HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/25/2019 (2)Land Use and Planning Board
Hearing Agenda
Board Members: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair;
Gwen Allen-Carston; Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius;
Dale Hartman; Ali Shasti
March 25, 2019
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1.Call to order NO Chair Hintz 1 min
2.Roll call NO Chair Hintz 1 min
3.Approval of 2/25/19 and 3/11/19 Minutes YES Chair Hintz 1 min 1
4.Added Items NO Chair Hintz 1 min
5.Communications NO Chair Hintz 1 min
6.Notice of Upcoming Meetings NO Chair Hintz 1 min
7.Shoreline Master Program YES Danielle
Butsick
20 min 5
8.Adjournment NO Chair Hintz 1 min
Date: February 25, 2019
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Ali Shasti; Frank
Cornelius; Matt Gilbert, ECD Deputy Director, Hayley Bonsteel, Long-Range Planning
Manager
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
Chair Hintz called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
2. Roll Call
Dale Hartman out sick, Frank Cornelius Jr. absent, excused. All other members
present
3. Approval of the Minutes
Kathi Jones voted to approve the minutes. Motion passed 5-0.
4. Added Items None.
5. Communications None.
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None.
Chair Hintz opened the public hearing at 7:00
7. Public Hearing on Advanced/Light Manufacturing in the DCE Zone
ECD Deputy Director Matt Gilbert introduced an amendment to the downtown
commercial enterprize zone to allow clean advanced manufacturing uses. ECD
Long Range Planning Manager Hayley Bonsteel described the details of the
proposal, including uses proposed to be permitted such as laboratory research
and development, hardware and robotics testing, training facilities for industrial
machinery, electronics and aerospace products, and materials manufacturing.
Specifically prohibited would be recycling distribution or collection, and heavy
manufacturing industries. Downtown Design Guidelines would continue to apply,
with a few more specific design criteria in the code amendment proposal to
ensure attractive frontage as viewed from the street and sidewalks.
A motion was made by Kathi Jones to approve the ordinance to allow advanced
manufacturing in the DCE zone. The motion passed 5 to 0.
1 of 212
8. Public Hearing on Self Storage/Mini-Warehouse Regulations
Matt Gilbert introduced the context related to proliferation of mini-warehouses,
also known as self-storage, and described some of their impacts as land
consumptive and economically unproductive. Hayley Bonsteel described the
proposal to limit mini-warehouses to 40% of the leasable area of a building with
another permitted use, and to require that mini-warehousing not be located on
the ground floor. A local example of an existing commercial development with
mini-warehouses on the second floor was used as a model for the regulations.
One member of the public spoke as a developer in favor of the overall concept
but in opposition to the specific regulation; boardmembers asked questions
about a potential project the speaker described and discussed what the
regulation might mean for the project and development on East Hill generally.
Kathi Jones presented a motion to approve the ordinance as recommended by
staff; the vote passed 4-0 with Gwen Allen-Carson abstaining.
Adjournment
8:05 Chair Hintz seeing no further business motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Samuel M Maloney
Planning Technician
Economic and Community Development
2 of 212
Date: March 11, 2019
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Frank Cornelius, Gwen Allen-Carston, Dale Hartman, Shane Amodei,
Danielle Butsick
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
Frank Cornelius called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
2.Roll Call
Paul Hintz, Kathi Jones, and Ali Shasti absent.
3.Approval of the Minutes
Dale Hartman motioned to table approval of the minutes, Frank Cornelius
seconded, motion approved 4-0.
4.Added Items None.
5.Communications None.
6.Notice of Upcoming Meetings None.
7.LUPB Workshop – Shorline Master Program Update
Ms. Butsick introduced the Shorline Master Program update, including
where it’s regulations apply, and what activities it regulates. The goal is to
achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function over time. The City of
Kent’s SMP is currently under review, as is required every 8 years.
Periodic review is to ensure the SMP’s consistency with policy and
legislative changes that have occurred since the previous update.
Proposed changes include:
•References to the critical areas ordinance.
•Streamlined wording to simplify the text.
•Exemption language for activities that do not require local review.
•Minor changes to requirements for native plants.
•Removed references to the Panther Lake Annexation, as it is now fully
integrated as a part of the City of Kent.
•Updates to shoreline environment designations to address mapping error.
3 of 212
Deadline for adoption is June 30, which coincides with the grant deadline.
Motion to close the workshop made by Frank Cornelius, seconded by Dale
Hartman at 7:30 PM.
Samuel M Maloney
Planning Technician
Economic and Community Development
4 of 212
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: March 25, 2019
To: Chair Paul Hintz and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: Danielle Butsick, AICP, Sr. Long Range Planner
Re: Shoreline Master Program Update
Motion: Recommend City Council adopt the 2019 Shoreline Master Program
amendments 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 is expected
to be minor, and will 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 March 25 hearing to present information and
answer questions about the SMP update.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
Enc: PowerPoint Presentation, SEPA Determination and Decision Document, Proposed SMP Amendments
cc: Kurt Hanson, Economic & Community Development Director
5 of 212
City of Kent
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Periodic Update, 2018-2019
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
March 25, 2019
6 of 212
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.
7 of 212
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
8 of 212
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
9 of 212
“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 of 212
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
11 of 212
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
12 of 212
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
13 of 212
Some early 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.
14 of 212
Some early 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.
15 of 212
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)
16 of 212
The State of Washington Sets a
Deadline for Cities’ Periodic Reviews
We anticipate adoption of the SMP amendments by June
18, 2019
The City of Kent’s Shoreline Master Program review and
update is due by June 30, 2019
17 of 212
Contact Information
Danielle Butsick
Planning Services | Economic & Community Development
City of Kent
(253) 856-5443
dbutsick@kentwa.gov
18 of 212
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.
