and includes about 90 acres from
Highway 516 to the head of the slough.
King County is leading this effort.
Project No. 5 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Lower Mill Creek Future Project - The City of
Kent has proposed an additional setback of the
levee near the mouth of Mill Creek and four
acres of riparian planting.
This project is part of the City’s long-range plan.
Project No. 6 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Project LG-9 - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel
Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration
Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank): This
project would rehabilitate habitat at the Rosso
Nursery site between river miles 20.8 and 20.0 by
constructing an outlet at RM 20.1. Actions would
The City of Kent received a Salmon Recovery
Funding Board grant to acquire the LG-9 site, but has
since transferred those allocated funds to the Lower
Green River Property Acquisition (described
below)King County is leading this effort.
10.a
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 142 Kent Shoreline Master Program
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
include removing fill, excavating off-channel flood
refugium for juvenile rearing habitat, and planting
native wetland and riparian vegetation.
Project No. 7 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Lower Green River Property Acquisition: The
City of Kent transferred funds allocated to purchase
of the LG-9 site to purchase of three different
parcels located north of SR 516 on the south side
of the Green River. While this project is not
technically a numbered project identified in the
WRIA plan, it is consistent with the objectives of the
WRIA 9 plan.
Two of the three parcels were purchased in 2008.
The third will be purchased in 2009. Additional grant
funds have been awarded for the next phase which
will include a feasibility study and 30% design. The
project will be called Downey Farmstead
Restoration100% design complete. Construction
partially complete. Pursuing additional funding to
complete construction.
Project No. 8 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee Setback and Habitat
Rehabilitation) Between RM 20.5 and 16.3: Fish habitat along the Lower Green River would be improved
by these projects, while providing stable bank and levee conditions to protect significant human
infrastructure and development. These projects are being coordinated by local jurisdictions, the Green River
Flood Control Zone District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The majority of the banks in this portion
of the river have been hardened, and trees and other fish-friendly features have been removed to make the
river flow without impediment. Riprap or rock bank protections have reduced fish habitat along this stretch of
the river. Sub-projects in the City of Kent or its UGA include:
Boeing Setback and Restoration Between
RM 18 and 17.1 (Right Bank) - Actions
include reshaping the bankline between the
upstream end of the Christian Brothers
Revetment and South 212th Street, widening
the channel cross-section, restoring channel
complexity and meanders, creating a two stage
channel, excavating low benches and alcoves,
installing large woody debris, and planting
native riparian vegetation. The proposed
project is within City of Kent open space, which
has a 200-foot buffer with restricted
development.
King County Flood Control District project
Project No. 9 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
Russell Road Upper, Lower and Lowest
Setback and Restorations: Implement fish
friendly, bio-engineered solutions to levee
maintenance problems. Set back the levee to
enable habitat rehabilitation, including
reshaping the bankline, widening the channel
cross-section, restoring the channel complexity
and meanders, excavating low benches and
installing large woody debris, and planting
native vegetation.
The City has begun analyzing right-of-way needs for
the project and is in the process of identifying funding
sources.Upper Russell – portions of the levee have
been set back. Lower Russell – including significant
habitat improvement, selected to begin construction in
2019, led by King County.
Projects No. 10-12 on the Restoration Opportunities
map (Appendix C)
Project LG-12: - Briscoe Off-Channel Habitat
Rehabilitation Between RM 16.1 and 15.8 (Right
Bank)
With cooperation from the City of Kent, this project
would involve removing the armoring on the Briscoe
meander shoreline, excavating a flood refugium for
juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, installing large
woody debris, and planting native riparian vegetation.
An existing (landlocked) levee on the eastern
boundary of the park would provide continued flood
protection.
Project LG-13: - Acquisition, Levee Setback,
and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and
King County Flood Control District project – partially
completed.
10.a
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 143
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
14.7 (Right Bank): Actions include acquiring
additional right of way along the river-ward edge of
the business park parking lot between River Miles
15.3 and14.7 (right bank); setting back the
oversteepened levee; creating bench habitat,
installing large woody debris; and planting native
riparian vegetation. This project would extend
downstream from a levee setback project
completed in the early 2000s.
Project No. 13 on the Restoration Opportunities map
(Appendix C)
2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
A couple of the projects above in Table 11 7 were originally identified by the Green-
Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP), a cooperative effort between 16
local governments, Indian Tribes, the State of Washington, NOAA Fisheries Service,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many
other organizations and private citizens. The ERP generated a list of 45 projects, 29
of which were ultimately incorporated into the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King. Funding for ERP implementation comes came from a
federal authorization of $113 million under the Water Resources Development Act of
2000, but this funding is currently on hold. Two projects related to Meridian Creek
and the Lake Meridian outlet were part of the ERP and have already been
implemented (see discussion in Chapter 8 Section D.12 below). One ERP project in
shoreline jurisdiction that was not identified in the WRIA 9 report is described below
in Table 128. Another ERP project is the restoration and enhancement of salmonid
rearing and refuge habitat in Garrison Creek (a tributary of Springbrook Creek),
which indirectly is an enhancement of the Springbrook Creek shoreline.
Table 128. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project projects, associated with
Shorelines, in the City of Kent not part of the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King.
ERP Project Kent Implementation Status
Project No. 21 - Lake Meridian Outlet
Relocation: The project goal is to improve
instream habitat and anadromous fish habitat
between Lake Meridian and Soos Creek. The
project would construct a channel through a
forested area. The current outlet is located
adjacent to a two lane road.
Phase I of the project is complete. Phase II will
construct 2,100 feet of stream channel connecting
Lake Meridian to Soos Creek. Phase III will
restore approximately 3 acres of wetlands
associated with the current stream channel.
Phase II and III are anticipated to be complete in
2009.Complete.
Project No. 14 on the Restoration Opportunities
map (Appendix C)
10.a
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 144 Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. King County Flood Control District
The King County Flood Control District (District) was established in 2007 and
expanded on the functions of the former Green River Flood Control Zone District.
The District’s main function is to improve flood protection within the County and it
has a significant list of proposed capital improvement projects aimed at maintaining
and improving that protection.
The City of Kent participates in the District through the Advisory and Technical
Committees, which provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, which is
the King County Council. The Mayor of the City of Kent has a permanent seat on the
Advisory Committee, and staff represent the City on the Technical Committee.
In the Green River watershed, many of the proposed projects are located along the
banks of the Green and overlap with projects that are listed within the WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan as well as the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
These overlapping projects, which are named by their historical levee names in the
King County Flood Control District list of Capital Improvement Projects, are located
within the areas designated as Mainstem Maintenance Projects in the Salmon Habitat
Plan and Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Other District Green River levee projects in Kent proposed to be constructed within
the next six years include the Briscoe Levee Setback and the Horseshoe Bend Levee
Improvements. These projects, although not included in the programs listed above,
can provide significant improvement to the shoreline of the Green River. These
projects will provide for additional floodplain function and storage as well as salmon
and other fish habitat. The projects can also allow for removal of invasive non-native
plant species along the riverbanks and replanting with native species. The native
species can provide additional shade for the river, which, in the long term, will help to
decrease summertime river water temperatures.
As of 2019, the King County Flood Control District is preparing a Lower Green River
Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan. Environmental Impact Study scoping is
underway.
4. Comprehensive Plan Policies
The City of Kent adopted a major update to its Comprehensive Plan on 4 May 2006in
2015 pursuant to Growth Management Act requirements. The updated
Comprehensive Plan contains a number of general and specific goals and policies that
direct the City to permit and condition development in such a way that the natural
environment is preserved and enhanced. Specific relevant goals include (see the
Comprehensive Plan for policies associated with each goal):
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
10.a
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 145
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green
River; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention
of the unique character and sense of place provided by the City’s
natural features.
Goal LU-23 Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption
of City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land
use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development. Use
such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities
and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural
features such as large wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas,
and forests.
Goal LU-24 Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce
dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water
quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use
commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot and bicycle
Goal LU-25 Ensure that the City’s environmental policies and regulations comply
with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding
air and water quality, hazardous materials, noise and wildlife and
fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement
programs, code enforcement, implementation programs, development
regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use
management is consistent with the City’s overall natural resource
goals.
Goal LU-26 Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including
recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection,
water supply, and open space.
Goal LU-27 Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent
to the shorelines of the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses
and resource values, and support the goals and policies of the City of
Kent’s Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
10.a
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 146 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Goal LU-28 Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent
harm, to protect public health and safety, to preserve remaining critical
areas, and enhance degraded critical areas in the City.
Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas
such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and
between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual
landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique
areas.
Goal CD-18 Provide adequate, safe, well-located public open spaces, parks
facilities, and access to features of the natural environment.
Goal-CD-19 Protect the natural landscapes, which characterize Kent.
Goal CD-20 Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development
principles in the design and construction of all projects.
Goal CD-21 Promote renewable resource use and energy-efficiency in site and
architectural design.
Goal CD-22 Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural
hydrological systems, so that water quantity and quality are protected
throughout the development process and occupation of the site.
Goal P&OS-1 Designate critical wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Goal P&OS-2 Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features,
where such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions
associated with the features.
Techniques suggested by the various policies to protect the natural environment
include requiring setbacks from sensitive areas, preserving habitats for sensitive
species, preventing adverse alterations to water quality and quantity, promoting low
impact development, preserving existing native vegetation, educating the public, and
mitigating necessary sensitive area impacts, among others.
