Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 07/27/2009 (5)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager K E N T W AS HI N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD HEARING JULY 27, 2009 7:00 P.M. LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS: CITY STAFF Dana Ralph, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Erin George, Planner Steve Dowell Kim Adams Pratt, Assist City Attorney Alan Gray Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Jon Johnson Aleanna Kondelis Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on MONDAY, JULY 27, 2009 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 41" Avenue South, Kent at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend and all interested persons may have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this proposed amendment may do so prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the April 27, 2009 Minutes 4. Added Items to Agenda 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA-2007-1 Shoreline Master Program Update (Erin George) Consideration of adoption of the Shoreline Master Program including the incorporation of the Shoreline goals and policies into the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in Advance for more information. For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at (253) 856-5499 (TDD) or the main line at (253) 856-5454. For further information or to obtain a copy of the staff report, contact the Planning Services office at (253) 856-5454. The proposed updated Shoreline Master Program as well as the Cumulative Impacts Analysis may be downloaded from the City's website at: http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning/lupblist.aspx?id=2890. This page intentionally left blank. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 27, 2009 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT/ABSENT: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Alan Gray, Jon Johnson - Absent, Aleanna Kondelis, Barbara Phillips STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlene Anderson, Shawn Gilbertson, Mike Mactutis, Kelly Peterson, Molly Bartlemay APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ottini MOVED and Gray SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the March 23, 2009 Minutes. Motion PASSED 6-0. Added Items, Communications, Notice of Upcoming Meetings None. ZCA-2009-1 Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Public Works Environmental Engineer Shawn Gilbertson gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Ordinance. Gilbertson stated that the main goal of this Ordinance is to aid in preventing water pollution and that it is a requirement from the Federal Clean Water Act to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater (Phase II) permit. (IDDE) is a non stormwater discharge into the stormwater system or into water of the State including streams or lakes. The proposed Ordinance will help prevent contamination of downstream waters and give inspectors more tools to enforce and address illicit discharges. The Board raised questions regarding automobile accidents and car washing which Gilbertson responded to. Public Works Environmental Supervisor Kelly Peterson, clarified that after a notice of violation, fines can amount up to 500 dollars a day. Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Gray SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried 6-0. Ottini MOVED the Public Hearing regarding item ZCA-2009-1 Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) be presented to Council as presented to us for approval. Gray SECONDED the Motion. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Ottini Moved and Gray Seconded a Motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED. Ralph adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board This page intentionally left blank. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT W AS HI N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 July 20, 2009 TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Erin George, Planner RE: #CPA-2007-1 Shoreline Master Program Update MOTION: Move to recommend adoption of the Shoreline Master Program Update and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Number 2007-1 as presented by staff. SUMMARY: State legislation written in 2003 requires municipalities in King County to update their Shoreline Master Programs (SMP) by December 1, 2009. The SMP governs properties 200 feet landward of each shoreline's ordinary high water mark and is intended to balance use and protection of shorelines. Shorelines consist of lakes greater than 20 acres in size as well as streams and rivers with flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Shoreline Management Act is a cooperative program between local government and the State, and is administered by the Department of Ecology (DOE), who must review and approve the local program. Staff presented to the Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) and Planning & Economic Development Committee (PEDC) several times throughout the drafting of the SMP, and most recently presented at the July 21 Council Workshop. The public has been thoroughly involved in the update as well via a Citizens' Advisory Committee and public open houses in October and February. Public feedback through these venues allowed staff to draft an SMP that addresses the large majority of residents' concerns. DOE reviewed the Preliminary Draft SMP in the spring; their comments were easily addressed without substantial changes to the Draft SMP. DOE indicated on July 8 that they have no further comments. BACKGROUND: Planning staff began the SMP update process in 2007, with the assistance of two consultants and a $190,000 grant from the Department of Ecology. The SMP update includes components required by the Shoreline Management Act and identified in the City's grant agreement with DOE: a Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report that characterizes the existing conditions of the City's shoreline waterbodies; goals and policies which will become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan; shoreline regulations; and a Cumulative Impacts Analysis which analyses potential impacts of regulations and outlines how the City will achieve no net loss of shoreline functions. The Final Draft SMP adds new shorelines not included in the current SMP: Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake (in the City's Potential Annexation Area), a small segment of Springbrook Creek near South 180t" Street, the Green River Natural Resources Area ponds, Jenkins Creek, the Green River floodway near Mill Creek Auburn, and wetlands within the Green River floodplain. New Shoreline Environment Designations are defined by existing and anticipated land uses (e.g. "High Intensity" environment for those areas containing industrial and commercial development and "Shoreline Residential" for those areas containing single and multi-family residential developments). The new designations allow regulations to be tailored more specifically to each use. Other notable changes from the current regulations include: • A lesser setback (140 feet versus current 200 feet) for commercial uses on the Green River with an allowance for levee reconstruction, • A greater setback (140 feet versus current 100 feet) for residential uses on the Green River, also with an allowance for levee reconstruction, • Increased minimum setback (75 feet versus current 25 feet) for residential uses on lakes, • Changes to residential dock and bulkhead standards: most notably new docks are limited to 420 square feet in size, however existing docks may be replaced at their existing size but must utilize grated decking, • The allowance for water-oriented commercial development (e.g. waterfront view restaurant or kayak rentals) within shoreline parks, and • New standards addressing vegetation conservation. • Also added to this Final Draft SMP is a Restoration Plan that identifies and prioritizes current restoration projects in shoreline jurisdiction, as well as opportunities for future projects. Public participation is required throughout the SMP update process. A Citizens' Advisory Committee met with staff and consultants monthly to review and comment on each piece of the SMP as it was drafted. Two public open houses were held on October 2, 2008 and February 9, 2009 to answer questions and collect public comments. The 60-day notice of intent to adopt was sent to state agencies on May 29, 2009, and a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on July 18, 2009. The Final Draft SMP, Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Inventory & Analysis Report are posted on the City's website (www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning) and notice of availability was sent to tribes, environmental groups, interested residents and adjacent jurisdictions for additional public comment. Two comment letters were received by the City on July 13, 2009 from Futurewise and on July 15, 2009 from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Both comment letters are attached to this report, with City responses written in blue within the text of the letters. Staff is proposing several revisions to the SMP as a result of these comments (see attached replacement pages). CPA-2007-1: Shoreline Master Program Update 07/27/09 LUPB Public Hearing Page 2 of 3 If the Board recommends adoption, the Final Draft SMP will be considered for adoption by the PEDC at the August 10, 2009 meeting and by City Council at the August 18, 2009 meeting. The final, locally adopted SMP must be sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for final approval. DOE will hold its own public hearing with a 30-day comment period, and upon their approval, the SMP will become effective. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Shoreline Master Program update and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CA/EG/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2007\CPA-2007-1_SMP-Update\LUPB\072709_Hearing Report.doc Enc: Futurewise July 13, 2009 Comment Letter with City Responses Muckleshoot July 15, 2009 Comment Letter with City Responses Revised SMP Replacement Pages cc: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager CPA-2007-1: Shoreline Master Program Update 07/27/09 LUPB Public Hearing Page 3of3 This page intentionally left blank. City of Kent Shoreline Master Program Revised Final Draft July 20, 2009 inl i L ,i4} 1 x IC4r. Ilk � •` ��i ���1 �[_4 � r � Sf '.. 1�7 TpAErI E ti� -_ MAKERS architecture -_ - - -City of Kent The Watershed Company Grant No. G0800311 Grant No. G00800311 Kent Shoreline Master Program Revised Final Draft July 20, 2009 Prepared by: 4^4� City of Kent Planning Services 400 W Gowe Street I-N7 KEN T Kent, Washington 98032 WAS H IN :.i 1 C] N ■ 1904 3rd Ave, Suite 725 Seattle, Washington 98101 architecture•planning•urban design THE WATERSHED 750 6th Street South COMPANY Kirkland, WA 98033 This report was ! funded in part through a grant from the Washington Y ' Department of pFt 5 I C 0 L 9 G 4Y Ecology. This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Tableof Contents............................................................................................................i Listof Tables................................................................................................................vii Chapter 1. Introduction to the SMP Handbook............................................................1 A. History of the SMA......................................................................................................1 B. Implementation of the SMA ........................................................................................2 C. Geographic Applications of the SMA..........................................................................4 1. Study Area.........................................................................................................................5 D. How the Shoreline Master Program is Used...............................................................6 1. When Is a Permit Required? .............................................................................................7 2. The Permit Process...........................................................................................................8 3. The Shoreline Permit.........................................................................................................8 4. Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other Plans.........................................9 Chapter 2. Environment Designation Provisions......................................................10 A. Introduction...............................................................................................................10 B. Official Shoreline Map ..............................................................................................10 C. Policies and Regulations ..........................................................................................10 1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment ..........................................................................10 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 10 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 11 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 11 2. "High-Intensity" (H-1) Environment ..................................................................................11 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 11 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 11 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 12 d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 12 3. "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" (UC-OS) Environment............................................14 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 14 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 14 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 14 d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 15 4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment.............................................17 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 17 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 17 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 17 d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 19 5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR) Environment ......................................................................21 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 21 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 21 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 21 d. Specific Environment Designations ........................................................................................ 22 Table of Contents Page i 6. "Aquatic" Environment ....................................................................................................23 a. Purpose................................................................................................................................... 23 b. Designation Criteria................................................................................................................. 23 c. Management Policies.............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3. General Provisions ...................................................................................25 A. Introduction ..............................................................................................................25 B. Policies and Regulations..........................................................................................25 1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations.............................................................25 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 25 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 25 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 26 2. Archaeological and Historic Resources ..........................................................................27 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 27 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 27 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 28 3. Critical Areas...................................................................................................................29 4. Environmental Impacts....................................................................................................30 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 30 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 30 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 30 5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management.............................................31 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 31 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 31 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 33 6. Parking............................................................................................................................35 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 35 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 35 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 35 7. Public Access..................................................................................................................36 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 36 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 36 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 37 8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance Regulations........................................................39 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 39 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 39 9. Signage...........................................................................................................................41 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 41 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 41 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 41 10. Utilities (Accessory).........................................................................................................42 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 42 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 42 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 43 11. Vegetation Conservation.................................................................................................43 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 43 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 43 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 44 12. Water Quality and Quantity.............................................................................................47 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 47 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 47 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 48 Page ii Kent Shoreline Master Program Chapter 4. Shoreline Modification Provisions...........................................................49 A. Introduction and Applicability....................................................................................49 B. Shoreline Modification Matrix....................................................................................49 C. Policies and Regulations ..........................................................................................51 1. General Policies and Regulations ...................................................................................51 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 51 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 51 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 51 2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads).................................................................52 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 52 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 53 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 54 3. Over-Water Structures - Including Pier and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and Boating Facilities ..........................................................................................................................58 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 58 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 58 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 59 4. Fill....................................................................................................................................65 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 65 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 65 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 66 5. Dredging and Disposal....................................................................................................67 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 67 b. Exemptions ............................................................................................................................. 67 c. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 67 d. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 67 6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement......................................................69 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 69 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 69 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 70 7. Dikes and Levees............................................................................................................70 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 70 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 70 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 70 Chapter 5. Shoreline Use Provisions .........................................................................72 A. Introduction...............................................................................................................72 B. Shoreline Use and Development Standards Matrices ..............................................72 C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations...................................................................76 1. General Policies and Regulations ...................................................................................76 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 76 b. Policy....................................................................................................................................... 76 c. Regulations................................................................................................................................ 76 2. Agriculture.......................................................................................................................77 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 77 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 77 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 78 3. Boating Facilities .............................................................................................................78 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 78 Table of Contents Page iii b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 79 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 79 4. Commercial Development...............................................................................................80 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 80 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 81 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 81 5. Industry ...........................................................................................................................83 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 83 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 83 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 83 6. In-Stream Structures.......................................................................................................84 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 84 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 85 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 85 7. Recreational Development..............................................................................................85 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 85 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 85 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 86 8. Residential Development................................................................................................87 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 87 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 87 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 88 9. Transportation.................................................................................................................96 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 96 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 96 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 96 10. Utilities.............................................................................................................................99 a. Applicability............................................................................................................................. 99 b. Policies.................................................................................................................................... 99 c. Regulations............................................................................................................................. 99 Chapter6. Definitions................................................................................................102 Chapter 7. Administrative Provisions......................................................................117 A. Purpose.................................................................................................................. 117 B. Substantial Development ....................................................................................... 117 1. Exemptions from a Substantial Development Permit....................................................117 2 Substantial Development Permit Process.....................................................................117 3. Appeals.........................................................................................................................119 C. Conditional Use Permits......................................................................................... 119 1. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits ...............................................................................119 2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria.....................................................................119 D. Variances ............................................................................................................... 120 1. Shoreline Variances......................................................................................................120 2. Shoreline Variance Criteria ...........................................................................................120 3. Revisions to Permits (See also WAC 173-27-100)...........................................................120 E. Nonconforming Uses.............................................................................................. 121 Page iv Kent Shoreline Master Program F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and Changing Conditions in ShorelineAreas......................................................................................................121 G. Amendments to This Master Program ....................................................................121 H. Severability.............................................................................................................121 I. Enforcement...........................................................................................................122 1. Violations.........................................................................................................................122 2. Duty to Enforce..............................................................................................................122 3. Investigation and Notice of Violation .............................................................................123 Chapter 8. Shoreline Restoration Plan.....................................................................124 A. Introduction.............................................................................................................124 B. Shoreline Inventory Summary ................................................................................125 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................125 2. Shoreline Boundary.......................................................................................................125 3. Inventory........................................................................................................................126 a. Land Use and Physical Conditions....................................................................................... 126 b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas............................................................................... 129 C. Restoration Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................130 1. System-wide restoration objectives...............................................................................131 2. Green River restoration objectives................................................................................132 3. Lakeshore restoration objectives...................................................................................132 D. List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs..............................................132 1. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation ...............................................132 2. Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project........................................................138 3. King County Flood Control District................................................................................139 4. Comprehensive Plan Policies........................................................................................139 5. Critical Areas Regulations.............................................................................................142 6. Stormwater Management and Planning........................................................................142 7. Public Education............................................................................................................143 8. Kent Parks Foundation..................................................................................................144 9. Other Kent Parks Programs ..........................................................................................144 a. Adopt-A-Park......................................................................................................................... 145 b. Releaf.................................................................................................................................... 145 c. Eagle Scouts......................................................................................................................... 145 d. Make A Difference Day......................................................................................................... 145 e. Youth Tree Education Program ............................................................................................ 145 f. Best Management Practices................................................................................................. 146 10. Public Works Engineering Programs.............................................................................146 11. Adopt-A-Stream Foundation..........................................................................................146 12. Recent Kent Restoration Projects .................................................................................147 a. Springbrook Creek................................................................................................................ 147 b. GRNRA................................................................................................................................. 147 c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project........................................................................... 147 d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction................................................................................. 148 Table of Contents Page v 13. Comprehensive Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities ..............................................148 E. List of Additional Projects and Programs to Achieve Local Restoration Goals....... 150 1. Unfunded WRIA 9 or ERP Projects...............................................................................150 2. Other Recommended Projects......................................................................................150 a. Green River........................................................................................................................... 150 b. Big Soos Creek..................................................................................................................... 153 c. Lake Meridian........................................................................................................................ 153 d. Lake Fenwick........................................................................................................................ 153 e. GRNRA................................................................................................................................. 154 f. Springbrook Creek................................................................................................................ 154 g. Jenkins Creek ....................................................................................................................... 154 h. Panther Lake......................................................................................................................... 154 3. Public Education/Outreach............................................................................................154 4. Other Environmental Organizations..............................................................................155 F. Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods.................................. 155 G. Restoration Priorities.............................................................................................. 158 1. Priority 1 — Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection.....................................159 2. Priority 2 — Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation..............159 3. Priority 3 —Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery......... 159 4. Priority 4 — Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries..................................160 5. Priority 5 — Public Education and Involvement..............................................................160 6. Priority 6 —Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or Enhancement Purposes................................................................................................161 7. Priority 7 — Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage.....................161 8. Priority 8 — Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions..........................................................................................162 9. Priority 9 — Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures.......................................162 10. Priority 10 — Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes...............................................162 11. Priority 11 — City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies........................................163 H. References............................................................................................................. 164 Appendix A. Environment Designation Maps Appendix B. Council Resolution No. 1714 Ratifying the WRIA Salmon Habitat Plan Appendix C. Restoration Plan Maps Page vi Kent Shoreline Master Program List of Tables Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions..............................................13 Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation Descriptions...............15 Table 3. Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions...........19 Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions .................................22 Table 5. Shoreline Modification Matrix...................................................................................50 Table6. Shoreline Use Matrix................................................................................................72 Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix................................................................75 Table 8. Shoreline Regulations for Residential Properties on Lakes .....................................88 Table 9. Regulations for Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers orStreams................................................................................................................94 Table 10. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat and Status of Implementationin Kent...........................................................................................133 Table 11. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their Implementationin Kent...........................................................................................135 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..................................................................................138 Table 13. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their Implementation in Kent...........................................................................................149 Table 14. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs andPlans. ..............................................................................................................156 Table of Contents Page vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the SMP Handbook 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 Act a populist foundation as well as an environmental justification. The Act'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. Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Handbook Page 1 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 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 Act's passage in 1971, Ecology adopted Chapter 173-18 WAC to serve as a standard for the implementation of the Act and to provide direction to local governments and Ecology in preparing master programs. 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 Handbook 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 1999. Areas of the shoreline were designated as Urban-River Resources (applied to the Green River), Urban-Stream Corridor (applied to Soos Creek), and Urban-Lake Residential (applied to Lake Meridian). B. Implementation of the SMA RCW 90.58.020 clearly states how the Shoreline Management Act shall be implemented in the following statement: Page 2 Kent Shoreline Master Program "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, therefor, 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 Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Handbook Page 3 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 master program 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 master program 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. Page 4 Kent Shoreline Master Program The City's shoreline boundaries have been updated(subject to City Council and Ecology approval) concurrent with this assessment. Several changes have been made to the maps based on new information regarding associated wetlands and waterbody size (area and flow). Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA)pond, Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek, and Mill Creek Auburn 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 Auburn does not reach 20 cfs, it is located within the Green River's floodway and is therefore located within shoreline jurisdiction. The shoreline jurisdiction in Kent is identified in Figure 1. Wetlands are not shown on this map, however. Chapter 2 Section B.1 designates associated welands and those within the 100- year floodplain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps identify all wetlands in the City and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. 1 . Study 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 study area for this report includes all land currently within the City's proposed shoreline jurisdiction, as well as minimal treatment of shorelines in the PAA currently regulated under King County's SMP. The latter includes the south half of Lake Fenwick, all of Panther Lake, and portions of the Green River at the south end of the City. The total area subject to the City's updated SMP is approximately 1,014 acres. 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. Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Handbook Page 5 kf 1 Kent City Limits ° 5�unnw L Kent Water Resources Area Tukwila s enton (Ar`mstrong5prings} r J Kent Potential Annexation Area(PAA) , Reposed Shoreline Management Area(SMA) L. ° _ J Proposed SMA(In City Limits) s l�2'J 1925T Pmposed SMA(In PAA) •va sT K 9 sE s sr ,- wF C h z s Not to Smle 3 eatac - rx sT r\ King County om ` �•ry r$rural tsT 52234Tq 5 .0. � sen sr non $ ST r Pep 2Jt V � r 181 t]es Moines ..V_ 'a Es r t�nusss sx,o sT aasr FJ 2 el P �. _ w wTM sr Esunear 3 cuMure F r sT e e � 99 tyre." -�% aR!w V SE 25a 3T sso sr Ro Covington �k ,6] L 32 ST Fede ing County S S _ s,e a•rcate MY ' s z sr sE n,sr sE n, hVh N w W ?E -31 3 [ King Coun 5 -_._-- -ti< 1 sr a a Inset Not to Scale E 2 — Auburn. Data source:Kent GIS,King County cis and WS�OT cis _ r- e xae sT Rgourcrs Area-1► Proposed Shoreline Management Area City of Kent-Shoreline Master Program Figure 1 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 it 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 Manager. 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. Under the SMA, shorelines of the state that Page 6 Kent Shoreline Master Program meet the criteria established in the SMA are given a shoreline environmental 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 Master Program. Substantial development is discussed in more detail in Section 7.13 of this Master Program. 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 5.13 of this Master Program; or a Shoreline Variance. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and Shoreline Variances are discussed in more detail in Sections 7 C and D, respectively. However, ALL new development,uses, and activities must comply with the policies and regulations set forth in the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program, including those developments, uses, and activities that are exempt from permits. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) may also be required. "Development," is defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging, drilling; dumping; filling; removal or any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter 90.58 RCW at any state of water level (RCW 90.58.030(3d)). This definition indicates that the "development"regulated by the Shoreline Management Act includes not only those activities that most people recognize as "development,"but also those activities that citizens may do around their own home. While the impact of these potential "developments"may seem inconsequential at first, they may have unwanted and damaging effects on the river ecology, the property of others, and the shoreline aesthetics. Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Handbook Page 7 Projects that are identified as "developments,"but not"substantial developments," do not require a shoreline Substantial Development Permit; however, they must still comply with all applicable regulations in the City's Shoreline Master Program, including critical areas regulations. In addition, some developments may require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance from the Shoreline Master Program's provisions, although they do not meet the definition of"substantial development." "Substantial development" is any"development"where the total cost or fair market value exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000), or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shoreline of the state. The five thousand dollar($5,000)threshold will be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007,based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. Under the Shoreline Management Act, some types of development are exempt from the requirement to apply for and receive a permit before beginning work per RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). A complete list of developments and uses that are not considered"substantial development" is found in Chapter 8: Definitions under"substantial development." 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 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 Kent City Code 12.01.040). 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. Page 8 Kent Shoreline Master Program A map of the shoreline jurisdiction is presented in Appendix A and a description of the various shoreline designations are presented in the 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. 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. When there is a conflict,the most restrictive regulations, as determined by the City, should apply. 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. Chapter 1 - Introduction to the SMP Handbook Page 9 This page intentionally left blank. 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 designations to serve as a tool for applying and tailoring the general policies of the Act to local shorelines. Shoreline 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 shoreline master program regulations. In accordance with WAC 173-26- 211, the following environment designation provisions, including purpose, designation criteria, management policies and use, shoreline modification, and development standards matrices, apply. Where there is a contradiction between the matrices and another SMP text provision, the text provision shall apply. All areas not specifically assigned an environment designation shall be designated"Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity" (UC-LI). B. Official Shoreline Map The Official Shoreline Designation Maps can be found in Appendix A. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.040, the maps illustrate what environment designations 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 map 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. Page 10 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-1) 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 Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 11 currently support or are suitable and planned for high-intensity commercial, 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. 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. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as provided for in SMP Chapter 3 Section B.7. 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 master program 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 assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a"High Intensity" environment. See attached shoreline designation maps (Appendix A). Page 12 Kent Shoreline Master Program Table 1. High Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) High Intensity with an Urban GR B-1. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge Conservancy—Open Space north of the river from of 3462800260 of 0006600017 parallel environment for the trail commercial lot east of (or City corridor. A new section of trail Central Ave, generally boundary) between S 266th St and S 2591h west and north to Foster St should also be Urban Park Conservancy—Open Space. High Intensity GR B-2. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge south of the riverjust of 0004400005 of 0200000110 east of the Valley (or City (or edge of SR Freeway(SR 167) boundary) 167) High Intensity with an Urban GR B-3. Industrial area Eastern edge Western edge Conservancy—Open Space north of the river just of 2611000200 of 2611000190 parallel environment for the trail east of the Valley (or SR 167) corridor Freeway(SR 167) located between Foster Park and Riverview Park High Intensity with a parallel GR B-4. Small mixed Eastern edge Southern edge environment Urban Conservancy use area north of the 2422049114 of 2422049178 —Open Space for the trail river between the Valley and corridor. Freeway(SR 167)and 5436200843 SR 181. Western boundary of SR 181 High Intensity with a parallel GR B-5. Industrial area Southern edge environment of Urban located along Russell of 0006200023 Conservancy—Open Space for Rd. north of S. 228th St (S 228 St) Southern edge the Green River Trail corridor. and south of the of 0006200018 GRNRA High Intensity with a parallel GR B-5. Small industrial Southern edge Northern edge environment of Urban area located along of 0006200017 of 1022049016 Conservancy—Open Space for Russll Rd. adjacent to the Green River Trail corridor. the GRNRA. High Intensity with a parallel GR B-6. Industrial area Southern edge Western edge environment of Urban along east side of the of 7888800210 of 7888800090 Conservancy—Open Space for river north of S 200th St. (Russell Rd S, the Green River Trail corridor. S 200 St) High Intensity GR B-7. Industrial and Southern edge Northern edge commercial area east of of 6407600130 of 0000200017 SR 181 and south of SW 43`d St (SW 43 St) High Intensity GR PAA-B-1. Southern edge Western edge Shorelands in the of 0004400031 of 2522046666 potential annexation area (PAA)generally south of the river and west of the Valley Freeway(SR 167) Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 13 Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) High Intensity Springbrook Creek— 3623049018 1253710010 this area has a parallel designation of UC-OS for the Springbrook Creek Greenbelt. 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#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. Page 14 Kent Shoreline Master Program 4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat. 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 assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" environment. See also the attached maps. Table 2. Urban Conservancy Open Space Environment Designation Descriptions Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Urban Conservancy—Open The Green River Trail NA NA Space. receives a parallel designation for much of the Green River Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-2. Foster Park is 2611000200 2611000200 Space. on the north side of the river generally west of (includes trail the railroad line and portion of east of the Valley 2611000190) Freeway(SR 167) Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-5.The Riverbend Western edge Northeastern Space Golf Complex of 2322049011 edge of (includes 2322049027 portions of 2322046666) Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-6. Golf course City limits Southern Space and open space on the (located in boundary of south and west side of 2322049029) 2222049176 the river from the city limits south of W. Meeker St. to the industrial area north of the golf complex Urban Conservancy—Open GR B5. Part of this Southern edge Southern edge Space sub-unit is the of 0006200018 of 0006200017 horticultural center and nursery for the GRNRA so is designated UC- Open Space. Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-8. Green River Southern edge Southern edge Space Natural Resource Area of 1022049196 of 1122049065 Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 15 Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-9.Valley Floor Northern edge Northern edge Space Community Park of S 212 St of 1122049008 (southern edge of 1122049008) Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-10. Green River Northern edge Southern edge Space Trail north of S 212th St of S 212 St of Russell Rd and south of Russel (southern S Road edge of 6600210330 Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-11. Future North Includes Includes Space Green River Park on 0000200044 0000200044 the east shoreline just south of the City limits. Urban Conservancy—Open GR A-3. Riverview Park 2522049001 Southern Space is on the north and east boundary of side of the river just Includes 2422049178 west of the Valley 2522046666 Freeway(SR 167) All areas located in the North GR PAA-A-1. Area On west side On west side Green River Park are Urban within the PAA and City of river: of river: Conservancy—Open Space. All Limits north and east of 3022059054 areas that are designated US the river at the eastern North of S 277 are Urban Conservancy—Low most area of the Green St(south edge Intensity River shorelands within of the City and PAA 3122056666) Urban Conservancy—Open Lake Meridian - Unit A Western edge Northern edge Space —Open Space -Lake of parcel of parcel Meridian Park number number 6648500840 2622059044 Urban Conservancy—Open Lake Fenwick—Unit A Eastern edge Southern edge Space —Open Space of parcel of parcel number number 2722049057 2722049042 (City boundary)and Includes: Parcel number 2622049045 Urban Conservancy—Open Green River Natural Includes those Includes those Space Resource Area areas of the areas of the following following parcels in parcels in shoreline shoreline jurisdiction: jurisdiction: 1122049005, 1122049064, 1122049083, 0006200001, 1122049015, 0006200018, 1122049017, 1122049026 1122049025, Urban Conservancy—Open Jenkins Creek 3622059152 3622059152 Space Page 16 Kent Shoreline Master Program Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Urban Conservancy—Open Springbrook Creek Western edge The northwest Space Greenbelt of parcel corner of number parcel number 1253710060 1253720016 Urban Conservancy—Open Lands acquired by the To be To be Space City of Kent for parks determined determined and recreation uses after the adoption of the SMP. 4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment a. Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions in low intensity settings, while allowing a variety of low impact uses, such as nurseries, low intensity residential and agriculture support uses. b. Designation Criteria An "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity" environment designation will be assigned to shorelands appropriate and planned for development that are not 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 Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 17 the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental enhancement are preferred uses. 3. Agricultural practices,when consistent with provisions of this chapter, may be allowed. Except as a Conditional Use, nonwater-oriented commercial and industrial uses should not be allowed. 4. Where allowed, commercial uses should include substantial shoreline restoration and public access. 5. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses,provided significant 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#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 and public access should be required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed shorelines. 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. Public Access and Amenities 9. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and when significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 10. Where appropriate, standards for landscaping and visual quality should be included. Shoreline Modification and Development Impacts 11. 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. 12. Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area,unless an alternative Page 18 Kent Shoreline Master Program standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" environment. See also the attached shoreline designation maps (Appendix A). Table 3. Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Environment Designation Descriptions Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-1. Open space 3122059021 3122059008 Intensity area on the east side of the river to the north and south of South 277th Street bounded by the City limits Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-4. Undeveloped Eastern Northern Intensity. A portion of this area on south river boundary of boundary of area is a designated wetland bank with tributary west 2522049023 2522049019 and is therefore protected of Valley Fwy(SR 167) (includes portion under the Critical Area of 2522046666) Ordinance. Urban Conservancy—Low GR A-7. Open space on Eastern edge of Northern edge Intensity the west side of the 0002000021 of 1022049210 river from Cottonwood Grove Park to the residential area approximately 2,400' north of S 228th Street Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 19 Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) All areas located in the North GR PAA-A-1. Area On west side of On west side of Green River Park are Urban within the PAA and City river: river: Conservancy—Open Space. Limits north and east of 3022059054 North of S 277 All areas that are designated the river at the eastern St(south edge US are Urban Conservancy— most area of the Green of 3122056666) Low Intensity River shorelands within the City and PAA Urban Conservancy- Low GR D-1. South of the Southern City boundary in Intensity river just west of Valley boundary of 2422049089 Freeway(SR 167) 2522049014 Urban Conservancy—Low GR D-2. Agricultural Southern Western edge of Intensity activities on the west boundary 2322049006 side of the river from of2222049176 Riverbend Golf Course to Cottonwood Grove Park Urban Conservancy—Low GR D-4. Agricultural Southern edge Northern edge of Intensity lands north of Valley of 1122049007 0222049017 Floor Community Park (City boundary) Urban Conservancy—Low Big Soos Creek Unit D Intensity Urban Conservancy—Low Panther Lake—Unit A— Southern edge Southern edge Intensity Open Space of 6623400360 of 0422059023 Urban Conservancy—Low Panther Lake—Unit A— Western edge of Eastern edge of Intensity Open Space 0422059149 0422059068 Urban Conservancy—Low Green River/Mill Creek As mapped As mapped Intensity Auburn Floodway based on the based on the Flood Hazard Flood Hazard Areas map in Areas map in the Inventory& the Inventory& Analysis Report Analysis Report Page 20 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 public 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. Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access to the shoreline and joint-use community recreational facilities. 7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future shoreline stabilization is not required. Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 21 d. Specific Environment Designations The following table assigns areas within shoreline jurisdiction as a "Shoreline Residential" environment. See also the attached maps. Table 4. Shoreline Residential Environment Designation Descriptions Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Shoreline Residential for the GR C-1. Residential Eastern edge Western edge residential area and Urban area north and west of 9183706000 of 2890600000 Conservancy—Open Space for side of the Green River the trail corridor. east of Central Ave Shoreline Residential with a GR C-2. Residential Eastern edge Western parallel designation of Urban area on north side of of edge of Conservancy—Open Space for the river from SR 181 5436200843 2322046666, the trail portion of the sub-unit. to the golf course at and 2322049049 Russell Rd 2422049114 Shoreline Residential with a GR C-3. Residential Southern edge Northern edge parallel designation of Urban area on east side of of 1085670000 of Conservancy—Open Space for River from James 00062200016 the trail portion of the sub-unit. Street north to S 228tn Street Shoreline Residential GR C-4. Residential Southern edge Northern edge area on west side of of 1022049206 of 1022049015 River south of S 216 (South of S Street 216 St) Shoreline Residential. GR D-3. Agricultural Southern edge Northern edge area on west side of of 1122049011 of 2632000070 river south of S. 212th (S 216 St) (S 212 St) Street Shoreline Residential with a GR C-5. RV camp- Southern edge Northern edge parallel designation of Urban ground (KOA)on east of 1122049065 of 1122049065 Conservancy-Open Space for side of the river south of (S 212 St) the trail portion. S. 212tn St. and north of the GRNRA. Shoreline Residential Lake Meridian—Unit C Southern edge Western edge of parcel of parcel number number 2622059066 6648500840 Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick—Unit C- Northern Northern Residential boundary of boundary of parcel number parcel number 4016800009 2622049038 Shoreline Residential Lake Fenwick—Unit C- Southern edge Western edge Residential of parcel of parcel number number 2722049071 2722049202 Shoreline Residential Panther Lake—Unit C— Eastern edge Southern edge Residential of 0522059040 of 6623400360 Page 22 Kent Shoreline Master Program Begins Ends Environment Designation Sub-Unit (parcel#) (parcel#) Shoreline Residential Panther Lake—Unit C— Northern edge Eastern edge Residential of 6624037777 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 master program. Chapter 2 - Environment Designation Provisions Page 23 Page 24 Kent Shoreline Master Program This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 3 General Provisions A. Introduction General policies and regulations are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of master program environment designation)that may occur along a jurisdiction's shorelines. If used properly, they can also reduce redundancy in a master program by eliminating the need to repeat regulations over and over for each environment designation. This chapter is broken up into twelve different topic headings and is arranged alphabetically. Each topic begins with a discussion of background master program issues and considerations, followed by general policy statements and regulations. The intent of these model provisions is to be inclusive, making them applicable over a wide range of environments as well as particular uses and activities. They can be used directly or modified to include more restrictive language as necessary. 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 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 25 e. Shoreline stabilization and modifications. 2. The City should keep records of all project review actions within shoreline jurisdiction, including shoreline permits and letters of exemption. 3. Where appropriate, the City should pursue the policies of this master program 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 master program. 2. All new shoreline modifications must be in support of an allowable shoreline use that conforms to the provisions of this master program. 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 master program 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 master program 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 master program shall not apply to those land areas that are outside shoreline jurisdiction as of the date of adoption of this master program 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 Page 26 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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: a. Where there is an existing levee or where flood control measures are planned(generally on the north and east banks of the river),private development, including buildings,building additions and pavements shall be set back sufficiently to allow for the construction of levee improvements. In most areas, this setback will be 140' from the OHWM. The City may increase or decrease the required setback according to the design of the levee improvements at the particular stretch of river in question. New public development associated with levee construction, including trail,public access, recreation spaces, and environmental restoration improvements may be located within this setback. b. Where there is no levee and no public plans to construct or improve a levee (generally on the south and west banks of the river), all new private development shall be set back 150' from the OHWM. New public development such as road improvements and environmental restoration may be constructed within this setback provided they meet the requirements of this SMP. 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 27 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. 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 master program. 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. Page 28 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. Critical Areas Critical areas in SMP jurisdiction are regulated under the Kent Critical Areas Ordinance. The Kent Critical Areas Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 11.06 Kent City Code (dated August 15, 2006, Ordinance#3805), is herein incorporated into this master program except as noted below. Exceptions to the applicability of the Kent Critical Areas Ordinance in Shoreline Jurisdiction are in the instances specified below. 1. If provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance and other parts of the master program conflict, the provisions most protective of the ecological resource shall apply, as determined by the City. 2. Provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance 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 Ordinance 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 Kent Critical Areas Regulations. b. Provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance that include a"reasonable use determination" shall not apply within Shoreline Jurisdiction. Specifically, KCC 11.06.90 does not apply. c. Provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance relating to variance procedures and criteria do not apply in Shoreline Jurisdiction. Within Shoreline Jurisdiction, the purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Specifically, KCC 11.06.100 shall not apply. Variance procedures and criteria shall be established in this SMP, Chapter 8 Section B 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 Kent City Code section 11.06.040, shall not apply. e. The City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance refers to all shorelines identified in the Kent shoreline master program as Type 1 Waters and defers all setbacks for Type 1 Waters to the Kent SMP (KCC 11.06.670). Since the CAO was written, a few new waterbodies were added to the SMP, including Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek. The CAO will now defer to the SMP for setback requirements for these new designated shorelines. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 29 4. Environmental Impacts a. Applicability The following policies and regulations apply to all uses and development in shoreline jurisdiction that are not covered by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Environmental impacts to critical areas shall be addressed by the Kent Critical Areas Ordinance, as described in Section B.3 above. b. Policies 1. In implementing this master program, the City should take necessary steps to ensure compliance with Chapter 43.21 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 43.21 c 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 Item 4 below to avoid reduction or damage to ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions. 3. Projects that cause significant adverse impacts, other than significant ecological impacts, shall be mitigated according to the sequence in Item 4 below. 4. The City will set mitigation requirements or permit conditions based on impacts identified per this Master Program. 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; Page 30 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 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 master program. 6. All shoreline development shall be located and constructed to avoid locally- specific significant adverse impacts to human health and safety. 5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management a. Applicability The provisions in this section apply to those areas within shoreline jurisdiction lying along the Green River floodplain corridor, including rivers, streams, associated wetlands in the floodplain, and river deltas. The provisions in this section are intended to address two concerns especially relevant to river shorelines: 1. Protecting human safety and minimizing flood hazard to human activities and 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 master program. b. The City's Critical Area Ordinance. c. The City's zoning code. d. The City's Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual, and implementing regulations. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 31 e. The City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and compliance with the State's floodplain management law at Chapter 86.16. RCW. f. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including roads, dikes,utilities,bridges, and other structures. g. The ecological restoration of selected shoreline areas. 2. In regulating development on shorelines within SMA jurisdiction, the City should endeavor to achieve the following: a. Maintenance of human safety. b. Protection and, where appropriate,the restoration of the physical integrity of the ecological system processes, including water and sediment transport and natural channel movement. c. Protection of water quality and natural groundwater movement. d. Protection of fish, vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain. e. Protection of existing legal uses and legal development 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. g. When consistent with the provisions a. through f. above,provide for public access and recreation, especially for water oriented activities. 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. Page 32 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 items "a"through"d"below in addition to the provisions of this master program. In cases of inconsistency, the provisions most protective of shoreline ecological functions and processes shall apply: a. The City's Flood Hazard Regulations, Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 14.09. 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, KCC Chapter 7.05. d. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, may be incorporated into permits issued for flood protection. 2. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, including dikes, levees, and overflow channels, may be allowed only when consistent with KCC Chapter 14.09 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 33 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. 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 that such access is not feasible or desirable according to the criteria in the "Public Access" section. 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 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. Page 34 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 between the parking and the shoreline shall be provided, as defined in KCC 15.07.050. Landscaping shall consist of native vegetation and plant materials approved by the City Shoreline Administrator and shall be planted before completion of the parking area in such a manner that plantings provide effective screening between parking and the water body within five years of project completion. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify landscaping requirements to account fo legitimate 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 that is consistent with the Department of Ecology Surface Water 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 35 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 and King County have established a regional trail with park and recreation facilities located along the Green River. Trails and public access points are shown on the trail network maps in the City of Kent Parks and Recreation Plan. There are public parks and public access facilities on Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick. The boat launch at Lake Meridian is used by boaters from throughout the region, especially for water skiing. The Green River Natural Resources Area includes extensive wildlife viewing areas, including two view towers. Two undeveloped park properties with trail plans are located along Springbrook Creek. b. Policies 1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public developments (including land division) 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. Public access should be required when land is divided into more than four residential lots, for multifamily development, and for non-water dependent commercial and industrial development. 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. Page 36 Kent Shoreline Master Program 6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views. 7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be avoided. 8. The Green River Trail, Lake Meridian Park, Lake Fenwick Park, Springbrook Creekand the publicly accessible portions of the Green River Natural Resource Area should be maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans. 9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area wherever feasible. 10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged. c. Regulations 1. Except as provided in regulations 2 and 3, shoreline substantial development (including land division into more than four lots and PUDs) or Conditional Uses, either of which front directly on the shoreline, shall provide public access where any of the following conditions are present: a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses. c. Where a use which is not a priority shoreline use under the Shoreline Management Act locates on a shoreline of the state, the use or development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. d. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine,the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. e. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. £ Where called for under the City's parks plan. g. Where the rights of navigation are impacted, the proposed development will include mitigation for that impact. h. As part of development for nonwater-dependent uses (including water- enjoyment and water-related uses), multifamily development, and subdivisions of land into more than four parcels. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 37 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 sequence in Chapter 3 Section B.4. 2. An applicant need not provide public access where the City Shoreline Administrator determines that one or more of the following conditions apply. a. The City's park's plan indicates that public access is not required. b. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevented by any practical means; c. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions; d. The cost of providing the access easement or an alternative amenity is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development, as determined by the City Shoreline Administrator; e. Significant ecological impacts will result from the public access which cannot be mitigated; or f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. 3. In order to meet any of the conditions "a" through "f' above, the applicant must first demonstrate and the City Shoreline Administrator determine in its findings that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, including but not limited to: a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; b. Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g. fences, terracing, use of one-way glazings, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and c. Developing provisions for access at a site geographically separated from the proposal such as a street end, vista or trail system. 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 on the deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running contemporaneous with the authorized land use, at a minimum. Said recording Page 38 Kent Shoreline Master Program with the County Assessor's Office shall occur prior to permit approval (RCW 58.17.110). 8. Minimum width of public access easements shall be 20 feet,unless the City 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. In accordance with regulation 3.a. above, 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 Regulations 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 master program on the following policies in order of priority, 1 being the highest and 6 being lowest. 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing state-wide interests by circulating the master program, 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 39 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-tern benefits over short-tern 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. 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. Page 40 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 Administator finds that these signs are necessary for public safety reasons. 2. Allowable Signs: The following types of signs may be allowed in all shoreline environments: a. Water navigational signs, and highway and railroad signs necessary for operation, safety and direction. b. Public information signs directly relating to a shoreline use or activity. Public information signs shall include public park signs,public access identification signs, and warning signs. c. Off-premise, free-standing signs for community identification, information, or directional purposes. d. National, site and institutional flags or temporary decorations customary for special holidays and similar events of a public nature. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 41 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 program shall be removed or conform within two years of the adoption of this master program. 9. No signs shall be placed in a required view corridor. 10. Utilities (Accessory) a. Applicability Accessory utilities are those that effect small-scale distribution services connected directly to the uses along the shoreline. They are addressed in this section because they concern all types of development and have the potential to impact the quality of the shoreline and its waters. b. Policies 1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. 2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a shoreline location, they should be placed underground. 3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses. Page 42 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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, corridors 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 use 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 "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 master program, 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 the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 43 2. This master program 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 setback area. The City's Shoreline Administrator may make exceptions to this standard for water dependent development and for development in the High Intensity environment only. 2. New development, including clearing and grading, shall minimize significant vegetation removal in shoreline jurisdiction to the extent feasible. In order to implement this regulation, applicants proposing development that includes significant vegetation removal, clearing, or grading within shoreline jurisdiction must provide, as a part of a substantial development permit or a letter of exemption application, a site plan, drawn to scale, indicating the extent of proposed clearing and/or grading. The City's Shoreline Administrator may require that the proposed development or extent of clearing and grading be modified to reduce the impacts to ecological functions. 3. Vegetation restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded shall use native plant materials with a diversity and type similar to that which originally occurred on-site unless the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that native plant materials are inappropriate or not hardy in the particular situation. 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: Page 44 Kent Shoreline Master Program • Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan; • Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions; • Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and pesticides as needed to protect water quality; and • Includes a monitoring and maintenance program. This plan shall be added to a Notice on Title, and a copy of the Notice on Title shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator. 6. A condition of all development shall be that those areas within the required setback area that have been cleared or where significant vegetation removal has occurred and that are not otherwise occupied by approved structures or uses shall be revegetated with native vegetation. The City's Shoreline Administrator may require replanting of previously cleared areas or removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replanting with native vegetation as part of mitigation of ecological impacts. 7. Snags and living trees (i.e., large cottonwoods) shall not be removed within the required 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 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 RCW 90.58.020. For Shorelines in the Urban Conservancy-Open Space and Urban Conservancy. 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.l.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 Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 45 Urban Conservancy environments, except where the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that: • 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. • The restoration of ecological processes and functions can be better achieved through other measures such as the removal of channel constraints. • Sufficient native vegetation already exists 10. Minor vegetation removal may be done to provide for development and maintenance of public access and trails on public property provided impacts are mitigated. For Shorelines in the High-Intensity Environment 11. The impacts due to significant vegetation removal shall be mitigated according to the sequence described in Chapter 3 Section B.4. 12. A condition of all development shall be that those shorelands on the site not occupied by structures, shoreline uses, or human activities shall be revegetated. Vegetation within the required setbacks specified in Chapter 3 Section B.l.c.7 and Chapter 5 Section B of the shoreline, to the extent the setback extends onto the subject development site, must be native vegetation or species approved by the City's Shoreline Administrator. For Shorelines in the Shoreline Residential Environment 13. Development is subject to requirements in Chapter 5 Shoreline Use Provisions Section C.8, "Residential Development." For Shorelines in the Aquatic Environment 14. 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. Page 46 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. 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. • As used in this master program, "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 master program,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 master program, 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 master program 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. Chapter 3 - General Provisions Page 47 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 maintainor improve water quality should be conducted on-site before shoreline development creates impacts to water. 6. Shoreline use and development should minimize the need for chemical fertilizers,pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and values. c. Regulations 1. All shoreline development, both during and after construction, shall avoid or minimize significant ecological impacts, including any increase in surface runoff,through control, treatment, and release of surface water runoff so that water quality and quantity are not adversely affected. Control measures include, but are not limited to, low impact development techniques, dikes, catch basins or settling ponds, oil interceptor drains, grassy swales,planted buffers, and fugitive dust controls. 2. All development shall conform to local, state, and federal water quality regulations, provided the regulations do not conflict with this master program. 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. Page 48 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 shoreline modification matrix indicates the standards for shoreline modification. Where there is a conflict between the chart and the written provisions in this Chapter, the written provisions shall apply. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 49 Table 5. Shoreline Modification Matrix P = Maybe permitted N C = May be permitted as a conditional M use only ( X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible for U Cn c a variance or conditional use permit L- c L a o N/A = Not applicable o °' a o s a a Z 2 :30 J CnW Q 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 Fill' X P P P3 P3 C2 Piers, docks4 X P P P P P Moorage piles and mooring buoys X X X X X X All shoreline modifications are subject to other provisions in this SMP. See, especially, Section C "Policies and Regulations"below. Shoreline Modifications Matrix Notes: 1. Fill in the floodplain must meet all federal, state, and local flood hazard reduction regulations. 2. Fill in aquatic areas for the purposes of shoreline ecological restoration may be allowed as a permitted use if the City determines that there will be an increase in desired ecological functions. 3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall require a conditional use permit(refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure #10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). 4. New non-public piers and docks are prohibited on the Green River. Page 50 Kent Shoreline Master Program C. Policies and Regulations 1 . General Policies and Regulations a. Applicability The following provisions apply to all shoreline modification activities whether such proposals address a single property or multiple properties. b. Policies 1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where they are demonstrated to be necessary: • To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage. or • For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or enhance the shoreline ecology. 2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent. 3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed. 4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary shoreline modifications,by giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. 5. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231 6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WAC 173-26- 231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes. 7. In reviewing shoreline permits, the City should require steps to reduce significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e). c. Regulations 1. All shoreline modification activities must be in support of a permitted shoreline use or to provide for human health and safety. Shoreline modification activities which do not support a permitted shoreline use are Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 51 considered"speculative" and are prohibited by this master program,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#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. Page 52 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 53 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#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: • 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. • The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as loss of vegetation and drainage. • 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. • 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, waves, or boat wakes. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline Page 54 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 in the above provisions,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 reestablish vegetation shall be replanted with approved plants until the plantings are viable. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 55 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#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 liscensed 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. 19. Adequate toe protection and proper footings shall be provided to ensure bulkhead stability without relying on additional riprap. Page 56 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 master program. b. If structural shoreline measures are allowed,per requirements 6 and 7 above, the following are examples of acceptable materials for shoreline stabilization structures: Note that the materials are generally in order of preference from top to bottom and that such structural materials are not the preferred method of shoreline stabilization. See regulation 7 above: • Large stones, with vegetation planted in the gaps. Stones should not be stacked steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. • Timbers or logs. Note the prohibition against toxic wood treatments. • Stacked masonry units (e.g., interlocking cinder block wall units). • Cast-in-place reinforced concrete. c. The following materials are not acceptable for shoreline stabilization structures: • Degradable plastics and other nonpermanent synthetic materials. • Sheet materials, including metal, plywood, fiberglass, or plastic. • Broken concrete, asphalt, or rubble. • Car bodies, tires or discarded equipment. 21. Fill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of I 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. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 57 3. Over-Water Structures - Including Pier 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. Page 58 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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, Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 59 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. New recreational floats/swim platforms are not permitted. 17. 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. 18. 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 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. New floating docks located within the first 30 feet of shoreline measured waterward of the OHWM are prohibited. Piers that terminate in a waterward float are allowed provided that the landward edge of the float is over water with a depth of eight(8) feet or more and is at least 30 feet waterward of the OHWM. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated. Page 60 Kent Shoreline Master Program 22. 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 fluctation in water depth caused by storm water management practices.) ii. The maximum length of ells, fingers and floats is 20 feet. Additionally,the maximum extent of all piers,docks and floats as measured parallel to the shoreline shall not be greater than 50%of the lot width measured along the shoreline. b. Width. i. The maximum width of a pier walkway is four(4)feet for the first 30 feet waterward of the OHWM and six(6)feet for the remainder of the walkway. ii. The maximum width of ells and floats is six(6) feet. iii. Any additional fingers must be no wider than two (2) feet. iv. The maximum width of a ramp connecting a pier to a float is four(4)feet. c. Area. Surface coverage of private residential piers, including all floats, ramps, ells and fingers, shall be limited to the following: i. Four hundred twenty(420) square feet for a single property owner; ii. Six hundred sixty(660) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized by two residential property owners; or iii. Seven hundred forty(740) square feet for a joint-use structure utilized by three or more residential property owners. d. Decking: All new piers must be fully grated. Decking shall have a minimum open space of 40%, and shall result in at least 60% ambient light beneath the pier. e. Piles. Piles shall be either maximum 5-inch-diameter steel or 5-inch- diameter untreated wood, and shall be spaced a minimum of 12 feet apart except when shown not to be feasible for site-specific engineering or design considerations. f. Pier Spacing. Piers, including fingers, ells, floats, boatlifts, or canopies, shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from adjacent piers or 10 feet from the side yard, whichever distance provides the maximum separation between piers. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 61 max Lake ell \ 6' max width F6d pier width Tafter 30' 4' max max pier width ell 20 "_to 30' length 100' 40' max. min. pier length length Max. total surface IF coverage=420 ft M I Q H AI M Figure 2. Development dimensional standards for new private piers. Replacement of Existing Private Pier or Dock 23. 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 Regulation 22.d. 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 24. 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. 25. 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 Regulation 22. 26. When proposed additions to a private residential pier result in a pier that exceeds the maximum total square footage allowances described above, the addition may be approved as a Variance and subject to the following provisions: a. The applicant must remove any in-water structures rendered obsolete by the addition; b. The additional length of walkway or ell must be 4 feet wide; Page 62 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 Regulation 22.d.; and d. Any proposed new piles must comply with standards under 22.e. Repair of Existing Private Pier or Dock 27. 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 Regulation 22.d. 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. 28. 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 Regulation 22.d. 29. 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. If the cumulative repair proposed over a three-year period exceeds thresholds established in Regulations 23, 25 and 28, above, the current repair proposal shall be reviewed under those provisions. 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. d. Boatlift canopies must be made of translucent fabric material. e. Any platform lifts are fully grated. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 63 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. Existing recreational floats may be repaired and/or replaced subject to the following: a. Replacement floats shall be of the same size as the existing float up to a maximum of 150 square feet. b. Replacement floats shall be placed in the same location as the existing float unless one of the following apply: i. The existing float is not located in water with a depth of 10 feet or more measured from ordinary high water mark. ii. The existing float is located in an area that constitutes a hazard to navigation or other public use of the water. c. Replacement floats that must be relocated shall be located in water with depths 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. d. Recreational floats shall be designed and intended for swim use or other non-motorized, but water-oriented, use. e. Height. Replacement floats 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. f. Replacement floats shall be fully grated except for those portions underlain by float tubs. g. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water. h. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated. Page 64 Kent Shoreline Master Program Public Over-Water Structures—including Docks and Piers 35. 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. 36. 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. e. The length of the pier is the minimum necessary to accommodate the intended public usage of the pier. 37. New public docks or piers may be permitted if increased public usage of existing structures has required the need for additional overwater cover. 38. New public over-water structures shall be subject to the standards under 37c. through 37e. 39. Temporary swim platforms and/or bares are allowed in conjunction with City sponsored public events, such as the 4t of July fireworks event on Lake Meridian. Temporary platforms or barges may be located waterward of the OHWM for a period of time not longer than that necessary to reasonably accommodate the public event. 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 master program. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 65 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 master program; 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#2 above. 4. Fill shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the proposed action will not: a. Result in significant ecological damage to water quality, fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife habitat; or b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river flows or significantly reduce flood water capacities. c. Alter channel migration, geomorphic, or hydrologic processes. 5. Environmental cleanup action involving excavation/fill, as authorized by the City's Shoreline Administrator, may be permitted. 6. Sanitary fills shall not be located in shoreline jurisdiction. 7. Fills waterward of the ordinary high water mark that are for the purpose of restoring ecological functions are a permitted use and do not require a conditional use permit. Page 66 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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#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: 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 Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 67 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: a. In shoreline areas with bottom materials which are prone to significant sloughing and refilling due to currents; which result 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. Page 68 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 master program. 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 #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. 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. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 69 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 master program. 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. 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 protected flood stage as identified in the City's comprehensive flood control management plan. Page 70 Kent Shoreline Master Program 4. Dikes and levees shall not be placed in the floodway, except for current deflectors necessary for protection of bridges and roads. 5. Public access to shorelines should be an integral component of all levee improvement projects. Public access shall be provided in accordance with public access policies and regulations contained herein. New dikes or levees must not impede or diminish public access on the Green River Trail. Fisherman access should be combined with levee maintenance access. 6. Dikes and levees shall only be authorized by Conditional Use permit and shall be consistent with the comprehensive flood control management plan or, if no plan yet exists, with an overall watershed and drainage basin management systems approach. 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. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Modification Provisions Page 71 This page intentionally left blank. 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 indicate the allowable uses and some of the standards applicable to those uses and modifications. Where there is a conflict between the chart and the written provisions in Chapters 3, 4, or 5 of this master program, the written provisions shall apply. Table 6. Shoreline Use Matrix P = May be permitted C = May be permitted as a conditional use only y X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible for a variance or conditional use permit" o a o N/A = Not applicable L 0 3 SHORELINE USE z 'x o » n a 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 Nonwater-oriented X P4 X X X X Page 72 Kent Shoreline Master Program P = May be permitted C = May be permitted as a a conditional use only N X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible > >N for a variance or conditional use , aD permit" 0 0 o c �, M N/A = Not applicable i c Cn +�+ .0 3 O 7 SHORELINE USE z = � o � n a In-stream structures P P P P P P 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 C Roads, railroads C P P7 P7 P C Utilities (primary) C P P' P7 P C Use Matrix Notes: 1. Park concessions, such as small food stands, cafes, and restaurants with views and seating oriented to the water, and uses that enhance the opportunity to enjoy publicly accessible shorelines may be allowed. 2. Accessory parking is allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if there is no other feasible option, as determined by the City. 3. Passive activities, such as nature watching and trails, that require little development with no significant adverse impacts may be allowed. 4. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water- dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the shoreline and water body or due to the underlying land use classification in the comprehensive plan. 5. Land division may be allowed where the City determines that it is for a public purpose. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 73 6. Signs may be allowed for public facilities only. 7. Roadways and public utilities may be allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by the City, and all adverse impacts are mitigated. 8. Residences may be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if it is not feasible, as determined by the City, to locate the building on the portion of the property outside shoreline jurisdiction. 9. Commercial uses are only permitted as part of a residential PUD of at least 100 acres, located within an SR zone, or at least 10 acres for residential PUDs located in other zones. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted by the Zoning Code in the neighborhood convenience commercial district. 10. Crop and tree farming only. See Kent City Code 15.04.130. 11. For existing nonconforming development, see Chapter 7.E. 12. Development in channel migration zones is allowed only by conditional use permit where it can be shown that such development would not prevent natural channel migration. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure #10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). 13. Uses noted as allowed in the Aquatic Environment are allowed there only if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. 14. Marinas are prohibited. Page 74 Kent Shoreline Master Program Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix CV CV to C C y i i N p p C d U Cnco U L 1 r DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS' r a, 3 0 (Regulatory citation in parentheses) z = � O � � (1) Q Commercial Development (5.C.4) Water-dependent setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water-enjoyment setback N/A 30'2 30'2 50'2 N/A N/A Nonwater-oriented setback N/A 70'2 70'2 100'2 N/A N/A Industrial Development (5.C.5) Water-dependent (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Water-related and water-enjoyment4 (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 50'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Nonwater-oriented4 (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 100'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Accessory Parking (3.8.6) Setbacks4 N/A 70'2 70'2 70'2 N/A3 N/A Recreational Development Water-dependent park structures setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water enjoyment park structures N/A 20' 20' 20' N/A N/A setback Nonwater-oriented park structures setback N/A 70'2 70'2 70'2 N/A N/A (5.C.7.c.4) Miscellaneous New agricultural activities setback (5.C.2.c.4) N/A 20'2 20'2 20'2 20'2 N/A Residential Development4 See regulations in 5.C.8.c Other provisions in this SMP also apply. Development Standards Matrix Notes: 1. See regulation 3.8.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future Green River levee reconstruction. 