Exhibit A 19 of 212
This page intentionally left blank
20 of 212
Table of Contents Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ viivii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the SMP ............................................................................ 11
A. History of the SMA .................................................................................................... 11
B. Implementation of the SMA ........................................................................................ 2
C. Geographic Applications of the SMA ........................................................................ 44
1. Applicable Area ............................................................................................................... 55
D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used ............................................................. 76
1. When Is a Permit Required? ........................................................................................... 87
2. The Permit Process ......................................................................................................... 98
3. The Shoreline Permit ....................................................................................................... 98
4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other Plans ..................................... 109
Chapter 2: Environment Designation Provisions .................................................. 1110
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1110
B. Shoreline Environment Designation Maps ............................................................ 1110
C. Policies and Regulations ...................................................................................... 1110
1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment ...................................................................... 1110
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1110
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1211
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 1211
2. "High-Intensity" (H-I) Environment .............................................................................. 1211
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1211
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1211
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 1312
d. Specific Environment Designations .................................................................................... 1312
3. "Urban Conservancy–Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment ........................................ 1514
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1514
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1514
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 1514
d. Specific Environment Designations .................................................................................... 1615
4. "Urban Conservancy–Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment ......................................... 1817
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1817
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1817
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 1817
d. Specific Environment Designations .................................................................................... 2019
5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment .................................................................. 2221
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 2221
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 2221
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 2221
d. Specific Environment Designations .................................................................................... 2322
21 of 212
Page ii Kent Shoreline Master Program
6. "Aquatic" Environment ................................................................................................ 2423
a. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 2423
b. Designation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 2423
c.Management Policies .......................................................................................................... 2423
Chapter 3: General Provisions ............................................................................... 2525
A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2525
B. Policies and Regulations ...................................................................................... 2525
1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations ......................................................... 2525
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 2525
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 2525
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 2626
2. Archaeological and Historic Resources ...................................................................... 2827
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 2927
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 2927
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 2927
3. Critical Areas ............................................................................................................... 3028
4. Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 3129
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 3129
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 313029
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 3130
5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management ......................................... 3231
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 3231
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 3331
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 343332
6. Parking ........................................................................................................................ 3634
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 3634
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 3634
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 3635
7. Public Access .............................................................................................................. 3735
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 3735
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 3836
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 3937
8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance Regulations .................................................... 4038
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 4038
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 403938
9. Signage ....................................................................................................................... 4240
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 4240
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 4240
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 4240
10. Utilities (Accessory) ................................................................................................. 434241
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 434241
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 444241
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 4442
11. Vegetation Conservation ......................................................................................... 444342
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 444342
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 4543
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 4543
12. Water Quality and Quantity ..................................................................................... 494746
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 494746
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 4947
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 504847
22 of 212
Table of Contents Page iii
Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions ....................................................... 5149
A. Introduction and Applicability ................................................................................ 5149
B. Shoreline Modification Matrix................................................................................ 5149
C. Policies and Regulations ...................................................................................... 5351
1. General Policies and Regulations ............................................................................... 5351
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 5351
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 5351
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 5351
2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads) ............................................................. 5452
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 5452
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 5553
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 5654
3. Over-Water Structures - Including Pier and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and Boating
Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 6058
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 6058
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 6058
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 6159
4. Fill ............................................................................................................................ 686665
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 686665
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 686665
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 6866
5. Dredging and Disposal ............................................................................................ 696766
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 696766
b. Exemptions ......................................................................................................................... 6967
c.Policies ................................................................................................................................ 6967
d. Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 6967
6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement .................................................. 7169
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 7169
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 727069
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 727069
7. Dikes and Levees ........................................................................................................ 7270
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 7270
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 737170
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 737170
Chapter 5: Shoreline Use Provisions ..................................................................... 7472
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7472
B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices .......................................... 7472
C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations ............................................................... 7876
1. General Policies and Regulations ............................................................................... 7876
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 7876
b. Policy ................................................................................................................................... 7876
c. Regulations ............................................................................................................................ 7876
2. Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 7977
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 7977
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 7977
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 8078
3. Boating Facilities ..................................................................................................... 817978
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 817978
23 of 212
Page iv Kent Shoreline Master Program
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 8179
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 8179
4. Commercial Development ........................................................................................... 8381
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 8381
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 8381
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 848281
5. Industry ....................................................................................................................... 8583
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 8583
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 868483
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 868483
6. In-Stream Structures ............................................................................................... 878584
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 878584
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 8785
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 8785
7. Recreational Development ...................................................................................... 888685
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 888685
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 8886
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 898786
8. Residential Development ........................................................................................ 908887
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 908887
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 9088
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 918988
9. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 9997
a. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 9997
b. Policies ................................................................................................................................ 9997
c.Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 9997
10. Utilities..................................................................................................................... 102100
a. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 102100
b. Policies ............................................................................................................................ 102100