5. Critical Areas Regulations
The City of Kent Critical Areas Regulations can be found in Kent City Code Chapter
11.06. The City adopted a revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in August
20062015 consistent with best available science and all other requirements of the
GMA. The updated regulations are based on “best available science,” and provide a
high level of protection to critical areas in the City, particularly for streams and
wetlands. The updated regulations categorize streams into three types based on
documented salmonid fish use and size (for lakes and ponds), with standard buffers
10.a
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 147
ranging from 40 feet for Type 3 waters to 100 feet for Type 2 waters. The code refers
to the SMP for buffers of Type 1 streams (shorelines). A standard buffer width of 50
feet is set for valley streams in “industrialized areas adjacent to portions of Mill
Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook Creek on the valley floor.” Standard
wetland buffers now range from 50 to 225 feet and are classified using the
Department of Ecology’s latest Washington State Rating System for Western
Washington. Management of the City’s critical areas using these regulations should
help insure that ecological functions and values are not degraded, and impacts to
critical areas are mitigated. These Critical Areas Regulations are one important tool
that will help the City meet its restoration goals. The City’s Critical Areas
Regulations are adopted by reference into the Shoreline Master Program to regulate
critical areas found within the shoreline area.
6. Stormwater Management and Planning
The City of Kent 2002 2017 Surface Water Design Manual , Chapter 5 of the Kent
Construction Standards, adopts by reference the 1998 2016 King County Surface
Water Design Manual. In the future, the City will update its Surface Water Design
Manual as part of the NPDES Phase II permit requirement. Both Ecology’s 2005
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and King County’s 2005
Surface Water Design Manual will be evaluated as the NPDES Phase II permit
requires that the City use minimum requirements that are equivalent to Ecology’s
manual.
Some of the goals identified in the City’s Drainage Master Plan, include:
• Identify opportunities for habitat restoration along the City’s stream and river
corridors including potential land acquisition or easement needs to implement
those actions
• Define drainage problems and recommend solutions that will reduce planning
area flood hazards and associated public safety risks, provide economic incentives
for continued growth, improve water quality, improve or restore fish passage, and
enhance stream and wetland habitats; integrate Low Impact Development (LID)
components into implementation of those solutions where technically feasible
In January 2007, Ecology approved the City’s NPDES Phase II permit. The NPDES
Phase II permit is required to cover the City’s stormwater discharges into regulated
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.
Ecology will issue a new 5-year NPDES permit for the City of Kent in 2019, which
will also require implementation of conditions for protecting and improving water
quality.
10.a
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 148 Kent Shoreline Master Program
7. Public Education
The City of Kent’s Comprehensive Plan identifies four policy statements based on the
goals of environmental public involvement (excerpted below). These items help
guide City staff and local citizen groups in developing mechanisms to educate the
public and broaden the interest in protecting and enhancing local environmental
resources.
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
Pol 21.1 Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the interaction
between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and
geologically hazardous areas, and human activities.
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green
River; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention
of the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's
natural features.
Pol 22.1 Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance with
environmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education
among City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the
effectiveness of incentives by establishing monitoring programs.
Goal LU-25 Ensure that the City’s environmental policies and regulations comply
with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding
air and water quality, hazardous materials, noise and wildlife and
fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement
programs, code enforcement, implementation programs, development
regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use
management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource
goals.
Pol 25.2 Provide to property owners and prospective property owners general
information concerning natural resources, critical areas, and associated
regulations. Ensure developers provide site-specific environmental
information to identify possible on- and off-site constraints and special
development procedures.
10.a
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 149
Pol 25.10 Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local jurisdictions, as
well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work towards recovery of
ESA-listed threatened and endangered species.
As part of the City of Kent’s efforts to abide by these goals and
policies, the City supports several volunteer efforts, such as the Kent
Parks Foundation, Adopt-A-Park, Releaf, Eagle Scout Projects, Make
A Difference Day, Youth Tree Program, and other programs in
cooperation with non-profit groups and agencies (discussed in greater
detail below). The City also has developed many educational
brochures that discuss conservation, sustainability, and Green Building
practices.
8. Kent Parks Foundation
According to the City of Kent website, the Kent Parks Foundation “provides an
opportunity to ensure that Kent remains a beautiful, healthy, and caring place to raise
our children and enjoy our lives.” The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public
charity which purpose is “to develop assets for the community that the Parks
Department serves,” including by “preserving our environment.” The Foundation has
an annual Gift Catalog that includes a list of needs in individual parks with the
associated cost. Individuals can select a specific need in a specific park and make a
tax-deductible donation to address that need.. For a few of the parks in the 2008 Gift
Catalog, listed items include interpretive signs and native plants. In future years, the
Foundation could include additional items for parks that address shoreline restoration
opportunities outlined in this Restoration Plan.
Contact Information: www.kentparksfoundation.org
http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/parks/index.aspx?id=1448
9. Other Kent Parks Programs
The City’s Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department have has several
other programs that could be leveraged to enact additional restoration projects to
benefit shoreline conditions. , including Adopt-A-Park, Eagle Scout and Girl Scout
Gold Award Projects, and the Youth Tree Education Program. All of these programs
educate the public, promote stewardship, and enable volunteers to donate time and
energy to improving the park system and Kent’s natural areas.
Contact Information: Jeff Watling, Director of Parks & Recreation, Kent Parks,
Recreation and Community Services, jwatling@ci.kent.wa.us 253-856-5000 or
parksrecreation@kentwa.gov.
10.a
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 150 Kent Shoreline Master Program
a. Adopt-A-Park
The City’s Adopt-A-Park program, developed in the mid-1980s, is a program that
encourages environmental stewardship and maintenance of the City’s park, trails
and open space system through a community partnership program of volunteer
groups, local businesses, individuals and Parks staff. Projects developed through
the Adopt-A-Park program include park beautification efforts, litter control, trail
development and maintenance and other special City-initiated projects. These
efforts ensure that the City’s parks, trails and open spaces remain safe and
enjoyable for all Kent residents and park users.
b. Releaf
Releaf is a community volunteer event sponsored by Kent Parks, Recreation and
Community Services that focuses on the reforestation and re-vegetation of parks,
open spaces and wildlife habitat throughout the City. Releaf 2008 was located at
Clark Lake Park, in which the goal was to enhance the buffer areas around the
lake through re-vegetation, which in-turn will provide for riparian habitat
enhancement for salmon, as well as the removal of invasive species around the
lake. The City’s past Releaf efforts have been held along the Green River, as well
as Lake Fenwick.
c. Eagle Scouts
Eagle Scouts, the highest advancement rank in Scouting, have provided many
services to the City’s parks system. To date, over 130 projects have been
completed within the City by Eagle Scouts. The Parks, Recreation & Community
Services Department maintains a list of project ideas that Eagle Scout candidates
may chose from. Potential projects include the installation of park benches,
fencing, boardwalks, trail improvements, and landscaping improvements. Some
specific projects along waterbodies include along Clark Lake Park (invasive plant
removal) and Lake Fenwick (fencing, gravel installation, kiosk for environmental
signs).
d. Make A Difference Day
Make A Difference Day, held on the fourth Saturday in October every year, is a
national event of volunteerism in which community volunteers of all ages work
on projects within their community. The City of Kent has participated in the
program for 13 years and each year the project varies. Projects may include
planting trees and shrubs, resurfacing trails and playgrounds, installing
playground equipment, or enhancing riparian areas. In 2008, the event was held
at Clark Lake Park.
e. Youth Tree Education Program
The City’s Youth Tree Education Program, developed in 2000, involves the
City’s youth and Parks and Public Works staff in planting trees throughout the
City’s parks. Each year, City staff members visit local Kent schools and teach
students the proper way to plant trees. The students are then given a native tree or
shrub to plant at their school and then monitor the growth. At the end of the
10.a
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 151
school year, many of the plants and trees end up at a local park or along the Green
River.
f. Best Management Practices
The City of Kent incorporates a series of best management practices (BMPs) for
weed and pest control, water management, plant installation and care, turf care
and aquatic area maintenance and invasive control. Primarily, BMPs are used for
parks, trails and open spaces along the Green River. BMPs include hand-pulling
weeds when practicable and removing underwater invasives using mechanical
methods. Chemical applications are applied only as needed and consistent with a
permit from the Washington Department of Ecology.
The City’s Surface Water Design Manual adopts King County’s Surface Water
Design Manual, which includes both permanent and temporary BMPs for
stormwater collection and control methods.
10. Public Works Engineering Programs
The Public Works Engineering Department holds two or three volunteer events per
year that organize groups, organizations and individuals to dedicate their time in
restoring riparian, wetland and open space areas throughout the City. Volunteer
groups from Puget Sound businesses include REI and Starbucks and the Eagle Scouts
are regularly involved. Past restoration efforts have been organized along the Green
River, the GRNRA, Lake Fenwick and Lake Meridian.
The Public Works Engineering Department sponsors Natural Yard Care Workshops
that are held two times per year in two different neighborhoods. These workshops
educate residents about natural gardening and lawn care techniques that promote
chemical and pesticide-free methods.
The Department also sponsors the Water FestivalPlanet Protectors Summit,, held
annually in March at a local community college campus, in which approximately
1,600-1,8001,000 4th 4th to 6th grade students are taught by professionals about water
conservation, watersheds, wetlands, salmon habitats, wildlife, and other related
topics. Many of the topics are done through hands-on activities. This event involves
five school districts in South King Countythe Kent School District and typically
involves presenters from several local agencies. Special presenters have included the
Seattle Aquarium, local weathermen, NASA officials, and the Governor.