2. The City may reduce this dimension if it determines that the type of development allowed within this SMP and other municipal, state, and federal codes cannot be accommodated within the allowed site development area by reconfiguring, relocating, or resizing the proposed development. Where the City reduces a requirement, compensatory mitigation, such as vegetation enhancement or shoreline armoring removal, must be provided as determined by the City. 3. See regulation 5.C.8.c for residential development standards. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 75 4. The setback for all development, except water dependent development, on the Green River not separated from the shoreline by a levee is 150 feet. 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 allowed. c. Regulations 1. Developments that include a mix of water-oriented and nonwater-oriented uses may be considered water-oriented provided the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that the proposed development does give preference to those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, are dependent on a shoreline location, or enhance the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline. 2. All uses not explicitly covered in the section of 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 master program 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. Page 76 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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#10.2 in the 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 #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. b. Policies 1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes, channel migration zones, and associated marshes, bogs, and swamps should be prohibited. 2. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality,reduce flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife. 3. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste and manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 77 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 master program 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 should determine the extent and composition of the buffer when the permit or letter of exemption is applied for. 4. Stream banks and water bodies shall be protected from damage caused by concentration and overgrazing of livestock. Provide fencing or other grazing controls to prevent bank compaction, bank erosion, or the overgrazing of or damage to buffer vegetation. Provide suitable bridges, culverts, or ramps for stock crossing. 5. Agricultural practices shall prevent and control erosion of soils and bank materials within shoreline areas and minimize siltation, turbidity, pollution, and other environmental degradation of watercourses and wetlands. 6. Existing and ongoing agricultural uses may be allowed within a channel migration zone or floodway provided that no new restrictions to channel movement occur. 7. See Chapter 3 Section B.12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. 3. Boating Facilities a. Applicability Boating facilities include dry storage and wet-moorage types; boat launch ramps; covered moorage; boat houses; mooring buoys; and marine travel lifts. See also "Piers and Docks" in Chapter 4, "Shoreline Modification Provisions," for 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 Page 78 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 Engineers dredging standards (Section 404); and state and federal standards for the storage of fuels and toxic materials. 2. New boating facilities shall not significantly impact the rights of navigation on the waters of the state. Location 3. Boating facilities shall not be located where their development would reduce the quantity or quality of critical aquatic habitat or where significant ecological impacts would necessarily occur. 4. Public launch ramps shall, where feasible, be located only on stable shorelines where: Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 79 a. Water depths are adequate to eliminate or minimize the need for offshore channel construction dredging, maintenance dredging, spoil disposal, filling, beach enhancement, and other river, lake, harbor, and channel maintenance activities. b. There is adequate water mixing and flushing, and the facility is designed so as not to retard or negatively influence flushing characteristics. c. Adverse flood channel capacity or flood hazard impacts are avoided. Design/Renovation/Expansion 5. Boating facilities shall be designed to avoid or minimize significant ecological impacts. The City's Shoreline Administrator shall apply the mitigation sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section BA in the review of boating facility proposals. On degraded shorelines, the City's Shoreline Administrator may require ecological restoration measures to account for environmental impacts and risks to the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological function. 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 15.05 KCC for landscape requirements. 9. Moorage of floating homes is prohibited. 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 Page 80 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. 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 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 area's visual qualities. 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 81 4. All new commercial 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,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 Environmental Restoration Plan and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or public access required. 5. All commercial 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 KCC 15.07.050 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 legitimate 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 KCC 15.07.050) between the building and the shoreline. A sight obscuring fence is not required. b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of building fagade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety and security. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements to account for 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. Page 82 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 master program 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 master program. These include dredging, fill, transportation facilities,utilities piers and docks, bulkheads,breakwaters,jetties and groins, shoreline stabilization and flood protection, and signs. They are subject to their own regulations in Chapter 4 in addition to the provisions in this chapter. b. Policies 1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented industrial development. 2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects. c. Regulations 1. The amount of impervious surface shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the intended use. The remaining land area shall be landscaped with native plants or treated as directed by the City's Shoreline Administrator. 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/or 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 83 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 KCC 15.07.050 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 legitimate 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 KCC 15.07.050) between the building and the shoreline. A sight obscuring fence is not required. b. A minimum of 20 ft2 of transparent windows for every 50 lineal feet of building fagade adjacent to the Green River Trail. The intent of this standard is to provide passive surveillance along the trail to promote safety and security. The City Shoreline Administrator may modify these landscaping requirements to account for legitimate 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 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. 10. See Section B "Development Standards Matrix" of this Chapter for setback requirements. See also setback requirements in Chapter 3 Section B.I.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. Page 84 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. 7. Recreational Development a. Applicability Recreational development includes public and commercial facilities for recreational activities such as hiking,photography, viewing, and fishing, car-top boating, swimming, bicycling, picknicking, 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 program, 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 85 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/or scenic drives, should be encouraged. 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: • Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems. • Create any flood hazards. • Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as structural shoreline stabilization or vegetation removal. 7. Opportunities to expand the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline in public parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued. c. Regulations 1. Water-oriented recreational developments and mixed-use developments with water-oriented recreational activities may be permitted as indicated in Chapter 5, Section B, "Shoreline Use and Development Standard Matrices." In accordance with said matrix and other provisions of this master program, 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 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. Page 86 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 public access. The City's Shoreline Administrator shall consult the Environmental Restoration Plan and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required. 4. Nonwater-oriented structures, such as restrooms, recreation halls and gymnasiums, recreational buildings and fields, access roads, and parking areas, shall be set back from the OHWM at least 70 feet unless it can be shown that there is no feasible alternative. 5. See Chapter 3 Section 12.c.3-4 for water quality regulations related to the use 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 (SMP). b. Policies 1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas including,but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways,buffers, etc. 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 87 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 public use of the shoreline and the water, to provide space for outdoor recreation, to protect or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to preserve views, to preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics, to protect the privacy of nearby residences, and to minimize use conflicts. 4. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of groundwater supplies, erosion control, stormwater drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat, ecosystem-wide processes, and open space. 5. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, shall be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations. 6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed without: 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 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 Proposed Regulation: Standard Minimum Building Setback from OHWM 75 feet' Standard Minimum Deck Setback from OHWM 50 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 35% ' Standard 2.a.i. discussed below requires the averaging of the setbacks of adjacent dwelling units with a minimum setback of 75 feet. 2. New residential development, including new structures, new pavement, and additions, within shoreline jurisdiction on lakes shall adhere to the following standards: a. Setbacks: i. Buildings: Set back all covered(enclosed) structures the average of the setbacks of existing houses on adjacent lots on both sides of the subject parcel,with a minimum setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark Page 88 Kent Shoreline Master Program (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 master program 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. Average of the setbacks of existing adjacent dwelling units with a r minimum setback of 75' w m 25' max. deck length 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 covered here. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 89 4,550 ft' Walkway combined Lake impervious or area Patio Walkwa River House Garage Driveway Maximum amount of impervious surface is 35%. With a 13,000 square foot lot(65'x200'), 4,550 square feet of combined impervious surface is allowed. Figure 4. Illustration of maximum impervious surface. 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 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: • Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees,shrubs and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions, • Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality,and • Includes a monitoring and maintenance program. This plan shall be added to a Notice on Title, and a copy of the Notice on Title 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: • 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. • 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. • The total area of the waterfront deck or patio along the shoreline shall not exceed 400 square feet. • The deck is set back 5 feet from the OHWM. • The deck is no more than 2 feet above grade and is not covered All property owners who obtain approval for a waterfront deck in exchange for removing a bulkhead and retaining or planting native vegetation must prepare, and agree to adhere to, a shoreline vegetation Page 90 Kent Shoreline Master Program management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Shoreline Administrator that: • Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan • Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees,shrubs and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions, • Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality,and • Includes a monitoring and maintenance program. This plan shall be added to a Notice on Title, and a copy of the Notice on Title provided to the Shoreline Administrator. Lots with no bulkhead or if bulkhead is removed Deck can cover 25%of frontage OHWM if native vegetation covers the rest of the 75%of frontage Deck does not exceed 400 ftz m l j, ------legetated area must equal 3 au l times the area of the deck or patio V, Deck must be set back 5 from OHWM Figure 5. Waterfront deck bonus for lots with no bulkhead or if bulkhead is removed. 3. For new development on previously undeveloped lots, any existing native vegetation shall be retained along the shoreline to 20 feet from the OHWM. If little or no native vegetation exists on the previously undeveloped lot, native 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: • Requires the preparation of a revegetation plan • Requires the native vegetation to consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover and be designed to improve habitat functions, • Includes appropriate limitations on the use of fertilizer,herbicides and pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality, and • Includes a monitoring and maintenance program. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 91 This plan shall be added to a Notice on Title, and a copy of the Notice on Title shall be provided to the Shoreline Administrator. Property owners can take advantage of the incentives described in 2.c above for any vegetation that is provided in excess of the minimum required 20 feet of native vegetation. New development on previously undeveloped lots On previously undeveloped lots,retain native vegetation Pathwayfor access to water and some OHWM 20'from the OHWM over 75% clearing for view maintenance allowed of the area over 25%of required`vegetated'area Deck length: 5 m m —Average of the setbacks of existing adjacent g 1 - - - - dwelling units with a minimum setback of 75' Decks, lawn,and landscaping allowed between native vegetation and house Figure 6. Standards for new development on previously undeveloped lots. a. Maximum building footprint area: See KCC Title 15.04.170. b. Height: See KCC Title 15.04.170. 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 the fence must be open. Chain link fences are not permitted within 75 feet of the OHWM. Page 92 Kent Shoreline Master Program k Park Fence adjacent to park may be At gra _ up to 6'high patio r �Fence.4' Residential _ high maximum �t..ti property Figure 7. Fence standards for residential development on lakes. b. Garages and pavements for motorized vehicles (drives and parking areas) shall be set back at least 75 feet from the OHWM. 5. Accessory uses and appurtenant structures not addressed in the regulations above shall be subject to the same conditions as primary residences. 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 master program, 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 master program. 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. 8. See the "Vegetation Conservation" section for regulations related to clearing, grading, and conservation of vegetation. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 93 Residential Properties within Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers and Streams 9. 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 Proposed Regulation: Standard Minimum Building Setback Green River 140 feet' Big Soos Creek 200 feet2 Springbrook Creek NA' Jenkins Creek NA' Standard Minimum Deck Setback 120 feet Standard Maximum Height See Kent Zoning Code ' This default setback is established on the Green River to allow for levee reconstruction and accompanying shoreline restoration. Buildings existing prior to the adoption of this master program 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 master program 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(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.l.c.7) ii. Buildings on Big Soos Creek: Set back all covered(enclosed) structures a minimum of two hundred(200)feet inland from the ordinary high water mark. 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 master program are met and impacts are mitigated. iii. Patios and decks: Uncovered patios or decks no higher than 2 feet above grade may extend up to within 120 feet of the OHWM. b. Maximum building footprint area: See KCC Title 15.04.170. c. Maximum amount of impervious surface: See KCC Title 15.04.170. d. Height: See KCC Title 15.04.170. Page 94 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 stream buffers shall have a wildlife-passable fence installed at the edge of the buffer. 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 for large parcels 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 master program, 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 master program. 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 regulations of c.3. above. (See also Vegetation Conservation standards section in Chapter 3 Section 11). 15. See the "Vegetation Conservation" section in Chapter 3 for regulations related to clearing, grading, and conservation of vegetation. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 95 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 master program. 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 master program. 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: • Significant short-and long-term risks to the shoreline ecology from the development are eliminated. • Long-term opportunities to increase the natural ecological functions and processes are not diminished. If physically feasible, the mitigation/restoration shall be in place and functioning prior to project impacts. The mitigation/restoration shall include a monitoring and adaptive management program that describes monitoring and enahancement measures to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time. Page 96 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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/Maintainance 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 master program. 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, when all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and the transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with this program, such fill may be permitted as a Conditional Use. 11. Development of new and expanded transportation facilities shall not diminish but may modify public access to the shoreline. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 97 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 until established by the agency or developer constructing or maintaining the road. 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. The City's Shoreline Administrator may make an exception to this regulation through the variance process if no other option is feasible; 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. Page 98 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. 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 or significant adverse 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 99 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 corridors 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. 6. Utility development shall, through coordination with local government agencies, provide for compatible, multiple uses of sites and rights-of-way. Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems and other forms of recreation and transportation,providing such uses will not unduly interfere with utility operations, endanger public health and safety or create a significant liability for the owner. 7. New solid waste disposal sites and facilities are prohibited. Existing solid waste disposal and transfer facilities in shoreline jurisdiction shall not be added to or substantially reconstructed. 8. New electricity, communications and fuel lines shall be located underground, except where the presence of bedrock or other obstructions make such placement infeasible or if it is demonstrated that above-ground lines would have a lesser impact. Existing above ground lines shall be moved underground during normal replacement processes. 9. Transmission and distribution facilities shall cross areas of shoreline jurisdiction by the shortest, most direct route feasible,unless such route would cause significant environmental damage. 10. Utility developments shall be located and designated so as to avoid or minimize the use of any structural or artificial shoreline stabilization or flood protection works. 11. Utility production and processing facilities shall be located outside shoreline jurisdiction unless no other feasible option exists. Where major facilities must be placed in a shoreline area, the location and design shall be chosen so as not to destroy or obstruct scenic views, and shall avoid significant ecological impacts. 12. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, unless no other feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted by Page 100 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 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 shallbe 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. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Use Provisions Page 101 CHAPTER 6 Definitions Accessory use. Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or development. Act. The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW). Adjacent lands. Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline jurisdiction). Administrator. The City of Kent Planning Services Manager 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.) Aquatic. Pertaining to those areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Aquaculture. The cultivation of fish, shellfish, and/or 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. 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. Page 102 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 area. A parcel or strip of land that is designed and designated to permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic or wetland site from upland impacts,to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. Building height. See definition in KCC 15.02. 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#10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). City. The City of Kent Washington. Clearing. The destruction or removal of vegetation ground cover, shrubs and trees including,but not limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 103 Compensatory Mitigation. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance Number 3805 under 11.06.180. 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 is not classified within the applicable master program. Covered moorage. Boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a roof to protect the vessel. Department of Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology. Development. A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of the state subject to Chapter 90.58 RCW at any stage of water level. (RCW 90.58.030(3)(d).) Development regulations. The controls placed on development or land uses by the City of Kent, including,but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, 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. Director. City of Kent Planning Manager. 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." Document of record. The most current shoreline master program officially approved or adopted by rule by the Department of Ecology for a given local government jurisdiction, including any changes resulting from appeals filed pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 Dredging. Excavation or displacement of the bottom or shoreline of a water body. Ecological functions (or shoreline functions). The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. Ecosystem-wide processes. The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. EIS. Environmental Impact Statement. Page 104 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 master program. 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, these regulations, or the local master program, shall be obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. 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. Enhancements are to be distinguished from resource creation or restoration projects. Erosion. The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces. Exemption. Certain specific developments as listed in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt from the definition of substantial developments 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 Act and the local master program. Conditional use and/or 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. For the purpose of this master program, that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: (a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past, or studies or tests have demonstrated that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results. (b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose. (c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the proj ect's primary intended use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 105 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 act. Floodway. Those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified,under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative groundcover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. Gabions. Structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly together usually by wire mesh so as to form blocks or walls. Sometimes used on heavy erosion areas to retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties. Geologically hazardous areas. Lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of potential risk of landslides, erosion, or seismic or volcanic activity; and areas characterized by geologic and hydrologic conditions that make them vulnerable to contamination of groundwater supplies through infiltration of contaminants to aquifers. Geotechnical report (or geotechnical analysis). A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified engineers or geologists who are knowledgeable about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes. If the project is in a channel migration zone, then the report must be prepared by a professional with specialized experience in fluvial geomorphology in addition to a professional engineer. (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure#10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). Grade. See "base elevation." Page 106 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 master programs. Such standards shall also provide criteria for local governments and the Department of Ecology in developing and amending master programs. 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, currently applicable edition. Letter of exemption. A letter or other official certificate issued by a local government 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, this chapter, and the applicable master program. Littoral. Living on, or occurring on, the shore. Littoral drift. The mud, sand, or gravel material moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore zone by waves and currents. May. Refers to actions that are acceptable, provided they conform to the provisions of this master program and the Act. Mitigation (or mitigation sequencing). The process of avoiding, reducing, or compensating for the environmental impact(s) of a proposal, including the following listed in the order of sequence priority, with (a) of this subsection 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. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 107 (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.. Nonconforming development. A shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the applicable master program 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." Page 108 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 a local government or the Department of Ecology. See RCW 90.58.030(2)(b). Party of record. All persons, agencies, or organizations who have submitted written comments in response to a notice of application, made oral comments in a formal public hearing conducted on the application, or notified local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final decision on a permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such notice by mail. Periodic. Occurring at regular intervals. Person. An individual,partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative,public or municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local governmental unit however designated. (RCW 90.58.030(ld).) Pier element. Sections of a pier including the pier walkway, the pier float,the ell, etc. Provisions. Policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria or designations. Public Access. Public access is the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Refer to 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 (restoration). 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 necessarily imply 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. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 109 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, represent 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, EISs may be required to be prepared and public comments solicited. Setback. A required open space, specified in shoreline master programs, 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. Shoreline administrator. City of Kent Planning Manager. Shoreline areas (and shoreline jurisdiction). The same as "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030. Shoreline environment designations. The categories of shorelines established by local shoreline master programs in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. Shoreline designations in Kent 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 the applicable master program. Also, such areas within a specified local government's authority under the SMA. 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 master program. 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. Page 110 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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, 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. Shorelines. All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except(i) shorelines of state-wide significance; (ii) shorelines on areas of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream areas; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of the state. The total of all "shorelines" and"shorelines of state-wide significance" within the state. Shorelines Hearings Board(SHB). A six member quasi-judicial body, created by the SMA, which hears appeals by any aggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline permit, enforcement penalty and appeals by local government on Department of Ecology approval of 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 shoreline master program, 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. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 111 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, and/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 (SFR). A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. SMA. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended. Storm water. That portion of precipitation that does not normally percolate into the ground or evaporate but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels, or pipes into a defined surface water channel or constructed infiltration facility. Stream. A naturally occurring body of periodic or continuously flowing water where: a)the mean annual flow is greater than twenty cubic feet per second and b) the water is contained within a channel. See also "channel." Structure. That which is built or constructed, or an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, and includes posts for fences and signs,but does not include mounds of earth or debris. Subdivision. The division or redivision of land, including short subdivision for the purpose of sale, lease or conveyance. Substantial development. Any development which meets the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). See also definition of"development" and "exemption". Substantially degrade. To cause damage or harm to an area's ecological functions. An action is considered to substantially degrade the environment if: Page 112 Kent Shoreline Master Program (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. 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. Utility (Accessory). Utilities are small-scale distribution services connected directly to the uses along the shoreline and are not carrying significant capacity to serve other users that are not located in the shoreline jurisdiction. Variance. A means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this master program and not a means to vary a use of a shoreline. Variance permits must be specifically approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Administrator 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. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 113 WAC. Washington Administrative Code. Water-dependent. A use or a portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water- dependent uses may include fishing,boat launching, swimming, and storm water discharges. Water-enjoyment. A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include,but are not limited to: • Parks with activities enhanced by proximity to the water. • Docks, trails, and other improvements that facilitate public access to shorelines of the state. • Restaurants with water views and public access improvements. • Museums with an orientation to shoreline topics. • Scientific/ecological reserves. • Resorts with uses open to the public and public access to the shoreline; and any combination of those uses listed above. Water-oriented use. A use that is water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment, or a combination of such uses. Water quality. The physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological characteristics. Where used in this chapter,the term "water quantity" refers only to development and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as impervious surfaces and storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this master program, 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. Page 114 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 Ordinance Number 3805 under 11.06.530. Wetland Category. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance Number 3805 under 11.06.533. Wetland Delineation. Identification of a wetland boundary pursuant to the Wetland Delineation Manual as defined and described in the City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance Number 3805 under 11.06.230 and 11.06.590. Wetlands Rating System. Defined in the City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance Number 3805 under 11.06.580. Zoning. The system of land use and development regulations and related provisions of the Kent City Code. In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030, as amended, and implementing rules shall also apply as used herein. Chapter 6—Definitions Page 115 Page 116 Kent Shoreline Master Program This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 7 Administrative Provisions Note: Where inconsistencies or conflicts with other sections of the Kent City Code occur, this section shall apply. A. Purpose There is hereby established an administrative system designed to assign responsibilities for implementation of Kent's Shoreline Master Program 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, RCW Chapter 90.58., and to the policies and regulations of this 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 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 the Shoreline Master Program, 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. Shoreline conditional use permits and variances are classified as Process III applications and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 12.01 KCC. Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 117 c. Public notice. A notice of application shall be issued for all shoreline permit applications as provided for in Chapter 12.01 KCC, 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 or variance permits based upon: (1)the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; and(2) the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 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)the Kent Shoreline Master Program; (2) the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act(Ch. 90.58 RCW) and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; (3)written and oral comments from interested persons; (4)the comments and findings of the Administrator; and (5) Chapter 2.32 KCC. 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 local 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 local government and the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of submittal by local government. g. 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 differs from date of filing for a conditional use permit or variance. 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 is based on conditions, such conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior to commencement of a nonstructural activity. Page 118 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. Appeals a. Shoreline Hearings Board. Any decision made by the Administrator on a substantial development permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a conditional use or variance permit shall be final unless an appeal is made. Persons aggrieved by the grant, denial,rescission or modification of a permit may file a request for review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process established by RCW 90.5 8.180 or as subsequently amended, and with the regulations of the Shoreline Hearings Board contained in Ch. 46 1-08 WAC or as subsequently amended. The request for review must be filed with the Hearings Board within twenty-one (2 1) days of the date of filing of the local permit decision with the Department of Ecology. 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 Kent's Shoreline Master Program 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 Kent's Shoreline Master Program. Uses which are specifically prohibited by Kent's Shoreline Master Program may not be authorized pursuant to either WAC WAC 173-27-160. b. Process and Application. Shoreline conditional use permits are a Process III application per Chapter 12.01 KCC. c. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are (1) designated as such elsewhere in Kent's Shoreline Master Program or(2) consistent with requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in this master program per WAC 173-27-160(3). 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 RCW 90.58 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 2. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria Shoreline conditional use permits may be granted,provided the applicant can satisfy the criteria for granting conditional use permits as set forth in WAC 173-27-160 or as subsequently amended. Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 119 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 Kent's Shoreline Master Program and where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of Kent's Shoreline Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Variances from the use regulations of Kent's Shoreline Master Program are prohibited. b. Application. Shoreline variances are classified as Process III applications per Chapter 12.01 KCC. 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 also WAC 173-27-100) 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 shoreline master program. "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 the shoreline master program. d. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed. e. No additional significant adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision. Page 120 Kent Shoreline Master Program f. The revised permit shall not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master program except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof. If the revision, or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions, will violate the criteria specified above,the City shall require the applicant to apply for a new substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit, as appropriate, in the manner provided for herein. E. Nonconforming Uses Nonconforming development shall be defined and regulated according to the provisions of WAC 173-27-080; excepting that if a nonconforming development is damaged to the extent of one hundred percent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the development was damaged. In order for this replacement to occur, application must be made for permits within six months of the date the damage occurred, and all restoration must be completed within two years of permit issuance. F. Documentation of Project Review Actions and Changing Conditions in Shoreline Areas The City will keep on file documentation of all project review actions, including applicant submissions and records of decisions, relating to shoreline management provisions in this SMP and the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. G. Amendments to This Master Program If the City or Ecology determines it necessary, the City will review shoreline conditions and update this SMP within seven years of its adoption. H. Severability If any provisions of Kent's Master Program, or its application to any person or legal entity or parcel of land or circumstances, is held invalid,the remainder of Kent's Master Program, or the application of the provisions to other persons or legal entities or parcels of land or circumstances, shall not be affected. Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 121 I . Enforcement (See KCC 1.04 for additional information on the City's enforcement regulations.) 1 . Violations a. It is a violation of the Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 of Kent without first obtaining the permits or authorizations required for the use by this Chapter. b. It is a violation of this Chapter for any person to use, construct, locate, or demolish any structure, land or property within shorelines of the City of Kent in any manner that is not permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter,provided that the terms or conditions are explicitly stated on the permit or the approved plans. c. It is a violation of this Chapter to remove or deface any sign, notice, compliant or order required by or posted in accordance with this Chapter or Chapter 11.03 of Kent City Code. d. It is a violation of this Chapter 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 Chapter for anyone to fail to comply with the requirements of this Chapter. 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 the Shoreline Master Program or this Chapter. c. The Shoreline Master Program 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 the Shoreline Master Program 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 Program. Page 122 Kent Shoreline Master Program e. No provision of or term used in the Program is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees which would subject them to damages in a civil action. 3. Investigation and Notice of Violation a. The Administrator or hisher representative shall investigate any structure, premises or use which the Administrator reasonably believes does not comply with the standards and requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. b. If after investigation the Administrator determines that the Program's standards or requirements have been violated, the Administrator shall follow the enforcement provisions of Chapter 1.04 Kent City Code. Chapter 7 - Administrative Provisions Page 123 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 Shoreline Restoration Plan A. Introduction A jurisdiction's Shoreline Master Program applies to activities in the jurisdiction's shoreline area. Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values of the shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the proponent of that activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally, degraded? Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines) says: "master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards." However, degraded shorelines are not just a result of pre-Shoreline Master Program activities,but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines also require that"[1]ocal master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline." While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the Shoreline Master Program should clearly state that those actions are not exempt from compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the local Shoreline Master Program. Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program's jurisdiction(e.g., outside of city limits, outside of the shoreline area within the city), assembly of out-of-jurisdiction actions, programs and policies can be essential for understanding how the City fits into the larger watershed context. The latter is critical when establishing realistic goals and objectives for dynamic and highly inter-connected environments. 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 hllp://www.ecy.wa.lzov/programs/sea/sma/auidelines/index.html for more background. Page 124 Kent Shoreline Master Program As directed by the Guidelines, the following discussions provide a summary of baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration goals and objectives, and discusses existing or potential programs and projects that positively impact the shoreline environment. Finally, anticipated scheduling, funding, and monitoring of these various comprehensive restoration elements are provided. In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master Program(with mitigation of project-related impacts) in combination with this Restoration Plan (for restoration of lost ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project) should result in a net improvement in the City of Kent's shoreline environment in the long term. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Guidelines, this Restoration Plan is also intended to support the City's or other non-governmental organizations' applications for grant funding, and to provide the interested public with contact information for the various entities working within the City to enhance the environment. B. Shoreline Inventory Summary 1 . Introduction The City conducted a comprehensive inventory of its shoreline jurisdiction in 2008. The purpose of the shoreline inventory was to facilitate the City of Kent's compliance with the State of Washington's Shoreline Management Act(SMA) and updated Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and biological conditions in the shoreline area within City limits, including recommendations for restoration of ecological functions where they are degraded. The full Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report is summarized below. 2. Shoreline Boundary As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of the state plus their associated"shorelands." Shorelands are defined as: "those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter...Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-hundred-year-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;" Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 125 In addition, rivers with a mean annual cfs of 1,000 or more are considered shorelines of statewide significance. Shorelands in the City of Kent include only areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of shoreline jurisdiction waters and any associated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction. Waters identified within jurisdiction include the Green River, Green River Natural Resources Area(GRNRA), Lake Meridian, Jenkins Creek, Big Soos Creek, Springbrook Creek and the north half of Lake Fenwick. Panther Lake, the south half of Lake Fenwick, and portions of the Green River at the south end of the City, which are all located outside the City limits in the City's Potential Annexation Area(PAA), are also identified. 3. Inventory 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 Page 126 Kent Shoreline Master Program gaps in the open space connections to the river, the majority of the corridor is well-served by public access opportunities. The Green River Trail is a substantial element of public recreation and open space, and runs along 10 miles of the river within shoreline jurisdiction. Parks located along the trail provide parking and public access for trail users. The parks along the corridor include: Briscoe Park, Three Friends Fishing Hole, Valley Floor Community Park, Anderson Park, Green River Natural Resources Area, Van Doren's Landing Park, BMX Park, Russell Woods Park, Cottonwood Grove, Riverbend Golf Complex, Old Fishing Hole, Riverview Park, Foster Park and North Green River Park. There are also a number of other public access areas within shoreline jurisdiction. These include Lake Meridian Park, Lake Fenwick, Green River Natural Resources Area(GRNRA) and Panther Lake. Shoreline areas along Springbrook, Big Soos, and Jenkins Creeks have no public access. • Lake Meridian Park is a 16-acre park located on the southeast tip of a primarily residential lake. The park provides a boat launch, swimming and fishing areas. Future public access along the lake is limited due to the residential build-out of shoreline. • Lake Fenwick Park, located on the northern half of the lake, is 140 acres and provides a boat launch, swimming,picnic areas, fishing, trails and a disc golf course. • The GRNRA is a 304-acre wildlife refuge park that serves both as a stormwater detention and enhanced wetland facility. The park provides a trail system, viewing towers, and bike paths. • Panther Lake, located in King County and within the City's PAA, has one public boat launch located on the southwestern shoreline. However, the lake is almost completely covered by water lilies which severely limit recreational opportunities. • Big Soos Creek does not have any public access within the shoreline area. However, upstream of the 20 cfs cutoff point the Gary Grant Soos Creek Park, owned by King County, surrounds the majority of the creek. This 500-acre park provides access to the 7-mile Soos Creek Trail, and also provides picnic areas. • Springbrook Creek does not have public access within the shoreline area other than a viewing opportunity from SW 43rd Street. Upstream from the 20 cfs cutoff point is the 5-acre Springbrook Greenbelt. • Jenkins Creek public access is strictly prohibited, as this area is part of the City's protected watershed, Armstrong Springs. 