c.Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 102100
Chapter 6: Definitions ......................................................................................... 105103
Chapter 7: Administrative Provisions ................................................................ 119117
A. Purpose and Applicability ................................................................................. 119117
B. Substantial Development ........................................................................... 120118117
1. Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit ........................................ 120118117
2 Substantial Development Permit Process ......................................................... 120118117
3. Appeals ................................................................................................................... 121119
C. Conditional Use Permits ............................................................................. 122120119
1. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits ................................................................... 122120119
2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria ......................................................... 122120119
D. Variances ......................................................................................................... 122120
1. Shoreline Variances ................................................................................................ 122120
2. Shoreline Variance Criteria ............................................................................... 123121120
3. Revisions to Permits ......................................................................................... 123121120
E. Nonconforming Uses .................................................................................. 124122121
24 of 212
Table of Contents Page v
F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and Changing Conditions in
Shoreline Areas .......................................................................................... 124122121
G. Amendments to This Shoreline Master Program ........................................ 124122121
H. Severability ................................................................................................. 124122121
I. Enforcement ............................................................................................... 125123121
1. Violations ............................................................................................................. 125123122
2. Duty to Enforce .................................................................................................. 125123122
3. Investigation and Notice of Violation ................................................................. 126124122
Chapter 8: Shoreline Restoration Plan ........................................................ 128126125
A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 128126125
B. Shoreline Inventory Summary .................................................................... 129127126
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 129127126
2. Shoreline Boundary ........................................................................................... 129127126
3. Inventory ............................................................................................................ 130128127
a. Land Use and Physical Conditions ........................................................................... 130128127
b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas ................................................................... 133131130
C. Restoration Goals and Objectives .............................................................. 134131130
1. System-wide restoration objectives ......................................................................... 135132
2. Green River restoration objectives .................................................................... 136133132
3. Lakeshore restoration objectives ....................................................................... 136134133
D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs .................................. 136134133
1. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation ................................... 136134133
2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project ............................................ 142140139
3. King County Flood Control District .................................................................... 143140139
4. Comprehensive Plan Policies ............................................................................ 143141140
5. Critical Areas Regulations ................................................................................. 145143142
6. Stormwater Management and Planning ............................................................ 146144143
7. Public Education ................................................................................................ 147144143
8. Kent Parks Foundation ............................................................................................ 148145
9. Other Kent Parks Programs .............................................................................. 148146145
a. Adopt-A-Park ............................................................................................................. 149146145
b. Releaf ........................................................................................................................ 149146145
c.Eagle Scouts ................................................................................................................... 149146
d. Make A Difference Day ............................................................................................. 149147146
e. Youth Tree Education Program ................................................................................ 150147146
f.Best Management Practices ..................................................................................... 150147146
10. Public Works Engineering Programs ....................................................................... 150147
11. Adopt-A-Stream Foundation .............................................................................. 151148147
12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects ..................................................................... 151148147
a. Springbrook Creek .................................................................................................... 151148147
b. GRNRA ........................................................................................................................... 151148
c.Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project ............................................................... 152149148
d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction ........................................................................... 152149
25 of 212
Page vi Kent Shoreline Master Program
13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities .................................. 153150149
E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to Achieve Local Restoration Goals154151150
1. Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects ................................................................... 154151150
2. Other Recommended Projects .......................................................................... 155152151
a. Green River ............................................................................................................... 155152151
b. Big Soos Creek ......................................................................................................... 158155154
c.Lake Meridian ............................................................................................................ 158155154
d. Lake Fenwick ............................................................................................................ 159155154
e. GRNRA ..................................................................................................................... 159155154
f.Springbrook Creek .................................................................................................... 159155154
g. Jenkins Creek ........................................................................................................... 159156155
h. Panther Lake ............................................................................................................. 159156155
3. Public Education/Outreach ................................................................................ 160156155
4. Other Environmental Organizations .................................................................. 160157156
F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods ...................... 161157156
G. Restoration Priorities .................................................................................. 163160159
1. Priority 1 – Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection ......................... 164161160
2. Priority 2 – Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation .. 165161160
3. Priority 3 –Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery
.......................................................................................................................... 165161160
4. Priority 4 – Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries ...................... 166162161
5. Priority 5 – Public Education and Involvement .................................................. 166162161
6. Priority 6 – Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or
Enhancement Purposes .................................................................................... 166163162
7. Priority 7 – Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage ......... 167163162
8. Priority 8 – Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline
and Streambank Conditions .............................................................................. 167163162
9. Priority 9 – Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures ........................... 167164163
10. Priority 10 – Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes ................................... 168164163
11. Priority 11 – City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies ............................ 168164163
H. References ................................................................................................. 170166165
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.
26 of 212
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 15. Shoreline Modification Matrix ........................................................................... 524550
Table 26. Shoreline Use Matrix ........................................................................................ 746772
Table 37. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix ........................................................ 777075
Table 48. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes ............................. 918488
Table 59. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers
or Streams ........................................................................................................ 979094
Table 610. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of
Implementation in Kent............................................................................... 137130134
Table 711. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent............................................................................... 139132136
Table 812. 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 913. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their
Implementation in Kent............................................................................... 153145149
Table 104. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs
and Plans. .................................................................................................. 161153157
27 of 212
28 of 212
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
29 of 212
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:
30 of 212
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
31 of 212
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.
32 of 212
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.
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 1" + Indent
at: 1.25"
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 1" + Indent
at: 1.25"
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 1" + Indent
at: 1.25"
Commented [MD4]: Section 2 comment #9
33 of 212
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
34 of 212
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.
35 of 212
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:
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
dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development
or re-development. (WAC 173-27-030(6)) Commented [MD7]: Section 2 comment #2
36 of 212
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Page 9
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
different criteria for approval. Shoreline Exemptions require City review to
determine whether the proposal is indeed exempt from shoreline permits, and whether
Commented [MD8]: Section 2 comment #1
37 of 212
Page 10 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
38 of 212
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 [MD9]: Section 5 comment #15
39 of 212
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,
40 of 212
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 [MD10]: Section 5 comment #15
41 of 212
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
42 of 212
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.
43 of 212
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 [MD11]: Section 5 comment #15
44 of 212
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
45 of 212
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
46 of 212
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.
47 of 212
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 [MD12]: Section 5 comment #15
48 of 212
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
49 of 212
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.