Contact Information: City of Kent Public Works Engineering, (253) 856-5500
11. Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
During a two-year period in the 1990s, the City of Kent contracted with the Adopt-A-
Stream Foundation (AASF) to conduct Streamkeeper Field Training workshops for
local educators and area residents interested in local streams. AASF’s task was to
educate the audience how to conduct watershed inventories and how to monitor
physical, biological and chemical characteristics of local streams. The City’s Public
10.a
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 152 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Works Department was responsible for tracking students and providing them with
long-term support.
Contact Information: Tom Murdoch, tomm@streamkeeper.org,
http://www.streamkeeper.org/
12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects
a. Springbrook Creek
In 2004, the City restored approximately 6,200 LF (3,100 LF each side) of habitat
along both banks of the creek and another 1,240 LF along the west bank just north
of S. 188th Street (Project No. 15 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix
C)). Restoration along the lower 3,100 LF enhanced a minimum of 30’-width of
stream-bank and included 28 multi-trunked woody debris structures installed with
anchors along both sides of the stream. Over 11,000 shrubs and trees were
planted within these areas. Additional restoration upstream of S. 188th Street was
completed as mitigation during construction of businesses along the creek channel
in 2005-06. Native trees and shrubs are dominant between S. 180th Street
upstream to E. Valley Highway, although some reed canarygrass and blackberry
are still present.
b. GRNRA
Created in 1996, this complex serves as a stormwater detention facility, flood
control, public education and wildlife habitat project in the Green River Valley.
Over 800,000 CY of material was excavated and moved to the western portion of
the site during construction. Most of the excavated area became the large, 35-acre
detention lagoon, sized to completely control a 100-year flood event in Mill
Creek. The eastern, 18-acre pond was primarily designed to naturally treat
stormwater by forcing the water to slow down and take a long, circuitous path
around the central peninsula where the water could naturally be filtered by
thousands of wetland plants.
Native trees, shrubs, wetland emergents and some herbaceous plants have been
planted per the GRNRA Landscape Master Plan to improve onsite habitat
conditions. The landscape plan has been adaptively managed over the course of
several years. To date, approximately 250,000 native plants have been installed
on the site, including approximately equal numbers of wetland emergents and
trees/shrubs. Onsite habitat conditions have improved greatly during this planting
effort (Project No. 16 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C)).
c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project
This project involves realigningrealigned the lake outflow of Lake Meridian
through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek
(Project No. 14 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C)). The current
former outlet creek flows flowed through a series of wetland and detention basins
within a highly developed commercial and residential neighborhood.
10.a
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 153
This realignment, also known as Cow Creek, is was funded through the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, WRIA 9 funding and the City of Kent as part of the
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program. The project is broken up
intoconsisted of three phases. Phase 1, which was completed in 2007, included
improvements such as a weir for flow control, a box culvert, a new pedestrian
bridge, and enhancement of the existing outlet of Lake Meridian. Phase 2
consists consisted of a 2,500-foot new channel that will meanders through open
space and existing wetlands on its way to Big Soos Creek. Large woody debris,
riparian plantings, spawning gravel and backwater areas will bewere created to
provide habitat for fish and other wildlife. An access road for BPA will also
bewas constructed at the eastern edge of the new channel. Phase 3 includes
included installation of a flow splitter that will allowallows water to be diverted to
the new channel as well asand allow some of the water to continue to the existing
wetlands and detention areas to the south. Three acres of wetlands along this
channel will bewere enhanced with native plantings, soil amendments, and
addition of woody debris. Phase 2 is fully funded and is expected to begin in
2009. Phase 3, if funded, would begin in 2009-10, with full project completion in
2010 Construction of all three phases is complete.
d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction
In June 2009, and again in 2017, the City will introduceintroduced triploid grass
carp to Lake Fenwick to control a Brazilian elodea infestation (Project No. 17 on
the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C)). In all, approximately 77
percent of the surveyed shallow areas were affected by this invasive species.
Brazilian elodea can be so dense that fish movement is limited; forage areas are
reduced; and predators and prey have reduced visibility, hampering foraging and
escape from predators. Dense stands of elodea can also uptake dissolved oxygen,
reducing dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish (Tetra Tech 2002). The
effectiveness of the grass carp at controlling elodea, a preferred food plan, will
beare monitored by the City. A weed rake will beis used to sample along
predetermined aquatic transects with the results compared to 2001 previous diver
surveys along these same transects.
e. Leber Backchannel
In 2016, the City created a habitat backchannel off of Mill Creek Auburn, near its
mouth. The City excavated approximately 80,000 cubic yards of soil and
installed 51,000 plants and 43 large wood habitat structures. This backchannel
provides areas for salmon to rear and escape from high flood flows in the Green
River.
f. Downy Sidechannel
As of 2019, the City is constructing a large system of side channels on the Green
River downstream from the SR-516 bridge. Construction began in 2018 and is
continuing in phases as funding becomes available. The final project will include
approximately 1,900 feet of side channels and 6 acres of aquatic habitat.
Approximately 210,000 cubic yards of material is being removed to build the
10.a
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 154 Kent Shoreline Master Program
project, which will also provide 130 acres of floodplain storage. The sidechannels
will provide rearing habitat for salmon as well as slow-moving areas to serve as
refuge from high-flood flows.
13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities
Many of the projects and programs listed above in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.12 are
site-specific and are included on the map located in Appendix C. Each of these
projects is given an identifying map number indicated on the following table (Table
139), with a corresponding reference as appropriate to the originating Green-
Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP) number or WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat
Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King project number (Steering Committee
2005). In some cases, these are overlapping projects with each other or the King
County Flood Control District.
Table 139. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent
Map
No. Name ERP WRIA 9
Plan KCFCD Comments
1 Lower Mill Creek Restoration
LG-7
2 Riverview Park P-17 LG-7
3 Hawley Road Levee
LG-7
4 Lower Mullen Slough
(Prentice Nursery) P-11 LG-7
King County Taking
the Lead per WRIA 9
plan
5 Mullen Slough P-12 LG-7
King County Taking
the Lead
6 Lower Mill Creek Future
Project
LG-7
7 Rosso Nursery
LG-9
8 Lower Green River
Acquisition
objectives
9 Boeing Levee Setback
LG-10 X
10 Russell Road Upper Setback
and Restoration
LG-10 X
11 Russell Road Lower Setback
and Restoration
LG-10 X
10.a
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 155
Map
No. Name ERP WRIA 9
Plan KCFCD Comments
12 Russell Road Lowest
Setback and Restoration
LG-10 X
13 Acquisition, Levee Setback
and Rehabilitation
LG-13 X
14 Lake Meridian Outlet
Relocation P-21
Recent Complete Kent
Project
15 Springbrook Creek
Recent Complete Kent
Project
16 Green River Natural
Resource Area
Recent Complete Kent
Project
17 Lake Fenwick Grass Carp
CTo be completed in
June 2009 and 2017
E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to
Achieve Local Restoration Goals
The following additional projects and programs are generally organized from the larger
watershed scale to the City-scale, including City projects and programs and finally non-
profit organizations that are also active in the City of Kent area.
1. Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects
The Hawley Revetment project (LG-7), listed in Table 117, is currently part of the
City’s long range plan, but is not yet funded. Per the Salmon Habitat Plan, this project
would set back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment between river miles 23.5 and
23.3, in order to achieve a more stable slope angle, create a low, vegetated bench, and
allow the placement of large woody debris. Land is in public ownership and is
immediately downstream of Riverview Park.
Several of the ERP projects are currently unfunded or underfunded and the City
continues to identify funding sources.
2. Other Recommended Projects
The following is partially developed from a list of opportunity areas identified within
the Final Shoreline Analysis Report, with additional expansion of the Green River
10.a
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 156 Kent Shoreline Master Program
discussion. The list of potential projects was created after assessing field conditions,
and is intended to contribute to improvement of impaired functions.
a. Green River
The following summary of factors for decline in the lower Green River
subwatershed is excerpted from The Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King (Steering Committee 2005):
Urbanization, water diversions, levees, and revetments on the mainstem have
gradually lowered the floodplain and resulted in disconnection of off-channel
habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands from the mainstem. Juvenile
fish migrating downstream have few places to take refuge from high flows.
The river is starved of large woody debris and consequently lacks associated
instream habitat complexity, such as pools and riffles. Low flows, associated
with water withdrawals and the diversion of the White River, have
exacerbated low flow conditions and contributed to adult salmon migration
problems. The loss of mature native riparian vegetation has been
accompanied by extensive amounts of non-native plants. These same human
activities and developments have caused chronic water quality problems,
particularly in the tributary streams.
Additional factors of decline related to harvest, hatchery operations, and the
Howard A. Hanson Dam are not within the City’s sphere of influence.
As mentioned previously, the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit
for a King (Steering Committee 2005) includes the following specific policy for
the lower Green River.
In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back
levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat
rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river.
Given the City’s commitment to implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan and
recent events related to the Corps’ and FEMA’s assessment of the Green River
levee, the City is now in a position to effect or enable the above policy on a large
scale over a 10- to 20-year period. The Salmon Habitat Plan references King
County’s Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects in the Riverine Environments
of King County (King County 1993), which includes the following generic
graphic of a possible levee setback with riparian vegetation.