3. Shoreline Modifications: The Green River shoreline is one of the most heavily modified river systems in the Puget Sound region. As early as the 1850s, early settlers altered habitats in the lower river valley. A series of levees, diversion dams, and bank hardening activities permanently altered and diverted water from historic flow patterns. Through the City of Kent, over 80 Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 127 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 43`d 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. Page 128 Kent Shoreline Master Program The full shoreline inventory includes a more in-depth of discussion of the above topics, as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater utilities, impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others. b. Biological Resources and Critical Areas With the exception of Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake and short stretches of Big Soos and Jenkins Creeks, the shoreline area itself within the City of Kent is generally deficient in high-quality biological resources and critical areas, primarily because of the extensive residential and commercial development and their associated shoreline modifications. The highest-functioning shoreline area is the Jenkins Creek segment,which has a natural shoreline and is protected for the City of Kent's watershed. Landslide hazard areas are located along the East and West Hill areas, specifically along short stretches of the Green River, along the northwest end of Lake Meridian, and entirely around Lake Fenwick. Virtually the entire valley floor is a seismic hazard area. Wetlands mapped within shoreline jurisdiction include large wetland areas and scattered small patches along the Green River corridor, many of which are located within developed industrial and manufacturing areas. Wetland areas include the following: • Over 70 acres of wetland along Big Soos Creek • Small wetlands located around the Lake Meridian fringe and along the south end • The western shoreline of Lake Fenwick • Wetlands of the GRNRA • Springbrook Greenbelt • Panther Lake and surrounding fringe areas Important non-shoreline streams in the City include Mill Creek and Garrison Creek, both tributaries to the Green River, and a second Mill Creek that is tributary to Springbrook Creek. These streams are used by salmon,but have been impacted extensively by basin development, resulting in increased peak flows, unstable and eroding banks, loss of riparian vegetation, and fish and debris passage barriers. These changes have altered their contributions of sediment, organic debris, and invertebrates into the Green River. These systems continue to be targeted for restoration by one or more local or regional restoration groups. WDFW mapping of Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2007) also indicates the presence of other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas within and adjacent to the shoreline area. These include pileated woodpecker breeding areas, historic and current bald eagle nest locations,bull trout, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon,pink salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, wetlands, urban natural open space, and riparian zones. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 129 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 City of Kent's Final Shoreline Analysis Report(The Watershed Company 2008)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 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 Page 130 Kent Shoreline Master Program with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon. 1 . System-wide restoration objectives • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Seek federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities for various restoration actions and programs independently or with other WRIA 9 jurisdictions and stakeholders. • 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. • 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. • Where feasible, protect, enhance, and restore riparian areas surrounding wetlands where functions have been lost or compromised. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 131 2. Green River restoration objectives • 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. • 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). • 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. • Improve the health of the Green River by reestablishing and protecting side channel habitat. • Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams. 3. Lakeshore restoration objectives • Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in-water structures through minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials. • Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce populations of non-native aquatic vegetation. • 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). Page 132 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 Program Kent Implementation WW-# 1 Conduct Shoreline Stewardship Ongoing. The City has recently discussed Workshops and Outreach soft shoreline stabilization and shoreline planting with local residents around Lake Meridian during a community meeting and city-wide open houses related to the shoreline master program update. 2 Increase/Expand Water Conservation The City provides rebates for water-efficient Incentive Programs washing machines and toilets. Water conservation education includes: a water festival targeting 4th and 5th grade students, ad campaigns, pamphlets, free aerators and shower timers. Improvements to the City's website for water conservation are planned. 3 Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care Homeowners have been the City's initial (NYC) Programs for Landscapers target efforts - no progress to date on landscapers. 4 Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care The City currently targets two neighborhoods/ Program for Single Family year(-2,000 -4,000 homeowners)for a series Homeowners of three, 2-hour workshops on NYC. Over 400 households attended workshops in 2008. 5 Promote the Planting of Native Trees City sponsoring "2009 Trees in 2009" native Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 133 Program Program Kent Implementation W W-# 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 The City encourages the use of car-wash kits Practices (inserts in storm drains with pump to direct effluent to sanitary sewer) during charity carwash events. City staff supplies the car- wash kits and also assist with setup and operation. 7 Increase Public Awareness about What The City is a partner in an annual Water Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like Festival for elementary students which and How to Enjoy Recreating on Them presents a diverse amount of topics related to water resources. Salmon habitat and resource protection topics are included. 8 Increase Involvement of Volunteers in Parks and Public Works actively recruit Habitat Stewardship volunteers for native plant revegetation and maintenance projects and are considering implementing volunteer habitat steward training program. 9 Green/Duwamish Volunteer King County led effort Revegetation Program 10 Support/Expand the Natural King County led effort. The City of Kent works Resource/Basin Steward Programs with the Green River Steward on restoration projects as well as other programs. 11 Expand existing incentives and develop The proposed SMP includes incentives for new incentives for property owners to homeowners to plant along the shoreline of protect salmon habitat. Lake Meridian, which contains kokanee salmon. 12 Improve Enforcement of Existing Land The City updated code enforcement Use and Other Regulations regulations in May 2008 (Ordinance 3881) increasing efficiency and prompt resolution of code violations. 13 Increase Use of Low Impact The City is anticipating updating its Surface Development(LID) and Porous Water Design Manual in 2009 to comply with Concrete DOE's manual. The update will include LID techniques, the extent of which is unknown at this time. Policy 12.b(2) in Chapter 3 of the proposed SMP encourages the use of LID techniques. The City also recently adopted a Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance which offers a density bonus in exchange for using LID techniques, including porous concrete. This will only allow up to two cottage developments, but will likely lead to adoption of a permanent ordinance. While it's only one Page 134 Kent Shoreline Master Program Program Program Kent Implementation W W-# type of development, it's a first step in demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of LID techniques in Kent. 14 Provide Incentives for Developers to The City does not yet provide incentives for Follow Built Green TM Checklist Sections Built Green, but will be pursuing development Benefiting Salmon of a program and policies as budget and staff availability allow in the future. The City offers discounts on its stormwater utility fee for sites that operate infiltration facilities to manage stormwater runoff. 15 Develop a Coordinated Acquisition The City has targeted parcels for acquisition in Program for Natural Areas the Drainage Master Plan and WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan that will improve habitat conditions as well as drainage and flood storage. 16 Develop Salmon Restoration Tools King County administered program Consistent with Agricultural Land Uses 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 I 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 The City is currently completing a feasibility study and Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation -This 30% design for floodplain wetlands and off channel project includes restoration of the lower 0.3 habitat restoration. The original side channel design miles of Mill Creek and adjacent segments of proved to not be feasible. The current feasibility the currently armored riverbank. The project report is analyzing an alternative that will provide off- would include excavation of off-channel habitat channel habitat during high river flows, enhance on the right bank of Mill Creek and reshaping riparian habitat, increase low flow rearing habitat for the stream banks and the mainstem left bank juvenile salmonids, increase wetland areas and of the Green River. This would create a more increase floodplain storage. The 30% design and complex channel and aquatic edge habitat that feasibility report will be completed in February 2009. includes off-channel habitat and large woody debris. Nine acres of off-channel and riparian See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan- habitat would be created adjacent to lower Mill I implementation/SRFB-mill-creek.aspx Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 135 WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status Creek and approximately 1,600 lineal feet of lower Mill Creek would be restored. [Note: this Project#1 on the Restoration Opportunities map project originated from the Green/Duwamish (Appendix C) Ecosystem Restoration Project list Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park- In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed This project is located opposite from the mouth a design evaluation report which provided a of Mill Creek, on the right bank of the Green background on the project history, evaluated River. The project would provide summer alternatives and designs, and provided rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge recommendations on the selected alternatives based through excavation of an off channel area on cost and habitat value. From this report, design combined with placement of large woody plans will be completed in 2009 with construction debris and revegetation. Land is in public anticipated in 2010. ownership and belongs to the City of Kent. [Note: this project is also identified as#12 by See http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan- the Duwamish/Green River Ecosystem implementation/SRFB-riverview-park.aspx Restoration Project] Project#2 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C Hawley Revetment-This project would set This project is part of the City's long-range plan—no back the over-steepened Hawley Revetment progress to date. between river miles 23.5 and 23.3, in order to achieve a more stable slope angle, create a Project#3 on the Restoration Opportunities map low, vegetated bench, and allow the placement (Appendix C) of large woody debris. Land is in public ownership and is immediately downstream of Riverview Park. Lower Mullen Slough (Prentice Nursery King County is leading this effort. Reach) at RM 21.4 (Left Bank) -This project would improve fish passage and create a Project#4 on the Restoration Opportunities map natural habitat for rearing and refuge from high (Appendix C) flows in the Green River mainstem by restoring the mouth of Mullen Slough and connecting it with a nearby pond to create a new flatter- gradient meandering outlet. Actions include improving the channel to eliminate a summer low flow fish passage blockage, clearing the site of unnatural debris and Himalayan blackberry, planting riparian vegetation, placing large woody debris, and constructing dendritic, branched channels for improved water circulation and habitat diversity. Mullen Slough (Slough Mile 1.8-0.3)- Habitat King County is leading this effort. for rearing and providing refuge from high flows in the Green River mainstem would be created Project#5 on the Restoration Opportunities map by this project. Restoration along the slough (Appendix C) would include channel meandering, large woody debris placement, and riparian plantings. This project site is upstream from the Prentice Nursery Reach project (previous sub- project) and includes about 90 acres from Highway 516 to the head of the slough. Lower Mill Creek Future Project-The City of This project is part of the City's long-range plan. Kent has proposed an additional setback of the levee near the mouth of Mill Creek and four Project#6 on the Restoration Opportunities map acres of riparian planting. I (Appendix C Page 136 Kent Shoreline Master Program WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status Project LG-9- Rosso Nursery Off-Channel The City of Kent received a Salmon Recovery Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration Funding Board grant to acquire the LG-9 site, but has Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank): This since transferred those allocated funds to the Lower project would rehabilitate habitat at the Rosso Green River Property Acquisition (described below). Nursery site between river miles 20.8 and 20.0 by constructing an outlet at RM 20.1. Actions would Project#7 on the Restoration Opportunities map include removing fill, excavating off-channel flood (Appendix C) refugium for juvenile rearing habitat, and planting native wetland and riparian vegetation. Lower Green River Property Acquisition: The Two of the three parcels were purchased in 2008. City of Kent transferred funds allocated to purchase The third will be purchased in 2009. Additional grant of the LG-9 site to purchase of three different funds have been awarded for the next phase which parcels located north of SR 516 on the south side will include a feasibility study and 30% design. The of the Green River. While this project is not project will be called Downey Farmstead Restoration. technically a numbered project identified in the WRIA plan, it is consistent with the objectives of the Project#8 on the Restoration Opportunities map WRIA 9 plan. (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 King County Flood Control District project RM 18 and 17.1 (Right Bank) -Actions include reshaping the bankline between the Project#9 on the Restoration Opportunities map upstream end of the Christian Brothers (Appendix C) Revetment and South 212th Street, widening the channel cross-section, restoring channel complexity and meanders, creating a two stage channel, excavating low benches and alcoves, installing large woody debris, and planting native riparian vegetation. The proposed project is within City of Kent open space, which has a 200-foot buffer with restricted development. Russell Road Upper, Lower and Lowest The City has begun analyzing right-of-way needs for Setback and Restorations: Implement fish the project and is in the process of identifying funding friendly, bio-engineered solutions to levee sources. maintenance problems. Set back the levee to enable habitat rehabilitation, including Projects#10-12 on the Restoration Opportunities map reshaping the bankline, widening the channel (Appendix C) cross-section, restoring the channel complexity and meanders, excavating low benches and installing large woody debris, and planting native vegetation. Project LG-12: - Briscoe Off-Channel Habitat With cooperation from the City of Kent, this project Rehabilitation Between RM 16.1 and 15.8 (Right would involve removing the armoring on the Briscoe Bank) meander shoreline, excavating a flood refugium for juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, installing large woody debris, and planting native riparian vegetation. An existing landlocked levee on the eastern Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 137 WRIA 9 Project Kent Implementation Status boundary of the park would provide continued flood protection. Project LG-13: -Acquisition, Levee Setback, King County Flood Control District project—partially and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and completed. 14.7 (Right Bank): Actions include acquiring additional right of way along the river-ward edge of Project#13 on the Restoration Opportunities map the business park parking lot between River Miles (Appendix C) 15.3 and14.7 (right bank); setting back the 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. 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 from a federal authorization of$113 million under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Two projects related to Meridian Creek and the Lake Meridian outlet were part of the ERP and have already been implemented (see discussion in Section 4.10 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#21 - Lake Meridian Outlet Relocation: Phase I of the project is complete. Phase II will The project goal is to improve instream habitat and construct 2,100 feet of stream channel connecting anadromous fish habitat between Lake Meridian Lake Meridian to Soos Creek. Phase III will and Soos Creek. The project would construct a restore approximately 3 acres of wetlands channel through a forested area. The current outlet associated with the current stream channel. is located adjacent to a two lane road. Phase II and III are anticipated to be complete in 2009. Project#14 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C Page 138 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. King County Flood Control District The King County Flood Control District (District) was established in 2007 and expanded on the functions of the former Green River Flood Control Zone District. The District's main function is to improve flood protection within the County and it has a significant list of proposed capital improvement projects aimed at maintaining and improving that protection. The City of Kent participates in the District through the Advisory and Technical Committees,which provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors,which is the King County Council. The Mayor of the City of Kent has a permanent seat on the Advisory Committee, and staff represent the City on the Technical Committee. In the Green River watershed, many of the proposed projects are located along the banks of the Green and overlap with projects that are listed within the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan as well as the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. These overlapping projects, which are named by their historical levee names in the King County Flood Control District list of Capital Improvement Projects, are located within the areas designated as Mainstem Maintenance Projects in the Salmon Habitat Plan and Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Other District Green River levee projects in Kent proposed to be constructed within the next six years include the Briscoe Levee Setback and the Horseshoe Bend Levee Improvements. These projects, although not included in the programs listed above, can provide significant improvement to the shoreline of the Green River. These projects will provide for additional floodplain function and storage as well as salmon and other fish habitat. The projects can also allow for removal of invasive non-native plant species along the riverbanks and replanting with native species. The native species can provide additional shade for the river,which, in the long term, will help to decrease summertime river water temperatures. 4. Comprehensive Plan Policies The City of Kent adopted a major update to its Comprehensive Plan on 4 May 2006 pursuant to Growth Management Act requirements. The updated Comprehensive Plan contains a number of general and specific goals and policies that direct the City to permit and condition development in such a way that the natural environment is preserved and enhanced. Specific relevant goals include (see the Comprehensive Plan for policies associated with each goal): Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability of the community. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 139 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, an site plan review to ensure that local land use management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals. Goal LU-26 Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water supply, and open space. Goal LU-27 Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values, and support the goals and policies of the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Page 140 Kent Shoreline Master Program Goal LU-28 Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent harm, to protect public health and safety, to preserve remaining critical areas, and enhance degraded critical areas in the City. Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas. Goal CD-18 Provide adequate, safe, well-located public open spaces,parks facilities, and access to features of the natural environment. Goal-CD-19 Protect the natural landscapes,which characterize Kent. Goal CD-20 Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in the design and construction of all projects. Goal CD-21 Promote renewable resource use and energy-efficiency in site and architectural design. Goal CD-22 Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural hydrological systems, so that water quantity and quality are protected throughout the development process and occupation of the site. Goal P&OS-1 Designate critical wildlife habitat resources and areas. Goal P&OS-2 Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the features. Techniques suggested by the various policies to protect the natural environment include requiring setbacks from sensitive areas,preserving habitats for sensitive species,preventing adverse alterations to water quality and quantity,promoting low impact development,preserving existing native vegetation, educating the public, and mitigating necessary sensitive area impacts, among others. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 141 5. Critical Areas Regulations The City of Kent critical areas regulations are found in Kent City Code Chapter 11.06. The City adopted a revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in August 2006 consistent with best available science and all other requirements of the GMA. The updated regulations are based on"best available science," and provide a high level of protection to critical areas in the City,particularly for streams and wetlands. The 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 Surface Water Design Manual, Chapter 5 of the Kent Construction Standards, adopts by reference the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. In the future, the City will update its Surface Water Design Manual as part of the NPDES Phase II permit requirement. Both Ecology's 2005 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 Page 142 Kent Shoreline Master Program regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention and maintenance for municipal operations. 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, an site plan review to ensure that local land use Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 143 management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals. Pol 25.2 Provide to property owners and prospective property owners general information concerning natural resources, critical areas, and associated regulations. Ensure developers provide site-specific environmental information to identify possible on- and off-site constraints and special development procedures. 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: 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 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 enable volunteers to donate time and energy to improving the park system. Page 144 Kent Shoreline Master Program Contact Information: Jeff Watling, Director of Parks & Recreation, Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services,jwatling&ci.kent.wa.us a. Adopt-A-Park The City's Adopt-A-Park program, developed in the mid-1980s, is a program that encourages environmental stewardship and maintenance of the City's park, trails and open space system through a community partnership program of volunteer groups, local businesses, individuals and Parks staff. Projects developed through the Adopt-A-Park program include park beautification efforts, litter control, trail development and maintenance and other special City-initiated projects. These efforts ensure that the City's parks, trails and open spaces remain safe and enjoyable for all Kent residents and park users. b. Releaf Releaf is a community volunteer event sponsored by Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services that focuses on the reforestation and re-vegetation of parks, open spaces and wildlife habitat throughout the City. Releaf 2008 was located at Clark Lake Park, in which the goal was to enhance the buffer areas around the lake through re-vegetation, which in-turn will provide for riparian habitat enhancement for salmon, as well as the removal of invasive species around the lake. The City's past Releaf efforts have been held along the Green River, as well as Lake Fenwick. c. Eagle Scouts Eagle Scouts, the highest advancement rank in Scouting, have provided many services to the City's parks system. To date, over 130 projects have been completed within the City by Eagle Scouts. The Parks, Recreation& Community Services Department maintains a list of project ideas that Eagle Scout candidates may chose from. Potential projects include the installation of park benches, fencing,boardwalks, trail improvements, and landscaping improvements. Some specific projects along waterbodies include along Clark Lake Park(invasive plant removal) and Lake Fenwick(fencing, gravel installation, kiosk for environmental signs). d. Make A Difference Day Make A Difference Day, held on the fourth Saturday in October every year, is a national event of volunteerism in which community volunteers of all ages work on projects within their community. The City of Kent has participated in the program for 13 years and each year the project varies. Projects may include planting trees and shrubs, resurfacing trails and playgrounds, installing playground equipment, or enhancing riparian areas. In 2008, the event was held at Clark Lake Park. e. Youth Tree Education Program The City's Youth Tree Education Program, developed in 2000, involves the City's youth and Parks and Public Works staff in planting trees throughout the Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 145 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 Festival, held annually in March at a local community college campus, in which approximately 1,600-1,800 4ch to 6ch 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 County and typically involves presenters from several local agencies. Special presenters have included the Seattle Aquarium, local weathermen,NASA officials, and the Governor. Contact Information: City of Kent Public Works Engineering, (253) 856-5500 11 .Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 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 Page 146 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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.streanikeeper.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#15 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix Q. Restoration along the lower 3,100 LF enhanced a minimum of 30'-width of stream-bank and included 28 multi-trunked woody debris structures installed with anchors along both sides of the stream. Over 11,000 shrubs and trees were planted within these areas. Additional restoration upstream of S. 1881h 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#16 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix Q. c. Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project This project involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek(Project#14 on Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 147 the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix C)). The current outlet creek flows through a series of wetland and detention basins within a highly developed commercial and residential neighborhood. This realignment, also known as Cow Creek, is funded through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WRIA 9 funding and the City of Kent as part of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program. The project is broken up into three phases. Phase 1, which was completed in 2007, included improvements such as a weir for flow control, a box culvert, a new pedestrian bridge, and enhancement of the existing outlet of Lake Meridian. Phase 2 consists of a 2,500- foot new channel that will meander through open space and existing wetlands on its way to Big Soos Creek. Large woody debris,riparian plantings, spawning gravel and backwater areas will be created to provide habitat for fish and other wildlife. An access road for BPA will also be constructed at the eastern edge of the new channel. Phase 3 includes installation of a flow splitter that will allow water to be diverted to the new channel as well as allow some of the water to continue to the existing wetlands and detention areas to the south. Three acres of wetlands along this channel will be enhanced with native plantings, soil amendments, and addition of woody debris. Phase 2 is fully funded and is expected to begin in 2009. Phase 3, if funded, would begin in 2009-10, with full project completion in 2010. d. Lake Fenwick Grass Carp Introduction In June 2009, the City will introduce triploid grass carp to Lake Fenwick to control a Brazilian elodea infestation(Project#17 on the Restoration Opportunities map (Appendix Q. In all, approximately 77 percent of the surveyed shallow areas were affected by this invasive species. Brazilian elodea can be so dense that fish movement is limited; forage areas are reduced; and predators and prey have reduced visibility, hampering foraging and escape from predators. Dense stands of elodea can also uptake dissolved oxygen, reducing dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish (Tetra Tech 2002). The effectiveness of the grass carp at controlling elodea, a preferred food plan, will be monitored by the City. A weed rake will be used to sample along predetermined aquatic transects with the results compared to 2001 diver surveys along these same transects. 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. Page 148 Kent Shoreline Master Program Table 13. WRIA-wide Programs Recommended to Support Habitat, and Status of Their Implementation in Kent Map# Name ERP WRIA 9 KCFCD Comments Plan 1 Lower Mill Creek Restoration LG-7 2 Riverview Park P-17 LG-7 3 Hawley Road Levee LG-7 Lower Mullen Slough King County Taking 4 (Prentice Nursery) P-11 LG-7 the Lead per WRIA 9 Ian 5 Mullen Slough P-12 LG-7 King County Taking the Lead 6 Lower Mill Creek Future LG-7 Project 7 Rosso Nurse LG-9 8 Lower Green River objectives Acquisition 9 Boeing Levee Setback LG-10 X 10 Russell Road Upper Setback LG-10 X and Restoration 11 Russell Road Lower Setback LG-10 X and Restoration Russell Road Lowest 12 Setback and Restoration LG-10 X 13 Acquisition, Levee Setback LG-13 X and Rehabilitation 14 Lake Meridian Outlet P-21 Recent Kent Project Relocation 15 S rin brook Creek Recent Kent Project 16 Green River Natural Recent Kent Project Resource Area 17 Lake Fenwick Grass Carp To be completed in June 2009 Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 149 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. 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. Page 150 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. ting Rge PROPOSED ♦� EXIST' SETBACK LEVEE . TO BE. — — reduction N T3 ;� +SHWA BENCH (vegetation on bench not shown) CHANNEL'. BED" Figure 8. Potential levee cross-section. Image modified by The Watershed Company Implementation of levee upgrades for the entire stretch of the Green River in the City is likely to be implemented by one or more entities, either led by or collaborating with the City, including King County and the Corps. A key barrier to rapid implementation is funding, which will need to be supplied by the City, the Corps, King County, and possibly other state or federal funding sources. A second impediment is space. The City of Kent contains a mix of land uses along the river, including agricultural, industrial, residential, and commercial. Many of these are set back more than 200 feet from the river's ordinary high water mark, Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 151 but others are as close as 60 feet. The following figure is a potential cross-section for the City of Kent levee that requires a minimum of 140 feet to implement. The cross-section includes space for a"floodplain bench," sloped levee face, 16-foot- wide levee top to accommodate the Green River Trail, and the sloped upland face of the levee. Existing levee lF , and trail New planting - rdinary High Water Mark 6' 12' 20' 16' 20' 16' Varies 15' 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 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 Page 152 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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. d. Lake Fenwick Lake Fenwick's shoreline armoring could be modified to support public access while stabilizing the banks using bioengineering techniques. Additionally, the Brazilian elodea problem should be addressed through the use of grass carp, which will be introduced in June 2009 (see Chapter 8 Section D.12.d above). This should significantly reduce, or eliminate, the noxious weed in the lake. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 153 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. 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 Page 154 Kent Shoreline Master Program • 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 Green TM Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon • Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas Specific details about these public education, outreach and stewardship programs may be found at ftp:Hdnr.metrokc.gov/dnr/library/2005/kcrl876/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 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. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 155 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 Schedule Funding Source or Commitment Project Program The City is an active member of the WRIA 9 Forum. 4.1 WRIA 9 Participation Ongoing Membership at this time entails a commitment of staff time. The City of Kent participates in the Green-Duwamish 4.2 ERP Implementation Ongoing ERP Committee to identify projects to be programmed each year. 4.3 King County Flood Ongoing City of Kent participates in the District through the Control District Advisory and Technical Committees The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time 4.4 Comprehensive Plan Revised in in the course of project and program reviews to Policies May 2006 determine consistency and compliance with the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The next Comprehensive Plan update will occur in 2012. The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time 4.5 Critical Areas Revised in in the course of project and program reviews to Regulations August 2006 determine consistency and compliance with their recently updated Critical Areas Regulations. Currently, staff time and materials are the only City resource commitments. The City currently follows its 2002 Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which is an addendum to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. In the future, the City will update its Surface Water Design Manual as part of the NPDES 4.6 Stormwater Planning Ongoing Phase II permit requirement. The City is also involved in the update of their Drainage Master Plan, which goals includes flood reduction, water quality improvements and aquatic habitat improvements. Work is ongoing as part of a five-year compliance plan for mandatory activities prescribed by the NPDES phase II municipal stormwater permit. Currently, staff time and materials are provided in developing public education and outreach efforts, which are highlighted in Comprehensive Plan policy 4.7 Public Education Ongoing 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 Page 156 Kent Shoreline Master Program Restoration Schedule Funding Source or Commitment Project/Program 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 Currently, staff time, materials and an unspecified Ongoing 4.10 Public Works amount of funding support these programs. Engineering Programs The City does not have authority over or a formal relationship with this organization. This organization is As funds and either a source of grant funds for restoration projects, 4.11 Adopt-A-Stream opportunity is an advocate for specific restoration projects, allow independently obtains grants for restoration projects, or is a partner in implementing restoration or education projects. 5.1 Unfunded WRIA 9 or As funds and The City Council passed a resolution in 2005 ERP Projects opportunity expressing its approval and support for the Salmon allow Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King (Steering Committee 2005). Projects will be funded by the City, partnering agencies and non-profit organizations, and grants as projects and funding opportunities arise. The City continues to identify funds for the implementation of the WRIA 9 and ERP pro ects in the City of Kent 5.2 Recommended Projects As funds and Projects identified in this section would likely be opportunity implemented either when grant funds are obtained, allow when partnerships are formed between the City and other agencies or non-profit groups, or as may be required by the critical areas regulations and the Shoreline Master Program during project-level reviews by the City. 5.3 Public Education/ As funds and On-going and future education efforts should be Outreach opportunity coordinated with the City and partnering agencies, allow including funding sources (grant funding, monetary donations, volunteer hours) City planning staff will track all land use and development activity, including exemptions, 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 Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 157 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 Kent's shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific constraints. Briefly restated,the City's environmental protection and restoration goals include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2)protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3) contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA), they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals and constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different types of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic actions, like 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 12), 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 Page 158 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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] • 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 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 Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 159 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 Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005) 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 TM 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 ordinances and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools. 4. Priority 4 — Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries Expanding available fish habitat and rearing opportunities for anadromous fish is a high priority for the City of Kent. One of the key mechanisms is to improve fish passage by reconnecting mainstem river habitat to local tributaries. The City is currently involved with improving fish habitat within the outlet from Lake Meridian(Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project). This project involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian, otherwise known as Cow Creek, through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek. This project currently is funded through Phase 2 of 3, with Phase 2 expected to begin in 2009. Recommended projects from the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005) 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 of Kent. While this is especially important for areas directly affected by residential development(i.e. Page 160 Kent Shoreline Master Program 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 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 Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005). • Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas The Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005) also includes the following specific acquisition project. • Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank) 7. Priority 7 — Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage Similar to Priority 3 (listed above in Chapter 8 Section G.3) to improve water quality and reduce sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King (Steering Committee 2005). All of the specific projects listed in Table 11 (LG# 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13) include some form of protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide programmatic actions also described in the Salmon 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 Salmon Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many areas where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in impervious surfaces are warranted. Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 161 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 above (Section G.1). It is also recognized that reduction in shoreline armoring along lakes is also important (i.e. Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick). While no specific lake project sites have been identified under this restoration priority, emphasis should be given to future project proposals that involve or have the potential to restore shoreline areas to more natural conditions. The City should explore ways in which to team with local property owners, whether through financial assistance, permit expedition, or guidance,to restore multiple contiguous lots. 9. Priority 9 — Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures Reduction of in- and over-water cover by piers, docks, and other boat-related structures is one mechanism to improve shoreline ecological functions. While not necessarily prevalent along the Green River,pier and docks are extensive along Lake Meridian with nearly 90 percent of all parcels having a pier or dock. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife already regulates the size and materials for in- and over-water structures throughout the State and generally recommends finding ways to reduce both the size and density of these structures. Although no specific project sites to reduce in-water and over-water structures within residential areas are identified here, future project proposals involving reductions in the size and/or quantity of such structures should be emphasized. Such future projects may involve joint-use pier proposals or pier reconstruction and may be provided with an expedited permit process. 10. Priority 10 — Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes While not specifically listed in the Salmon 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. Page 162 Kent Shoreline Master Program 11 . Priority 11 — City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies are listed as being of lower priority in this case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and have recently been updated accordingly. Notably,the City's Critical Areas Ordinance was recently updated(August 2006) consistent with the Best Available Science for critical areas, including those within the shoreline area. The City received its final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit in January 2007 from Ecology. 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. Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making our Watershed Fit for a King(Steering Committee 2005) include three actions focused on regulatory mechanisms to restore ecological functions. • Program WW-11: Expand/Improve incentives Programs • Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations • Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built Greenrm Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon Chapter 8 - Restoration Plan Page 163 H. References City of Kent. 2006 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. City of Kent. 2002. City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson (Eds.). December 2000. "Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island)." Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/Recon.aspx The Watershed Company. 2008. 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. Prepared for City of Kent. WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. August, 2005. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/HabitatPlan.htm. WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 2002. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation. May 2002. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/NTAA.htm Email correspondence. Tom Murdoch, Director, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. June 2, 2008. Email correspondence. Lori Flemm, Superintendent of Parks & Open Space, Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services. November 2008 Personal interview. Beth Tan, P.E., Environmental Engineer III, City of Kent Public Works Environmental Engineering,November 6, 2008 Personal interview. Matt Knox, Environmental Biologist, City of Kent Public Works Environmental Engineering. November 6, 2008 Personal interview. Shawn M. Gilbertson, Environmental Engineer II,NPDES, City of Kent Public Works Engineering,November 6, 2008. Page 164 Kent Shoreline Master Program APPENDIX A: Environment Designation Maps -1"�Z ■■■■ ■n-Ns►L■JIC_��� Li��■ �IJL■JI —�I ILJL■I�Ii■ �L ■J■■ ■1111■Environment Designations Green River (1 of 3) /■■�■■�1Ll 11�■1 , � !' 1�11�_ ��: ����__� . :-1.11 _LII :1111111. ' � i �■i�- �� . _■_ice ■■ II■ � �� ■1. �: ■ ■ ■ 111 ,11�, Shoreline III1► s III. ■ ■- ■� ■ ■11■Ip 111111/11 ■ ■■■ � II■•.�_=�� _ City of Kent I ' ■11■ {• o IIIII 11�i ■ ■.l ,,■ �. ■■�■�� a I'■r:i ■■Illlr� 7 1■ �..� _II _� � 1 Feet 1 1 ■ I II■ _ i_°�I :� ■j ■p V — ��•�i: .44i■I �■ 1�1■ 111111�1 !■. - e I,L__' -- ■■ 1� �' � -11 _, -:■ `�`' ■ % �1111111111111�. LegendKent • e - ■,-���i �� '���i� �� ■ III■■■ ■s I ff] Parcels Kent City Limits I ■ _:•— - �I■ i■� III . � � - I ■ — ■�� .. • ■ D o I ■ _J�_I _s ii � ■ �� - ■:� ■ - 11111■11111■111 [� �"� EnvironmentAdjacent City Limits A MEN EME Designations �i �I� I - �� _�r • ii i111� =i� • 1 � � � �� 1 �I ■■ �■I I��I� �■■ ' cry ■■ �� ,� __:�.�� I , �. �� ■■■ �1: 1 '1■11■�11111�11111■� - • I _ II�■■ ..I i� _ `, ■IIIIIII ■11111■ ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIId Shoreline Residential ■ 1 I I I� .■■■1■ Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity Urban Conservancy -Open Space *Shorelline Management Area not shown in this �■ �,. figure. oil Printed June, 2009 Data Source:City of Kent GIS,King County GIS&WSDOT GIS ' �■ _ _ � � '° I� ■ILA , � .•�11. Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates �� � • � � � III � ' • © �■ — I ' � II'� III• • associated wetlands and those within the 1 11-year floodplain as the �� _ I it ■ • , , I Natural-Wetlands • of • Inventory Mapsidentify all wetlands in the city and the 1 00-year floodplain is identified on the I lip makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent : y,► '1 — . features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all da nage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. Bur R.nt.n • I� -�%�- SeaTac . I s �UNTY _ IME ow 11 r i � � •1 ■_ � ■ nummmn,� vo ,� - ■ II III- � — �33 �p°:�■1111►►,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,, I � � / ■ ■ �=�:Iiiii� Oral � •�. I III _ . 1' �� ■� � � ,1�►i�� I III■■� �._■ � Environment • • ��'=���.■ _ :� , �- �����I��I■ River +� _ __I■Ili i ' ■ I�_ ■ CI .��. o II ■® II �� ill Green River (2 of 3) - Shoreline Master Program - City of Kent N MOVE W FeetL�_ - ■■■■ ■0 650 1,300 —1Legend �. JOE 1 ■j�1:� a Ili _• ■II II •_ E�] Parcels Kent City Limits Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Adjacent City Limits Environment Designations High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy- Low Intensity Urban Conservancy- Open Space Shoreline 11,E li■ 1`i■ ������� � � •'• � � o � I ■ � wwwi■ ` ���■■ ��� ■,.... 1 � , : ■ � �i��l■� III` - -■ - III■ ���i �� �� ��■I� \ � � III - ��� ■ Imo• ..�, . . Management this figure. INA Printed May, 2009 Data Source:City of Kent GIS,King County GIS&WSDOT GIS S 23b 6t--1 ii FEW r : II i ����\■\ III i- � ''11 =�� o "� Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates Des associated Wetlands and those within the 1 00-year floodplain as the oines MINIM Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps ■:Floidentify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the od Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. �� II 1 MA IN Thi map is intended as a• ■■ ■■w ■ - ■■ ■- — ■��1 ■ '� ■ makes no representation fee tures there In.The City . ■■ - 0 WE MM damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may MM ■_f Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all M arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. ME NONNI :: ■11• .IIII.02 ME Y%ii-,��� ■ I ■: " �_�� �_ :::_I �I� ■� ., ■ -�i IIII' is �■■r i.� � IIII m�. . NINE in See Green River 1 of 3 4111 ' � e-� � I _ •• � ,� � \��■■IIII■■■ �I � • I■���■1 � -- '� © � �=:�=11:�!� E:: : -� � � 1 IIII■� �'11� i! :I� ���-�I:1_ i ��■■■■■ ■ c�I�"� =11i �. t �/I__■fl■Cf.�l� ►. \�: ., , i�� il MGre ' • _- . � 11■■■ ■■■■ r • , GIs �i ' � �. 7 _ I Environment Designations 97i • ' ■I� _�_�1 1 \. 1 - ■ _ I Iwo.01 Green River (3 of 3) / Lower Springbrook Creekii - Shoreline Master Program - City of Kent .. . _ ►� r S FBI emmmmc===�Feet Scale:1 11 I' .0. 'Ifu■�1'' � oaa .- II II r�•.., III ;i ���I��f111�� ����-I. ' � •o •1 III � — •1 • � III Legend Parcels .- ■n1. - III•-..�11 . - � -= = 1111 i�: — —���'�� � • 1 � • � III �IF Kent City Limits Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) I�■� �I��►�� � - y °, I�I��Adjacent City Limits oHigh Intensity il Environment Designations Shoreline Residential Urban z • I-- - II 1 �I'� I� ' _ • ■ �' .� Urban Conservancy Open S Low pace �0�1111�111.�1111 _ _-- • 1. ���� Ip� :I` •�1 � II 11 ■--- = ,■ ' 1 II i -!111111■��:: � / ► .- - � III-I lr,■— " Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure. ■��All - Printed February, 2009 Data Source:City of Kent GIs,King County GIs&WSDOT GIs 0 � ����I11 ■ 1� _ Wetlands are not shown on this map. SIMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps :1 �1■ identify - • - •the 100-year •••• •- -•on /// , , 7 �1I • �I Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline • Report.makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which allses or may • II p• 1 This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent 5 1 ■�I ' �IL� �I arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. i 5 ■=�..,,,. �_� � �, ., ■■r � III �i nIS � KING eatac Lem COUNTY �1=1 Federal Way al" � r;-� ® ��;.