50 of 212
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 [MD13]: Section 5 comment #15
51 of 212
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.
52 of 212
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.
53 of 212
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:
54 of 212
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 [BD14]: Inserted image below.
Commented [BD15]: Per the map included below, there are
portions of the west side that also need to be updgraded.
Commented [AC16]: Section 5 comment #4
55 of 212
Page 28 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Formatted: Centered
56 of 212
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.
57 of 212
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 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 [MD17]: Section 3 comment #1
Commented [MD18]: Section 2 comment #26, section 3
comment #2
58 of 212
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 [MD19]: Section 3 comment #1
59 of 212
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.
60 of 212
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 [AC20]: Section 5 comment #5
61 of 212
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.
62 of 212
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
63 of 212
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
64 of 212
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.
65 of 212
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).
b. Policies
1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public
developments with the exception of the following:
a. One- and two-family dwelling units; or
b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and environmental
concerns.
2. Developments, uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair
or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation.
3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge
without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4. Opportunities for public access should be identified on publicly owned
shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities and
rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced.
5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and
to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy.
There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating
public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict.
6. 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.
Commented [MD21]: Section 5 comment #6
City: Any other future developments to mention?
Commented [MD22]: Language based on WAC 173-26-
221(4)(b)
Commented [MD23]: Section 5 comment #7
66 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 39
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.
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.
Commented [MD24]: Section 5 comment #8
Commented [MD25]: Such a park appears to be in progress.
Annexation has occurred. Revision not in gap analysis.
67 of 212
Page 40 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
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.
68 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 41
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.
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.
69 of 212
Page 42 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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:
70 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 43
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. 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.
71 of 212
Page 44 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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
72 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 45
“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
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.
73 of 212
Page 46 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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-
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 hazards and likely to fall into a park use area, or unless removal is
part of an approved development that includes mitigation for impacts to
ecological functions. Snags and living trees within the setback which do not
present an extreme hazard shall be retained. Selective pruning of trees for
safety and view protection is allowed. The City may make exceptions to this
standard for water dependent development and for development in the High
Commented [MD26]: Section 5 comment #3
74 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 47
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.
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, not including the removal of trees, 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
Commented [MD27]: Section 5 comment #9
75 of 212
Page 48 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
76 of 212
Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 49
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
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.
77 of 212
Page 50 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
78 of 212
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 5) is the shoreline modification matrix. The matrix provides
the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in all shoreline environmental designations.
The numbers in the matrix refer to footnotes which may be found immediately following
the matrix. These footnotes provide additional clarification or conditions applicable to the
associated modification. Where there is a conflict between the matrix and the written
provisions in this Chapter, the written provisions shall apply.
79 of 212
Page 52 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Table 5. 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
-
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-
I
n
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 C C
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.
80 of 212
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
81 of 212
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.
82 of 212
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.
83 of 212
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,
84 of 212
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
85 of 212
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.
86 of 212
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.
87 of 212
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.
88 of 212
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,
89 of 212
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.
90 of 212
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.
91 of 212
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;
92 of 212
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.
93 of 212
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:
94 of 212
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 [MD28]: Section 5 comment 10
Commented [MD29]: Section 5 comment 11
City: Note proposed language is based on language in WAC 173-
26-231(3)(b).
95 of 212
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
96 of 212
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:
97 of 212
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:
98 of 212
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.
99 of 212
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 [AC30]: Section 2 comment #16
100 of 212
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.
6. Dikes and levees shall only be authorized by Conditional Use permit and 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 [MD31]: Section 5 comment 12
101 of 212
Page 74 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 and Table 7) indicate the allowable uses and some of the
standards applicable to those uses and modifications. Where there is a conflict between
the matrices and the written provisions in Chapters 3, 4, or 5 of this SMP, the written
provisions shall apply. The numbers in the matrices refer to footnotes which may be
found immediately following the matrix. These footnotes provide additional clarification
or conditions applicable to the associated use or shoreline environment designation.
Table 6. Shoreline Use Matrix
P = May be permitted
C = May be permitted as a
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
-
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-
I
n
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
C
o
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
Water-related, water-enjoyment X P X X X X
102 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 75
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
-
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-
I
n
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
C
o
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
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
103 of 212
Page 76 Kent Shoreline Master Program
104 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 77
Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix
Table 7 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
-
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Hi
g
h
-
I
n
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 [MD32]: Section 5 comment #18
105 of 212
Page 78 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
106 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 79
damage to the natural environment, are dependent on a shoreline location, or
enhance the public’s ability to enjoy the shoreline.
2. All uses not explicitly covered in the SMP require a conditional use permit.
The City’s Shoreline Administrator should impose conditions to ensure that
the proposed development meets the policies of this SMP.
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.
Commented [MD33]: Section 5 comment #13
107 of 212
Page 80 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
108 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 81
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
109 of 212
Page 82 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
110 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 83
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.
111 of 212
Page 84 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
112 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 85
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.
113 of 212
Page 86 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety
and security.
114 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 87
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.
115 of 212
Page 88 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
b. Create any flood hazards.
116 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 89
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.
4. Nonwater-oriented structures, such as restrooms, recreation halls and
gymnasiums, recreational buildings and fields, access roads, and parking
Commented [MD34]: Section 5 comment 14
City: Note that “significant vegetation removal” is a term defined in
the SMP.
117 of 212
Page 90 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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
118 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 91
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 below. Refer to written provisions within
this section for exceptions and more detailed explanations. See also Chapter 3
Section B.11 for vegetation conservation provisions.
Table 8. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes
Regulation:
Standard Minimum Building Setback from OHWM 75 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.