10.a
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 157
Figure 8. Potential levee cross-section. Image modified by The Watershed Company
Implementation of levee upgrades for the entire stretch of the Green River in the
City is likely to be implemented by one or more entities, either led by or
collaborating with the City, including King County and the Corps. A key barrier
to rapid implementation is funding, which will need to be supplied by the City,
the Corps, King County, and possibly other state or federal funding sources. A
second impediment is space. The City of Kent contains a mix of land uses along
the river, including agricultural, industrial, residential, and commercial. Many of
these are set back more than 200 feet from the river’s ordinary high water mark,
but others are as close as 60 feet. The following figure is a potential cross-section
for the City of Kent levee that requires a minimum of 140 200 feet to implement.
The cross-section includes space for a “shallow floodplain benchslope,” sloped
levee face, 16-foot-wide levee top to accommodate the Green River Trail, and the
sloped upland face of the levee.
Commented [BD70]: See updated levee cross-section, below.
10.a
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 158 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Figure 9. Illustration of proposed new levee design with plantings and trail.
The proposed floodplain bench has several purposes, including increasing the
flood storage capacity (and reducing the flood elevation), increasing levee
stability, and providing improved riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. The
national Corps policy limits vegetation to grasses on and adjacent to levees.
However, the Seattle District has obtained a Regional Variance that provides a
great deal of flexibility. The floodplain bench and the streambank below the
bench provide opportunities for establishment of traditional riparian vegetation
and placement of large woody debris. Much of the current levee structure is
vegetated with grasses and invasive weeds, primarily Himalayan blackberry.
There are scattered pockets of trees and shrubs (cottonwoods, willows, some
conifers) on and landward of the levee, which provide some shade depending on
size and orientation.
Under the Regional Variance and per Doug Weber at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, any standard native riparian vegetation may be installed on the
10.a
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 159
floodplain bench, including cottonwoods, alders, willows, and conifers, limited
only by suitability of the species to hydrologic and soil conditions of the bench.
Rows of willows, dogwoods, or other suitable species can be incorporated into the
levee from the OHWM and upwards, concentrated at the water’s edge. Grasses
and small shrubs can be on the face of the levee above the bench. Large woody
debris is allowed, so long as it is on the benches or engineered into the base of the
levee. The toe of the levee needs to still remain inspectable, but the Corps
indicated that is a judgment call. Where an upgraded levee does not have
sufficient room for installing a floodplain bench, the willow lifts are generally
kept near the water’s edge, where hydrology conditions are suitable.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) issued a Biological
Opinion (BiOp) on 22 September 2008 on FEMA’s implementation of the
National Flood Insurance Program in Washington state. This BiOp has
implications for alteration of the existing levee system along the Green River, and
possibly development of upland areas landward of the levee. Any improvements
to the levee system must be conducted in such a way that listed fish species and
their habitats are not adversely affected through further degradation of the current
baseline condition. During phone conversations in Fall 2008, Ryan Ike of FEMA
indicated that FEMA is not planning to issue any vegetation standards or establish
prescriptive setbacks in reaction to the BiOp, and the Corps indicated that it
would not be changing its policies in the short term either. All of the agencies
will continue to discuss the issues and the application of the BiOp.
b. Big Soos Creek
The Kent stretch of Big Soos Creek could be enhanced by vegetation planting
with a buffer of native trees and shrubs, particularly conifer species, as well as
placement of large woody debris to enhance in-stream fish habitat.
c. Lake Meridian
General: Investigate potential for control of Eurasian watermilfoil through
chemical, mechanical or biological control methods. The City’s IAPMP (Tetra
Tech 2002) recommended placement of bottom barriers (burlap sheets) in
localized areas. This work has not yet been conducted.
Residential: Many residential shoreline properties on Lake Meridian have the
potential for improvement of ecological functions through: 1) reduction or
modification of shoreline armoring, 2) reduction of overwater cover and in-water
structures (grated pier decking, pier size reduction, pile size and quantity
reduction, moorage cover removal), 3) improvements to nearshore native
vegetative cover, or 4) reductions in impervious surface coverage.
Lake Meridian Park: Several opportunities exist to improve habitat conditions
along the shoreline. These include: reduction of overwater cover by the existing
pier through the installation of deck grating, removing or minimizing the impacts
of shoreline armoring; and supplementation of nearshore native vegetation to
improve habitat conditions.
10.a
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 160 Kent Shoreline Master Program
d. Lake Fenwick
Lake Fenwick’s shoreline armoring could be modified to support public access
while stabilizing the banks using bioengineering techniques. Additionally, the
Brazilian elodea problem should be addressed through the use of grass carp,
which will bewere introduced in June 2009 and 2017 (see Chapter 8 Section
D.12.d above). This should significantly reduce, or eliminate, the noxious weed
in the lake.
As of 2019, the City is also in the process of upgrading the hypolimnetic aeration
in the lake, which helps to control phosphorus and algae blooms.
e. GRNRA
The Public Works Department should continue to manage the GRNRA and
implement the Landscape Master Plan for the site.
f. Springbrook Creek
Some enhancement of the buffer has occurred on both banks of Springbrook
Creek within the shoreline area; several small conifer plantings were noted during
December 2007 and February 2008 site visits (see Chapter 8 Section D.12.c).
Additional plantings of native trees and shrubs would improve the wildlife
corridor, and provide additional shade and organic debris to the stream.
Landscape debris was noted in the buffer as well; adjacent businesses could be
educated regarding appropriate disposal of lawn clippings and other landscape
items.
g. Jenkins Creek
The Jenkins Creek shoreline area will benefit most from continued preservation
and protection of the remaining functions. As previously mentioned, the City has
installed some riparian enhancement plantings in the buffer.
h. Panther Lake
Panther Lake was assigned a Category H restoration designation based on King
County’s shoreline inventory and characterization model. Category H applies to
those shorelines with a “Low” basin function and a “Medium” reach function.
The appropriate restoration strategy according to this methodology is to focus on
enhancement and creation.
The non-native lily infestation in Panther Lake is adversely affecting lake habitat
by creating a monoculture and excluding native plants, and is limiting lake access
even by canoes. One shoreline property owner also noticed a “rotten” smell
(Johnson 2007), which is likely caused by decomposition of large volumes of
organic material, reduced circulation in the lake resulting from the dense lily
cover, and breakdown of muck soils. Some mechanical or chemical control of the
lily problem may be necessary.
10.a
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 161
Residential shoreline properties on Panther Lake have the potential to provide
improvement of ecological functions through improvements to nearshore native
vegetative cover.
3. Public Education/Outreach
Chapter 7 of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005) identifies 17 WRIA-wide (“watershed-wide”) actions that
could contribute to the recovery of ecosystem health. These actions range from
public education and stewardship to incentives to regulations and regulatory
enforcement. Specific public education and stewardship efforts listed in the report
include:
• Conduct Shoreline Stewardship Workshops and Outreach
• Increase/Expand Water Conservation Incentive Programs
• Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care Programs for Landscapers
• Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care Program for Single Family Homeowners
• Promote the Planting of Native Trees
• Promote Better Volunteer Carwash Practices
• Increase Public Awareness about What Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like
and How to Enjoy Recreating on Them
• Increase Involvement of Volunteers in Habitat Stewardship
• Green/Duwamish Volunteer Revegetation Program
• Support/Expand the Natural Resource/Basin Steward Programs
• Expand/Improve Incentives Programs
• Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations
• Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Pourous Concrete
• Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built GreenTM Checklist Sections
Benefiting Salmon
• Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas
Specific details about these public education, outreach and stewardship programs may
be found at https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
implementation/habitatplan.aspx.
ftp://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnr/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-Actions.pdf.
4. Other Environmental Organizations
Although the following organizations include Kent in their general service areas, they
have indicated that they are not currently actively engaged in specific activities or
programs that affect Kent’s shorelines, nor do they have any plans in the area.
However, that does not preclude them from playing an active role in the future,
particularly if any of the City’s residents or business owners solicit assistance from or
become members in these organizations.
• Washington Trout
• Rainier Audubon Society
10.a
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 162 Kent Shoreline Master Program
F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring
Methods
As previously noted, the City’s shoreline area is occupied by industrial, commercial,
agricultural, multi- and single-family residences, and public recreation/open space areas.
Therefore, efforts should be made to improve shoreline ecological function through the
promotion of restoration and healthy practices at all levels, from large-scale industrial
users to single-family property owners. The City of Kent already has a very active
environmental community with a restoration and education focus. Continued
improvement of shoreline ecological functions on the shoreline requires a more
comprehensive watershed approach, which combines the upstream projects and programs
along the City’s lakefronts.
The following table (Table 1410) outlines a possible schedule and funding sources for
implementation of a variety of efforts that could improve shoreline ecological function,
and are described in previous sections of this report.
Table 1410. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs
and Plans.
Restoration
Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
4.1 WRIA 9 Participation Ongoing
The City is an active member of the WRIA 9 Forum.
Membership at this time entails a commitment of staff
time.
4.2 ERP Implementation OngoingOn
hold
The City of Kent participates in the Green-Duwamish
ERP Committee to identify projects to be programmed
each year.
4.3 King County Flood
Control District Ongoing
City of Kent participates in the District through the
Advisory and Technical Committees, and has a
number of active interlocal agreements with the District
to improve leveed reaches and provide opportunities
for habitat within those reaches.
4.4 Comprehensive Plan
Policies
Revised in
May 20062015
The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time
in the course of project and program reviews to
determine consistency and compliance with the
recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The next
Comprehensive Plan update will occur in 2012.