���� �---- � 6 _ ,/ . ► ��__ � III �i� I o ■ ■ ■ See Green River 2 of 3Lobo■■■1 _ Ifr �■��� 1��\ 111 { SE 262 PPI SE_262_St Environment Designations m '� }•• '� 9G Big Soos Creek / Jenkins Creek wE_263_PI SE263St K9 s� rrr•rrrVY - Shoreline Master Program - a `P City of Kent SE_26_4_P_I-Nl SE-264-St � I w v_ Y w w" 0SE 265 Ct�� cn r;rr m Q Q �� �j�g< Q�SE 265-PI 0 400 800 \ _�� SE 266 St o Feet v KENT �' pj 9G J 0; lJlcd�G' ao. SE Scale: 1"=800' w w/ � O � r'l Jl � s� Q > �Pl �Q SE 268 PI � FESSE267 Le end w S ea0O W.1 2 .9_St�; J t � w Parcels wv L_t -! Kent City Limits ^ 2I 66-P I SE N Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) m SE 270_py Adjacent City Limits f SE_271 St w ,/• t.f.. '' f co cn l �fff �• a ..� Environment Designations _ F-iTI f lfff {.' .�•• _ SE}Kent,Kangle' Rd w /- _ High Intensity I1 w Q f fr Shoreline Residential a' SE273P1w SE27�St S' �JJ ti a !f � Q _ Urban Conservancy- Low Intensity _ J' ,• 2>4p Q .r 'r o ington Urban Conservancy- Open Space I _ r SE_27_5 SA f r *Shoreline Management Area not shown in r Kent Water rr` this figure. E2 ff` Resources Area V. (Armstrong Springs) 8E 27_6_P_I o � � ( ron 9 r QQJ Printed February, 2009 w �! ¢r f' •.••, � 277 St Data Source:City of Kent GIS,King County GIS&WSDOT GIS O p I SE 277 PI Q ,/' Nf r` o•:• f Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates E 2 88 St !' r f r` �p:'•, Q associated wetlands and those within the 100-year flood plain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the $ SE-2 Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. ! +rJ r �' J This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent W f f f SE 279 PI makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map SE 2$0 St, .�� f *,r J features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all ll / M L �2$Q damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may ra j fr k1 f A/ arse from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. Ei28�St r �'•�. y k v ¢ LU 28�L'f 509 515 •`' QQ1 IZ rl eune Tukwil Remo ���� n 99 KING r*o •�. Q SeaTac COUNTY E_282�PI' r 9� �. SE 282 St N SE 282 Ct 'J,+lll r r rr m �'• •/ Ki g f r S Des t r a y 2e3 Moines � . 181 King Cn e Kent _ a ¢ s. e. ® �_ 5,5 5,5 �� u nt O: �6tk 117 'd ti LLl fW16 SE 285 St �� k Federal Auburn M SE-2871St . °p Way ❑ mil' � Pia�oa= .rnxa Mir loom Environment Designations ON IN Lake Meridian 1.■ . ■■ ■ _Shoreline Master Program - City of Kent Feet KENT 800 � 111 111' Parcels Legend *— A ftN IF Kent City Limits Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) MEE 'Elm �QhVA'w1_JJ11 lk J ■� �11 1■� ■err ��� ��� Adjacent ` ■■ \� Environment Designations High Intensity III MEV 11111 .� / 1■ I ■ ■■ a1 ►�� ■■■■■■■■ III/I��� � � 1 Shoreline Residential • • �Urban Conservancy- Low Urban Conservancy- .._ Space Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure. Printed February, 2009 ■■ OL •• Data Source:City of Kent GIs,King County GIs&WSDOT GIs Wetlands are not shown • ■■ -, , associated wetlands • ■■■■identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. This map is intended � ■ / =•■11►��� � �o may., ■ placementmakes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy, ► ■■ � ■ � features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which allses or may arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. ■ -, III■II. C, COUNTYKING SeaTac �� ,► t I■■■., - .... . _ �. ■ ■1111111111►ICI■■ _�� . . ..... ■,�JJ - 5 ® . . 11■ �• '���I■ M�■� '' . l� �►� 7 . ■��'a ��■■■■�� I■ smile �IIIIIIII � � • 11111=► -► � �� 11 ■■ �`��i� III ` ■ ►1���� �� :�i: ' ��IIII 111 p�w� �j■■ I■ ■ I■ �'���■���■ ■■ I III■II �� ��w _L�n IIr►.��■ Ci'� _�`.■■�■` _���� =�— —fin ��1��� 1111mum Environment Designations �- . .. _ ..■1 .111 . Lake Fenwick Olson - Shoreline Master Program - I FAME City of . �����It ■III ��■�■��� ■ ,■ �� MEMOS MEN ! � Legend = ■■■ ■■ = = ■■■■ Irk■■1�� i ��II■■■ ■N a , Parcels Kent City Limits CLY Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) AdjacentEnvironment Designations High IntensityI 11 moll �� i �111111■. = Shoreline Residential �■■NI■ii �� ■■■■ ■111111 .i II�i■■■■■■■ES= ■.■■■■►� urban conservancyIntensity .�■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIII� :IIII�1111�����/ ConservancyUrban Open .. - I����1111111111:��■��� ,I�1111: ■■ ��i ■ :�� ManagementShoreline i� ■■■ ��♦�' III■■ ■■■ �� ■���/�� this figure. • ♦ �. ■ .11111111111� Mill Printed June, 2009 Data Source:City of Kent GIS,King County GIS&WSDOT GIS milli Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates associated wetlands and those within the 1 00-year floodplain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps iden ify all wetlands in the city and the 1 00-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The ulty or Kent PAP makes no epresentation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map [moll features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all damage,loss,o liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. IL Wines Kent Covington � �� ��� ��►� ��►� �IIIIIII�II�II�I ■ 11Ti ■ ,,.. _Way Aulb�rn low �r�r:� MEN ��� - �■, ■IIN ,�' � -- Mini�: •. =, .• .1 ��� ..... �� I� ���11 Environment Designations Panther Lake lk Shoreline - Program City of Kent 1 �� �■�� �� ►� �� •1 1�J■hillllli111�1■ �■ Moor, ■► ■■■ �■ tea■ ■ 1 ■ _Il�il�►1�o _ o _ _ ,— � Ii Feet KENT Legend Parcels IF Kent City Limits Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Adjacent City Limits Environment Designations ■ �� ==11=■ ■ '� -- ■ _ _ '�■ �� ��111111 is■■� ��■ �i = liiiiill��i ■ �■� ■I■ « ■ �■■ ■j _ High Intensity �i■_ .■ ■■■■■ ■ INUrban Conservancy- Low Intensity Urban Conservancy-Open Space 1111111� Shoreline Residential ter.:. �._ � 1 �.. , 11 = _ ■ ■ �-.. Shoreline Management Area not shown in this figure. ■� �� - ■ — — — = ■11111111 1 ■ �■ �. ■r111r�. ■ f- 1111� � 11111■1�■�■■ ■ � ■ �i � PrintedFebruary, ■1■■ Ilon .. .■ ■. ��� ■■ = = !■ I� I�� it I ■� Ise 111 • S ■� • . XuRn Data Source:City of Kent GIs,King County GIs&WSDOT GIs "INFIr associated wetlands and those within the 100-year floodplain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps ■ Wetlands are not shown on this map. SIMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. ■�i %fir ��� , ,, �� ��% ii . i1y1111110makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. E1 , This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which allses or may �����■ � o m r ■ . ■■ ■� . . _ 1• ■� ,i MonsonEll • I ■■: ! ■■ ■: :III% �■■ � ■■■ �J .1 ��� MM � I�,�: : M �► 1• � i ■ ■ ii ■■ a■ ■■■■1`■■Ilrl■■■■■_ MEN 1111 1 . 11■ .1 /�� ■■■ Ir ��1�1�1� � , � � ■I� 1■ ■• : � 1■�111■i�11 � 111111�11■■ ii ���: : : i•� �OUR mine '�■MM� �i1■���� ■� 5 ® ■Y m � , Cmins ■ ■ ■■� ■s■�■� 1` ►��` �■■sue ■ice■� �■ ■ ��► �■ � ■ �■■1►i�rt■■� Auburn �■ ►IM■■■■■MM�n� .1- -�° �r■ d�r•_ rig ■ ����►�_��! � .��.� ii • ■■.■■■� ��I :■ �_■ ��■■ ■� �■11111 os ■ 1���1■�� ■ ■ ram, ■►— ■ ■1� ��1 ■►�■■■■■■ Environment Designations - S208St Green River Natural Resources Area El S. 209 St - Shoreline Master Program - a City of Kent LO N N+ S i 0 400 $OFeet v KENT S-21-2-St > Scale:1"=800' w"�"'"°'°" Q S 2,12_py 213 S,f Legend c7l, N Parcels S2 � 1q St 45 tiC) JQ+� U, S214PIry`�� �` Q f r ! Kent City Limits �s t - Q P <n=U coLO 0 Kent Potential Annexation Area (PAA) ZT, S 215 PI V v N Qi�� t.f s 216 St Adjacent City Limits Ri ervie BI S S 217 st Environment Designations N S2j6pt a _ High Intensity M S22j1t Ftager S 218 St Shoreline Residential 21a Pi co > a _ Urban Conservancy- Low Intensity S2j9 �41 219 St Urban Conservancy-Open Space co a U a h S 220st co cn *Shoreline Management Area not shown in g S22o � a this figure. 5 221 St Pt Green River N C �a Natural o ,� S221 PI N Resources Area n Printed February, 2009 Z Data Source:City of Kent GIS,King County GIS&WSDOT GIS S 222 St Wetlands are not shown on this map. SMP Chapter 2 section B.1 designates associated wetlands and those within the 100-year flood plain as the Natural-Wetlands Environment. The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps S 224 St identify all wetlands in the city and the 100-year floodplain is identified on the Flood Hazard Areas map in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report. S 226 St This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent makes no representation or warranty as to it's accuracy,placement or location of any map features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may rn arse from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. d S 226 1111 S 227 PI 00 509 515 L Rento Buden,� � Tukwil � 8 KING seaTac I �} COUNTY 4 S 228_S_t III e`rn Des 3\ Moines 99 S 231 Wy 9� 18 K t 2 -515 Z L > 231 99 l 161 CoOn St t 51fi w U) g-231.RI� �-52 PI S-D U) Federal Auburn I� 51 �'� > < > N tS� Way 52�� 2S< �a� qt ��rti� o �C� co Q a a A/ N uNy S 23 2 Q\ cS�O�Uj co N cat w ro puma- .—d This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX B Council Resolution No. 1714 Ratifying the WRIA Salmon Habitat Plan Kesoluti ! ["Beginning August 1 , 2004"] CFN= 1038—Public Works Passed— 11/15/05 WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan RESOLUTION NO. / 1 ON of the city A RESOLUTION council of the city of Dent, Washington, ratifying, with conditions, the Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)9 Salmon Habitat Plan. RECLTALS— A. In March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). B. Under ESA Section 4(f), NOAA Fisheries (for Chinook salmon) and USFWS (for Bull Trout) are required to develop and implement recovery plans to address the recovery of the species. C. An essential ingredient for the development and implementation of an effective recovery program is coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, businesses, researchers, non-governmental organizations, landowners,citizens,and other stakeholders as required. D. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound,a regional non-profit organization,has assumed a lead role in the Puget Sound response to develop a recovery plan for submittal to NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS. 1 WRIA 9 Chinook Sabnon Conservation Plan I IIII i E. Shared Strategy intends that its recovery plan will include commitments from participating jurisdictions and stakeholders. F. Local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and I tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 9. G. In WRIA 9, habitat actions to significantly increase Chinook productivity trends are advisable and may be necessary, in conjunction with other recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook to viability in the long term. H. As it balances the complexity of accommodating and encouraging growth as it addresses protection of critical areas, the city values ecosystem health; water quality improvement, flood hazard reduction; open space protection; and maintaining a legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport fishing,quality of life,and cultural heritage. I. The city supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures. J. Seventeen (17) local governments in WRIA 9 jointly funded development of The WRM 9 Steering Committee Proposed Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (the Plan,published August 10, 2005,following public input and review. 2 WRIA 9 Chinook Salneon Conservation Plan K. While the Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort,it focuses on the next 10 years and includes a scientific framework,a start-list of priority actions and comprehensive action lists,an adaptive management approach, and a funding strategy. L. The city has consistently implemented habitat restoration and protection projects,and addressed salmon habitat through its land use and public outreach policies and programs over the past five years. M. It is important to provide jurisdictions,the private sector, and the public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions that the region will be taking in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. N. If insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is possible that the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an endangered species,thereby decreasing local flexibility. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHNGTON,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION ,FEC� —Rcmtcgffom The city hereby conditionally ratifies The WRIA 9 Steering Committee Proposed Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, dated August 10, 2005 (the Plan). The Plan is incorporated into this resolution by this reference, and the city clerk will keep a copy of this ordinance and the Plan in his or her files and make it available for review. Ratification is intended to convey the city's approval and support for the following: 3 WRLI 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan I 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Plan is to restore habitat used by Chinook salmon, bull trout, and other salmonids in the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. 2. Goals: The goals of the Plan are to: a. Protect and restore physical, chemical, and biological processes and the freshwater, marine, and estuarine habitats on which salmonids depend; b. Protect and restore habitat connectivity where feasible; C. Protect and improve water quality and quantity conditions to support healthy salmonid populations;and d. Provide an implementation plan that supports salmon recovery. 3. Continuing to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WR1A 9) to implement the Plan. 4. Using the scientific foundation and the habitat management strategy as the basis for local actions recommended in the plan for future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local government activities. 5. Adopting an adaptive management approach to Plan implementation and funding to address uncertainties and ensure cost-effectiveness by tracking actions, assessing action effectiveness, learning from results of actions, reviewing assumptions and strategies, making corrections where needed, and communicating progress. Developing and implementing a cost-effective regional monitoring program as part of the adaptive management approach. 6. Using the Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population, and other actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site 4 WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan specific projects and land use and public outreach recommendations. Jurisdictions, agencies,and stakeholders can implement these actions at any time. 7. Using the Watershed-Wide Programs and Subwat,ershed-specific Policies, Programs and Priority Projects list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years of Plan implementation, and implementing these actions through local capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. The list of policies, programs and projects will be revised over time, as new opportunities arise and as more is learned through adaptive management. 8. Using an adaptive approach to funding the Plan through both local sources and by working together (within WRIA 9 and Puget Sound) to seek federal, state,grant,and other funding opportunities. 9. Forwarding the Plan to appropriate federal and state agencies through Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, to be included in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery plan. SECTd®Id 2. — Implementation. The city recognizes that negotiation of commitments and assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and state agencies will be an iterative process. Full implementation of this Plan is dependent on the following: 1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan,as an operative element of its ESA Section 4(f)recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will: a. take no direct enforcement actions against the City under the ESA for implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the Plan; b. endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend the City against legal challenges by third parties;and 5 RTM 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan i c. reduce the regulatory burden for City activities recommended in or consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation. 3. Federal and state governments will: a. provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan actions and monitoring activities; b. streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to restore i salmonid habitat or where the actions are mitigation that further Plan implementation; c. offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that are i consistent with the Plan; d. support the monitoring and evaluation framework, e. incorporate, to the best of the government's ability, actions and guidance from the Plan in future federal and state transportation and infrastructure planning and improvement projects;and j £ to the extent feasible, direct mitigation resources toward Plan priorities. S�CTI®NI—Obligation. This resolution does not obligate the city council to future appropriations beyond current authority. Although the city is committed to furthering the work of VAUA 9 and the Plan, it also must balance its other goals and priorities, beyond funding limitations, under the state Growth Management Act to further economic development, enhance and accommodate growth, and protect Property rights. As a result, this council action to ratify the Plan is conditioned on the city's fulfillment of these other needs and demands as well. in particular,the city maintains a primarily aquifer based water supply system, and the city will not implement any Plan requirement or goal if doing so would I threaten or harm the city's ability to provide a safe, secure, and adequate water supply to its citizens, including future population increases, whether due to annexation or additional growth through mfdl. 6 TVRL4 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan SE ED. I. — Se r iEl If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. .SET N S. —Kati c tion. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. I ggCT IPN E ectiye Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington,this 15 day of � �.;2005. -7 CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this / day of fIL I F F Y-( YO ATTEST: .......... .r i BRENDA 3ACOBER,C iQ V CLERK - APPROVED AS T r 1,P CITY ATTORNEY 7 WRL4 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan i I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. of passed by the.City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the L_ day 2005. BRENDA JACOBER, ITY CLERK O ffwu 9 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan APPENDIX C Restoration Plan Map 9_� _ Kent Water Resources Area Restoration Opportunities Tukwil r- - (Armstrong Springs) �•�• . 15 I - Y Renton r..� Give - Shoreline Master Program - �* 13 City of Kent A A'vtAI NP n4 N ' d♦ 1`.I♦.k `+. R'�E Angle Lake�� ��AwIAAA"• _� r k t 4t,a d N .; ; r�i1 Yy T s KENT spa s 0 1,800 3,600 `°"°"'"°'°" - I cale.1 = s • King \ s 2 500 Feet r J County Scale:1"=3,600' Appendix C •':• 1 ♦♦♦♦0 - � Legend -Ala �r t Restoration Projects SeataC 9 `4 ' " Public Access Trails ---� b , Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 9)Projects L-_ �d��♦♦♦♦♦ \\ r s +, , �� r` z , -�M-Stream ♦♦♦ Ditch or Swale f S Nat I - ReS��i•lF Shoreline Mana ementArea In City Limits � ♦ ��... _1 � �`' •� � � � �; Shoreline Management Area(In PAA) 1 \\�♦4 `\ R r 6 � Public Access Areas Kent City Limits A. 10 Kent Potential Annexation Area(PAA) 181 Des Moines E ♦ Adjacent City Limits � s (516 n g,� t W All � ypT T "k: a r•, Ho ' ��• � o_ Q p♦ A�� 516 � u i. • Printed June,2009 ' t �� `,� ` �♦�♦ 2 0 p+ Data Source:City of Kent GIS and King County GIS Flown March,2006 and Sept.,2007 � � --- .5� .._. 5 3 ♦ � � '♦�� \� �� a , "� vovington ��•°`° �� WITSAP . ' / ` la Nexnstle �IasaquaH�� { P `.�\ Kin Count ��.�� ♦III 14 ��W Star Lake •+4 P Federal Kent Way I Ilk. vanay + ° o •� King CountyKmg i i •�. Diamond J ` ( i h a l'. This map is intended as a graphic aid only,and is not a legal document.The City of Kent I••— �� ''' makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy,placement or location of any map Auburn F features thereon.The City Of Kent disclaims,and shall not be held liable for any and/or all �..� '. PCs See Inset above for PIERCE damage,loss,or liability,whether direct,indirect,or consequential which arises or may •t� IF Water Resources Area arise from this product or use thereof by any person or entity. I A plan0&1da.mxd FINAL DRAFT Cumulative • Update • of Program9 June 2009 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of �► Planningces ■ •,. 11 W Gowe iPKent, WA 98032750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 hed Ir I{ ' e I E y. _ .. .. .erg - � CITY OF KENT SPRINGS 75 PLACE 75 SE.2 ..r: J. �. 3 rip-• •• _ '�}•._ .. opr 1 :4e�,�'c'. City of Kent GRANT NO. G00800311 FINAL DRAFT REPORT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS COMPONENT OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF KENT PROJECT TITLE: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE TASK 4.1 : CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS Prepared for: City of Kent Planning Services 400 W Gowe Street K EN T Kent, Washington 98032 Prepared by: THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland WA 98033 This report was funded Y;LX -O■ A�L a R�.111 F,�, ,-f 4,: in part through a grant E C b L 0 C Y from the Washington 9 June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section............................................................................................................................Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Shoreline Management Act Requirements............................................................ 1 1.2 Methodology..........................................................................................................2 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 3 2.1 Green River...........................................................................................................3 2.2 Big Soos Creek .....................................................................................................3 2.3 Lake Meridian........................................................................................................4 2.4 Lake Fenwick ........................................................................................................4 2.5 Green River Natural Resources Area Pond ..........................................................4 2.6 Springbrook Creek ................................................................................................4 2.7 Jenkins Creek........................................................................................................5 2.8 Panther Lake.........................................................................................................5 3. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.............................................................................. 5 3.1 Green River...........................................................................................................5 3.2 Big Soos Creek .....................................................................................................8 3.3 Lake Meridian........................................................................................................8 3.4 Lake Fenwick ........................................................................................................8 3.5 Green River Natural Resources Area Pond ..........................................................8 3.6 Springbrook Creek ................................................................................................8 3.7 Jenkins Creek........................................................................................................8 3.8 Panther Lake.........................................................................................................9 4. PROTECTIVE SMP PROVISIONS....................................................................... 9 4.1 Environment Designations ....................................................................................9 4.2 General Goals, Policies and Regulations............................................................ 11 4.3 General Cumulative Impacts Assessment........................................................... 13 4.4 Shoreline Restoration Plan..................................................................................13 5. "SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL" DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS...................... 25 5.1 Residential Setbacks on Lake Meridian ..............................................................25 5.2 Overwater Structures ..........................................................................................27 5.3 Shoreline Stabilization.........................................................................................29 6.0 NET EFFECT ON ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION ................................................... 30 Listof Tables .................................................................................................................Page No. Table 1. Likely changes in Green River land use by sub-unit. ............................................6 Table 2. Shoreline Use Matrix (Table 6 in Chapter 5.B. of the Shoreline Master Program)9 Table 3. Shoreline Modification Matrix (Table 5 in Chapter 4.B. of the Shoreline Master Program) .............................................................................................................11 Table 4. Development Standards Matrix (Table 7 in Chapter 5.B. of the Shoreline Master Program) .............................................................................................................12 Table 5. General Cumulative Impacts Assessment...........................................................15 Table 6. Comparison of setbacks between the original and proposed SMP.....................25 Table 7. Existing shoreline setback data for Lake Meridian. .............................................26 i Table 8. Comparison of key differences between original and proposed SMP provisions for new over-water structures..............................................................................27 Table 9. Comparison of build-out conditions for overwater structures. .............................28 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis CITY OF KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Shoreline Management Act Requirements The Shoreline Management Act guidelines require local shoreline master programs to regulate new development to "achieve no net loss of ecological function." The guidelines (WAC 173-26- 186(8)(d)) state that, "To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts." The guidelines further elaborate on the concept of net loss as follows: "When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of"net" as used herein, recognizes that any development has potential or actual, short-term or long-term impacts and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020, master program provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions." [WAC 173-206-201(2)(c)] In short, updated SMPs shall contain goals, policies and regulations that prevent degradation of ecological functions relative to the existing conditions as documented in that jurisdiction's characterization and analysis report. For those projects that result in degradation of ecological functions, the required mitigation must return the resultant ecological function back to the baseline. This is illustrated in the figure below. The jurisdiction must be able to demonstrate that it has accomplished that goal through an analysis of cumulative impacts that might occur through implementation of the updated SMP. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider: (i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes; (ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and (iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws." The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 1 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis SMP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function SMP Restoration SMP Update Higher Plan Framework to achieve NNL Voluntary restoration •Inventory& opportunities Characterization r •Environment Designation 0 No Net Loss—Current Baseline •Development Policies& On-going degradation Off-site mitigation Standards LL _ from existing opportunities development •Recommended Actions 0) --------------- Offsetting mitigation 0 outside SMA authority 0 Unavoidable impacts •Compliance Strategy from new development Avoid and Mitigate Impacts •Cumulative Impacts Analysis Lower --------------- Shoreline violations •Restoration Plan Key: ❑ Degraded ® Improved ® SMPelements Source: Department of Ecology As outlined in the Shoreline Restoration Plan prepared as part of this SMP update, the SMA also seeks to restore ecological functions in degraded shorelines. This cannot be required by the SMP at a project level, but Section 173-26-201(2)(f) of the Guidelines says: "master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions." See the Shoreline Restoration Plan for additional discussion of SMP policies and other programs and activities in Kent that contribute to the long-term restoration of ecological functions relative to the baseline condition. 1.2 Methodology Using the information, both textual and graphic, developed and presented in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, this cumulative impacts analysis was prepared consistent with direction provided in the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines as described above. To the extent that existing information was sufficiently detailed and assumptions about possible new or re- development could be made with reasonable certainty, the following analysis is quantitative. However, in many cases information about existing conditions and/or redevelopment potential was not available at a level that could be assessed quantitatively or the analysis would be unnecessarily complex to reach a conclusion that could be derived more simply. Further, TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 2 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis ecological function does not have an easy metric. For these reasons, much of the following analysis is more qualitative. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The following summary of existing conditions is based on the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. This discussion has been divided by waterbody and by proposed shoreline environment designations (see Appendix A of the SMP for a map of environment designations). Environment designations include Urban Conservancy — Open Space (UC-OS), Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity (UC-LI), Shoreline Residential (SR), High Intensity (HI), Natural Wetlands (NW), and Aquatic designations. The Shoreline Analysis Report includes an in-depth discussion of the topics below, as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater utilities, impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others. 2.1 Green River The Green River shoreline has a variety of uses, including parks, trails and open spaces (typically designated UC-OS); large scale industrial uses such as warehouses and office buildings (typically designated HI), residential areas consisting of single- and multi-family housing (typically designated SR), and agricultural activities (typically designated UC-LI, including the large area of floodway associated with the Mill Creek Auburn/Green River interaction). In addition, there are a number of wetlands associated with the Green River shoreline as a result of their presence in the floodplain. These wetlands are all designated Natural-Wetlands (NW). Land use conditions in each Green River segment can be found in Tables 7 through 10 in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. The performance of functions in the Green River shoreline is extremely variable, relating primarily to the presence or absence of levees and development throughout the corridor. Higher functioning areas in the City and the PAA, such as in the Horsehead Bend area and southward, have more open space, fewer levees, more vegetation, and less development. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Green River functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.1 (Tables 14a and 14b) and 6.1, as well as on maps found in Appendix C (Figures 17a-c) of that report. 2.2 Big Soos Creek The Big Soos Creek shoreline area in the City of Kent affects only five parcels within the City. Three of the parcels each contain a single-family residence (although jurisdiction generally encompasses only the yard areas of the properties, not the residences themselves), the fourth is part of King County's Soos Creek Park, and the fifth is owned by WSDOT. The collective performance of functions in the Big Soos Creek shoreline is mapped Medium High (see Figure 17d in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report), because of its extensive vegetation, low level of shoreline modification, and low level of development. Based on the planned land use and the relatively high function level, the Big Soos Creek shoreline is designated as UC-LI. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Big Soos Creek functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.2 (Table 15) and 6.2. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 3 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis 2.3 Lake Meridian The Lake Meridian shoreline contains two major land uses: 1) Lake Meridian Park, which occupies a roughly 1,400-foot stretch of shoreline at the southeast corner of the lake (designated UC-OS); and 2) residential development, primarily single-family homes and a mobile home park (designated SR). The residential shoreline was mapped as collectively having Low Medium function because of its extensive development, low level of vegetation, and high percentage of overwater structures and armoring (see Figure 17e in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). The park earned a higher Medium rating for its low level of development and some natural space. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Lake Meridian functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.3 (Table 16) and 6.3. 2.4 Lake Fenwick Similar to Lake Meridian, the Lake Fenwick shoreline contains two major land uses: 1) Lake Fenwick Park, which occupies a roughly 700-foot stretch of shoreline along the west shore of the lake, and other forested open space (designated UC-OS); and 2) residential development, primarily single-family homes, located primarily on the northeast corner and southwest corner of the lake in the PAA (designated SR). The park and much of the residential shoreline was mapped as collectively having Medium High function because of its extensive vegetation and low level of alteration (see Figure 17f in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). The park earned a High rating for the same reasons, and because of the absence of shoreline modifications. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Lake Fenwick functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.4 (Table 17) and 6.4, as well as on maps found in Appendix C of that report. 2.5 Green River Natural Resources Area Pond The Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA) pond is a City-owned and managed water quality management facility that includes extensive habitat enhancement and wildlife viewing activities, as well as associated wetlands. The facility includes two human-constructed ponds connected by a weir that constitute an approximately 55-acre lake. The GRNRA pond and associated shorelands received a comprehensive Medium High ecological function rating because of its high habitat value and low level of development (see Figure 17b in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). However, the pond management and structures reduce its value. As restoration continues on the site, the GRNRA pond and shorelands will continue to improve in function. The entire shoreline area, including shorelands, is designated UC-OS. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual GRNRA functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.5 (Table 18) and 6.5. 2.6 Springbrook Creek Most of the Springbrook Creek shoreline jurisdiction is zoned, planned and developed for Industrial use. However, narrow corridors between the stream and the adjacent developments are vegetated, and have been enhanced by the City. The developed area is designated as HI and the vegetated corridors are designated UC-OS. Overall, Springbrook Creek shoreline was rated TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 4 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Low because of the proximity of adjacent development and presence of armoring and culvert at the north end (see Figure 17c in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Springbrook Creek functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.6 (Table 19) and 6.6. 2.7 Jenkins Creek The Jenkins Creek shoreline consists solely of the City's Armstrong Springs municipal watershed area. There are no structures located on the property within shoreline jurisdiction, and the shoreland area is a mix of upland and wetland forest. The Jenkins Creek shoreline received a collective High ecological function rating because of its high habitat value and low level of development (see Figure 17d in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). The entire shoreline area is designated UC-OS. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Jenkins Creek functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.7 (Table 20) and 6.7. 2.8 Panther Lake Panther Lake has been inventoried and analyzed by King County as part of its SMP update. The entire lake is in unincorporated King County, and within the City's PAA. King County gave the lake an overall High ecological function rating on the east shore, and a Medium High rating on the rest of the lake that has a higher level of modification related to low-density residential use (see Figure 17g in Appendix C of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report). The low- density residential and critical areas/open space lands are designated as UC-LI. The remainder of the shoreline containing higher-density residential uses, most of which are outside of shoreline jurisdiction, is designated as SR. Detailed information about existing functions, including a performance rating of individual Panther Lake functions, can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, Sections 5.8 (Table 21) and 6.8. 3. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Each waterbody was grossly divided into units (see Figures 3a-3h in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report) at a reach or similar scale anticipated to match somewhat closely with the future development of the environment designations. For the most part, the unit breaks do correspond closely with a given environment designation, although additional complexity was added during environment designation development to divide Urban Conservancy into two designations and to recognize parallel environments, which are common along the Green River where the trail parallels development. 3.1 Green River The following table is an excerpt of material included in Chapter 6 of the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 5 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Table 1. Likely changes in Green River land use by sub-unit. Sub-Unit I Likely Changes in Land Use Green River Unit A—Open Space (Generally Aligned with the Urban Conservancy—Open Space or Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Designations) A-1. Open space area on the east This area is designated as Urban Separator(US), so therefore side of the river to the north and may redevelop with low density residential or clustered south of South 277th Street bounded residential with the possibility of some low intensity commercial. by the City limits A-2. Foster Park is on the north side There are no likely changes in land use, except for minor park of the river generally west of the improvements and potentially some environmental restoration. railroad line and east of the Valley The City should consider changing the land use designation to Freeway SR 167 Open Space because it currently has an Industrial designation. A-3. Riverview Park is on the north There are no likely changes in land use, except for minor park and east side of the river just west of improvements and potentially some environmental restoration. the Valley Freeway (SR 167) A-4. Undeveloped area on south Land use change in this area is unlikely because most of the river bank with tributary west of shoreland area is also a stream corridor. This area is Valley Fwy (SR 167) designated AG-S, however, so some low intensity commercial development may occur. A-5. The Riverbend Golf Complex This area is unlikely to change as this is designated as OS Open Space) in the Comprehensive Plan. A-6. Golf course and open space on The area that is designated OS (Open Space) is unlikely to the south and west side of the river change, but the area designated US (Urban Separator) has the from the city limits south of W. potential to be redeveloped unless the land use designation is Meeker St. to the industrial area changed. north of the golf complex A-7. Open space on the west side of This area is designated as Urban Separator(US), so therefore the river from Cottonwood Grove may redevelop with low-density residential or clustered Park to the residential area residential with the possibility of some low-intensity commercial. approximately 2,400' north of S 228th Street A-8. Green River Natural Resource This area is unlikely to change as it is in public ownership and Area used for water quality and natural resource purposes. The area is designated OS. A-9. Valley Floor Community Park The park is likely to remain a park, but will likely develop with more active uses, although perhaps not within shoreline jurisdiction. There are opportunities to increase public access and increase opportunities for water-dependent recreational uses when this park is improved. Environmental restoration should also be considered. A-10. Green River Trail north of S The Green River Trail corridor is unlikely to develop as it is 212th St and south of Russel Road designated OS. The underdeveloped industrial land may develop, but it is outside shoreline jurisdiction. A-11. Future North Green River This area is unlikely to change land uses. The only changes Park on the east shoreline just south might include some park improvements. of the City limits. PAA-A-1. Area within the PAA and The area that is designated OS (Open Space) is unlikely to City Limits north and east of the river change, but the area designated US (Urban Separator) has the at the easternmost segment of the potential to be redeveloped to low density residential or clustered Green River shorelands within the residential unless the land use designation is changed.. City and PAA Green River Unit B— High Intensity (Generally Aligned with the High Intensity Designation) B-1. Industrial area north of the river I With the Industrial land use designation and predominance of TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 6 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Sub-Unit Likely Changes in Land Use from commercial lot east of Central industrial activities, it is likely that underdeveloped shoreline Ave, generally west and north to properties (approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline)will, over time, Foster Park convert to large-to moderate-scale industrial uses. B-2. Industrial area south of the With the Industrial land use designation and predominance of river just east of the Valley Freeway industrial activities, it is unlikely that property in this area will (SR 167) change use. B-3. Industrial area north of the river With the Industrial land use designation and predominance of just east of the Valley Freeway (SR industrial activities, it is unlikely that property in this area will 167) located between Foster Park change use. and Riverview Park B-4. Small industrial area north of With the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation and the river between the Valley predominance of industrial activities, it is unlikely that property in Freeway SR 167 and SR 181. this area will change use. B-5. Industrial area located along With the Industrial land use designation and predominance of Russell R. north of S. 228th St and industrial activities, it is unlikely that property in this area will south of the GRNRA change use. Russell Road is located in shoreline jurisdiction in this area. The comprehensive plan designation is OS (Open Space) in the Green River Trail corridor area. B-6. Industrial area along east side It is unlikely that these relatively new facilities will change in the of the river north of S 200t" St. foreseeable future. B-7. Industrial and commercial area The commercial parcel will likely develop in the near future. It is east of SR 181 and south of SW 43rd also likely that the single-family residence will redevelop into an St industrial use at some point in the future. The hotel is unlikely to change because it appears to be a fairly new building. PAA-B-1. Shorelands in the This area is designated Industrial in King County's potential annexation area (PAA) Comprehensive Plan so it is likely to remain in industrial use. generally south of the river and west of the Valley Freeway SR 167 Green River Unit C— Residential Generally Aligned with the Shoreline Residential Designation C-1. Residential area north and The Comprehensive Plan designation is Medium Density west side of the Green River east of Multifamily and Mobile Home Park. There are no likely land use Central Ave changes because the current land uses fit the comprehensive plan. C-2. Residential area on north side There is little likelihood of a change in land use because the of the river from one property west of residences are relatively new and they are consistent with the SR 181 to the golf course at Russell MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) land use designation. Rd C-3. Residential area on east side There is little likelihood of a change in land use because the of River from James Street north to residences are relatively new and they are consistent with the S. 228t" Street LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) land use designation. C-4. Residential area on west side There will be approximately 1,000 feet of new residential of River south of S 216 Street development with perhaps about 20 new homes in this segment. These new homes will all be separated from the shoreline by the existing frontage road, Frager Road. C-5. Recreational Vehicle (RV) This use is somewhat an anomaly in this area and so may Campground (KOA) on east side of change in spite of the current comprehensive plan designation. the river south of S. 212t" St. and Because of the industrial uses around it, it may be developed as north of the GRNRA industrial although the GRNRA is a local amenity and so multifamily housing might be a possibility. Green River Unit D—Agricultural (Generally Aligned with the Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity Designation D-1. South of the river just west of This area is designated as AG-S and AG-R, so some Valley Freeway (SR 167) agricultural-related low intensity commercial development may occur. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 7 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Sub-Unit Likely Changes in Land Use D-2. Agricultural activities on the This area is designated as Urban Separator(US), so therefore west side of the river from Riverbend may redevelop with low density residential or clustered Golf Course to Cottonwood Grove residential with the possibility of some low intensity commercial. Park D-3. Agricultural area on west side This area is being redeveloped into single-family houses. Since of river south of S. 212t" Street this area comprises approximately 2,000 linear feet of shoreline, it is conceivable that 20 to 40 new dwelling units might fall within shoreline jurisdiction. They would be separated from the shoreline b a frontage road. D-4. Agricultural lands north of This area is designated US (Urban Separator) and AG-R, so Valley Floor Community Park therefore may redevelop with low density residential or clustered residential with the possibility of some low intensity commercial 3.2 Big Soos Creek This area is designated "Urban Separator," so therefore may redevelop with low-density residential or clustered residential with the possibility of some low-intensity commercial if part of a Planned Unit Development. 3.3 Lake Meridian Unit A - Open Space (corresponding to the UC-OS environment designation) is unlikely to change because Lake Meridian Park is designated as OS (Open Space) in the Comprehensive Plan. The wetland area south of SR 516 currently designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan for single-family development is owned by the City of Kent and should likely be re-designated as Open Space. Unit C - Residential (corresponding to the SR environment designation) has a few lots that are either underdeveloped or could possibly be subdivided, although the effect on the overall land use would be minimal. 3.4 Lake Fenwick Changes in land use around Lake Fenwick are unlikely within Kent jurisdiction or in the lands designated as "King Co. Other Parks/Wilderness" (corresponding to environment designations of SR and UC-OS). However, the residential-designated area within the PAA has the potential to redevelop and possibly increase in density(corresponding to an environment designation of SR). 3.5 Green River Natural Resources Area Pond Changes in land uses are unlikely. This site is in public ownership and used for water quality and natural resource purposes (corresponding to an environment designation of UC-OS). There is a small utility property within shoreline jurisdiction. 3.6 Springbrook Creek No changes in land use are anticipated as the adjacent land is fully developed (environment designation of HI) or protected(environment designation of UC-OS). 