119 of 212
Page 92 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 [BD35]: Replace diagram with one that shows a
curving OHWM.
120 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 93
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,
121 of 212
Page 94 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
122 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 95
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
123 of 212
Page 96 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
124 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 97
8. See the Chapter 3 Section B.11 for regulations related to clearing, grading,
and conservation of vegetation.
Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers and Streams
9. Table 9 below is a summary of regulations for Residential Properties within
shoreline jurisdiction on rivers or streams:
Table 9. 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.
125 of 212
Page 98 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
126 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 99
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
127 of 212
Page 100 Kent Shoreline Master Program
monitoring and adaptive management program that describes monitoring and
enhancement measures to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time.
Location
3. New nonwater-dependent transportation facilities shall be located outside
shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. In determining the feasibility of a non-
shoreline location, the City’s Shoreline Administrator will apply the definition
of “feasible” in Chapter 6 and weigh the action’s relative public costs and
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.
128 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 101
11. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall not diminish
but may modify public access to the shoreline.
12. Waterway crossings shall be designed to provide minimal disturbance to
banks.
13. All transportation facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to
contain and control all debris, overburden, runoff, erosion, and sediment
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.
129 of 212
Page 102 Kent Shoreline Master Program
10. Utilities
a. Applicability
Utilities are services and facilities that produce, transmit, carry, store, process, or
dispose of electric power, gas, water, sewage, communications, oil, and the like.
The provisions in this section apply to primary uses and activities, such as solid
waste handling and disposal, sewage treatment plants and outfalls, public high-
tension utility lines on public property or easements, power generating or transfer
facilities, and gas distribution lines and storage facilities. See Chapter 3 Section
B.10, "Utilities (Accessory)," for on-site accessory use utilities.
Solid waste disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid or hazardous waste on any land area or in the
water.
Solid waste includes solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, rubbish,
ashes, industrial wastes, wood wastes and sort yard wastes associated with
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.
130 of 212
Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 103
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
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
131 of 212
Page 104 Kent Shoreline Master Program
to destroy or obstruct scenic views, and shall avoid significant ecological
impacts.
12. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic
life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, unless no other
feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted by
Conditional Use, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of
the water body.
13. Filling in shoreline jurisdiction for development of utility facility or line
purposes is prohibited, except where no other feasible option exists and the
proposal would avoid or minimize adverse impacts more completely than
other methods. Permitted crossings shall utilize pier or open pile techniques.
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.
132 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 105
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.
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 [AC36]: Section 4 comment #3
Commented [AC37]: Section 5 comment #1
133 of 212
Page 106 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 [AC38]: Section 5 comment #1
Commented [MD39]: Section 4 comment 2
134 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 107
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 in 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.
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.
Commented [MD40]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD41]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD42]: Section 2 comment #2
135 of 212
Page 108 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
Feasible. An action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, is
feasible when it meets all of the following conditions:
136 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 109
(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
hydrologic conditions that make them vulnerable to contamination of groundwater supplies
through infiltration of contaminants to aquifers.
Commented [MD43]: Section 2 comment #8
137 of 212
Page 110 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
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.
138 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 111
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.
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..
Commented [AC44]: Section 5 comment #1
139 of 212
Page 112 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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).)
Pier element. Sections of a pier including the pier walkway, the pier float, the ell, etc.
Provisions. Policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria or designations.
Commented [AC45]: Section 5 comment #1
140 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 113
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.
Shorelands. All lands within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction lying upland or higher in
elevation of the OHWM.
141 of 212
Page 114 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.”
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
Commented [AC46]: Section 5 comment #1
142 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 115
(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.
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.
143 of 212
Page 116 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
144 of 212
Chapter 6—Definitions Page 117
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.
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.
145 of 212
Page 118 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 [AC47]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD48]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD49]: Section 4 comment 2
Commented [MD50]: Section 4 comment 2
146 of 212
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 119
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 [MD51]: Section 2 comment #3
147 of 212
Page 120 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
148 of 212
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 121
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.
149 of 212
Page 122 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Variances from the use
regulations of this SMP are prohibited.
150 of 212
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 123
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.
151 of 212
Page 124 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
Commented [MD52]: Section 2 comment #24
Commented [MD53]: Section 2 comment #18
Commented [MD54]: Updated language. Not in gap analysis.
Commented [MD55]: Section 2 comment #21
152 of 212
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 125
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.
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.
153 of 212
Page 126 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
154 of 212
Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 127
155 of 212
Page 128 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 Guidelines1 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.
156 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 129
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-floodplain2 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;”
157 of 212
Page 130 Kent Shoreline Master Program
In addition, rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines
of statewide significance.
Shorelands in the City of Kent include only areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of shoreline jurisdiction waters and any associated wetlands within
shoreline jurisdiction. Waters identified within jurisdiction include the Green River,
Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), Lake Meridian, 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 [MD56]: Section 5 comment #19
Commented [AC57]: Section 5 comment #19
158 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 131
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
Commented [AC58]: Section 5 comment #19
159 of 212
Page 132 Kent Shoreline Master Program
percent of the riverbanks are lined with levees or revetments. These prevent
natural geomorphic processes from occurring.
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.
160 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 133
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.
161 of 212
Page 134 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
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
162 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 135
with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically
diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon.
1. System-wide restoration objectives
a. Improve the health of shoreline waterbodies by managing the quality and quantity
of stormwater runoff, consistent at a minimum with the latest Washington
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for 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.
163 of 212
Page 136 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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).
164 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 137
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
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 below are programmatic in nature and range from
public education and stewardship to incentives to regulations and regulatory
enforcement. The status of the City’s projects and programs that support each of
these actions is provided in Table 10.