4.5 Critical Areas
Regulations
Revised in
August
20062015
The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time
in the course of project and program reviews to
determine consistency and compliance with their
recently updated Critical Areas Regulations.
4.6 Stormwater Planning Ongoing
Currently, staff time and materials are the only City
resource commitments. The City currently follows its
200217 Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which is
10.a
Packet Pg. 247
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 163
Restoration
Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
an addendum to the 1998adopts the 2016 King County
Surface Water Design Manual. In the future, the City
will update its Surface Water Design Manual as part of
the NPDES Phase II permit requirement. The City is
also involved in the update of theirplanning to update
its Drainage Master Plan which goals includes flood
reduction, water quality improvements and aquatic
habitat improvements. Work is ongoing as part of a
five-year compliance plan for mandatory activities
prescribed by the NPDES phase II municipal
stormwater permit.
4.7 Public Education Ongoing
Currently, staff time and materials are provided in
developing public education and outreach efforts,
which are highlighted in Comprehensive Plan policy
statements based on the goals of environmental public
involvement. These items help guide City staff and
local citizen groups in developing mechanisms to
educate the public and broaden the interest in
protecting and enhancing local environmental
resources.
4.8 Kent Parks Foundation Ongoing The Kent Parks Foundation is a 501(c)(3) public
charity that subsists on donations.
4.9 Other Kent Parks
Programs
Ongoing Currently, staff time, materials and an unspecified
amount of funding support these programs. 4.10 Public Works
Engineering Programs
4.11 Adopt-A-Stream
As funds and
opportunity
allow
The City does not have authority over or a formal
relationship with this organization. This organization is
either a source of grant funds for restoration projects,
is an advocate for specific restoration projects,
independently obtains grants for restoration projects,
or is a partner in implementing restoration or education
projects.
5.1 Unfunded WRIA 9 or
ERP Projects
As funds and
opportunity
allow
The City Council passed a resolution in 2005
expressing its approval and support for the Salmon
Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King
(Steering Committee 2005). Projects will be funded by
the City, partnering agencies and non-profit
organizations, and grants as projects and funding
opportunities arise. The City continues to identify
funds for the implementation of the WRIA 9 and ERP
projects in the City of Kent
10.a
Packet Pg. 248
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 164 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Restoration
Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
5.2 Recommended Projects As funds and
opportunity
allow
Projects identified in this section would likely be
implemented either when grant funds are obtained,
when partnerships are formed between the City and
other agencies or non-profit groups, or as may be
required by the Critical Areas Regulations and the
Shoreline Master Program during project-level reviews
by the City.
5.3 Public Education/
Outreach
As funds and
opportunity
allow
The City’s primary education event is its annual Planet
Protectors’ Summit for Kent students. On-going and
future education efforts should be coordinated with the
City and partnering agencies, including funding
sources (grant funding, monetary donations, volunteer
hours).
City planning staff will track all land use and development activity, including exemptions,
within shoreline jurisdiction, and will incorporate actions and programs of the Parks and
Public Works departments as well. A report will be assembled that provides basic project
information, including location, permit type issued, project description, impacts, mitigation
(if any), and monitoring outcomes as appropriate. Examples of data categories might
include square feet of non-native vegetation removed, square feet of native vegetation
planted or maintained, reductions in chemical usage to maintain turf, linear feet of eroding
stream bank stabilized through plantings, linear feet of shoreline armoring removed or
modified levees, or number of fish passage barriers corrected. The report would also
update Tables 106, 11 7 and 12 8 above, and outline implementation of various programs
and restoration actions (by the City or other groups) that relate to watershed health.
The staff report will be assembled to coincide with Comprehensive Plan updates and will
be used, in light of the goals and objectives of the Shoreline Master Program, to determine
whether implementation of the SMP is meeting the basic goal of no net loss of ecological
functions relative to the baseline condition established in the Shoreline Analysis Report
(The Watershed Company 2008). In the long term, the City should be able to demonstrate
a net improvement in the City of Kent’s shoreline environment.
Based on the results of this assessment, the City may make recommendations for changes
to the SMP.
G. Restoration Priorities
The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of the City’s
shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific
constraints. Briefly restated, the City’s environmental protection and restoration goals
include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)
10.a
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 165
contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include
a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline
along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial
development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good
ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA),
they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals and
constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different types
of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic actions, like
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 1410), 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 117:
• 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]
10.a
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 166 Kent Shoreline Master Program
• Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee Setback
and Habitat Rehabilitation) Between RM 20.5 and 16.3
• Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
2. Priority 2 – Continue Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 9 Participation
Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin-wide
programs and initiatives such as the WRIA 9 Forum. Continue to work
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 by revising and
enforcing Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and
flexible development tools.
10.a
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 167
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 habitatcompleted fish habitat
improvements within the outlet from Lake Meridian (Lake Meridian Outlet
Realignment Project). This project involves realigningrealigned 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.
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:
10.a
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 168 Kent Shoreline Master Program
• 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 7 (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
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
10.a
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 169
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 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 20062015) 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 2013 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. The next 5-year permit is
scheduled to go into effect on August 1, 2019.
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
10.a
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Page 170 Kent Shoreline Master Program
• Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built Green™
Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
10.a
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 171
H. References
City of Kent. 2006 2015 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
City of Kent. 20022017. City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson (Eds.). December 2000. “Habitat Limiting Factors and
Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds
(WRIA 9 and Vashon Island).” Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/Recon.aspx
The Watershed Company. June 9, 2009. Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for the City
of Kent’s Shorelines: Green River, Big Soos Creek, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Green
River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and Jenkins Creek. Prepared for
City of Kent.
WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a
King. August, 2005. https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-
implementation/habitatplan.aspxhttp://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/HabitatPlan.htm.
WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2002. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
(WRIA 9) Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation. May 2002.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/NTAA.htm
Email correspondence. Tom Murdoch, Director, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. June 2, 2008.
Email correspondence. Lori Flemm, Superintendent of Parks & Open Space, Kent Parks,
Recreation and Community Services. November 2008
Personal interview. Beth Tan, P.E., Environmental Engineer III, City of Kent Public Works
Environmental Engineering, November 6, 2008
Personal interview. Matt Knox, Environmental Biologist, City of Kent Public Works
Environmental Engineering. November 6, 2008
Personal interview. Shawn M. Gilbertson, Environmental Engineer II, NPDES, City of Kent
Public Works Engineering, November 6, 2008.
10.a
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
APPENDIX A:
Shoreline Environment Designation
Maps
10.a
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Commented [BD71]: Updated Environment Designation for
two parcels on Frager Rd. due to mapping error.
All segment labels removed because reference tables were removed.
10.a
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
King County
King County
KingCounty
Auburn
KingCounty !(516
!(167
5
5
A
v
S
E Willis
St
Reith
R
d
W Smith St
W Willis St
Lincoln
Av
N
94
A
v
S
S 248 St
E
C
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
SR
167
SE 240
St
SE 248
St
E James St
S 272
St
64
A
v
S
E Smith St
4
A
v
S
A
u
b
u
r
n
W
y
N
E
S Kent-Des Moines Rd
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Av
S
S 277 St
W James St S 240 St
SE 277
S
t
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
N
W M e e k e r S t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
S
4
A
v
N
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
N
68
A
v
S
A
u
b
u
r
n
W
y
N
We
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
S
2
7
2
W
y
S R 5 1 6
L
A
K
E
F
E
N
W
I
C
K
UPPERMIL
L
C
REEK
E See Green River 2 of 3
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 1,300'
0 1,300650Feet
plan08-1cs.mxd
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
Environment DesignationsGreen River (1 of 3)
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
GreenRiv
e
r
Green
R
i
ver
10.a
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
!(99
DesMoines
Seatac
KingCounty
Green RiverNaturalResources Area
Green
R
i
ver
G re e n R i v e r
!(167
King
County
U.
P
.
R
.
R
.