3.7 Jenkins Creek No changes in land use are anticipated, as this land is protected for water supply purposes. TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 8 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3.8 Panther Lake The north, northeast, and southern tip of the lake are within the Urban Separator land use classification. This area may therefore redevelop with low-density residential or clustered residential with the possibility of some low intensity commercial (corresponding to the UC-LI environment designation). On the west side of the lake, in the area with a residential land use designation, there is approximately 1,200 linear feet within shoreline jurisdiction that is currently underdeveloped and therefore has the potential to develop into residential uses (corresponding to SR environment designation). The development pattern will likely be similar to the residential development along the southwest corner of the lake. 4. PROTECTIVE SMP PROVISIONS 4.1 Environment Designations The first line of protection of the City's shorelines is the environment designation assignments (see map in Appendix A of the SMP). The Natural-Wetlands environment is the most restrictive, followed by the two Urban Conservancy environments (Open Space and Low Intensity). Only a few uses are allowed outright in either of these environments (primarily water-oriented uses), and several others are allowed only in special circumstances related to provision of public access or to enable restoration or as conditional uses. In some respects, the Shoreline Residential environment is as restrictive or more restrictive than the two Urban Conservancy environments. The most permissive environment is High-Intensity, which has only been assigned to those areas along the Green River and Springbrook Creek that are already developed with commercial or other uses. Most often, the High-Intensity environment is separated from the shoreline by a parallel Urban Conservancy-Open Space designation. Tables 2 and 3 (Tables 6 and 5, respectively, in the SMP) below identify the prohibited and allowed uses and modifications in each of the shoreline environments, and clearly show a hierarchy of higher-impacting uses and modifications being allowed in the already highly altered shoreline environments, with uses more limited in the less developed areas. This strategy helps to minimize cumulative impacts by concentrating development activity in lower functioning areas that are not likely to experience function degradation with incremental increases in new development. Table 2. Shoreline Use Matrix (Table 6 in Chapter 5.13. of the Shoreline Master Program) P = Maybe permitted C = May be permitted as a conditional use only c ° c >, X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible for a 2 variance or conditional use permit'Z vi rn (n ,�°, °�' ip N/A= Not applicable s o = o SHORELINE USE ' ° R Z _ � � � J L L o 0 Agriculture X P11P11P P1 X Aquaculture X X X X X X Boating facilities X P P X P P The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 9 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis P = Maybe permitted C = May be permitted as a conditional use y >+ >+ only c ° c >, X = Prohibited; the use is not eligible fora `—�° _ n ° variance or conditional use permit12 a ° a N i r N N M +, N/A = Not applicable o = o f m a VCL U3 E Q SHORELINE USE ° R0 C z 0 Commercial: Water-dependent X P P P9 X X Water-related, water-enjoyment X P P P X X Nonwater-oriented X C X C 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 Nonwater-oriented X P X X X X In-stream structures C C C C10C C Mining X X X X X X Parking (accessory) X P Pz P� P X Parking (primary, including paid) X X X X X X Recreation: Water-dependent P P P P P P Water-enjoyment P P P P P X Nonwater-oriented X P P C P X Single-family residential X X X P P X Multifamily residential X P X C P X Land subdivision P P P C P X Signs: On premises X P PbC X X Off premise X X X X X X Public, highway X P P P X X Solid waste disposal X X X X X X Transportation: Water-dependent X P P P C P Nonwater-oriented X P C C P C Roads, railroads C P P P P CT- Utilities (primary) C P —Pr—P P C Shoreline Use Matrix Notes: 1. Park concessions, such as small food stands, cafes, and restaurants with views and seating oriented to the water, and uses that enhance the opportunity to enjoy publicly accessible shorelines may be allowed. 2. Accessory parking is allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if there is no other feasible option, as determined by the City. 3. Passive activities, such as nature watching and trails, that require little development with no significant adverse impacts may be allowed. 4. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water- dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the shoreline and water body or due to the underlying land use classification in the comprehensive plan. 5. Land division may be allowed where the City determines that it is for a public purpose. 6. Signs may be allowed for public facilities only. 7. Roadways and public utilities may be allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by the City, and all adverse impacts are mitigated. TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page10 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis 8. Residences may be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if it is not feasible, as determined by the City, to locate the building on the portion of the property outside shoreline jurisdiction. 9. Commercial uses are only permitted as part of a residential PUD of at least 100 acres, located within an SR zone, or at least 10 acres for residential PUDs located in other zones. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted by the Zoning Code in the neighborhood convenience commercial district. 10. Only if allowed as part of a Planned Unit Development(PUD)per KCC 15.08.400. 11. Crop and tree farming only. See Kent City Code 15.04.130. 12. For existing nonconforming development, see Chapter 7.C. Table 3. Shoreline Modification Matrix (Table 5 in Chapter 4.B. of the Shoreline Master Program) U) w P = Maybe permitted C = May be permitted as a conditional A use only U) y o X= Prohibited; the use is not eligible for o c c �, s a variance or conditional use permit12 L v Q v 3 E Q N/A= Not applicable _ O _ c Z L L SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS > 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 Fill X P P P P C Piers, docks X P P P P P Shoreline Modifications Matrix Notes: 1. Fill in the floodplain must meet all federal, state, and local flood hazard reduction regulations. 2. Fill in aquatic areas for the purposes of shoreline ecological restoration may be allowed as a permitted use if the City determines that there will be an increase in desired ecological functions. 4.2 General Goals, Policies and Regulations The SMP contains numerous general policies, with supporting regulations (see SNIP), intended to protect the ecological functions of the shoreline and prevent adverse cumulative impacts. These policies are summarized below. • Critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction will be regulated per the critical areas regulations, which were developed using best available science (see 3.B.3 of the SNIP and Chapter 11.06 of the KCC). • All new development should provide adequate setbacks to protect or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, consistent with the critical areas regulations. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 11 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis • All significant adverse impacts to the shoreline should be avoided or, if that is not possible, minimized to the extent feasible (see 3.B.4). • Protect and, where appropriate,restore the physical integrity of ecological processes, including water and sediment transport and natural channel movement(3.B.5.b.2.b). • Vegetation within the City shoreline areas should be enhanced over time to provide a greater level of ecological functions, human safety, and property protection (3.B.11.b.1). • Protect water quality and natural groundwater movement(3.B.12.b and 3.B.5.b.2.c). • Protect fish, vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain (3.B.5.b.2.d). Setbacks have been established by environment designation and for specific uses as follows: Table 4. Development Standards Matrix (Table 7 in Chapter 5.B. of the Shoreline Master Program) N U 0 �- c i! i> N o o — 0 Cr i C) Q. 0 3 S Q 3 a = O m DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS' z = J L � � s (Regulatory citation in parentheses) > Commercial Development 5.B.4 Water-dependent setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water-enjoyment setback 4 N/A 30' 30' 50' N/A N/A Nonwater-oriented setback N/A 70' 70' 100' N/A N/A Industrial Development 5.B.5 Water-dependent 5.B.5.c.9 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Water-related and water-enjoyment N/A 50'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.B.5.c.9 Nonwater-oriented 5.B.5.c.9 N/A 100' N/A N/A N/A N/A Accesso VParkin 3.B.6 Setbacks N/A 70 70' 70' N/A N/A Recreational Development Water-dependent park structures setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water-enjoyment park N/A 20' 20' 20' N/A N/A structures setback Nonwater-oriented park structures N/A 70'2 70'2 70'2 N/A N/A setback 5.B.7.c.4 Miscellaneous New agricultural activities setback N/A N/A N/A 20'2 N/A N/A 5.B.2.c.4 Residential Development See regulations in 5.B.8.c Development Standards Matrix Notes: 1. See regulation 3.B.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future Green River levee reconstruction. TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page12 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis 2. The City may reduce this dimension if it determines that the type of development allowed within this SMP and other municipal, state, and federal codes cannot be accommodated within the allowed site development area by reconfiguring, relocating, or resizing the proposed development. Where the City reduces a requirement, compensatory mitigation, such as vegetation enhancement or shoreline armoring removal, must be provided as determined by the City. 3. See regulation 5.8.8.c for residential development standards. 4. The setback for all development, except water-dependent development, on the Green River not separated from the shoreline by a levee is 150 feet. 4.3 General Cumulative Impacts Assessment The following table (Table 5) summarizes for each environment designation and corresponding waterbody the existing conditions, anticipated development, relevant Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and other regulatory provisions, and the expected net impact on ecological function. Certain special topics are discussed and analyzed in greater detail in Chapter 5 following the table. The discussion of existing conditions is based on the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, and additional analysis needed to perform this assessment. The Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report includes a more in-depth discussion of the topics below, as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater utilities, impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others. Jenkins Creek is not included in the table as it is a protected watershed area and owned and managed by the City of Kent for drinking water. In addition to the environment designations discussed in the following tables, the following designations will apply to those applicable areas of shoreline jurisdiction: "Natural-Wetlands" Environment - The purpose of the "Natural-Wetlands" environment is to protect and restore all wetlands associated with shorelines by applying the City of Kent Critical Areas regulations. These systems require development restrictions to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. A "Natural-Wetlands" environment designation will be assigned to all wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction. "Aquatic" Environment - 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. An "Aquatic" environment designation will be assigned to shoreline areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. The critical areas regulations and the prohibition of most uses and modifications in the Natural- Wetlands environment ensure no net loss of ecological functions in this environment. Aquatic environment impacts are discussed in other sections below. 4.4 Shoreline Restoration Plan As discussed above, one of the key objectives that the SMP must address is "no net loss of ecological shoreline functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources" (Ecology 2004). However, SMP updates seek not only to maintain conditions, but to improve them: "...[shoreline master programs] include planning elements that when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area of each city and county(WAC 173-26-201(c))." The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 13 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis The guidelines state that "master programs shall include goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions. These master program provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program" (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Pursuant to that direction, the City has prepared a Shoreline Restoration Plan, which is a non- regulatory chapter of the SMP (Chapter 8). . Practically, it is not always feasible for shoreline developments and redevelopments to achieve no net loss at the site scale, particularly for those developments on currently undeveloped properties or a new pier or bulkhead. The Restoration Plan, therefore, can be an important component in making up that difference in ecological function that would otherwise result just from implementation of the SMP. The Restoration Plan represents a long-term vision for restoration that will be implemented over time, resulting in incremental improvement over the existing conditions. The Shoreline Restoration Plan identifies a number of project-specific opportunities for restoration on both public and private properties inside and outside of shoreline jurisdiction, and also identifies ongoing City programs and activities, non-governmental organization programs and activities, and other recommended actions consistent with a variety of watershed-level efforts (Sections &D and &E, see Appendix C in the SMP for the site-specific restoration opportunities map). TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page14 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Table 5. General Cumulative Impacts Assessment. Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect HIGH INTENSITY These segments include Future Development: It is likely that SMP policies for the"High Intensity" environment (see 1. Any in- or over-water(including wetlands) proposals Because of the developed areas generally underdeveloped shoreline properties Section 2.C.2 in the SMP) state that: would require review not only by the City of Kent, nature of this environment dominated by (approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline)will, but also by the Washington Department of Fish and and redevelopment commercial and over time, convert to large-to moderate-scale "Developments in the `High-Intensity' environment Wildlife (WDFW), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pressures, unmitigated new industrial uses. This industrial uses. Remaining areas are built-out should be managed so that they enhance and (Corps), and/or the Washington Department of development has the includes industrial areas and thus unlikely to undergo extensive maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban Ecology. Each of these agencies is charged with potential to further degrade just east and west of SR redevelopment. uses, with priority given to water-dependent, regulating and/or protecting streams, lakes, and the baseline condition. Strict 167 (near SE 259th St.), water-related, and water-enjoyment uses." wetlands, and would impose certain design or implementation of the SMP along Russell Road Functions/Processes Impacted: mitigation requirements on applicants. A project and the critical areas between 1-5 and SR "In order to make maximum use of the available that includes stream, lake, or wetland fill would regulations will be needed to 167, and near Briscoe 1. Hydrology: Because of the position of the shoreline resource and to accommodate future require Corps review and permitting. For similar minimize impacts, and is Park(just south of S potential new development relative to the water-oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or projects along the Green River, a Biological expected to result in the 180th St.). Uses are river and the levee, potential impacts are public access, the redevelopment and renewal of Evaluation would be prepared to assess project long-term improvement in generally one-story generally related to indirect effects of new substandard, degraded, obsolete urban shoreline impacts on listed fish and wildlife, and that ecological function. buildings surrounded by impervious surface and stormwater areas should be encouraged." document would be routed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Specifically, requirements for surface parking lots. A management on hydrologic processes (see Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for stormwater management, majority of the buildings Table 14a of the Final Shoreline Inventory All private development would be subject to 140-or Endangered Species Act review. These agencies minimization of impervious are separated from the and Analysis Report). Per the analysis in 150-foot setbacks depending upon whether a levee is would also impose certain design and mitigation surface, and installation of Green River(all shoreline by the Green Table 14a of the Final Shoreline Inventory present (140 feet if a levee is present and 150 feet if requirements on a proposed project to minimize native vegetation will help or portions of River Trail corridor and and Analysis Report, hyporheic function no levee is present) (SMP Section 3.113.1.c.7). All HI- adverse impacts. minimize and mitigate segments B1-7 Urban Conservancy— currently is low because of past designated areas and associated new and re- impacts. and PAA-B1 as Open Space hydromodifications to the system. development on the Green River are located landward 2. As mentioned in the Final Shoreline Inventory and described in SMP environment of the existing levee. Analysis Report, the City currently uses its 2002 Further the planned Section 2.B.2.d designation. 2. Vegetation and habitat: Upland and aquatic Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which is an implementation of the Green and Appendix A habitat and vegetation functions related to The SMP (and by reference the critical areas addendum to the 1998 King County Surface Water River levee reconstruction of the SMP) the Green River shoreline would be largely regulations) prohibits projects that"cause significant Design Manual. The City will be updating its and numerous other projects unaffected by new and redevelopment. ecological impacts... unless mitigated according to" Surface Water Design Manual as part of the under WRIA 9, the standard mitigation sequencing outlined in Section NPDES Phase II permit requirement. Both Green/Duwamish Ecosystem The function of all leveed Green River 3.113.4.c.4. Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual Restoration Project, and the segments is likely to improve over time with for Western Washington and King County's 2005 King County Flood Control implementation of levee improvements. Even SMP Sections 3.113.5 (Flood Hazard Reduction and Surface Water Design Manual will be evaluated as District, ensure that in the most constrained portions of the High- River Corridor Management) and 3.113.12 (Water the NPDES Phase II permit requires that the City ecological function will be Intensity environment, the reconstructed levee Quality and Quantity) have a number of provisions use minimum requirements that are equivalent to substantially improved in the would likely include improved riparian that will minimize adverse modifications to the river Ecology's manual. Use of the current and future long-term. vegetation on the waterward side, large woody channel that might further impair water quality or updated stormwater manuals will ensure that debris, and possibly reduced bank slope or an water movement through the system. stormwater management is effectively designed to increased levee setback. minimize/eliminate construction-and operations- The Commercial Development standards (Section related stormwater runoff impacts and mitigate any 5.C.4.c.4) stipulate that"All new commercial potential remaining adverse affects. development proposals will be reviewed by the City for ecological restoration and public access 3. The Natural Resources section of the Land Use opportunities. When restoration or public access chapter of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan plans indicate opportunities exist, the City may require contains a number of general and specific goals that those opportunities are either implemented as and policies that direct the City to permit and The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 15 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect part of the development project or that the project condition development in such a way that the design be altered so that those opportunities are not natural environment is protected, preserved and diminished." This is expected to result in moderate to enhanced. Techniques suggested by the various substantial shoreline function improvements over policies to protect the natural environment include time. The Industry regulations (SMP Sections requiring setbacks from sensitive areas, preventing 5.C.5.1 and 8)also require minimization of impervious adverse alterations to water quality and quantity, surfaces, installation of native landscaping, and use of preserving existing vegetation, educating the public, Low Impact Development(LID)techniques when and mitigating necessary sensitive area impacts, appropriate. among others. 4. The City of Kent will be implementing a long-term program to reconstruct the Green River levee so that it meets federal certification requirements for the 100-year flood. To the extent possible, the levee will be set back farther from the existing ordinary high water mark, floodplain benches will be installed with native riparian vegetation, and large woody debris will be incorporated into the toe and placed on the benches (SMP Section 8.E.2.a). While there may be short-term construction impacts and temporal loss of vegetation cover in some areas, the levee reconstruction projects in all cases will improve habitat function for salmonids, other aquatic life, and terrestrial wildlife that utilize riparian corridors. As further described in the SMP (Sections 8.113.1-3, 13), the City also is engaging in a number of projects implementing WRIA 9 actions and the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP). The ERP is 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. Funding is certain for many of these projects, and the effect of those projects will also be to improve habitat function and other ecosystem-wide processes. The two industrial Future Development: While the specific uses Same as above for High Intensity—Green River, other Same as items#1-3 above in High Intensity for Green No net loss of ecological parcels to either side of within the developed footprint of the than the setback discussion. River. functions is expected as no the stream are Springbrook Creek shoreline may change, the alterations to the existing developed, with impervious footprint is not expected to increase conditions in this buildings between 100 and remaining vegetation is not expected to be environment along Springbrook and 200 feet from the cleared or altered. Springbrook Creek are likely Creek ordinary high water to occur. mark, and parking areas Functions/Processes Impacted: No new 50 or more feet from the impacts to functions or processes are ordinary high water expected, except possible improvements to mark. Some riparian adjacent stormwater runoff management which plantings and LWD have TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page16 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect been installed by the may support improved water quality. City in the narrow strip of park land that parallels the creek on the east side. URBAN CONSERVANCY—OPEN SPACE These segments contain Future Development: The only"development" SMP policies for the"Urban Conservancy—Open Same as items#14 above in High Intensity for Green The substantial presence of land areas in shoreline likely is related to passive recreation Space" environment (SMP Section 2.C.3) state that: River. critical areas in this jurisdiction dominated improvements or restoration activities. environment, combined with by natural areas, trails, "Water-oriented recreational uses should be given In addition to levee restoration, several WRIA 9 projects the limited pressure for any opens spaces, and Functions/Processes Impacted: Any new priority over nonwater-oriented uses. Water- are planned in UC-OS segments (see Restoration substantial new or re- parks. These areas actions would either have no or negligible dependent recreational uses should be given Projects map in Appendix C of the SMP, and development and the include Foster Park, effect on ecological functions or would highest priority." descriptions located in SMP Sections 8.D.13, 8.E.1, provisions of the SMP, Riverview Park, the contribute to restoration of ecological and 8.E.2.a). ensures that environmental Riverbend Golf functions. "Standards should be established for shoreline conditions in this Complex, the Green stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, In addition, the City Parks, Recreation & Community environment will not be River Natural Resources Similar to Green River shoreline areas water quality, and shoreline modifications within Services Department engages in a number of degraded relative to existing Area, Valley Floor designated High Intensity, the function of all the `Urban Conservancy-Open Space' designation restoration and outreach activities that are described in baseline. Community Park, the leveed Green River segments is likely to to ensure that new development does not further SMP Section 8.D.9. Green River (all Green River Trail, and improve over time with implementation of levee degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an In fact, long-term plans for or portions of the future North Green improvements. Reconstructed levees would overall goal to improve ecological functions and implementation of the Green River Park. like) include improved riparian vegetation on habitat." River levee reconstruction segments A2-3, y � p p g A5-6, A8-11 and the waterward side, large woody debris, and and numerous other projects PAA-Al, as well reduced bank slope or an increased levee The SMP (and by reference the critical areas under WRIA 9, the as parallel setback. regulations) prohibits projects that"cause significant Green/Duwamish Ecosystem designations in ecological impacts... unless mitigated according to" Restoration Project, and the segments B1, Further, all private development would be standard mitigation sequencing outlined in Section King County Flood Control 133-5, C1-3, and subject to 140-or 150-foot setbacks depending 3.B.4.c.4. District, ensure that C5 as described upon whether a levee is present(140 feet if a ecological function will be in SMP Section levee is present and 150 feet if no levee is The most active flood pla i n/floodway areas in the UC- substantially improved in the 2.B.3.d and as present). However, public development(roads OS environment with potential for alteration are found long-term. shown in and trails)could be located within the setback. in the southern portion of the City, in the Horsehead Appendix A of Bend area. SMP Section 4.C.4.c generally prohibits the SMP) fills in the floodplain or floodway, except in special circumstances, thereby protecting basic hydrologic functions and processes. Further, the Recreational Development regulations (SMP Section 5.C.7.c.3)stipulate that"All new recreational development proposals will be reviewed by the City for ecological restoration and public access opportunities. When restoration or public access plans indicate opportunities exist for these improvements, the City 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 The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 17 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect diminished." This is expected to result in moderate to substantial shoreline function improvements over time. This segment is made Future Development: The only"development" Same as above for Urban Conservancy—Open Same as items#1-3 above in High Intensity for Green The substantial presence of up entirely of Lake likely in Lake Meridian Park is related to Space on the Green River, excluding the River. critical areas (stream outlet, Meridian Park, which passive recreation improvements or restoration flood plai n/floodway discussion. adjacent wetlands) in this Lake Meridian occupies a roughly activities (such as the recent outlet work). Phase I of the Lake Meridian Outlet Relocation project environment, combined with (all of segment A 1,400-foot stretch of was recently completed by the City at the mouth of Lake the limited pressure for any as described in shoreline at the Functions/Processes Impacted: Any new Meridian, and Phases II and III will be completed in substantial new or re- SMP Section southeast corner of the actions would either have no effect on or 2009 to restore the connection to Big Soos Creek(see development and the 2.B.3.d and as lake. The shoreline is contribute to restoration of ecological Restoration Opportunities map in Appendix C of the provisions of the SMP, shown in Primarily free of functions. SMP, and descriptions located in Sections 8.D.2 and ensures that environmental Appendix A of shoreline armoring, 8.D.12.c). conditions in this the SMP) although it does contain environment will not be the largest pier on the The City Parks, Recreation &Community Services degraded relative to existing lake. Department engages in a number of restoration and baseline. outreach activities that are described in SMP Section 8.D.9. This segment contains Future Development: No development is The Vegetation Conservation regulations in SMP Same as items#1-3 above in High Intensity for Green Conditions are expected to two narrow bands of planned in these riparian corridors. The only Section 3.113.11 and the Critical Areas regulations River. improve over time in this Springbrook riparian vegetation anticipated activity is possibly further adopted by reference effectively protect these narrow small segment as vegetation Creek (see SMP between the stream and restoration and maintenance of native riparian corridors from adverse alterations. In 2004, the City restored habitat along Springbrook matures. No adverse Section 2.B.3.d the adjacent paved plantings. Creek stream banks, in and upstream of shoreline alterations are anticipated. for segment developed sites. jurisdiction (see Restoration Opportunities map in description and Functions/Processes Impacted: Any new Appendix C of the SMP, and description located in Appendix A of actions would either have no net effect on or Section 8.D.12.a). As this vegetation continues to the SMP for map) contribute to restoration of ecological mature, the functions that vegetation provides will functions. increase—including shade, organic input, possible large woody debris recruitment, and habitat for birds. This segment is made Future Development: The only future Same as above for Urban Conservancy—Open Same as items#1-3 above in High Intensity for Green The substantial presence of up entirely of two "development" likely in Lake Fenwick Park is Space on the Green River River. critical areas (stream outlet, separate segments of related to passive recreation improvements, adjacent wetlands) in this Lake Fenwick Park on maintenance, or restoration activities. To control an infestation of the highly aggressive environment, combined with the north side of the aquatic plant Brazilian elodea, the City is introducing the limited pressure for any Lake Fenwick lake. Lake Fenwick has Functions/Processes Impacted: Any new grass carp to the lake. If successful, the grass carp substantial new or re- (all or portions of very minimal shoreline actions would either have no net effect on or introduction will improve water quality and aquatic development and the segment A as modification, mostly in contribute to restoration of ecological habitat (see Restoration Opportunities map in Appendix provisions of the SMP, described in SMP scattered short sections functions. Most of the activity is expected to C of the SMP, and description located in Section ensures that environmental Section 2.B.3.d associated with a small be related to repairs and improvements to 8.D.12.d). conditions in this and as shown in fishing pier, the existing structures. environment will not be Appendix A of boardwalk trail crossing In addition, the City Parks, Recreation & Community degraded relative to existing the SMP) and a boat launch. Services Department engages in a number of baseline. Further, Additional armoring is restoration and outreach activities that are described in successful control of found along the the SMP Section 8.113.9. Brazilian elodea should shoreline adjacent to the improve aquatic habitat. parking lot, with vertical timbers and with inset steps for lake access. TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page18 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect 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. URBAN CONSERVANCY—LOW INTENSITY This segment consists Future Development: These areas have the SMP polices for the"Urban Conservancy— Low Same as items#14 above in High Intensity for Green While there is pressure for of agricultural and potential to redevelop with low-density Intensity" environment(SMP Section 2.C.4) state that: River. new development on the agricultural support residential or low-intensity commercial Green River, SMP uses. Agricultural areas (commercial is only allowed as part of a PUD; "Uses in the `Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity' In addition to levee projects on the Green River, one provisions, including are primarily pasture the site must be 100 acres in the SR-1 zone). environment should be limited to those which are other WRIA 9 project on Lower Mill Creek will be setbacks, Restoration Plan land, and a large area at UC-LI areas that are located in floodways are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time)of implemented by the City (see Table 11 and Appendix C project implementation; and the south end of the City unlikely to have any new developments, and the shoreline area's physical and biological in the SMP, as well as Section 8.D.1). The project levee reconstruction ensure surrounding Mill Creek would be restricted to maintenance of existing resources and uses that do not substantially would provide off-channel habitat during high river that environmental Auburn is within Green primarily agricultural and some residential degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural flows, enhance riparian habitat, increase low flow conditions in this River/Mill Creek- structures and uses. character of the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, increase wetland environment will not be associated restoration and environmental enhancement are areas and increase floodplain storage. degraded relative to existing floodway/floodplain. Functions/Processes Impacted: Future preferred uses." baseline over the long term. Development: Development of the Urban It will be critical to evaluate Conservancy—Low Intensity segments "Where allowed, commercial uses should include projects on a site-specific Green River(all currently in agriculture likely has the greatest substantial shoreline restoration and public and project-specific basis, or portions of Al, potential for adverse impacts compared to access." however, and utilize the A4, A7, D1-2, D4 potential development in other shoreline areas available impact and PAA-Al as and environments. minimization and protective described in SMP "Preservation of ecological functions should have Section in SM d priority over public access, recreation, and provisions of the SMP. and Section shown in Functions/Processes Impacted: development objectives whenever a conflict Appendix A of exists." the SMP) 1. Hydrology: Possible impacts to hydrologic processes via indirect effects of new The same comments as for High Intensity regarding impervious surface and stormwater stormwater management and mitigation sequencing management associated with low-density apply here as well. residential are the primary concern. In addition, several of the UC-LI segments The most active flood pla i n/floodway areas in the UC- are unleveed with high quality riparian LI environment with potential for alteration are found vegetation (mostly in the PAA south of in the southern portion of the City, in the agricultural Horsehead Bend within North Green River area on the south side of the river west of SR 167. Park). Activities that would remove that SMP Section 4.C.4.c generally prohibits fills in the functioning vegetation corridor would have floodplain or floodway, except in special substantial adverse impacts to aquatic and circumstances, thereby protecting basic hydrologic upland habitat and bank stability. functions and processes. 2. Vegetation and habitat: Substantial areas Further, the Commercial Development standards The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 19 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect of new impervious surface are possible, (SMP Section 5.C.4.c.4) stipulate, "All new replacing vegetation (even if only seasonal commercial development proposals will be reviewed crops). However, many of the UC-LI by the City for ecological restoration and public segments are located along leveed access opportunities. When restoration or public portions of the Green River, reducing the access plans indicate opportunities exist, the City may potential direct adverse affects of riparian require that those opportunities are either vegetation related to loss of organic inputs, implemented as part of the development project or large woody debris, water quality filtration, that the project design be altered so that those etc. As previously mentioned large areas opportunities are not diminished." This is expected to of UC-LI are in the floodway and habitat- result in moderate to substantial shoreline function altering modifications are not expected. improvements over time. However, it is not certain without detailed site-and project-specific information Similar to Green River shoreline areas whether that restoration would offset the impacts of an designated High Intensity, the function of all agriculture conversion to commercial or residential leveed Green River segments is likely to use. improve over time with implementation of levee improvements. Reconstructed levees would Residential Development is required to direct runoff to likely include improved riparian vegetation on infiltration or detention/treatment systems, which the waterward side, large woody debris, and minimizes hydrologic and water quality impacts from reduced bank slope or an increased levee those uses (SMP Section 5.C.8.c.13). Depending on setback. the type of agricultural use being converted to residential use, water quality may improve because of a reduction or change in the type and/or method of chemical (pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer) application. Three of the five parcels Future Development: The segment may Same as above for Urban Conservancy— Low Any proposed alteration of shoreline that directly Limited redevelopment in this segment contain redevelop with low-density residential or Intensity on the Green River. impacts wetlands or the stream would be reviewed by pressure, critical areas single-family residences, clustered residential with the possibility of state and federal government agencies as well, adding regulations, and SMP the fourth is part of King some low-intensity commercial. Further, the residential setback on Big Soos Creek is an additional layer of impact and mitigation review and provisions ensure that any Big Soos Creek County's Soos Creek 200 feet(SMP Section 5.C.8.c.9). oversight. development in shoreline (see Appendix A Park, and the fifth is Functions/Processes Impacted: Because the jurisdiction of Big Soos of the SMP for owned by WSDOT for residential setback on Big Soos Creek is 200 Creek would not result in net map) stormwater facilities. feet and much of the shoreline area is wetland loss of ecological function. Most of the shoreline and/or floodplain, any redevelopment is area is wetland and unlikely to have significant adverse affects on floodplain. function. Very little further alteration of the shoreline area is expected. This segment consists Future Development: This area may Same as above for UC—Low Intensity on the Green Effects from other local regulations are unknown at this It is expected that King Panther Lake of low-density residential redevelop with low density residential, River. time. Panther Lake is currently only in Kent's PAA, and County's SMP will meet (all of segment A parcels in the northern clustered residential, or possibly some low is subject to King County's SMP. However, similar to State requirements for no as described in and eastern portions of intensity commercial uses. the above information, direct wetland or lake impacts net loss of ecological SMP Section the lake and a small would also be regulated by state and federal agencies. function. 2.B.4.d and as segment in the extreme Functions/Processes Impacted: Given the shown in southern portion of the large percentage of Panther Lake shoreline Appendix A of lake. Panther Lake that is wetland, new development within the SMP) does not appear to have shoreline jurisdiction is expected to be limited. any shoreline New developments will be reviewed and modifications, with the TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 20 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect exception of the public permitted by King County under its updated boat launch. SMP (adoption pending). Some impervious surface increases and some vegetation removal, however, is still likely and would have adverse affects potentially on water quality and habitat. SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL This segment is Future Development: Redevelopment of SMP policies for the "Shoreline Residential" Any proposed alteration of shoreline that directly New and redevelopment has composed of primarily residential uses is possible. The potential for environment(SMP Section 2.C.5)state that: impacts wetlands or the river would be reviewed by the potential to degrade the multi-family residential significant new development is very limited due state and federal government agencies as well, adding baseline condition. units, along with the to the extent of existing development. "Land division and development should be an additional layer of impact and mitigation review and However, the combined, KOA RV campground permitted only 1)when adequate setbacks or oversight. strict implementation of the and a small amount of Functions/Processes Impacted: It's not likely buffers are provided to protect ecological functions SMP and the critical areas small-lot single-family that redevelopment would cause direct impacts and 2)where there is adequate access, water, regulations should minimize homes. or contribute to cumulative impacts because of sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and public impacts. If mitigation for its location on the opposite side of levees and services available and 3)where the environment potential setback reductions trails. can support the proposed use in a manner which includes removal of protects or restores the ecological functions." substantial shoreline hardening and/or Green River all "New residential development should be located supplementation of native (a ll or portions of Cl- and designed so that future shoreline stabilization shoreline plantings, 6 and D3 as is not required." ecological function in developed residential areas described in SMP The same comments as for High Intensity regarding could improve in the long Section 2.B.5.d term. and as shown in stormwater management and mitigation sequencing Appendix A of apply here as well. the SMP) Residential Development is required to direct runoff to infiltration or detention/treatment systems, which minimize hydrologic and water quality impacts from those uses (SMP Section 5.C.8.c.13). All private development would be subject to 140-or 150-foot setbacks depending upon whether a levee is present(140 feet if a levee is present and 150 feet if no levee is present) (SMP Section 3.113.1.c.7). All SR- designated areas and associated new and re- development on the Green River are located landward of the existing levee. Lake Meridian This segment is Future Development: This segment has The applicable SMP policies for the "Shoreline Any proposed alteration of shoreline that directly New and redevelopment has (all of segment C dominated by single- several lots that are either underdeveloped or Residential" environment are provided above in the impacts wetlands or the lake would be reviewed by the potential to degrade the as described in family homes, along with could possibly be subdivided. Shoreline Residential—Green River discussion. state and possibly federal government agencies as well, baseline condition. SMP Section a mobile home park adding an additional layer of impact and mitigation However, the combined, 2.B.5.d and as occupying Functions/Processes Impacted: As The same comments as for High Intensity—Green strict implementation of the The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 21 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect shown in approximately 300 feet described above, new development is typically River regarding stormwater management and review and oversight. SMP and the critical areas Appendix A of of shoreline. Lake accompanied by impervious surface increases mitigation sequencing apply here as well. regulations should minimize the SMP) Meridian has been and vegetation removal. On Lake Meridian, impacts. Lake Meridian has altered with a variety of these alterations may degrade upland and Provisions for runoff management in the Residential the most intense residential armoring and alteration aquatic wildlife habitat, and reduce lake water Development section are the same as listed above development along the types, including piers, quality (if driveway runoff was directed under Shoreline Residential —Green River. shoreline compared to other boatlifts, boathouses, untreated to the lake). Additional impacts waterbodies. Detailed and moorage covers. could occur with associated new pier A detailed discussion of effects of SMP provisions assessment of the most Approximately 90 development (discussed separately below in related to residential setbacks is presented below in common impacting activities percent of private Section 5.2). Section 5.1. The regulations in SMP Section 5.C.8.c is provided in Sections 5.1, residences have a dock. provide for a protective setback of 75 feet, and 5.2 and 5.3 below. If allowances for reductions that could occur only when mitigation for potential paired with substantial restoration elements related to setback reductions includes vegetation or shoreline hardening. removal of substantial shoreline hardening and/or A detailed discussion of effects of SMP provisions supplementation of native related to residential piers is presented below in shoreline plantings, Section 5.2. The regulations in SMP Section 4.C.3.c ecological function in contain strict dimensional and materials standards. developed residential areas could improve in the long New and replacement shoreline stabilization is more term. likely on Lake Meridian than any of the other shoreline waterbodies. The regulations contained within SMP Section 4.C.2.c will considerably reduce the potential for new hard shoreline stabilization, and will likely result over time in conversions of existing hard structural stabilization to soft structural stabilization (see more detailed discussion below in Section 5.3. This segment includes Future Development: Residential parcels The applicable SMP policies for the "Shoreline Unknown at this time. This segment of Lake Fenwick is It is expected that King approximately 700 feet have the potential to redevelop and possibly Residential" environment are provided above in the currently mostly in Kent's PAA, and is subject to King County's SMP will meet of primarily undeveloped increase in density. Shoreline Residential—Green River discussion. County's SMP. State requirements for no shoreline at the net loss of ecological northeast corner of the Functions/Processes Impacted: Except for a The same comments as for High Intensity—Green function. Lake Fenwick lake which is in single- small section of Shoreline Residential River regarding stormwater management and (all of segments family ownership and environment separated from the lake by UC- mitigation sequencing apply here as well. C and PAA-C as the remaining southern OS, this segment is limited to the PAA and is described in SMP portions of the lake governed by King County's SMP. Some Provisions for runoff management in the Residential Section 2.B.5.d shoreline which is impervious surface increases and some Development section are the same as listed above and as shown in dominated by single- vegetation removal are likely and could have under Shoreline Residential —Green River. Appendix A of family parcels. Several adverse affects on water quality and habitat. the SMP) of the single-family homes found along the lake have a small floating dock and/or minor shoreline armoring. TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 22 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Shoreline Likely Development/ Functions or Effect of Other Development and Restoration Segment Existing Conditions Processes Potentially Impacted Effect of SMP Provisions Activities/ Programs Net Effect This segment is made Future Development: There is approximately Any development proposals or activities would be Unknown at this time. Panther Lake is currently only in It is expected that King up of two separate 1,200 linear feet that is currently reviewed by King County under its new SMP until Kent's PAA, and is subject to King County's SMP. County's SMP will meet Panther Lake areas of single-family underdeveloped and therefore has the such time as the City annexes this area. State requirements for no development, along a potential to develop into residential uses. net loss of ecological (all of segment as described C majority of the western function. SMP Section portion of shoreline and Functions/Processes Impacted: New 2.B.5.d and as small section in the developments will be reviewed and permitted shown in southeast corner of the by King County under its updated SMP Appendix A lake. Panther Lake (adoption pending). Some impervious surface the SMP) does not appear to have increases and some vegetation removal is any residential shoreline likely and could have adverse affects on water modifications. quality and habitat. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 23 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 24 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5. "SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL" DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS In addition to the cumulative analysis presented in the tables above, this section will expand on several key areas of development/functions associated with redevelopment of the "Shoreline Residential" environment designation on Lake Meridian. 5.1 Residential Setbacks on Lake Meridian With the possible exception of limited additional residential lands being acquired for public open space, land use in the Shoreline Residential environment is not expected to change over the next 20 years, although new residential development and substantial remodels are anticipated. Typically, development of vacant lots into residential uses would result in replacement of pervious, vegetated areas with impervious surfaces and a landscape management regime that often includes chemical treatments of lawn and landscaping. However, there are only a few lots which are underdeveloped that have this potential. These actions can have multiple effects on shoreline ecological functions, including: • Reduction in ability of site to improve quality of waters passing through the untreated vegetation and healthy soils. • Potential contamination of surface water from chemical and nutrient applications. • Increase in surface water runoff due to reduced infiltration area and increased impervious surfaces, which can lead to excessive soil erosion and subsequent in-lake sediment deposition. • Elimination of upland habitat occupied by wildlife that use riparian areas. The original Shoreline Master Program had a minimum residential setback of 25 feet, although it could be increased to as much as 75 feet depending on the location of the adjacent residences (Table 6). Under the proposed SMP (Chapter 5, Residential Development), the minimum standard shoreline setback for lakefront properties will be 75 feet. A setback of greater than 75 feet will apply to those parcels with adjacent properties that have setbacks greater than 75 feet. Table 6. Comparison of setbacks between the original and proposed SMP. Shoreline Environment Original SMP Proposed SMP Urban— Lake Residential 25 ft standard (if there are no 75 ft standard (if there are no (proposed Shoreline adjacent residences) adjacent residences) Residential) Otherwise, average of adjacent Otherwise, average of adjacent setbacks; no greater than 75 ft setbacks; no less than 75 ft. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 25 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Using a subset of existing data' from Lake Meridian, the average residential setback from the OHWM is 99.5 feet. Using the same data, the average lot is approximately 322 feet deep. A more detailed breakdown of the existing setbacks within this subset of Lake Meridian Shoreline Residential environment is provided in Table 7. Table 7. Existing shoreline setback data for Lake Meridian. Measure Number of Percentage of Waterfront Parcels Waterfront Parcels Structures < 75 ft from OHWM (non-conforming) 6 15 Structures>_ 75 ft. and <_ 100 ft. from OHWM 20 50 Structures > 100 ft. from OHWM 13 32.5 Undeveloped Lots 1 2.5 Total Waterfront Parcels Studied 40 For urban shorelines, the condition of nearshore environments, the amount of impervious surfaces, and the extent of chemical usage on lawns and landscaping, are better indicators of shoreline health than the amount of space between the shoreline and a structure. Currently most of that space for much of the shoreline, whether it is 20 feet or 100 feet wide, is mowed lawn with some ornamental landscaping, much of it presumably treated routinely or occasionally with pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers. The significance of impervious surfaces on a lake environment where water quantity is not really a factor is very diminished given the residential uses. Single-family or multi-family homes generally have clean roof and sidewalk runoff, and driveways whether 50 square feet or 5,000 square feet are typically pollution-generating surfaces only to the extent that vehicle-related pollutants are deposited on them. Most single-family homes have between two and four vehicles, regardless of the driveway area and thus the correlation between driveway area and amount of pollution is not strong. An impervious surface standard has been set at 35% for single-family lots, with provisions for increasing that coverage to 50% with provision of substantial native vegetation along the shoreline. Those properties that choose to reduce their setback by using the shoreline enhancement incentive would be required to adhere to a shoreline vegetation management plan. The plan requires: • The preparation of a shoreline revegetation plan; • That native vegetation consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover designed to improve habitat functions; • Limitations on the use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides as needed to protect lake water quality; and • A monitoring and maintenance program. 1 Forty(40)of the existing parcels were sampled,thirty-nine of which contained an existing residence. Ten(10)parcels each were selected from four separate quadrants of the lake(southeast,southwest,northwest,and northeast). TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 26 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Relative to the existing condition, the implementation of the impervious surface increase measures would increase the amount of native vegetation (benefiting terrestrial and aquatic species) and decrease the amount of pesticides/herbicides entering the lakes. Over time, ecological functions will improve through implementation of the impact minimization and compensation measures that are part of approved impervious surface increases. It is important that the impervious surfaces be separated from the waterbody to the extent that those surfaces replace vegetation, which can have a variety of ecological benefits. The setback provisions described above continue to maintain separation between the homes and the lake, leaving the nearshore area available for vegetation. However, because of the setback averaging limit, it is difficult to evaluate exactly where the average setback may fall after 20 years of development and redevelopment. In summary, new residences and substantial remodels/additions are expected in the Shoreline Residential environment over the next 20 years. The protective setback and other measures in the SMP, including a requirement for shoreline vegetation when lot coverage exceeds 35%, will maintain or improve ecological functions of the shoreline over the long term, thereby resulting in no net loss of shoreline ecological function within the environment. 5.2 Overwater Structures Overwater structures encompass a variety of uses, from in-water structures, such as fixed-pile piers, floating docks and platforms, to moorage covers, such as canopies and boathouses with associated boatlifts. It is difficult to determine exactly how many waterfront properties do not have a pier or pier access, particularly as many piers are located near property lines and thus it is possible that those may be shared with the adjacent property. Piers can adversely affect ecological functions and habitat in the following ways: • Alter patterns of light transmission to the water column, affecting macrophyte growth and altering habitat for and behavior of aquatic organisms, including juvenile salmon. • Interfere with long-shore movement of sediments, altering substrate composition and development. • Contribute to contamination of surface water from chemical treatments of structural materials. Table 8 outlines some of the primary differences between the original and proposed SMP (see Draft SMP Chapter 4, Over-Water Structures)provisions for piers. Table 8. Comparison of key differences between original and proposed SMP provisions for new over-water structures. Pier Feature Original SMP Proposed SMP Length 120 ft 100 ft Width No larger than 50% of 4-ft walkway(first 30-ft) the lot width 6-ft remainder of pier 6-ft ell 2-ft finger The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 27 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Pier Feature Original SMP Proposed SMP 4-ft ramp connecting to pier Deck material Nospecification All new and replacement piers must be fully grated. Size 800 ft 420 ft2 single-family residence 660 ft2 joint-use by 2 residences 740 ft2 joint-use by 3+ residences Under the proposed SMP, new piers will be smaller and narrower than piers approved under the original SMP. New and replacement piers will also include light-transmitting decking material, which will reduce the effect of the overwater cover. Nevertheless, if new piers were the only pier-related activity in Lake Meridian, ecological function would still marginally decline. The decline would be due to an unavoidable net increase in in-water structures and overwater cover that cannot be mitigated. However, pier repair and pier maintenance activities are more common, and it is anticipated that pier replacement proposals may become even more common as existing piers degrade or do not meet the property owner's needs in their current configuration or location. Under the proposed SMP, existing piers could be replaced at the same size as the existing pier, as long as the entire replacement pier contained light-transmitting decking material. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is typically requiring piers that are both smaller in overall size than average existing piers and also narrower in the nearshore area. However, WDFW will, on a case-by-case basis, consider replacement piers at the same size as the original pier if it can be thoroughly shown that the applicant has demonstrated a need for the pier, and that proper mitigation sequencing has been followed (avoidance, minimization, and mitigation). Grated decking is a mitigating factor that WDFW encourages. Any new or replacement pier would require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW, on whose guidelines the proposed SMP pier provisions are partially based. The combined effects of the City's proposed SMP and permit approvals from WDFW will likely result in a reduction over time of the net amount of overwater coverage, and an increase in the amount of light-transmitting decking. A quantitative analysis is provided below (Table 9), based partially on Lake Meridian lake-wide trends and assumptions. This analysis assumes that 9 of the 12 existing properties on Lake Meridian without piers will add piers within the next 20 years. Also assumed is that 15 percent of all existing piers will need replacement over the same time period. Assuming that all new and replacement pier structures will be fully grated and that replacement pier structures can be replaced at the same size as the existing pier, the total area of overwater structure may decline by 6.8 percent over this time period. Table 9. Comparison of build-out conditions for overwater structures. Pier Feature Existing Build-Out Net Change % Change Number of Piers 125 134 +9 +7.2 Average Length ft 60.5 60.5—63.2 0 -2.7 +4.4 Average Width ft 6.9 6.7 -0.2 -2.9 Average Area of piers ft 511.2 505.1 -61 -1.2 TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 28 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis Pier Feature Existing Build-Out Net Change % Change ftoZtal square footage of piers 63,905.5 59,58435 -4,321.2 -6.8 Total square footage of 2 504.0 2,511.86 +7.8 +0.3 floatingplatforms ft Total square footage of 4,859.0 4,373.5' -485.5 -10.0 covered moorage ft Total square footage of overwater structures ft 71,268.5 66,469.6 -4,798.9 -6.8 Assumes that 9 of 12 existing properties without piers will construct a new pier over the next 20 years. 2 Range based on 9 new piers at either 60.5 feet(current average)or 100 feet(maximum allowed without a variance) 4 Assumes 9 new piers at 4 feet wide and replacement piers at 6.9 feet wide(current average). a Assumes 9 new piers at 420 ft each and 15 percent replacement of existing piers over 20 years(assumes replacement piers to be replaced at the same size-511.2 ft2 average). e Assumes 9 new piers and 15 percent replacement piers are fully grated(grating is calculated to have 60 percent open space). 'Assumes 25 percent of existing platforms will be replaced with new 150 ft platforms. 'Assumes that 10 percent of existing covered moorage will be removed over 20 years. 5.3 Shoreline Stabilization New bulkheads typically have the following effects on ecological functions: • Reduction in nearshore habitat quality for juvenile salmonids and other aquatic organisms. Specifically, shoreline complexity and emergent vegetation that provide forage and cover may be reduced or eliminated. Elimination of shallow-water habitat may also increase vulnerability of juvenile salmonids to aquatic predators. • Reduction of natural sediment recruitment from the shoreline. This recruitment is necessary to replenish substrate and preserve shallow water conditions. • Increase in wave energy at the shoreline if shallow water is eliminated, resulting in increased nearshore turbulence that can be disruptive to juvenile fish and other organisms. Under the proposed SMP (see SMP Section 4.C.2), new shoreline stabilization would only be allowed once it has been determined that there is "the need to protect the development from destruction due to erosion caused by natural processes, such as currents, and waves, and boat wakes..." It must be demonstrated in a study prepared by a qualified professional that the proposed stabilization is the least harmful method to the environment. Replacement bulkheads must be installed in the same location as the existing bulkhead, or farther landward. Under no circumstances would a replacement bulkhead be allowed to encroach farther waterward. Finally, all shoreline stabilization and modification proposals must avoid impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and when impacts are unavoidable, must mitigate those impacts to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Independent of regulations by other regulatory agencies, the proposed SMP ensures that shoreline stabilization projects will not degrade the baseline condition. The WDFW has jurisdiction over new shoreline stabilization projects, and repairs or modifications to existing shoreline stabilization. As part of WDFW's efforts to minimize and The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 29 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis compensate for shoreline stabilization-related impacts, they encourage implementation of native shoreline enhancement for new shoreline stabilization projects. Further, they also strongly promote shoreline restoration and additional impact compensation measures for many bulkhead modification projects, including placement of gravel at the toe of the bulkhead to create shallow- water habitat, angling the bulkhead face landward to reduce wave turbulence, and shifting the bulkhead as far landward as feasible. It is estimated that less than 8 percent of the existing lots on Lake Meridian are undeveloped. Therefore, the need for new shoreline stabilization is limited. As mentioned above, it must be demonstrated that there is a need to protect a proposed development from damage due to erosion caused by natural processes, such as currents, waves, or boat wakes. The proposed SMP includes incentives for the removal of existing bulkheads. Those properties that remove bulkheads may be allowed a small waterfront deck or patio placed along the shoreline. Revegetation or preservation of existing vegetation along the shoreline is required at a 3:1 ratio based upon the size of the deck or patio. Removal of a bulkhead and installation of a deck/patio and shoreline vegetation requires adherence to the shoreline vegetation management plan provisions outlined in Section 3.1. Over time, the combined effects of the City's proposed SMP, and permit approvals from the WDFW will likely result in a reduction over time of the net amount of hardened shoreline at the ordinary high water mark, an increase in shallow-water habitat, and an increase in shoreline vegetation. 6.0 NET EFFECT ON ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION As described above in Chapter 4 and 5, the proposed SMP provides a substantially increased level of protection to shoreline ecological functions relative to the existing SMP. On its own, the proposed SMP, which includes the Shoreline Restoration Plan, is expected to protect and improve shorelines within the City of Kent while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development, resulting in no net loss of shoreline ecological function, and may improve ecological functions over time (see Section 3.0). State and federal regulations, acting in concert with this SMP, will provide further assurances of improved shoreline ecological functions over time. As discussed above, major elements of the SMP that ensure no net loss of ecological functions fall into generally five categories: 1) environment designations (Chapter 2), 2) general provisions (Chapter 3), 3) shoreline modification provisions (Chapter 4), 4) shoreline use provisions (Chapter 5), and 5) Shoreline Restoration Plan (Chapter 8). 1. Environment designations: The Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report provided the information necessary to assign environment designations by segment to each of the shoreline waterbodies. Shoreline uses and modifications were then individually determined to be either permitted(as substantial developments or conditional uses) or prohibited in each of those environment designations. The most uses and modifications are allowed in descending order of potential impact in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Urban Conservancy—Open Space environments. The TWC Ref#: 070226 The Watershed Company Page 30 June 2009 City of Kent Cumulative Impacts Analysis only uses allowed in the Natural-Wetlands environment are related generally to restoration, scientific studies and passive recreation,pursuant to the Critical Areas regulations adopted by reference in SMP Section 3.13.3). 2. General provisions: This chapter contains a number of regulations on a variety of topics that contribute to protection and restoration of ecological functions, including Section 3.13.4 (Environmental Impacts), Section 3.B.5 (Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management), Section 3.13.11 (Vegetation Management), and Section 3.13.12 (Water Quality and Quantity). 3. Shoreline modification provisions: This chapter contains a number of regulations on a variety of topics that contribute to protection and restoration of ecological functions, including Section 4.C.2 (Shoreline Stabilization), Section 4.C.2 (Overwater Structures), and Section 4.C.6 (Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement). All of these shoreline modification regulations emphasize minimization of size of structures, and use of designs that do not degrade and may even enhance shoreline functions. 4. Shoreline use provisions: Regulations in this chapter focus on exclusion of uses that are incompatible with the existing land use and ecological conditions, and emphasize appropriate location and design of the various uses. These regulations also emphasize avoidance and minimization of ecological impacts via appropriate setbacks, protection and enhancement of vegetation, reduction of impervious surfaces and use of innovative designs such as LID techniques that do not degrade and may even enhance shoreline functions. 5. Shoreline Restoration Plan: The Shoreline Restoration Plan identifies a number of project- specific opportunities for restoration on both public and private properties inside and outside of shoreline jurisdiction, and also identifies ongoing City programs and activities, non-governmental organization programs and activities, and other recommended actions consistent with a variety of watershed-level efforts. The City is a very active agent for restoration along the City's shoreline waterbodies. Of particular note is the SMP's consideration and facilitation of future plans to reconstruct the Green River levees in an environmentally beneficial way. Given the above provisions of the SMP, including the Shoreline Restoration Plan, and the location of most existing and potential new and redevelopment relative to the Green River levee; the setback, shoreline modification and overwater structure provisions that apply to Lake Meridian; the absence of anticipated development or redevelopment on the Green River Natural Resources Area pond, Jenkins Creek, and Springbrook Creek; the residential setback and presence of critical areas along Big Soos Creek; and finally the limited expectation for new developments in the City portions of Lake Fenwick, no net loss of ecological functions is projected in the City of Kent's shorelines. As previously mentioned, Panther Lake, which is entirely within the City's PAA, is highly encumbered by critical areas, and has been evaluated by King County as part of its SMP update, is also anticipated to experience no net loss of ecological functions under either King County's or the City's SMP. The Watershed Company TWC Ref#: 070226 June 2009 Page 31 This page intentionally left blank. futurewise Building communities '. Protecting the land July 13,2009 Erin George, SMP Planner Kent Planning Department 400 W. Gowe St.Kent, Washington 98032 Sent by email to: egeorge&ci.kent.wa.us Re: Kent Shoreline Master Program Update (City responses shown in blue) Dear Ms. George: Futurewise appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Kent Shoreline Master Program. Our mission at Futurewise is to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting working farms and forests and shorelines for this and future generations. Futurewise has members across Washington State, including many in the City of Kent. We congratulate you on developing a well organized Shoreline Master Program(SMP)that addresses many of the issues that are required under the SMP Guidelines. The staff and committee members should be proud of their work. We only have one organizational recommendation that is to ensure legal connectivity for what uses and activities have to follow the SMP. The remainder of our comments are focused on detailed issues. Some of our comments are as much to prevent loopholes or gaps that could result in bad shoreline development as to address concerns of inadequate protection. The draft SMP has many good elements. A few of them are: • We are very pleased to see the numerous protection measures for the Channel Migration Zone. These features have a very important function in providing wildlife habitat, creating fish habitat, as well as in providing ecological functions. • The draft SMP prohibits new recreational floats and boathouses,and addresses the proliferation of other boating structures. • The stabilization section is very well written. The preference system is well designed. The standards are detailed and well thought out. • The Public access section is very well written, and includes details of how to do public access. Below we provide our comments on things we think the SMP can improve on. Our comments include the actual SMP policies and regulations,the Restoration Plan, and the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Please note that we are also sending a copy of our CAO Science on CD with the hard copy of this letter. Shoreline Master Program General Provisions In comparing the draft SMP to other regulatory documents, it does not have all the background and support components that are needed. Most regulatory documents have components at the beginning that establish the authority, applicability, scope,purpose, and similar provisions of the regulations. These are often grouped in a General Provisions chapter or a similar name. Some of the parts of the Administration Provisions in chapter 7 could be used and expanded to form the needed components,but they would need additional work. This information is provided in Chapter 1. Chapter 1 Section A provides the authority, Section B has been added which provides the purpose, Section C provides the applicability, and Section D provides the scope. Of particular concern is that an Applicability section is needed for the ordinance in general to describe what kind of activity is subject to the regulations. We recommend text that says, "The provisions of this Title(or chapter) shall apply to all uses,land and water alterations,and development within the City of shoreline jurisdiction,"or something similar. It can be followed by exceptions such as federal activity on federal land,tribal jurisdiction, etc. The exceptions should include the continued operation of existing lawfully established uses as they have historically been operated. The list items in the recommended text is important to avoid confusion and argument in what is subject and not subject to the SMP in the future. This information is provided in Chapter 7. Permitting Provisions A statement is needed at the beginning of the Permitting chapter that no uses,land and water alterations, or development shall be undertaken without obtaining a permit or letter of exemption to ensure conformance with the SMP. This provides the legal link to implementing the regulations. This is located in Chapter 7A and B. The SMP has no provisions for how to administer or review an exemption from the Substantial Development Permit. Yet this will be the most common form of review. Furthermore the SMP intends that small residential lots close to the water will get reviewed through an exemption,whether for expanding existing residences or establishing new ones on vacant land. The level of detail needed to ensure that impacts are mitigated is very difficult. Yet there is not even the requirement that submittal materials be provided that the staff person can use to review the exempt development and ensure compliance with the standards. As currently designed development close to the water will be reviewed as an exemption with an exemption fee,even though the amount of work done and cost to the City will be as much as for a Shoreline Variance. City staff chose not to include permit submittal or review requirements in the SMP, in order to be consistent with how other City code chapters handle permit requirements. Every permit type has a submittal checklist attached to the application form, which is available to the public in the City's Permit Center. Review procedures are outlined in KCC Chapter 12.01. Text on exemptions needs to clearly state: • That exempt development is only exempt from the Substantial Development Permit process, and is still subject to the Variance and Conditional Use Permit processes when applicable. • That prohibited uses and activities can not be allowed under an exemption. • That exempt development must still meet the SMP standards. • That the exemption is not permission to degrade the shoreline. • That exemptions are to be construed narrowly. • That if any part of the development is not exempt the entire project must be reviewed in the permit. • That a letter of exemption is required to document conformance with the SMP standards. • That a project not qualifying for an exemption might still apply for a permit. • That sufficient documentation must be submitted for the administrator to determine that the project qualifies for the exemption and meets the development standards. • That conditions may be attached to the letter of exemption to ensure compliance with the 2of17 development standards. • Other similar statements. Some of these are placed in the definition of exemption for some reason, and should be in the review process section. The primary concern is that exemptions that don't have consistent rules will not be implemented to meet the policies and regulations of the SMP. A loophole or gap and will result in continued degradation of shoreline ecological functions.All the above items are listed in either Chapter 7 Section B.1 or WAC 173-27- 040, which Chapter 7 Section B.1 references. The text on P. 27 incorporates the Kent Critical Areas Ordinance into the SMP. It also excludes certain inappropriate parts from incorporation. However,there are other parts of the CAO that should be excluded from incorporation into the SMP,because the requirements of the SMP should apply instead: • The Regulated Activities and Exemptions sections should be excluded • The permitting processes or references to them should be excluded. • The application process section should be reviewed for compatibility with SMP requirements. • The CAO definitions should be reviewed for compatibility with the SMP requirements. Staff and consultants have done so. • The enforcement provisions should be excluded. City staff feels the above items should remain applicable within Shoreline jurisdiction, as they are important in ensuring adequate protection ofKent's critical areas. DOE has determined we are in compliance with the SMA requirement for critical areas protection via the SMP. Enforcement The enforcement provisions in the SMP are fairly well defined. We have three recommendations to better cover costs of enforcement and discourage violations. If a jurisdiction has a lax enforcement system, it is extremely unfair to law abiding citizens,because it penalizes them by making them pay the expense and jump through the hoops of getting a permit, and rewards those ignoring or breaking the law by having not consequences.We recommend: 1)Violations should be required to pay a penalty fee of double or triple the normal amount, and require violations that might have qualified for an exemption to pay variance fees for whatever standards they didn't follow at the double or triple fee. 2)The City should initiate a fine system,which may also require implementation by a deputized enforcement officer from your other building and land use fine systems. 3)The City should withhold other land use and building permits until the violation is resolved. These are steps that, even with a minimal enforcement system, establish consequences to ignoring the law. Your existing enforcement system may include some of these items. These provisions are outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 1.04. A reference to KCC 1.04 has been added to the SMP in Chapter 7 Section L Nonconformities The draft SMP treats all nonconformities as Nonconforming Development(see definition)and refers the process and requirements for such development to the shoreline WACs. Please note that the shoreline WACs were written so long ago,they predate most zoning ordinances in the state. They are written in a manner that doesn't match well with today's regulatory structures and practices,which deal with nonconformities in a much more systematic and consistent manner than the WACs. We recommend reviewing other examples of dealing with nonconformity, including zoning ordinances.Nonconformities should be distinguished between nonconforming uses(which should be those that are normally prohibited and expected to go away over time), and nonconforming structures and use areas(which typically existed before buffers,height limits, etc. and shouldn't be treated as a nonconforming use). We recommend that outdoor areas also be included so that they have a legal standing as a nonconformity. Thus the definition would be for Nonconforming Structure or Area. The stringent requirements should be limited to nonconforming uses.Nonconforming structures and areas should be treated as normal development. Buffer reductions may be warranted for such development,but they should be reviewed carefully. 3of17 The section needs substantially more detail than that provided in the current draft. City staffprefers to reference the nonconforming use standards of WAC 197-27-080 as opposed to writing separate requirements. City staff feels the WAC requirements are appropriate and adequate for Kent's shorelines, and are consistent with the Kent Zoning Code. City staff feels the inclusion of"outdoor areas"in shoreline nonconforming regulations is unnecessary due to the requirements already imposed by the Vegetation Conservation section of the SMP(Chapter 3 Section B.11). The comments above are indeed dealt within the WAC standards (i.e. distinguishing between nonconforming "use"and "structure'). Definitions The definition section is 15 pages long, and is very detailed. A careful review of the definitions is needed to be sure that(1)all the definitions are actually used; and(2)they are used the way they are defined at each point of usage; and(3)the definition is actually needed rather than the general dictionary use of the term. The definitions for Significant Vegetation Removal and Significant Ecological Impacts and the subsequent regulations that use these terms only require addressing significant levels of impacts; `insignificant' degradation is apparently acceptable and doesn't have to be mitigated. This is an approach to impacts and mitigation that is systematic throughout the SMP,and will result in cumulative degradation of ecological functions over time. Correcting it will need careful review. This review has been done by City staff and consultants. City staff feels that requiring mitigation only for `significant vegetation removal"is appropriate for Kent and complies with the SMA requirements. The Vegetation Conservation section of the SMP(Chapter 3 Section B.11) also requires replanting of disturbed vegetated areas and application of the mitigation sequence. The definitions of both `significant vegetation removal"and "significant ecological impact"are sufficiently broad to cover any alteration that would have adverse effects on ecological function. Projects that cause significant ecological impacts and adverse impacts shall be mitigated per Chapter 3 Section B.4(3) and(4). Further, the Cumulative Impacts Analysis discusses this issue and concludes that "no net loss"ofshoreline ecological functions is indeed achieved with the proposed SMP. This conclusion is supported by Department of Ecology staff. Use Table We generally support the use of a Use Table. The table provided in the SMP does a good job at attempting to address uses based on water-dependency categories for some types of uses. However, a use table is only of benefit when it consistently captures all the use and permit level information in the SMP. As currently written,much of the use provisions and permit level information is found in the text, and is sometimes contradictory with the table. This means that the reader has to not only look at the table,but also look in the text for each type of development and modification to determine whether or not something is allowed. The benefit of having a table is to present all the use and permit level information in one location(not adding an additional location to look),rather than having it scattered throughout the entire SMP document.As written, we are concerned that the current application of the use table will create loopholes or gaps in the use provisions that future development will fall into.We recommend screening each section of the SMP for use and permit level provisions,and moving them to the table. This will require some creativity and careful thought in how the use table entries are worded. City staff believes the use table cannot and should not cover all thepermit level information. It is there to show which uses are allowed where, but a project proponent must go to the applicable "use policies and regulations"section to get the more specific permit level information. This organizational format is congruent with most land use regulations that employ a summary chart to identify allowable uses and also include standards (generally in other code sections) to address aspects of the uses. The format chosen has been successfully used and administered over the decades for numerous SMP's. The notion is that an applicant can quickly discern whether their proposal meets the basic use standards before looking more closely at the detailedprovisions. In addition, before the use table it clearly states in Chapter 5 Section B, "Where there is a conflict between the chart and the written provisions, the written provisions shall apply." A quirk of the Shoreline Management Act definition of development is that it includes"... any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of 4of17 the state..."-these might not even involve structures or land modification. Examples include: participant- only events (such as a 4 wheel drive club rally, etc.),festivals, fundraisers, duck races, fishing tournaments or other events that obstruct access to or use of the water. These events should be included in the commercial and the recreational categories. Since these are often annual events,permits authorizing multiple years of activity may be warranted. The uses listed here fit within uses already identified in Chapter 5, thus public access and environmental impacts will be addressed on a case-by-case basis per the Use regulations. Fundamental SNIP Concepts There does not appear to be an actual generally applicable regulation to accomplish no-net-loss of ecological functions. There are policies in the"Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations" section,but they don't appear to be implemented with a specific regulation. We recommend doing so. A policy to this effect is contained in Chapter 3 Section B(4), which also contains several regulations implementing the policy. Similarly,there is no generally applicable regulation regarding implementation of the SMA policies in RCW 90.58.020.We recommend that the three paragraphs of the state policy needs to be a policy statement in the Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations section. It is very important that these principles be very visible in the SMP to ensure their consideration in implementation of the SMP—of which the most important statement is: "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." This language has been added as Chapter 1 Section B `Implementation of the SMA." The SMA description of shorelands is found on page 3 along with some general discussion.However,the description includes options for jurisdictions to choose relating to floodplains and buffers.The City's choices of these options are not identified in the SMP.We recommend that shoreline jurisdiction extend to the 100- year floodplain. We also recommend that buffers for shoreline critical areas be included in shoreline jurisdiction. The geographic applications of the SMP are described in Chapter I Section C. City staff has chosen not to include the 100 year floodplain or wetland buffers in SMP jurisdiction. Environments The SMP uses a land-water environment system; where the water is placed in the Aquatic environment and the uplands are placed in other environments. The problem with this system is that most human uses that use the water also have upland components. Consequently, any project with a water component will usually have two environments that they must be compatible with. This characteristic of the system makes it very easy for a project to be allowed in the Aquatic environment,but not allowed in the upland environment-and maybe vise versa. This contradiction can create gaps and loopholes that can result in bad shoreline development or unintended consequences. We recommend that you look at how Jefferson County dealt with this problem. Alternatively,you should convert the Aquatic environment to a Deep-Water Environment and allow the shallow water areas to be considered with the upland environment. Either choice will likely require careful consideration and reconfiguration of the tables and text of the SMP. City staffprefers to regulate uses waterward of the OHWM differently from those landward because of the fundamental differences in ecological functions. However, a footnote has been added to the Use Table in Chapter 5 Section B which reads: "uses noted as allowed in the Aquatic Environment are allowed there if and only if allowed in the adjacent upland environment." The purpose statements and related policies for the Urban Conservancy environments indicate that uses within them are to be low-intensity. We recommend that low intensity commercial and recreational be provided with a definition or examples, and that entries in the use table be provided to make the distinction that such uses are allowed,but higher intensity uses are not. In addition, multifamily residential is a higher intensity use and should not be allowed in the Urban Conservancy environments. If low-intensity entries are not added to the table,then Commercial and Recreational uses need to be listed as Conditional Uses to 5of17 provide a more careful review and ensure that inappropriate uses are not established. Per the Use Table in Chapter S Section B, multi family residential is only allowed as a conditional use in the UC-LI environment. Footnote#9 of the Use Table states that commercial uses allowed in UC-LI "are only permitted as part of a residential PUD of at least 100 acres, located within an SR zone, or at least 10 acres for residential PUDs located in other zones. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted by the Zoning Code in the neighborhood convenience commercial district."Further, nonwater-oriented commercial requires a conditional use permit and must demonstrate that water-oriented uses are not feasible (footnote#4). Per footnote#1 of the Use Table, commercial uses allowed in UC-OS include "Park concessions, such as small food stands, cafes and restaurants with views and seating oriented to the water and uses that enhance the opportunity to enjoy publicly accessible shorelines." City staff feels these types of commercial uses are appropriate in UC-OS properties such as parks. Via the above-listed footnotes to the Use Table, clear restrictions and examples are indeed provided. Subdivisions A policy is needed to protect critical areas during subdivision—something like: "To stop the parcelization of certain critical areas among many owners, subdivisions that include them should include extensive critical areas in separate tracts."A related regulation would be: "Subdivisions that include streams,wetlands,their buffers,Floodways and CMZs, and(some)geologic hazards shall provide them with long term protection in the form of either critical areas tracts using separate parcels, or attaching such areas to one of the subdivision parcels. Such areas shall be held in common by the subdivision landowners, or by just one landowner" Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance requires that all critical areas be placed in a sensitive area tract or easement and be dedicated to either the City or the subdivision's homeowners'association. Dredging/Excavation Dredging is well defined as digging in the water and wetlands; though it needs to be expanded to include ponds. Its corollary, excavation,not addressed in the SMP and needs to be. Excavation would be digging outside of the water or wetlands. The definition of dredging, "excavation or displacement of the bottom or shoreline of a water body"is sufficiently broad to cover any potential dredging that may occur within shoreline jurisdiction and need not mention `ponds"as ponds are a term utilized and defined in the CA that are not regulated by the SMP(as they are less than 20 acres). The SMP provides definitions of "clearing"and `grading,"both of which are synonyms of excavation, and are the standard terms used throughout the SMP. Flood Hazard Page 32 addresses Flood Hazards. As written,bridges that are replaced don't have to meet current flood hazard standards and can be replaced the same as before. Inadequate bridges are one of the most ecologically damaging structures in a river system,due to their impacts on flood flows and sediment transport,and in turn, on fish habitat dynamics. This standard needs to be changed to require that replaced bridges meet current requirements wherever possible. This is normally an objective of a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. The City's Flood Hazard Regulations, specifically Kent City Code 14.09.180 address this issue. It is also addressed within the SMP in Chapter 3 Section B.5.c(10). In the same section gravel removal is allowed for flood control purposes. Gravel removal for flood control has the same impact as doing it for mining or other purpose. Gravel removal is one of the most damaging activities that can be performed in a river. It impacts normal water flows,changes stream erosive power, and alters sediment budgets and sediment transport. Since fish habitat is heavily dependent on normal sediment transport,it also affects fish habitat dynamics. If a sediment transport problem exists that creates a flood hazard problem,the underlying cause of the sediment transport problem needs to be addressed,rather than just treating the symptom with gravel removal. Any gravel removal needs to be a temporary solution while a long term solution is implemented in the comprehensive flood hazard management plan. The Green River does not have gravel, but rather silt, thus gravel removal is extremely unlikely to be needed in the future. However, the provision is placed in the SMP due to the remote possibility that gravel may travel downstream 6of17 from adjacent jurisdiction(s). The language in Chapter 3 Section B.5.c(11) requires a biological and geomorphological study demonstrating a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, no net loss of ecological functions and that the extraction be part of a comprehensive flood management solution. City stafffeels this language sufficiently restricts gravel removal to a temporary nature andprevents adverse impacts. A quirk of the SMP guidelines is that Community Services, such as government buildings/uses, churches, hospitals, etc. are not covered very well.We recommend including them with commercial uses, such that the category becomes Commercial Uses and Community Services. The change would need to be made in several places in the document. A statement has been added to the Commercial Development "applicability"section of Chapter S Section C.4.a that includes community services. Commercial Page 79-80 and Note 4 in the Use Table discuss allowing non-water-oriented commercial uses. The SMP Guidelines have more specific limits to allowing non-water-oriented commercial uses than provided in the SMP -changes are needed to meet these. The provisions in Chapter 5 Section C4.c.2 allow for non- water-oriented commercial uses on the Green River. The Green River in many areas already has non- water-oriented commercial uses and the existing zoning and comprehensive plan designations allow for these uses. They are separated from the river by a levee. The City does not anticipate water-oriented commercial development in these areas. As noted above,under Environments, a low intensity category is needed for the Urban Conservancy environments,which should be incorporated into the use table or text. See comment above under "Environments." Parking Glare from parking lot lighting is an important impact on fish and wildlife habitat.A standard needs to be added that minimizes and avoids illumination of the water, setback/buffer areas,wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas. A similar standard is found in the Overwater Structures section. This has been added in Chapter 3 Section C.6.c.7. Water-Quality and Utilities We recommend that these sections be expanded to deal with the septic system issue thoroughly. The Puget Sound is suffering from water quality problems,much of it due to the extensive use of septic systems for water-front development. Even in county rural areas,residential development has occurred at urban densities immediately along the water. Even when operating correctly, septic systems discharge nutrients to the groundwater. In addition, landowners often do things(chemical treatments, etc.)that cause the system to not operate correctly. Septic systems also have a limited life, and when they fail and they discharge untreated sewage to the groundwater. While today's septic system regulations require replacement drain field areas,many owners will do things to avoid the cost of replacement,thereby causing discharge of sewage over a long period of time before the system is replaced. In areas of urban density,the use of septic systems(especially in old neighborhoods with a likelihood of failing septic systems)needs to be phased out. The GMA requires that jurisdictions provide their areas with urban-level sewer,water,transportation, and other services. It is inappropriate for urban/city density development(especially near water)to be taking place on septic systems, and existing dense areas of development need to be switched over. If there are no city sewer facilities near shoreline areas,the City needs to correct this shortcoming by developing new policies for utility planning within shoreline jurisdiction and to update the Comprehensive Plan and the City's functional plans (such as the Sewer System Plan and the Capital Facility Plan)to provide the needed sewer service. Any interim septic system use allowed in future shoreline permits needs to include provisions for installing `stub-outs', and connection to sewer facilities when they are available through use of covenants or other agreements. 