Table 10. 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
165 of 212
Page 138 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Program
WW-No. Program Kent Implementation
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
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
166 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 139
Program
WW-No. Program Kent Implementation
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
Benefiting Salmon
The City does not yet provide incentives for
Built Green, but will be pursuing development
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 11. 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
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-
167 of 212
Page 140 Kent Shoreline Master Program
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
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]
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
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]
In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed
a design evaluation report which provided a
background on the project history, evaluated
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)
168 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 141
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
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
include removing fill, excavating off-channel flood
refugium for juvenile rearing habitat, and planting
native wetland and riparian vegetation.
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.
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
169 of 212
Page 142 Kent Shoreline Master Program
WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status
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
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.
King County Flood Control District project – partially
completed.
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 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 12. Another ERP project is the restoration and enhancement of salmonid
rearing and refuge habitat in Garrison Creek (a tributary of Springbrook Creek),
which indirectly is an enhancement of the Springbrook Creek shoreline.
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.
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
170 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 143
ERP Project Kent Implementation Status
map (Appendix C)
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):
171 of 212
Page 144 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green
River; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention
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
172 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 145
Kent’s Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
Goal LU-28 Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent
harm, to protect public health and safety, to preserve remaining critical
areas, and enhance degraded critical areas in the City.
Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas
such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and
between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual
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
173 of 212
Page 146 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
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.
174 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 147
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.
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.
175 of 212
Page 148 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
Formatted: Heading 2
176 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 149
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.
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.
177 of 212
Page 150 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
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
Formatted: Superscript
178 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 151
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
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)).
179 of 212
Page 152 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
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.
Formatted: body-3/0
180 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 153
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
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
13), with a corresponding reference as appropriate to the originating Green-
Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP) number or WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat
Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King project number (Steering Committee
2005). In some cases, these are overlapping projects with each other or the King
County Flood Control District.
Table 13. 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
Formatted: body-3/0
181 of 212
Page 154 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Map
No. Name ERP WRIA 9
Plan KCFCD Comments
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
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 11, is currently part of the
City’s long range plan, but is not yet funded. Per the Salmon Habitat Plan, this project
would set back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment between river miles 23.5 and
23.3, in order to achieve a more stable slope angle, create a low, vegetated bench, and
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.
182 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 155
2. Other Recommended Projects
The following is partially developed from a list of opportunity areas identified within
the Final Shoreline Analysis Report, with additional expansion of the Green River
discussion. The list of potential projects was created after assessing field conditions,
and is intended to contribute to improvement of impaired functions.
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.
183 of 212
Page 156 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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 [BD59]: See updated levee cross-section, below.
184 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 157
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
Formatted: Caption
185 of 212
Page 158 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
186 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 159
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.
Formatted: body-3
187 of 212
Page 160 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
188 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 161
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 14) outlines a possible schedule and funding sources for
implementation of a variety of efforts that could improve shoreline ecological function,
and are described in previous sections of this report.
Table 14. 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
189 of 212
Page 162 Kent Shoreline Master Program
Restoration
Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment
200217 Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which is
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
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Font color: Text 1
190 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 163
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 10, 11 and 12 above, and outline implementation of various programs and
restoration actions (by the City or other groups) that relate to watershed health.
The staff report will be assembled to coincide with Comprehensive Plan updates and will
be used, in light of the goals and objectives of the Shoreline Master Program, to determine
whether implementation of the SMP is meeting the basic goal of no net loss of ecological
functions relative to the baseline condition established in the Shoreline Analysis Report
(The Watershed Company 2008). In the long term, the City should be able to demonstrate
a net improvement in the City of Kent’s shoreline environment.
Based on the results of this assessment, the City may make recommendations for changes
to the SMP.
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
191 of 212
Page 164 Kent Shoreline Master Program
include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)
contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include
a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline
along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial
development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good
ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA),
they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals and
constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different types
of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic actions, like
continuing WRIA 9 involvement and conducting outreach programs to local residents,
tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to restoration actions involving private
landowners. Other factors that influenced the hierarchy are based on scientific
recommendations specific to WRIA 9, potential funding sources, and the projected level of
public benefit.
Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section
(Table 14), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the priority
level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety of
obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their
perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are
relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and
intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving extensive
shoreline restoration or large-scale capital improvement projects. Straightforward projects
with available funding should be initiated immediately for the worthwhile benefits they
provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while permitting, design, site access
authorization, and funding for the larger, more complicated, and more expensive projects
are under way.
1. Priority 1 – Levee Modifications and Floodplain
Reconnection
Because of the isolation of the Green River floodplain from the Green River by the
levee, floodplain habitats, including off-channel and side channel habitats, are
typically described as the most diminished types of salmonid fish habitat relative to
the pristine condition. The lack of these habitat types is a limiting factor for chinook
salmon recovery. As discussed above, the historic use and prevalence of levees has
greatly diminished the habitat value of extended floodplains. Restoration of these
areas has been found to be one of the most beneficial of all types of stream and river
enhancements. Projects in this category include the WRIA 9 recommended projects
listed in Table 11:
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]
192 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 165
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.
193 of 212
Page 166 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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:
194 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 167
Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation
Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank)
7. Priority 7 – Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce
Impervious Coverage
Similar to Priority 3, Section G.3 above, to improve water quality and reduce
sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in
impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Habitat Plan. All of the specific
projects listed in Table 11 (LG No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13) include some form of
protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide programmatic actions
also described in the Habitat Plan include many references to improving vegetative
conditions and reducing impervious surface coverage. Specific reference to planting
vegetation is listed in Program WW-5: Promote the Planting of Native Trees.