!(516
!(181
§¨¦5
ReithRd
W Smith St
W Willis St
S 216 St
Lincoln
Av
N
UN
V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D
64
A
v
S
2
4
P
l
S
4
A
v
N
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
S
68
A
v
S
4
A
v
S
S 228 S
t
36
A
v
S
W James St
S 212 St
Veterans Dr
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
d
S
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
N
76
A
v
S
24
Av
S
W M e e k e r S t
S
R
9
9
SR167
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Av
S
S
K
e
n
t
-
D
e
s
M
o
i
n
e
s
R
d
S
R
5
Rus
s
e
l
l
R
d
S
SR 5 1 6
L
O
W
E
R
MILLCREEK
MIL
L
C
R
E
E
K
E See Green River 1 of 3
E See Green River 3 of 3
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 1,300'
0 1,300650Feet
plan08-1ct.mxd
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
Environment DesignationsGreen River (2 of 3)
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
10.a
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
!(167
Seatac
Tukwila
KingCounty
68
A
v
S
S178St
UNVERIFIED
EastValley H wy
Milita
r
y
R
d
S
64
A
v
S
8
0
P
l
S
R u s s ell R d S
S 180 St
S 212 St
84
A
v
S
80
A
v
S
76
Av
S
S 188 St
S 196 St
Sou
t
h
c
e
n
t
e
r
P
k
w
y
OrilliaRdS
W
e
s
t
Va
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
S 200 St
SR 5
S
1
8
4
P
l
A N G L ELAKE LOW
E
R
M
I
L
L
C
R
E
E
K
G
ARRISONCREEK
LO
W
E
R
S
P
R
I
N
G
B
R
OOK
CRE
E
K
E See Green River 2 of 3
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 1,300'
0 1,300650Feet
plan08-1cu.mxd
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
Environment DesignationsGreen River (3 of 3) / Lower Springbrook Creek
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
Gre e n River
Green River
Lower Springbrook Creek
10.a
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
K
e
nt-
Bla
c
k
D
ia
m
o
n
d
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
Rd
S
E
18
0
A
v
S
E
16
4
A
v
S
E
S
E
C
o
v
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
a
w
y
e
r
R
d
SE Kent Kangley Rd
15
2
A
v
S
E
C
o
v
i
n
g
t
o
n
W
y
S
E
SR 1
8
SE
W
a
x
R
d
BIGSOOSC REEK
LITTLE S O O SCRE E K
J ENKIN S C R E E K
KINGCOUNTYSeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 800'
0 800400Feet
plan08-1cv.mxd
Environment DesignationsBig Soos Creek / Jenkins Creek
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
Big Soos Creek
Jenkins Creek
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
10.a
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Covington
!(516
13
2
A
v
S
E
SE Kent Kangley Rd
14
4
A
v
S
E
14
8
A
v
S
E
152
Av
SE
SE 256 St
BIGSOOSCREEK
SOOSETT
E
CREEK
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 800'
0 800400Feet
plan08-1cw.mxd
Environment DesignationsLake Meridian
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
Lake Meridian
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
10.a
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
KingCounty
KingCounty
W Mee
k
e
r
St
36
A
v
S
S 272 St
S 259 Pl
M ilitary R d S
ReithRd
68
A
v
S
S
2
7
2
W
y
S K e n t -D es Moines Rd
SR 516
S T A R L A K E
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 800'
0 800400Feet
plan08-1cx.mxd
Environment DesignationsLake Fenwick
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
Lake Fenwick
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
10.a
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
SE 200 St
SE 208 St
12
4
A
v
S
E
SE
L
a
k
e
You
n
g
s
W
y
SE 196 St
10
8
A
v
S
E
11
6
A
v
S
E
13
2
A
v
S
E
SE 192 St
BIGSOOSCREEK
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 800'
0 800400Feet
plan08-1cy.mxd
Environment DesignationsPanther Lake
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
PantherLake
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
10.a
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
U.
P
.
R
.
R
.
64
A
v
S
68
A
v
S
S 228 S
t
S 21 2 S t
V e t e r a n s D r
O
r
i
l
l
i
a
R
d
S
Rus
s
e
l
l
R
d
S
MIL
L
C
R
E
E
K
LOWER
M
I
L
L
C
R
E
EK
KINGCOUNTY
Kent
SeaTac
RentonNormandy
Park
Federal Way
Des Moines
Covington
Burien
Burien
Auburn
Tukwila
-
Scale: 1" = 800'
0 800400Feet
plan08-1cz.mxd
Environment DesignationsGreen River Natural Resources Area
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Data Source: City of Kent GIS, King County GIS & WSDOT GIS
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
* Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure.
Updated April, 2019
Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates
associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the
Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the
Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report.
Legend
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area
Parcels
Environment Designations
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity
Urban Conservancy - Open Space
Green River Natural Resources Area
GreenRiver
10.a
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
APPENDIX B
Council Resolution No. 1714
Ratifying the WRIA Salmon Habitat
Plan
10.a
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Resolution No. 1714
["Beginning August 1, 2004"]
CFN= 1038 - Public Works
Passed -11/15/05
WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
10.a
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
1 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 1714
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of
Kent, Washington, ratifying, with conditions, the Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Salmon Habitat Plan.
RECITALS
A. In March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant
unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
B. Under ESA Section 4(f), NOAA Fisheries (for Chinook salmon) and
USFWS (for Bull Trout) are required to develop and implement recovery plans to
address the recovery of the species.
C. An essential ingredient for the development and implementation of an
effective recovery program is coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and
local agencies, tribes, businesses, researchers, non-governmental organizations,
landowners, citizens, and other stakeholders as required.
D. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, a regional non-profit organization, has
assumed a lead role in the Puget Sound response to develop a recovery plan for
submittal to NOAA Fisheries mid the USFWS.
10.a
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
2 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
E. Shared Strategy intends that its recovery plan will include commitments
from participating jurisdictions and stakeholders.
F. Local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of
Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and
tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for
addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 9.
G. In WRIA 9, habitat actions to significantly increase Chinook
productivity trends are advisable and may be necessary, in conjunction with other
recovery efforts, to avoid extinction hi the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook to
viability in the long term.
H. As it balances the complexity of accommodating and encouraging
growth as it addresses protection of critical areas, the city values ecosystem health;
water quality improvement; flood hazard reduction; open space protection; and
maintaining a legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport
fishing, quality of life, and cultural heritage.
I. The city supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common
priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and
distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures.
J. Seventeen (17) local governments in WRIA 9 jointly funded
development of The WRIA 9 Steering Committee Proposed Green / Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (the Plan), published August 10,
2005, following public input and review.
10.a
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
3 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
K. While the Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort, it
focuses on the next 10 years and includes a scientific framework, a start-list of priority
actions and comprehensive action lists, an adaptive management approach, and a
funding strategy.
L. The city has consistently implemented habitat restoration and protection
projects, and addressed salmon habitat through its land use and public outreach policies
and programs over the past five years.
M. It is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector, and the public
with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions that
the region will be taking in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
Watershed.
N. If insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is
possible that the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an
endangered species, thereby decreasing local flexibility.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. - Ratification. The city hereby conditionally ratifies The WRIA 9
Steering Committee Proposed Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
Salmon Habitat Plan, dated August 10, 2005 (the Plan). The Plan is incorporated into
this resolution by this reference, and the city clerk will keep a copy of this ordinance
and the Plan in his or her files and make it available for review. Ratification is intended
to convey the city's approval and support for the following:
10.a
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
4 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
1. Purpose: The purpose of the Plan is to restore habitat used by Chinook
salmon, hill trout, and other salmonids in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget
Sound Watershed.
2. Goals: The goals of the Plan are to:
a. Protect and restore physical, chemical, and biological processes
and the freshwater, marine, and estuarine habitats on which
salmonids depend;
b. Protect and restore habitat connectivity where feasible;
c. Protect and improve water quality and quantity conditions to
support healthy salmonid populations; and
d. Provide an implementation plan that supports salmon recovery.
3. Continuing to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
stakeholders in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)
to implement the Plan.
4. Using the scientific foundation and the habitat management strategy as
the basis for local actions recommended in the plan for future projects, ordinances, and
other appropriate local government activities.
5. Adopting an adaptive management approach to Plan implementation
and funding to address uncertainties and ensure cost-effectiveness by tracking actions,
assessing action effectiveness, learning from results of actions, reviewing assumptions
and strategies, making corrections where needed, and communicating progress.
Developing and implementing a cost-effective regional monitoring program as part of
the adaptive management approach.
6. Using the Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid
Population, and other actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site
10.a
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
5 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
specific projects and land use and public outreach recommendations. Jurisdictions,
agencies, and stakeholders can implement these actions at any time.
7. Using the Watershed-Wide Programs and Subwatershed-specific
Policies, Programs and Priority Projects list to guide priorities for regional funding in
the first ten years of Plan implementation, and implementing these actions through
local capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. The list of
policies, programs and projects will be revised over time, as new opportunities arise
and as more is learned through adaptive management.
8. Using an adaptive approach to funding the Plan through both local
sources and by working together (within WRIA 9 and Puget Sound) to seek federal,
state, grant, and other funding opportunities.
9. Forwarding the Plan to appropriate federal and state agencies through
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, to be included in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
recovery plan.
SECTION 2. - Implementation. The city recognizes that negotiation of
commitments and assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and state agencies
will be an iterative process. Full implementation of this Plan is dependent on the
following:
1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan, as an operative element of its ESA
Section 4(f) recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will:
a. take no direct enforcement actions against the City under the ESA
for implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the Plan;
b. endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend the City against legal
challenges by third parties; and
10.a
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
6 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
c. reduce the regulatory burden for City activities recommended in or
consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation.
3. Federal and state governments will:
a. provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan
actions and monitoring activities;
b. streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to restore
salmonid habitat or where the actions are mitigation that further Plan implementation;
c. offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that are
consistent with the Plan;
d. support the monitoring and evaluation framework;
e. incorporate, to the best of the government's ability, actions and
guidance from the Plan in future federal and state transportation and infrastructure
planning and improvement projects; and
f. to the extent feasible, direct mitigation resources toward Plan
priorities.
SECTION 3. - Obligation. This resolution does not obligate the city council to
future appropriations beyond current authority. Although the city is committed to
furthering the work of WRIA 9 and the Plan, it also must balance its other goals and
priorities, beyond funding limitations, under the state Growth Management Act to
further economic development, enhance and accommodate growth, and protect
property rights. As a result, this council action to ratify the Plan is conditioned on the
city's fulfillment of these other needs and demands as well.
In particular, the city maintains a primarily aquifer-based water supply system,
and the city will not implement any Plan requirement or goal if doing so would
threaten or harm the city's ability to provide a safe, secure, and adequate water supply
to its citizens, including future population increases, whether due to annexation or
additional growth through infill.