In addition to the items listed in the Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many areas
where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in impervious
surfaces are warranted.
8. Priority 8 – Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create
or Enhance Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions
The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat
conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of the
key limiting factors along the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). While it is
recognized that levees and revetments cannot practically be removed in all
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
195 of 212
Page 168 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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
196 of 212
Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 169
Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built Green™
Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon
197 of 212
Page 170 Kent Shoreline Master Program
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.
198 of 212
199 of 212
APPENDIX A:
Shoreline Environment Designation
Maps
200 of 212
Commented [BD60]: Updated Environment Designation for
two parcels on Frager Rd. due to mapping error.
All segment labels removed because reference tables were removed.
201 of 212
APPENDIX B
Council Resolution No. 1714
Ratifying the WRIA Salmon Habitat
Plan
202 of 212
203 of 212
APPENDIX C
Restoration Plan Map
204 of 212
CITY OF KENT
DETERMINATÍON OF NONSIGNTFICANCE
KENT
WÂSHINGTÕN
Environmental Checklist No. ENV-2Ot9-9 / Project: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
RPSW-2190562 | ZCA-2OLg-L / Rpp6-2190563 PERTODTC REVTEW
Description: The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
limited amendment to the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The Washington State
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires local governments to adopt Shoreline
Master Programs to regulate shoreline waterbodies, and to review such regulations every
eight years for compliance with current state laws (WAC t73-26), Kent's SMP is primarily
up-to-date with state law, but requires the following minor changes:
1) Exemptions and exceptions. Updates exemptions from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to be
consistent with those in state law. Adds exceptions, or developments not subject to City shoreline review,
consistent with those in state law
2) Definitions. Updates definitions to be consistent with those in state law
3) References to other City Regulations. Updates to incorporate the City's 2015 Critical Areas Ordinance into the SMP. Updates to reflect the City's current flood hazard regulations
4) Minor edits to improve functionality and readability
5) Mapping updates to reflect annexation of the Panther Lake Potential Annexation Area
6) Extending the Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity designation to two parcels north of
Riverbend Golf Course on Frager Road to correct map error
The draft amendments to the SMP may be viewed on the City's website at
www. kentwa. gov/doing-business/long-ranqe-plann ing/smp.
Location: City of Kent
Applicant: City of Kent, 22O 4th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032
Lead Agency City of Kent
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review
of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the public on request.
X This DNS is issued under L97-|L-34O(2). The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 30 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 30-day
comment period. Comments must be submitted by 4:3opm, Friday, March 25,
2019. This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520.
205 of 212
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Shoreline Master Program (ZCA-2O19-L)
ENV-2019-9 / RPSA-2190562
Responsible Official
Position/Title
Erin Georoe- AICP
Current Plannino Manaoer / SE PA Official
Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue. Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253) 856-5a54
Dated February 22. 2019 Signature
APPEAL PROCESS:
AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO
THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END
OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520.
CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE
DBldb S;\Permit\P{an\8NA2019\2190562-ENV-2019-9-SMP Periodic Rev¡ew-DNS.doc
2of2
206 of 212
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Erin George, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
ENV-2019-9, KIVA #RPSA-2190562
ZCA-2019-1, KIVA #RPP6-2190563
Erin George, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Danielle Butsick, AICP
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a limited
amendment to the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The Washington
State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires local governments to
adopt Shoreline Master Programs to regulate shoreline waterbodies, and to
review such regulations every eight years for compliance with current state laws
(WAC 173-26). Kent’s SMP is primarily up-to-date with state law, but requires
the following minor changes:
1) Exemptions and exceptions
• Updates exemptions from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
to be consistent with those in state law
• Adds exceptions, or developments not subject to City shoreline review,
consistent with those in state law
2) Definitions
• Updates definitions to be consistent with those in state law
3) References to other City Regulations
• Updates to incorporate the City’s 2015 Critical Areas Ordinance into
the SMP
• Updates to reflect the City’s current flood hazard regulations
4) Minor edits to improve functionality and readability
5) Mapping updates to reflect annexation of the Panther Lake Potential
Annexation Area
6) Extending the Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity designation to two
parcels north of Riverbend Golf Course on Frager Road to correct map error
The draft amendments to the SMP may be viewed on the City’s website at
www.kentwa.gov/doing-business/long-range-planning/smp. The City will be
accepting public comments for 30 days, until Monday March 25, 2019.
207 of 212
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program is a set of policies and regulations
required by the State of Washington’s Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58).
It has three primary goals:
1) Encourage reasonable and appropriate development of shorelines with
an emphasis on water-dependent uses.
2) Protect natural resources and character of the shorelines, including
land, plants, wildlife, water, and aquatic life.
3) Promote public access and opportunities to enjoy nature and
recreation in shoreline areas.
The City of Kent is required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
to complete a periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 2019.
The periodic review is intended to keep the SMP current with amendments to
state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local
circumstances, and new or improved data or information. As necessary resulting
from the periodic review, the City should propose amendments to its Shoreline
Master Program, to be coordinated with and approved by the Department of
Ecology.
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the City's SMP
are primarily concerned with keeping the SMP current with amendments to state
laws and making usability improvements. No modifications to the Baseline
Conditions and Shoreline Inventory Reports are proposed.
Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective July 3, 2016), which implements ESHB 1724 and
ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB
6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
The proposal is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on earth,
including unstable soils, erosion, or impermeable surfaces. All future
shoreline development will be subject to Kent’s Surface Water and
Drainage Code (KCC 7.07), Surface Water Design Manual, Design &
Construction Standards, Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07), and the
amended Shoreline Master Program, all of which establish requirements
and procedures for minimizing erosion impacts.