10.a
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
SECTION 4. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 5. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 6. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent,
Washington, this 15th day of November 2005.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS
7 WRIA 9
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
10.a
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
APPENDIX C
Restoration Plan Map
10.a
Packet Pg. 278
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 279
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Puget
Sound
405
5
90
5
KITSAP
PIERCE
KING
Auburn Black
Diamond
Bellevue
Burien
Covington
Des
Moines
Federal
Way
Issaquah
Mercer
Island
Maple
Valley
Newcastle
Renton
Seattle
SeaTac
Tukwila
Kent
Legend
Restoration Projects
Public Access Trails
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9) Projects
Stream
Ditch or Swale
Shoreline Management Area (In City Limits)
Shoreline Management Area (In PAA)
Public Access Areas
Kent City Limits
Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA)
Adjacent City Limits
- Shoreline Master Program -City of Kent
Appendix C
0 3,6001,800 Feet
Restoration Opportunities
Scale: 1" = 3,600'
Flown March, 2006 and Sept., 2007
Data Source: City of Kent GIS and King County GIS
N.T.S.
Printed June, 2009
99
167
Seatac
Tukwila Renton
Covington
Auburn
King County
FederalWay
Des Moines
KingCounty
KingCounty
Star Lake
G r e e n River
Angle Lake
River
Green
Green RiverNaturalResources Area
Lak
e
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
King County
King
County
Clark Lake
King County
Lo
w
e
r
Spring
Creekookbr
Cr
e
e
k
Big
S
o
o
s
U.
P
.
R
.
R
.
B.
N
.
R
.
R
.
L
a
k
e
F
e
n
w
i
c
k
1
4
5
14
6
7
2
3
8
17
10
11
16
12
9
13
15
516
516
516
515
181
167
5
Jen
k
i
n
s
Cre
e
k
Kent Water Resources Area
(Armstrong Springs)
Scale: 1" = 2,500'
See Inset above for
Water Resources Area
plan08-1da.mxd
This map is intended as a graphic aid only, and is not a legal document. The City of Kent
makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, placement or location of any map
features thereon. The City Of Kent disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and/or all
damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential which arises or may
arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity.
10.a
Packet Pg. 280
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent Shoreline Master Program Update
Response to Public Comments
April 24, 2019
Note: The following comments were received during the public hearing process for the City of Kent’s Shoreline Master Program
Periodic Update.
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
Karen Walter,
Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe
(Email to City
dated March 25,
2019, which
references
comments from
an email sent to
the City on
December 18,
2018 and a letter
sent to the City
dated July 15,
2009)
1 Policy
5.C.9.b(1)
Policy
5.C.9.c(5)
Culverts
Culverts that are currently fish passage barriers within
waterbodies regulated under the SMP need to be
replaced. WDFW has been evaluating culverts throughout the
state but their assessments are incomplete. We are asking that
all local governments begin surveying culverts in their
jurisdictional boundaries so we can understand the magnitude of
the problem; prioritize replacements in light of the Federal Court
Injunction against Washington State (see attachments); and get
CIP projects planned to replace these culverts.
Very few culverts that are currently fish
passage barriers are known within the
City’s shoreline jurisdiction, according to
WDFW’s fish passage map
(https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/h
p/fishpassage/index.html). The Kent
SMP includes policies and regulations to
ensure that new in-stream structures
provide for fish passage (5.C.6.b[1]) and
that culverts and similar devices allow
continuous fish passage (5.C.9.c[5]).
The City’s Critical Areas Ordinance
addresses culverts in KCC 11.06.690. It
requires new culverts to be designed per
WDFW fish passage standards and that
they remain clear of debris and
sediment to allow free passage of water
and fish. The ordinance also authorizes
10.a
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
the City to require that a culvert be
removed from a stream as a condition of
permit approval.
The City of Kent does not currently have
a program in place to inventory or
systematically replace culverts, outside
of the alteration and development
permitting process. To determine
whether a culvert may need to be
removed or replaced during the
permitting process, the City relies on the
information provided in the WDFW fish
passage map cited above. A culvert
inventory and replacement program
would be an additional capital expense,
for which the City has not allocated
funding.
Recommendation: No change to the
SMP.
2 Section
3.B.11
Policy
3.B.8.b(2)(c)
Shoreline
Restoration
Plan
Riparian conditions on the Green River (and elsewhere in the
SMP jurisdiction)
The current riparian conditions along the Green River in Kent
and elsewhere in the lower Green River are terrible for providing
a suite of functions to support salmon. In particular, there are
few trees to provide instream wood and shading to reduce water
temperatures. For the Green River as it flows through Kent,
WDOE, EPA, the Tribe, King County and others developed the
Green River temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan
The City of Kent SMP includes policies
and regulations (Section 3.B.11,
Vegetation Conservation) to promote
the retention of native vegetation along
shorelines, including the Green River,
and to ensure that impacts to native
vegetation are adequately mitigated.
Section 3.B.8.b establishes policies
related to Shorelines of Statewide
Significance, which includes the Green
10.a
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Response to Public Comments
April 24, 2019
Page 3 of 9
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
to deal with the current State water quality violations for
temperature and dissolved oxygen. See
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1110046.p
df). The temperature conditions currently create sub-lethal and
at times lethal conditions for returning adult Chinook and coho.
Some main points from the Green River TMDL plan (WDOE 2011)
are:
• “An objective of the temperature TMDL model is to
assess the influence of current shade conditions on river
temperatures and the potential improvements that could be
gained through restoration of riparian shade along the river.”
• “Also, according to the model, the 17.5° criterion that
affects the Lower Green River below the confluence with Mill
Creek is nearly achievable when using 32m trees as a modeling
parameter to create a system potential shade scenario. When
using a 42m tree the river can achieve compliance with the
17.5° criterion. This needs to be contrasted with current
conditions under which this area of the river is occasionally six
degrees warmer than the state standard and above
temperatures that are considered lethal for adult and juvenile
salmonids”
• “Significant temperature reductions are predicted with
system potential mature riparian vegetation, but very minor
River, including Policy 3.B.8.b(2)(c):
“Protect and restore existing diversity of
vegetation and habitat values, wetlands
and riparian corridors associated with
shoreline areas.” The Kent Shoreline
Restoration Plan also includes
restoration objectives specific to the
Green River, including, “increasing LWD
recruitment potential through plantings
of trees, particularly conifers, in the
riparian corridors.”
Due to previous Army Corps of
Engineers requirements for levee
certification, some levee projects along
the Green River were considered not
suitable for tree plantings. In these
cases, the City allowed for offsite
planting of trees within the same
drainage basin. The City has received
updated guidance from ACOE that
provides for tree plantings on new
levees under certain conditions. These
guidelines will be consulted during levee
revegetation work.
10.a
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
improvements are predicted from riparian microclimate.
Increases in effective shade from mature riparian vegetation
have the potential to decrease water temperatures across all
reaches, and almost bring the lower reaches downstream of
the confluence with Mill Creek into compliance with the 17.5°C
water quality standard protecting salmonid spawning, rearing,
and migration uses. Potential reduced maximum temperatures
under critical conditions are predicted to be greater than the
16°C numeric standard upstream of Mill Creek, but below the
lethal limit for salmonids.”
• “The TMDL models show that the combined effects of
mature riparian vegetation and the associated microclimate
improvements result in the greatest temperature
improvements in the river.”
Figure 36 in the Green River TMDL plan shows the lower Green
River between Auburn and Tukwila as the areas most needed
trees for shade. Further information is available in the two links
below.
There is more information about existing riparian conditions
available at https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-
and-land/flooding/capital-projects/SWIF/green-river-system-
wide-improvement-framework-interim-report-february-
2016.pdf. There are shade maps for the Green River in this
document. I can also send you more detailed shade maps via a
separate email as they are large.
We appreciate your providing the TMDL
and SWIF documents for consideration
in the SMP. The City does prioritize
planting trees when designing levee
projects along the Green River based on
the shade map in the SWIF, but as we
discussed at the April 12, 2019 meeting,
we must also balance public access and
views as required by SMA. Accordingly,
please see our proposed revisions
incorporating these references, below.
Recommendation: The City of Kent is
proposing the following amendments to
the SMP:
Ch. 3 General Provisions, B. Policies and
Regulations, 11. Vegetation Conservation, c.
Regulations
3. Vegetation restoration of any
shoreline that has been disturbed or
degraded shall use native plant
materials with a diversity and type
similar to that which originally occurred
on-site unless the City’s Shoreline
Administrator finds that native plant
materials are inappropriate or not hardy
in the particular situation. Placement of
trees on the Green River shall consider
10.a
Packet Pg. 284
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Response to Public Comments
April 24, 2019
Page 5 of 9
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
You may also want to look at the WRIA 9 “Re-greening the Green
River” plan
http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/pdf/GreenRevegStrategy
Plan-Oct2016-Final.pdf
provision of public views and the need
for shade as identified in the 2016 King
County Flood District Systemwide
Improvement Framework (SWIF) Interim
Report, or as subsequently amended.
3 Tribal fishing access
Another issue raised in our previous SMP comments (July 15,
2009) is tribal fishing access. We noted the importance of the
Green River for the Tribe’s ceremonial, commercial and
subsistence fisheries. Tribal members fish in the Green-
Duwamish River, including areas within the City of Kent. We
asked Kent to ensure that the SMP and its implementation do
not continue the degradation of treaty protected fisheries
resources or impact Tribal members’ ability to access these
resources.
In the Kent portion of the Green River, tribal members access
the river from land to place setnets to catch salmon under the
tribal right and per MIT fishing regulations. Members need to
be able to get to their sites unencumbered and be able to set
nets without interference or damage to their gear. They need to
be able to get their catch into their totes and vehicles, too. We
have worked with the City over the years to ensure that gates on
roads and trails are accessible to tribal members and their
vehicles. Tribal members also need access at times when
facilities like parks may be closed or restricted. The details vary
The Kent SMP prohibits any new, non-
public piers and docks from the Green
River. Additionally, Regulation 4.C.3.c(2)
states that “all moorage and other over-
water structures shall be designed and
located so as not to constitute a hazard
to navigation or other public uses of the
water,” and Policy 3.B.7.b(2) states that,
“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.”
Further, Regulation 4.C.7.c(5) states that
“Fisherman access should be combined
with levee maintenance access to meet
access needs for fishermen and fishing
equipment.”
All shoreline permits submitted to the
City require public notice and a 30-day
public comment period. SEPA
10.a
Packet Pg. 285
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
from site to site but it is important that the SMP acknowledge
the treaty-protected tribal fishing rights of the Tribe and work
with the Tribe to ensure that these rights are not impaired
through shoreline permits; projects; flood control and park
actions, etc. The Tribe also intends to work with the City to get
signs placed to notify others of the Tribe’s treaty fishing rights
along locations on the Green River.
applications also require public notice
and a 14-comment period. The
Muckleshoot tribe is on our agency list
and receives all such public notices,
providing the tribe an opportunity to
comment on individual shoreline project
proposals if there are concerns that the
project could impact tribal members’
fishing access.
The proposed revisions, below, reflect
current practice and provide additional
clarity that tribal fishing access is an
important part of public access, while
noting the City’s intent to work with the
tribe.
Recommendation: The City of Kent is
proposing the following amendments to
the SMP:
At the end of the Applicability section under
Public Access (Ch 3.B.7.a):
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has
federally-protected treaty rights to
fisheries resources in rivers and streams
within their usual and accustomed areas
(“U&A”), including access to these
resources. Kent’s regulated shoreline
10.a
Packet Pg. 286
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Response to Public Comments
April 24, 2019
Page 7 of 9
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
areas are a subset of the Muckleshoot
Tribe’s larger “U&A” area. Activities and
development regulated under this
Shoreline Master Program have the
potential to impact treaty-protected
fisheries resources and tribal members’
ability to access to these
resources. Accordingly, the City will
work with the Muckleshoot Tribe to
ensure that permitted projects do not
unduly impede or impair in-water or
upland tribal fishing access.
Ch. 4 Shoreline Modification Provisions, C.
Policies and Regulations, 7. Dikes and
Levees, c. Regulations
5. Public access to shorelines and
aesthetics should be integral
considerations of all levee improvement
projects. Public access shall be provided
in accordance with public access policies
and regulations contained herein. New
dikes or levees must not impede or
diminish public access on the Green
River Trail. Fisherman access should be
combined with levee maintenance
access to meet access needs for
fishermen and fishing equipment. The
10.a
Packet Pg. 287
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
City of Kent will work with the
Muckleshoot Tribe to ensure that
permitted projects do not impede in-
water or upland tribal fishing access.
Ch. 3 General Provisions, B. Policies and
Regulations, 7. Public Access, b. Policies
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 and
should not impede in-water or upland
tribal fishing access.
*Please note, policies (such as the last
one above) are part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and are intended to
set broad direction as a basis for
regulations which implement such
policies. Accordingly, the verbiage in
policies is always broader and differs
from verbiage in regulations (“should” vs
“shall”).
4 Policy
3.B.1.b(4)
Permit Application Noticing
As we noted in our July 15, 2009 comments (see attached), we
requested notification of all projects proposed in shoreline
areas. We stated: “The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division requests review of all shoreline applications when
deemed complete by the City regardless if they qualify for
Policy 3.B.1.b(4) of the Kent SMP
establishes that “the City should involve
affected federal, state, and tribal
governments in the review process of
shoreline applications.” The City of Kent
issues a Notice of Application for
10.a
Packet Pg. 288
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Response to Public Comments
April 24, 2019
Page 9 of 9
Commenter #
SMP
Reference
Location
Public Comment Response
shoreline exemptions, variances or substantial development
permits.” The purpose being that if we receive applications
timely, we can identify concerns and recommendations to
address them in cooperative fashion.
shoreline substantial development
permits, shoreline conditional use
permits, and shoreline variances which
include a 30-day public comment period.
Additionally, SEPA applications require a
14-day comment period. The
Muckleshoot Tribe is on the notification
list.
Shoreline exemptions do not require
public notice, and the City of Kent does
not intend to send public notices when
shoreline exemptions are issued.
However, as discussed at the April 12,
2019 meeting, the City does send the
Department of Ecology notice when a
shoreline exemption letter is issued, and
will add to our internal procedures to
send notice to your office as well, per
the contact information you have
provided.
Recommendation: No change to the
SMP.
10.a
Packet Pg. 289
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 290
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 291
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 292
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 293
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 300
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 301
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 302
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 303
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 304
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 305
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 310
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 311
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 312
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 313
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 314
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 315
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 316
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 317
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 318
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 319
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 320
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 321
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 322
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 323
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 324
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 325
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 326
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 327
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 328
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 329
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 330
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 331
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 332
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 333
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 334
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 335
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 336
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 337
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 338
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 339
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 340
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 341
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 342
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 343
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 344
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 345
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 346
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.a
Packet Pg. 347
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Kent
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Periodic Update, 2018-2019
Economic and Community Development Committee
July 8, 2019
10.b
Packet Pg. 348
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
The SMP is a set of policies and
regulations required by state law
The SMP is required by the state’s Shoreline
Management Act, which has three basic goals:
1)Encourage shoreline development that makes sense, and
emphasize water-dependent uses like docks, marinas, and
recreation.
2)Protect natural resources and character of the shoreline – like
water, plants, and wildlife.
3)Promote public access and opportunities to enjoy the shoreline.
10.b
Packet Pg. 349
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
SMP Rules Apply only within Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Shoreline jurisdiction is within 200 feet of large bodies of
water – lakes at least 20 acres, streams at least 20 cubic
feet per second – and their connected wetlands,
floodplains, and floodways.
In Kent, these include:
•Green River
•Lake Meridian
•Lake Fenwick
•Panther Lake
•Jenkins Creek
•Springbrook Creek
•Big Soos Creek
•Green River Natural
Resources Area
10.b
Packet Pg. 350
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Certain Activities are Regulated Under
SMP Rules
SMP rules apply to these land use activities within shoreline jurisdiction:
New/expanded/redeveloped structures like houses, sheds, or decks
New/expanded/redeveloped in- and over-water structures like docks, buoys, boat launches
Land development/alteration like clearing,grading, dredging, or filling
Other activities, like restoration, trail construction, and public access
Rules are meant to meet No Net Loss standards
10.b
Packet Pg. 351
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
“Substantial Development” Activities
Require Permits
Substantial Development Permits identify and enforce
the rules that apply to the project, such as:
setbacks,
vegetation conservation,
public access, and
protection of critical areas and archaeological
resources.
Other projects require a Conditional Use Permit or a
Shoreline Variance, approved by the Hearing Examiner
10.b
Packet Pg. 352
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Periodic Reviews Are Required To
Ensure Consistency
A periodic review is required every 8 years – updates as
needed to ensure No Net Loss
Periodic reviews should focus on:
New/updated state laws since the SMP was adopted
Changes to codes and plans (especially critical areas and
flood hazard regulations)
Revisions to maps and references
10.b
Packet Pg. 353
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Periodic Reviews do NOT:
Re-evaluate the ecological baseline which was
established as part of the 2009 comprehensive update
Extensively assess no net loss criteria other than to
ensure that proposed amendments do not result in
degradation of the baseline condition
Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment
designations
Rewrite the Restoration Plan
10.b
Packet Pg. 354
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
We engaged the public early.
Website/Video – an opportunity to learn about
SMPs and the periodic update
Online Survey – a chance to share candid
thoughts on permitting experiences
Open House – a place to ask questions and
learn about the SMP update
10.b
Packet Pg. 355
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Comments include:
Maximize habitat restoration and recreation access.
Reduce development on the shoreline.
Increase flood storage.
Incentivize restoration by private property owners.
Manage vegetation to promote visibility and access.
10.b
Packet Pg. 356
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Comments include:
Ensure access for fishermen.
Increase shade from trees to reduce water
temperatures for fish.
Remove exemptions for existing development.
Focus on ecological health and reducing pollution.
10.b
Packet Pg. 357
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
The proposed changes to the SMP
include:
Reference to the most recent critical areas regulations adopted in 2017
Updated definitions, thresholds, and exemption rules
Vegetation conservation provisions specific to potential use conflicts with
regional trails
Remove Panther Lake PAA references
Fix mapping error – amend Shoreline Environment Designation for two
parcels on Frager Road
Minor edits to improve functionality and readability (e.g. removing
unused definitions, updated maps and diagrams, clarifying language)
10.b
Packet Pg. 358
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
The Adoption Process includes:
Department of Ecology Initial Determination
City Council adoption of amendments (anticipated July
16th)
Department of Ecology Final Approval
10.b
Packet Pg. 359
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Contact Information
Danielle Butsick
Planning Services | Economic & Community Development
City of Kent
(253) 856-5443
dbutsick@kentwa.gov
10.b
Packet Pg. 360
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
8
6
2
:
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: Impact of Permit Center Process
11
Packet Pg. 361