B. Air
208 of 212
The proposal is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on air
quality, including emissions. Emissions mitigation measures should be
developed specific to individual development proposals, consistent with
Washington’s Air Quality Law.
C. Water
Kent’s Shoreline Master Program governs the Green River, Lake Meridian,
Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake, Green River Natural Resources Area, and
portions of Jenkins Creek, Springbrook Creek, and Big Soos Creek,
together with the lands underlying them, and areas 200 feet landward of
these waters. The proposed amendments to the City’s Shoreline Master
Program are primarily concerned with maintaining consistency with state
laws and improving usability of the document. No significant impacts to
water are anticipated.
Individual projects submitted for review under the amended SMP will be
located within 200 feet of the listed waters, or within associated wetlands
or floodways and floodplains. Runoff will be addressed on an individual
project basis in accordance with the requirements of Kent’s Surface Water
and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) and Surface Water Design Manual.
Projects within or adjacent to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction
will also be required to comply with the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance,
which is adopted by reference into the SMP. Projects within flood hazard
areas will be required to comply with the City’s Flood Hazard Regulations.
D. Plants and Animals
The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly affect
plants, animals, fish or marine life. The proposed amendments are
primarily concerned with keeping the SMP current with amendments to
state laws and making usability improvements. The proposed
amendments would increase the standard buffer widths for certain
wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction due to the updated reference to the
City’s current Critical Areas Ordinance. The amended standard wetland
buffer widths are anticipated to provide improved habitat protection and
ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to affect the depletion of energy or natural
resources. The proposed amendments are primarily concerned with
keeping the SMP current with amendments to state laws and making
usability improvements.
Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the
requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code, 2015
Edition.
F. Environmental Health
209 of 212
Shoreline jurisdiction by its nature includes many of Kent’s wetlands and
critical habitat areas. The goals of the Shoreline Management Act,
implemented in part by Kent’s Shoreline Master Program, include the
protection and restoration of habitat and shoreline character.
The proposed amendments would increase the standard buffer widths for
certain wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction, which exist currently in Kent’s
Critical Areas Code, KCC 11.06. The amended standard wetland buffer
widths are anticipated to improve environmental protection and ensure
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. No significant impacts to
environmental health are anticipated from the proposal.
G. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
No significant aesthetic, noise, light, and glare impacts are anticipated as
a result of this proposal.
All property and development in Kent is subject to the restrictions and
maximum permissible environmental noise levels in the city’s Noise
Control Ordinance (KCC 8.05), and KCC 15.08 contains performance
standards prohibiting land uses which cause objectionable conditions,
including direct or sky-directed glare.
H. Land and Shoreline Use
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP would not alter the land uses allowed under existing City plans
and development regulations. Two parcels on Frager Road north of the
Riverbend Golf Course will be re-designated from Urban Conservancy –
Open Space to Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity. These parcels were
inadvertently grouped with the golf course when the environment
designations were created in the 2009 SMP. Changing the designation will
correct the mapping error and allow the potential for low-density single-
family residential development on the two properties, as already allowed
by the Comprehensive Plan designation of US, Urban Separator and the
Zoning designation of SR-1, Residential Agricultural. Future development
will be required to comply with all relevant City Codes such as the Zoning
Code, Critical Areas Ordinance, Flood Hazard Regulations, Surface Water
Design Manual, International Building Code and International Fire Code.
I. Housing
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to significantly impact housing demand or
supply in Kent. As discussed above under Land and Shoreline Use, the
change in designation affecting two parcels means the potential for
several additional single-family residences.
J. Recreation
The goals of the Shoreline Management Act, implemented in part by
Kent’s Shoreline Master Program, include promoting public access and
providing opportunities to enjoy nature and recreation in shoreline areas.
210 of 212
The proposed amendments are primarily concerned with keeping the SMP
current with amendments to state laws and making usability
improvements; no significant changes pertaining to recreation are
expected to result from this proposal.
K. Historic and Cultural Preservation
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to affect historic or cultural resources.
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered during work for any project action, the applicant must stop
work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical
Preservation.
L. Transportation
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to increase demands on transportation. The
proposed amendments are primarily concerned with keeping the SMP
current with amendments to state laws and making usability
improvements. Individual development proposals will be required to pay
applicable transportation impact fees per KCC 12.14 and comply with the
City’s Design and Construction Standards which may include construction
of right-of-way improvements.
M. Public Services
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to increase demands on public services.
The proposed amendments are primarily concerned with keeping the SMP
current with amendments to state laws and making usability
improvements. Individual development proposals will be required to pay
applicable fire and school impact fees and comply with International Fire
Code.
N. Utilities
The proposed amendments associated with the periodic review of the
City’s SMP are not anticipated to increase demands on utilities. The
proposed amendments are primarily concerned with keeping the SMP
current with amendments to state laws and making usability
improvements. Individual development proposals will be required to
comply with the City’s Public Works utility standards and applicable utility
provider standards.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. The proposal, which includes amendments to the City of Kent Shoreline
Master Program to ensure consistency with amended state laws and City
codes and policies, has been reviewed to evaluate potential environmental
impacts from the proposed amendments. Amending the Shoreline Master
Program as proposed will not result in significant environmental impacts.
211 of 212
It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City
of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated
with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and
mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant
to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent
Shoreline Master Program;
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code;
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, and current Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water System Plan;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and
Lot Line Adjustments;
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Capital
Facilities and Equipment Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
21. Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume Model Remedies
Guidance (Publication Number 12-09-086-A)
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
February 22, 2019
DB\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2019\2190562_ENV-2019-9_SMP_decision.doc
212 of 212