7of17 How the City handles the issue of septic systems v. sewer connection is not evident in the SMP and needs to be addressed.We recommend that the following concepts be incorporated into the policies and regulations for Water Quality or Utilities. • New development shall not be allowed on septic systems. • •When projects are proposed for existing development already operating on septic systems, they shall be required to connect to municipal sewer. If municipal sewer is not available,use of the septic system may be allowed if. 1)The development installs stub-outs and provides any needed agreements to ensure future connection to the sewer service when it is available in the area. 2)The existing septic system is upgraded to meet current septic system standards. • The city will plan for and provide sewer service to all development within shoreline jurisdiction. (You might exclude the Urban Conservancy—Open Space environment from this if appropriate.) SMP Chapter 5 Section C.8.b.5 requires that sewage disposal facilities "be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations." Further, Kent City Code 7.04.160 requires connection to sewer service if it is available, and if subdividing land, the sewer shall be extended to all new lots. A very large percentage of existing development within Kent's shoreline jurisdiction is already connected to sewer. The water quality section is all about preventing pollution in shoreline jurisdiction.However, some uses and activities inherently have a high risk of pollution, and should be prohibited.We recommend the following policy/regulation,though some of these items may be covered on other parts of the SMP. City staff has opted to address each particular use in the applicable use section within Chapter 5, as opposed to the Water Quality section. Prohibit uses and activities that pose a risk of contamination of ground or surface waters. These include: a. Storage, disposal,or land application of waste(excluding secondary/tertiary treated effluent from municipal sewer systems), including solid waste landfills Addressed in Chapter 9 Section C.10.c.7. b. Operations for confinement feeding of animals Addressed in Chapter 5 Section C.2.c.2. c. Junk yards and auto wrecking yards Kent Zoning Code prohibits these uses in all but two zoning districts, only one of which (CM-2) exists within shoreline jurisdiction in one small segment. Chapter 10 Section C.4.c.2 states that a non-water oriented use would have to "be of appreciable public benefit by increasing ecological functions together with public use of or access to the shoreline." A junk yard or auto wrecking yard would not meet this standard. d. Storage of hazardous or dangerous substances within a floodplain Addressed in Chapter 5 Section C.5.c.3 e. Alterations to structures and uses served by septic systems that do not meet state septic requirements. SMP Chapter S Section C.B.b.5 requires that sewage disposal facilities "be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations." Recreation The SMP Guidelines, in WAC 173-26-241(3)(i), states: "Recreational development includes commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational opportunities to the public."Facilities for single users and private groups are not allowed under this land use. The draft SMP includes facilities for private clubs,groups and individuals in this use category and needs to be changed to meet the SMP Guidelines. City staff feels it is important to apply the standards in the Recreation use section to private parks and recreation facilities such as golf courses. Applying such standards (such as setbacks for parking, etc.) ensures greater adherence to SMA than if they were not applicable.As a practical matter, the chance that private recreation facilities could conflict with public rights is very limited if not non-existent in Kent. Because cities are where the most people are located,there is a great demand for water-oriented recreation. However,many jurisdictions do not adequately use their limited shoreline park and recreation areas on non- water-oriented uses. We recommend that the limited park and recreation areas be reserved for water-oriented recreation facilities. Specifically,non-water oriented recreation(organized sports fields, sports complexes, golf-courses)doesn't need to be near water. When allowed,non-water-oriented recreation should be subject to a CUP in all environments,or have standards directing them to uplands outside shoreline jurisdiction.A statement in the Applicability section 8of17 states that indoor recreation should be treated as commercial uses—this needs to be also stated in the regulations or land use table. Chapter S Section C.7.c.1 provides detailed restrictions on nonwater-oriented recreation, which City stafffeels is more effective than requiring a conditional use permit. As noted above,under Environments,recreation uses in the Urban Conservancy environment should only be allowed if of low intensity. Some definition or set of examples is needed to implement this concept, and it needs to be incorporated into the use table or text. Thus,water-oriented uses should be categorized based on intensity and considered appropriately in the different environments. The high intensity uses should be carefully reviewed—typically as a conditional use—due to the impacts and wide variety of activities that happen. Recreation is listed as a key policy in SMA, and is not restricted to "low intensity." The Use Table adequately limits nonwater-oriented recreation via a conditional use permit in the UC-LI environment and applicants must demonstrate that water-dependent and water-enjoyment uses are not feasible (footnote#4). Transportation Historically,transportation projects have had some of the most destructive impacts on shoreline ecological functions. Linear transportation projects have special characteristics that need to be addressed with detailed regulations to deal with the inherent impacts they have. We recommend using mitigation sequencing to reduce or avoid the impacts by providing details specific to transportation uses. Mitigation sequencing is required in Chapter 5 Section C.9.c.2. Transportation Regulation 3 is a good provision,however it needs additional clarification to continue following mitigation sequencing using language similar to the following: "Facilities should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction unless there is no feasible alternative. When necessary,they should be located as far landward as possible." A regulation is needed that addresses a practice that can do as much damage as an actual project: "To prevent secondary impacts from transportation projects,the disposal location of excess material and waste materials shall be disclosed in submittal materials." This is addressed in Chapter S Section C.9.c.13. Additional standards are needed to deal with the peculiarities of linear transportation projects impact water systems by covering the issues below: • In floodplains,construct linear transportation corridors at grade or otherwise provide flood water pass-through, especially for flood overflow channels. • Don't cut off or isolate hydrologic features • Minimize the number of bridges,by first requiring the use of alternative access points, sharing existing bridges, and sharing new bridges with adjacent lots whenever possible. • Span both the OHWM&floodway The City's Flood Hazard Regulations, KCC 14.09 address these. The transportation section is intended to include non-linear transportation facilities, like centralized facilities(airports,terminals,perhaps maintenance/storage yards, etc.). However the regulations don't seem to make that distinction. We recommend grouping the linear and non-linear standards and focusing the language as needed.Additional non-linear facility standards maybe needed. The policies and regulations in Chapter 5 Section C.9 adequately restrict location and design of all transportation facilities and require mitigation for all adverse impacts. City staff does not think it is necessary to distinguish between linear and non-linear facilities as stated, because linear facilities are called out in several places as "roads and railroads." Transportation use provisions and the use table need to be made more consistent. The table needs these distinctions, especially the ones based on scale: Freeways, arterials &railroads which should be conditional uses in all environments; if maintenance/storage yards are allowed they should be prohibited in environments they would be inconsistent with; access roads serving permitted uses should be allowed in all locations (except maybe aquatic),but should possibly be conditional uses in the urban conservancy environments to protect shoreline functions. The Use Table and Transportation use provisions are indeed consistent. Footnote#7 of the Use Table in Chapter S Section B states that "roadways and utilities may be allowed if 9of17 there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by the City, and all adverse impacts are mitigated." City staff feels that this provision, combined with the Transportation regulations in Chapter S Section C.9.c and Environmental Impact regulations in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c adequately restrict transportation uses. City staffprefers to minimize the needfor Conditional Use Permits (which require hearings) due to the expense to applicants and the City. It is unclear whether access roads and driveways have to meet these standards, yet they can have as much impact(at a localized scale)as a larger facility. They have bridges and segments that may run parallel to the shoreline, and these aspects need to meet the same standards as other transportation facilities. Access roads and driveways do not fall under the Transportation use section. They are accessory uses to other uses, such as residential and commercial, and thus would be subject to those specific use regulations. Utilities Like the Transportation section,the Utility section needs additional standards to deal with the peculiarities of how utilities impact water systems: • Also address major facilities(sewer plants,water treatment,transfer stations, substations,power generation) specifically and limit them to water-dependent components • Avoid erosion failures due to stream bed mobilization. In the CMZ or floodway and near streams, locate 4 feet below the bed or 1/3 of bankfull depth. • Require lines under water features to be placed in a sleeve to avoid the need for excavation in the event of a failure in the future. • Use an installation method preference order to reduce impacts of utility crossings: Clear span, attach to bridge,boring,plowing,trenching. • For underground utilities in high groundwater areas,prevent french-drain effects from draining/rerouting groundwater patterns that support wetlands and streams.Use native soil plugs or collars that interrupt gravel pipe-bedding spaced at intervals. • Treat roads associated with utilities as roads • Return grade to previous or better condition that provides for normal floodwater passage. • New underground utilities always have excess material.Always require disclosure of excess material disposal locations before approval to prevent secondary damage to the shoreline. The Utility use provisions are incomplete, and the use table needs refinement to deal with central facilities, and different scales of utilities. Specifically: utility main lines which should be conditional uses in all environments;non-water-oriented processing facilities and substations should be prohibited in all environments;water-oriented processing facilities and substations should be prohibited in the environments they are inconsistent with, and should otherwise be conditional uses. The SMP includes a section of Accessory Utilities. Like driveways and bridges for transportation,utility crossings and lines that are accessory to a primary use also need to meet standards. Appropriate standards in the Utilities section should be moved to the Accessory Utility section, such as underground installation method,post construction condition and revegetation,depth of burial under water and use of a sleeve, etc. Footnote#7 of the Use Table in Chapter S Section B states that "roadways and utilities may be allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by the City, and all adverse impacts are mitigated." City stafffeels that this provision, combined with the Utilities regulations in Chapter S Section C.10.c and Environmental Impact regulations in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c adequately restrict utility uses. City staff prefers to minimize the need for Conditional Use Permits (which require hearings) due to the expense to applicants and the City. Boating Facilities Boating Facilities are a specific"use"in the SMP Guidelines established for multiple recreational boat users—commercial and non-commercial—and can include marinas,but should also include private community facilities for multiple users, and public boat launch and moorage facilities. This point should be clarified in the SMP. Marinas are prohibited in the SMP as they are not practical in Kent's waterbodies, 10 of 17 which is why they are not included in the applicability section of Chapter 5 Section C.3.a. However, marinas were mistakenly referenced in several spots, which have now been removed. A footnote has been added to the Use Table prohibiting marinas. Many individuals can use these facilities. It is important to have requirements for sanitation facilities (sewage, solid waste,both generated at the facility and from boats, etc.),pollution control(including fueling), light control, and safety measures. We recommend adding these standards. The requirement regarding extended moorage from the Guidelines is also missing from this section. This is addressed in Chapter S Section C.3.c.1. Dredging The dredging section is a dramatic example of the disconnect between what is allowed in the use table compared to the text. The table indicates that dredging for any reason is allowed.However, the text severely limits when dredging is allowed. Using both systems is counterproductive and misleads the reader. The severe use limits in the text should be moved to the table to provide the detail about the level of prohibition on dredging. The Use Table is used in conjunction with footnotes to provide a quick reference for what uses are allowed in what environments. Requirements beyond that are contained in the Development Standards section following the Use Table. City staff feels there are too many detailed regulations to include them all within the table. Staff has double-checked the SMP for any conflicts between the tables and the development standards and did not find any. In addition, before the use table it clearly states in Ch.S.B, "Where there is a conflict between the chart and the written provisions, the written provisions shall apply." The Dredging regulations should note that disposal of dredge material on lands should be considered as fill. Disposal of dredge material would fall under the definition of'fill"in Chapter 6, thus it is not necessary to restate this in the dredging regulations. Fill and Excavation Similar to dredging,the purpose for the fill needs to be differentiated. It certainly shouldn't be in water, wetlands, or CMZs. These severe limits need to be evident in the table. This is addressed in footnotes 1, 2 and 3 of the shoreline modification matrix(Chapter 4 Section B), as well as the fill regulations in Chapter 4 Section C.4.c. Most of the policies and regulations for fill can be applied equally well to excavation.We recommend you expand such instance to cover both upland fill and excavation. The Kent Construction Standards Section 1.1.3(A)does not allow speculative grading(not connected to a proposed development or project), thus it is not appropriate to designate excavation (synonymous with grading) as a separate modification. Rather, any grading/excavation would be subject to the use standards in Chapter 5 according to the proposed use(i.e. residential). Similar to transportation and utility regulations,there should be a provision for excavation to disclose the location of excess excavation material to prevent secondary impacts. Location of excess excavation material would meet the definition of'fill"and would then be subject to the fill regulations in Chapter 4 Section C.4.c. Restoration and Enhancement Both the Policies and Regulations should include a statement that stand-alone restoration projects and mitigation enhancement work should be consistent with and use information from the Restoration Plan. It is an important link between all the required parts of the SMP Guidelines. SMP Chapter 4 Sections C.4.a, C.4.b.4 and C.4.c.4 adequately establish this link. Public Access Overall,the public access policies and regulations are some of the best we have seen. The only 11 of 17 recommendation we have is that Regulation 1 indicates that public access is only required if the property fronts on the water. Yet public access can also take the form of view points. The public access standards should not be contingent on water frontage, and such a provision is not provided for in the SMP Guidelines. In Kent, excellent multi-use physical public access is provided on Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick and all along the Green River. Due to topography, there are very few, if any,prominent viewpoints that require protection. Given the wealth ofpublic parks and trails along all ofKent's major water bodies, visual public access appears to be a relatively insignificant issue. Overwater Structures There are a number of issues for this group of modifications. The contents of this section includes both in- water and over-water structures. There are many uses that may have in-water and over-water structures - including transportation,utilities,commercial,and industrial to name a few. Are all these structures intended to follow these standards? No; the applicability section in Chapter 4 Section C.3.a states that "over-water structures are for moorage, boat-related and other direct water-dependent uses or development." The other uses would be subject to the regulations for each particular use. The section is heavily focused on boating piers and docks. We recommend that the contents include buoys. The overwater structures and regulations do a good job of addressing the problem of the proliferation of boating structures,however we recommend adding specifics to better guide how its done. This is a primary issue for us,as it is needed to protect the shoreline functions. We recommend the policy be expanded to be similar to the following: A row has been added to the Shoreline Modification Matrix in Chapter 4 Section B prohibiting mooring buoys as they are inappropriate for the size and depth of Kent's waterbodies. "Avoid the proliferation of pier/dock&boating structures through the use of mitigation sequencing, using the following preference criteria: 1.New single family residential subdivisions may only use shared or community facilities. Such facilities should have limits on their size, and single-user structures are not allowed. This is required in Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.19.b.ii. 2. For existing single family residential lots: • Non-waterfront lots may not have boating structures,but rather must use a marina or community or public facility.If a lot is not waterfront, it would not be possible to have a boating structure. Further, marinas are prohibited in the SMP. • Waterfront lots first should try to share nearby existing facilities or use nearby public facilities. When that is not possible,new facilities need to be shared with adjacent or nearby lots that do not have facilities,if there are any present. Cost sharing or late-comer agreements should be allowed, similar to those used for shared roads/driveways and utilities. Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.19.b requires demonstration that a shared or joint use pier is not feasible and if the lot has less than 50 feet of waterfront, a joint-use pier is required. • 3. Multi-family development is not water-dependant, and may not have such structures. Boating and swimming are water-dependent uses and docks are appurtenant to these uses. Multi family residential development on a waterfront lot would be expected to entail the same uses. The Guidelines do not exclude multi family residential uses from having overwater structures, but rather, notes that SMPs should require joint use or community dock facilities where feasible. Kent's SMP includes a policy to this effect in Chapter 4 Section C.3.b.3. A regulation implements the policy in Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.19.ii, however it only mentions subdivisions. This regulation has been revised to include multi family residential developments. • 4.Non-Residential uses should share an existing or new facility whenever possible before building single-user facility." This is not applicable to Kent—the only non-residential overwater facilities would be public facilities and are covered under Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.36-40. A related mitigation sequencing policy is also needed. City staffprefers not to duplicate the mitigation sequencing standards already listed in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c.4. "When a new pier/dock&boating structure is warranted or necessary,avoid the use of more-impacting structures through the use of mitigation sequencing using a preference for less-impacting facilities. Proposals shall demonstrate that a less impacting structure won't work before using a more impacting structure in the 12 of 17 preference list below. For platform or mooring structures,the minimization sequence is in the following order of preference: Avoidance,Buoy or Float,Dock/pier, Solid quay(review as fill/excavation and stabilization instead). For launching structures,the minimization sequence is in the following order of preference is: Avoidance, Soft ramp(for rare-use site),lifts that do not result in additional overwater coverage when the boat is stored,rails,hard ramp (also review as fill/excavation)." In developing implementing regulations,we recommend including a requirement to demonstrate why a lesser impacting facility will not work before a greater impacting facility will be approved. City stafffeels the policy in Chapter 4 Section C.3.b.3 adequately addresses this issue. For the new policies,appropriate regulations need to be developed. Some might be implemented in the use or modification tables. The modification table has a pier/dock entry(which may also be used for other non- moorage uses),but none of the other boating structures. These need to be added to the table. We recommend adding the following lines in the table. • Pier/dock.Allow in all environments except Natural. Should be conditional use in Conservancy. The UC-OS environment contains public parks which in most cases have existing docks or boardwalks, and could potentially be needed in the future especially if new parks are developed. UC-L1 contains single-family homes, and per the Guidelines, single-family moorage is considered water-dependent. • Ramp/rails for water-dependent use,public access, or single family residence boat dock. Allow in all environments except Natural. Boat ramps are only allowed for public access,public or joint recreational uses, and emergency access (Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.32). Launching rails are prohibited(Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.33). • Lifts for water-dependent use,public access,or single family residence boat dock. Allow in all environments except Natural and Conservancy. A boatlift is accessory to a dock, thus City staffprefers to address them in the written regulations in Chapter 4 Section C.3.c.30 versus the table. • Buoy/mooring float for water-dependent use,public access, or single family residence boat dock. N/A in all environments, except allowed in Aquatic. A row has been added to the Shoreline Modification Matrix in Chapter 4 Section B prohibiting mooring buoys as they are inappropriate for the size and depth of Kent's waterbodies. • Other instances of dock/pier and boating structures not listed above. Prohibited in all environments. This statement is too vague. Per the Guidelines, uses not listed in the SMP will require a conditional use permit. Setbacks, buffers, and vegetation management City response at bottom of this section on Pg 16. Both the definitions for wildlife habitat(which includes ponds) and ponds exclude shoreline lakes, and there is no definition for lakes. A setback of 75 feet for ponds is found in KCC 11.06.720(Wildlife habitat buffer areas and setbacks). The stream classification system classifies shoreline streams as Type 1 waters,non-shoreline fish bearing streams as Type 2 waters, and other streams as Type 3 waters. The buffers for Type 1 shoreline streams are deferred to the SMP, Type 2 stream buffers are 100 feet, and Type 3 stream buffers are 40 feet. Since both the shoreline ponds and streams have no buffers under the CAO,they must be provided by the SMP. The SMP provisions vary by use, as described below.Keep in mind that the non-shoreline buffers almost always exceed the shoreline setbacks/buffers -even the Type 3 stream buffers for some instances. Agriculture(5.C.2.c.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. Commercial(5.B Table 7): Setback for water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented(uses not needing to be next to the water)between 30 and 100 feet depending on environment. Industrial(5.B Table 7): Setback for water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented(uses not 13 of 17 needing to be next to the water)between 50 and 100 feet depending on environment. Parking Lots(5.13 Table 7): Setback for of 70 feet. Recreational(5.13 Table 7): Setback for water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented(uses not needing to be next to the water)between 20 and 70 feet depending on environment. • Setback of 140-200 feet for enclosed structures depending on which stream • Setback of 120 feet for decks on all streams • Setback of 200 feet for garages and pavements for motorized vehicles on all streams • New residential lots can be created to meet these setbacks and buffers Residential development on Lakes (5.C.8.c Table 8 and sub-paragraphs)in all environments is described below. This includes highly developed Lake Meridian, and minimally developed Lake Fenwick and Panther Lake. • Setback of 75 feet for enclosed structures • Setback of 50 feet for decks on armored shorelines • Setback of 5 feet for decks on un-armored shorelines • New development on vacant lots have a buffer enhancement requirement of 20 feet,but only on 75%of frontage and they can still have deck at 5 feet • Setback of 75 feet for garages and pavements for motorized vehicles • New residential lots can be created to meet these setbacks and buffers. • Residential development on Streams (5.C.8.c Table 8 and sub-paragraphs)in all environments: Vegetation Management(3.13.1 l.c)is partially equivalent to the CAO buffer. It deals with"Significant Vegetation Removal"and revegetation of areas where it occurs. Significant Vegetation Removal is defined as"The removal or alteration of native trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover"by various means. Thus it is focused on existing and native vegetation. There is not a requirement that the vegetation management area be capable of buffering the impacts of the new development,though some re-vegetation is required for Urban Conservancy and High-Intensity environments (Note that the CAO wetland buffer requirements do require revegetation). Significant Vegetation Removal is allowed for facilities meeting setbacks, or that are otherwise approved to be close to the water. Note that water-enjoyment uses do not have to be next to the water(in the buffer)to maintain their water- enjoyment function. Yet the table allows them to unnecessarily degrade the shoreline by allowing them to locate very close to the water. They should have wider setbacks/buffers. Note that a water-enjoyment or non-water-oriented commercial or recreational use on a Type 2 stream tributary has a 100 foot buffer requirement, even as it enters shoreline jurisdiction.Yet those uses on a shoreline stream or lake have a 30-100 foot setback/buffer. Similar examples are found for other uses. Almost all uses(as noted above, including residential)have setbacks/buffers less than the non-shoreline critical area buffers,whether for streams or ponds. This is contrary to the SMA requirement that shoreline protection measures be at least as protective as critical area protection measures. This contradiction needs to be corrected. Note that most development on degraded shorelines do not have to make the vegetation capable of buffering the impacts of the new development. The CAO wetland buffers do have to be enhanced if they are degraded. The vegetation requirements for shoreline should be similar. Note that the setback/vegetation/buffer requirements are found in several places in the SMP and CAO making it very difficult for people to find all the buffer requirements and setback requirements that apply to a situation. This is exacerbated by the highly nuanced buffer table that is used to apply different buffer widths to different types of uses which also vary for different environments.We recommend greatly simplifying these provisions in order to be more consistent with the CAO standards,to better meet the SMA requirements, and to improve ease of understanding. This would be best done by eliminating the 14 of 17 Note that CAO buffers still apply, especially for wetlands,non-shoreline streams, and ponds. References to the CAO buffers need to be in the vegetation conservation section, at least as a"reminder" statement that there is more than the listed vegetation provisions. Doing this will make the section cover the full range of issues in vegetation conservation,both near water(buffers) and away from water. There are several issues with the proposed setbacks/buffers. 1 Setbacks apparently only apply to structures.Nonstructural use areas(lawns,gardens, stormwater, etc.)apparently do not have to meet the setback for the particular use, and can thus be located within setback/buffer area.All such use areas should meet the setback/buffer and conform to the vegetation. management requirement. 2 Vegetation removal is allowed for structures meeting setbacks and use areas within the setback/buffer, as long as its minimized to the extent feasible. Thus there is no definite standard that vegetation be protected along shoreline waters.Nor is there any definite criteria for when protecting the vegetation management area can be waived, such as for a Shoreline Variance. Since the vegetation has so little protection, it will inevitably result in a site-specific and cumulative degradation of ecological function. The CAO buffers are more specific provisions and reducing them requires a variance. The result is that the SMP provides a lesser level of protection than the CAO. 3 There is no provision for a separation between structures and the vegetation to allow space for construction/operation around the structure,this it is unclear whether a large or small area between the structure and vegetation is expected or acceptable. 4 The SMP guidelines have a science requirement similar to the CAO Best Available Science requirement. The setbacks and buffers found in the SMP are generally(though not exclusively)NOT based on science,but rather based on existing development and convenience of future permitting. Science based buffers are in the area of 100-150 feet. The CAO buffers for Type 2 streams and wetlands may be in the range of a science based buffer. The CAO setbacks for ponds are close,but still do not match the science-based buffers. With the hard copy of this letter,we are providing a CD with a collection of critical area related science that includes documents addressing appropriate buffer widths to provide the functions that are needed. 5 The setbacksibuffers in the SMP range from 20-100 feet,with some of the most intense types of development having the smallest buffers. This is contrary to the science that says that more intense uses need bigger buffers and setbacks. 6 Establishing small setbacks and buffers that are supposedly"based on science"implies that meeting the setback and buffer will result in no impacts,and thus a project need do no more. It also implies that exempt development(mostly residential)that meets the standards don't need more detailed review of their impacts. 7 These small setbacks and buffers will be applied equally to existing developed areas(which was probably the intent) and to the few remaining intact locations in developed areas, and(more importantly)urbanizing areas where new development is capable of meeting the science-based buffers. Hopefully this was not intended. The consequence is that the remaining functioning shoreline areas will be degraded over time resulting in a site specific and cumulative loss of ecological functions. Admittedly,the issue of how to deal with exiting urbanized areas when it comes to buffers is difficult. Our recommendation is to treat existing developed areas that cannot meet the buffer differently than those that can,using the following line of logic. (A) Identify the science based buffer and apply it to those locations that can meet the buffer. (B) Existing developed areas that are already located within the buffer should carefully identified and mapped,and be addressed on a case-by-case basis using a strategy that enhances degraded sites where opportunities exist. A specific buffer width is then not needed. This strategy is already embedded in the CAO for enhancing degraded wetland buffers,but it should be extended to the SMP vegetation conservation section as well. The concept of removing obsolete,redundant, or dilapidated structures(armoring, docks, etc.)is in SMP policies,but should be extended to the regulations. (C) The highly nuanced tables of setbacks should not be used, as they imply that such minor setbacks/buffers adequately protect the shoreline. And imply that development close to the 15 of 17 water does not need careful review. (D) Most Puget Sound jurisdictions require ALL shoreline permits to go through a hearing process,which is costly and time consuming. We recommend that the hearing process be reserved for conditional uses and nonconforming"uses". Other development can adequately be review by the administrative staff.You should change the permit review level for shoreline permits appropriately. Kent City Code 12.01.040 requires Shoreline Substantial Development permits to be decided by the Shoreline Administrator. Hearings are only required for shoreline conditional use permits and variances. A simplified and streamlined permit review process (by not requiring a hearing)will provide adequate review of development close to the water,while not overburdening the process in cost and time. To be clear, continuing the past practices of small setbacks and buffers with little review(through exemptions)will not stop the degradation of Puget Sound. The Shoreline Management Act(SMA) requires that cities balance a number of objectives in developing their SMPs aside from simply protecting ecological functions (which is achieved via demonstrating "no net loss'). These other objectives include protection ofprivate property and navigation rights,provisions for public access and recreation,preferential accommodation of single family uses and utilization by water-dependent and water-related uses. Cities are required by SMA to establish environment designations that acknowledge different types and intensities of land uses as well as different levels of environmental protection. As such, applying widespread, undisturbed vegetated buffers to all of Kent's shorelines would not achieve a balance between the other policy goals required by SMA. Rather, the proposed SMP applies use-appropriate setbacks, but requires a number of Vegetation Conservation provisions such as minimization of vegetation removal and re-vegetation of degraded shoreline areas (Chapter 3 section B.IL c). Many of the comments above confuse critical areas with shorelines; this is an important distinction because shorelines are not critical areas. Undisturbed vegetated buffers and use of"Best Available Science"are requirements that only apply to Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO) via the Growth Management Act, not to Shoreline Master Programs. Kent's CAO was deemed in a 2006 Growth Management Board decision to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. SMA requires that SMPs provide equal protection to critical areas (RCW 90.58.090(4)), not to shorelines. Kent is meeting this requirement by adopting its Critical Areas Ordinance by reference into the SMP. The setbacks in the proposed SMP were developed with consideration to science, however, the other SMA goals mentioned above were also considered. City staff feels the proposed SMP setbacks are appropriate for each environment designation, adequately accommodate preferred shoreline uses, while protecting public rights and combined with the Vegetation Conservation and Environmental Impacts regulations (Ch 3) as well as the Restoration Plan (Ch 8), meet "no net loss"of shoreline ecological functions. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis supports this statement, taking into account existing baseline conditions of Kent's shorelines, reasonably foreseeable future development, watershed and site-level restoration, and the proposed SMP regulations. Cumulative Impacts Analysis The Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity environment anticipates subdivisions,but doesn't quantify the number of new lots based on the land area.Nor does it quantify the elimination of habitat area due to subdivision. Other areas planning extensive subdivision have the same issue. The text in the "Net Effect" column of the table on page 19 describes provisions which provide sufficient assurance of no net loss in this environment without providing quantitative and speculative detail about the exact development scenario. The Urban Residential environment(around Lake Meridian and other locations)talks about removal of structures and hardening as a consideration in cumulative impacts. However, it is unclear whether there are definite requirements for removing structures in the regulations. Either the requirement needs to be clearly included in the SMP standards, or the benefits of this activity should be discounted. Section 5.3 adequately outlines assumptions and regulations: difficulty of permitting new bulkheads and substantive provisions related to replacement bulkheads (which will improve conditions in most cases), as well as incentives. With 16 of 17 regard to removal of structures, such activity meets the definition of"development"in Chapter 6 and thus will be subject to the mitigation requirements located in Chapter 3 Section 4. The SMP only requires mitigation for"significant ecological impacts."Yet the CIA doesn't acknowledge that this. This results in the smaller impacts accumulating to a continual degradation of shoreline ecological functions. This is an approach to impacts and mitigation that is systematic throughout the SMP. Correcting it will need careful review. The setback/buffer requirements in the SMP are not consistent with science. They are largely based on dealing with existing developed areas close to the water.Yet the setbacks/buffers are applied as if they are science based, and are applied even to the intact shoreline areas,including the Green River,Lake Fenwick and Panther Lake. Such application of vegetation protection will inherently result in individual and cumulative impacts that result in degradation of shoreline ecological functions. See discussion above on Page 16. Restoration Plan In the Restoration Plan, section 8.D.4 lists comprehensive plan goals. Goal LU-28 states [with emphasis]: "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."Note that there are degraded critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction that need to be enhanced. This should be dealt with on a case by case basis when new development occurs. Enhancement of degraded conditions is a requirement of the SMP Guideline's restoration planning requirement. The Critical Areas Ordinance requires restoration of degraded wetland and stream buffers (KCC 11.06.600.E and 11.06.680.A.1). Restoration will also occur via a variety of City projects which are discussed in the Restoration Plan. Section 8.D.5 Critical Area Regulation. The section doesn't mention the enhancement outcomes that result from the wetland buffer regulations that require degraded buffers to be enhanced so they can function to buffer the impacts of new development. If there are enhancements that occur as a result of mitigation for development,that needs to also be described. The Restoration Plan does not address the enhancement results of the actual SMP regulations—the primary product of the update effort. These need to be included,but more importantly,the SMP regulations need to address such degraded conditions as mitigation for new impacts. Of particular concern is that degraded vegetation areas need to be addressed for new development so they can actually buffer the impacts of the development. This is not a required element of the Restoration Plan, but rather the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. The SMP requires mitigation for new impacts and restoration of disturbed vegetation; the nature of the mitigation will be site and impact-specific. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at dean@futurewise.org or 509-823-5481. Sincerely, Dean Patterson Shoreline Planner Futurewise 17 of 17 This page intentionally left blank. Ly MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE O��Lyo Fisheries Division ` Ir !r INDIAN nd INDIAN TRIBE f± 39015 - 172 Avenue SE •Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 TRIBE Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 July 15,2009 Ms. Erin George Planner City of Kent Planning Services 400 W. Gowe Street Kent, WA 98032 RE: Kent Final Draft Shoreline Master Program Dear Ms. George: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division(MITFD)has reviewed the City of Kent's Final Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP), its associated maps, and the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report and its associated maps. As we discussed earlier this week,the MITFD was not sent the Draft Shoreline Inventory as previously requested;therefore,this was the first opportunity that we had to review this document. You will find our attached comments to both sets of documents in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources. In general,we appreciate the City's commitment and ongoing efforts to protect and restore salmonid habitat. The Shoreline Master Program is one tool that City can use for this purpose. However,the Final SMP should be revised to acknowledge the importance of the Green River for the Tribe's ceremonial, commercial and substance fisheries. Tribal members fish in the Green-Duwamish River, including areas within the City of Kent. The City needs to ensure that the SMP and its implementation do not continue the degradation of treaty protected fisheries resources or impact Tribal members' ability to access these resources. Our attached comments note several areas within the draft SMP that have a potential to have one or both impacts, and include recommendations to address the problem areas. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the SMP. We are available to meet to discuss these comments and answer any questions that the City may have. Please call me at 253-876-3116 to set up this meeting. Sincerely, 6,9Q- Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Randy Davis,WDOE,NW Region Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 2 The following are specific comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division in response to the City of Kent's Final Draft Shoreline Master Program and associated maps. The MITFD comments to the Final Shoreline Inventory and Report follow these comments. Each comment is shown by Chapter, Section,Page Number and Specific item as described in the SMP to assist with identification of the comments. Some comments also refer to the Shoreline Environmental Designation Maps as noted. Chapter 2 Environmental Designation Provisions 1. Section 2,item a,High Intensity Purpose,page 9 It is important that this section clearly note that the Tribe's water dependent use of the Green River for ceremonial, subsistence,and commercial fishing can occur within areas,with this designation. The SMP does not recognize this and instead states "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." Despite its diked condition,members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe at times use the shoreline in Kent to access the river to fish for salmon and steelhead, in accordance with their federally reserved treaty fishing rights. 2. Section 2,item b,Designation Criteria,pages 9-10 Please clarify how commercial or industrial zoning in the City's Comprehensive Plan will create high intensity water oriented commercial,transportation and industrial uses. 3. Section 2,item c.1,Management Policies,uses,page 10 Again,the Tribe commercially fishes for salmon in the Green River;therefore,this may be a type of commercial navigation that occurs within the Green River not considered by the City that should be provided for. 4. Section 2,item c.1,Management Policies,uses,page 10 The proposed uses in this section that allow nonwater-oriented uses may result in more nonwater oriented uses without restoration of the shoreline. There should be some analysis to indicate how many properties may meet this criterion. Also,there should be a rationale for designating the area shown as GR PAAB-1 as"High Intensity Designation"on Environment Designation Map 1. This area is within or adjacent to areas where there are proposed projects under the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, a plan approved for the purposes of salmon recovery in Puget Sound and these uses may interfere with or eliminate the needed restoration actions. The policies should address and avoid these conflicts. 5. Section 4,item c.3,Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity uses,page 16 Nonwater commercial and industrial uses should not be allowed in this designation as they will likely conflict with water dependent uses and shoreline and floodplain restoration actions needed. 6. Shoreline Designation Map 1, segment A4 The area shown as A4 on Map 1 should be designated as Urban Open Space to protect the Green River and Mill Creek Auburn flood areas and to enable the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat projects proposed for this area to be accomplished. The proposed Urban Conservancy Low Intensity uses may limit or preclude restoration of these areas. 7. Section 5,item d,Table 4,page 20 Shoreline Residential Environmental Designations Please explain why the area shown as GR D3 is proposed for the Shoreline Residential Environmental Designation if Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 3 the existing land use is for agriculture. It makes more sense to designate this area as Urban Conservancy Low Intensity. Also Section 5.c,Uses, on page 19 does not include any policies about agricultural uses. Chapter 3-General Provisions 8.Section B, item 2,page 24,Policies and Regulations The City should also keep track of shoreline actions that resulted in variances to shoreline buffers,tree removal from shoreline buffers and mitigation and restoration actions. The restoration plan indicates that the City will track some of these items; however, it should also be stated in this policy. 9. Section B, item 4,page 24,Universally Applied Policies and Regulations The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requests review of all shoreline applications when deemed complete by the City regardless if they qualify for shoreline exemptions,variances or substantial development permits. 10. Section B,item 7a,page 25,Regulations The proposed 140 foot setback with a levee or the 150 foot setback without a levee from the.Ordinary High Water Mark of the Green River may not be sufficient to allow for the full restoration of shoreline ecological functions. Furthermore,the regulated vegetated buffer for the Green River is not defined in this section or anywhere else in the SMP. The definitions at the end of the SMP distinguish"buffer area"from"setback area",which implies that they are different in intent and purpose. Please identify what the regulated buffer is for the Green River. Finally,there are several areas where private development could have significantly less setbacks than 140 feet based on the setback numbers in Table 7 of Chapter 5. 11. Section B,item 2e,page 27,Critical Areas Regulations The regulated buffers on the City's shorelines should be identified here. Again,setbacks are not buffers as defined in the draft SMP. The regulated buffers for the shorelines of the Green River,Big Soos Creek, Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek are not identified in the SMP. 12. Section B,item 4.c.5,page 29,Environmental Impact Regulations This policy to allow a mitigation banking program for shoreline environmental impacts may be useful;however,it is not apparent how the implementation of this policy will ensure no net loss of ecological functions and avoid cumulative impacts to a shoreline that is well documented to have lost ecological functions per the Shoreline Inventory report. 13. Section B,items 3 and 4, 5.b.4,pages 30-31,Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management,policies We appreciate the policy statements encouraging levee setbacks and non structural solutions as these approaches are essential if riparian and instream conditions, and ecological processes, are to be improved over their current poor conditions. 14. Section B, item 5.c.2,Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management,Regulations,page 31 A new item should be added to the list that requires mitigation for impacts to ecological functions as a result of new structural flood hazard reduction measures. 15 Section B,item 5.c.7,Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management,Regulations,page 32 A qualified fisheries biologist should also be provided an opportunity to review proposed flood hazard reduction design proposals to determine how to address any impacts to fish and their habitats. 16. Section B,item 5c.10,Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management,Regulations,page 32 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 4 Bridges, culverts and other river,stream and waterbody crossings should be designed to sufficiently pass wood, sediment,and fish,not just flood flows. This regulation is inconsistent with the Transportation section on page 96, Item 9.c.4,which is a more protective standard. 17. Section B, item 5.c.11,Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management,Regulations,page 32 The Shoreline Inventory says that the shoreline areas in the Green River is lacking gravel; therefore,this regulation, if implemented as written;should not apply to the Green River because it will result in the net loss of ecological functions. 18. Section B,item 7,Public Access,pages 34-37 This entire section could allow various overwater structures in the Green River. When reviewed with the overwater structures in Chapter 4,the potential size and number of these structures, in particular,piers and docks, floats and mooring piles that could be allowed in the Green River and would likely impact the Tribe's ability to access its fisheries resources and obstruct navigation. 19. Section B,item 10.c.1,Utilities Regulations,pages 40-41 Utilities that need water crossings should be deep enough to avoid bank stabilization and stream/riverbed filling when constructed and over time with flooding and bank erosion. Also,boring should be the preferred method of crossing over open trenching. 20. Section B,item 1 La,Vegetation Conservation,page 41 The City should consider revising this section as developments that require a Class IV-G Forest Practices Act permit (required for lands converting to a nonforestry use)and are within the City's shoreline area should be required to comply with the City's SMP Vegetation policies and regulations. 21. Section B,item I Lb.4,Vegetation Conservation,page 41 The removal of invasive or no weeds should be done using the most benign technology(mechanical)where appropriate before using more impacting methods such as chemical spraying. In the case of Japanese knotweed,we are aware that herbicide stem injection and sometimes foliar sprays are required to be effective. 22. Section B,item 1 l.c.l and c.2,Vegetation Conservation Regulations,page 42 Please explain where the 75 foot within the shoreline standard is derived and the scientific basis for this number. Also,please define what significant vegetation removal is. Finally,please explain why the High Intensity Development designation areas are exempt from this vegetation removal standard. 23. Section B,item I l.c.4,Vegetation Conservation,page 42 In applying mitigation sequencing to projects that propose to remove significant amounts of vegetation,the City should include mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment for the removal of all trees that are at least 4 inches in diameter and greater that are within 200 feet of the Green River,Big Soos Creek,Jenkins Creek,and Springbrook Creek. 24. Section B,item 1 l.c.7,Vegetation Conservation,page 42 This regulation will result in the site specific and cumulative losses to inwater wood if implemented as written without mitigation. 25. Section B,item 11.c.8,Vegetation Conservation,page 42 The City should look at reducing other property setbacks(i.e.roads,adjacent properties, etc)first so that new and redevelopment can be located further landward and outside of regulated shoreline buffers. The City should also look Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 5 at purchasing lands and/or development rights to avoid having new development create new impacts to ecological functions. 26. Section B,item 11;c.9,Vegetation Conservation,page 43 Vegetation enhancement offsite should occur within the same affected waterbody,not just anywhere within the same watershed,or in this case WRIA 9. 27. Section B, item 1 l.c.12,Vegetation Conservation,page 43 Vegetation within 200 feet of the shoreline should be native vegetation to avoid causing impacts to the shoreline's ecological functions. 28. Section B, item 12.b.4,Water Quantity and Quality,page 43 Please clarify if Kent's 2002 Surface Design Manual is considered equivalent to Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. Chapter 4 Shoreline Modification Provisions 29. Table 5, Shoreline Modification Matrix,page 48 The disposal of dredged material should not be allowed within Channel Migration Zones. This allowance conflicts with item C.l.c.7 on page 50. 30. Section C, item 2.c.1 on page 51 and Section C, item 2.c.12, Shoreline Modification Regulations,page 53 These two regulations appear to be in conflict. Regulation C.2.c.1 is more protective and should apply in both regulations. 31. Section C,item 2.c.15, Shoreline Modification Regulations,page 53 Bulkhead design should also follow the bank stabilization guidelines developed by the Corps of Engineers and National Marine Fisheries Service. They can be found at ht!p://www.nws.usace.gM.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/ACF22.pdfi 32. Section C,items 13 through 21, Shoreline Modification Regulations,page 54 and 55 Any repaired or replaced shoreline stabilization structure using hard structures should be required to do monitoring to see how these structures are functioning and if they are causing any loss of ecological functions that would require mitigation. 33.Section C, item 3, Over-water structures,pages 55 through 63 Please see previous comment about how piers and docks could increase in number and size in the Green River and adversely affect ecological functions and the Tribe's ability to access its treaty protected fisheries resources. 34. Section C, item 5.d.17,Dredging Regulations,page 67 The disposal of dredged materials in Channel Migration Zones should not be allowed. 35. Section C, item 7.c.2,Levee and Dike Regulations,page 69 This regulation should include fish habitat because many people associate wildlife habitat with upland and terrestrial animals only and not fish. Since dikes and levees have the potential to significantly adversely affect fish habitat and riparian functions that create and maintain fish habitat,this regulation should also list fish habitat. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 6 Chapter 5, Shoreline Use Provisions 36. Section B,Table 6, Shoreline Use Matrix,pages 70-72 • This table implies that Tribal commercial fishing is not allowed in the aquatic environmental designation because no commercial water dependent uses are allowed in this table. It should be modified accordingly. • The table also does not allow forest practices even though in a previous comment that tree_removal may require a Class IV-G Forest Practices permit. • Nonwater-oriented uses in the High Intensity environmental designation should not be allowed or at least regulated through a conditional use permit. • Please explain why inwater structures,which are defined to include fisheries enhancement projects in Chapter 6,are considered a conditional use in all environmental designations. If implemented as written, a conditional use permit may make stream and restoration project difficult and costly. Inwater structures for fisheries enhancement projects should be a permitted use in the aquatic environment. 37. Section B,Table 7,Development Standards,page 73 • The setback numbers in this table are too low and will limit successful restoration of the Green River levee setbacks and projects identified in the Salmon Habitat Plan for WRIA 9. • Please clarify why agriculture is an allowed use in four of the environmental designations but only the Urban Conservancy Light Intensity designation has a setback number in this table. 38. Section C,item 5.c.9, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations,Industry page 82 Please explain why ship/boat building will be allowed in the High Intensity designation on the Green River. 39. Section C,item 7,Recreational Development,pages 83-84 Recreational Development,public access and shoreline restoration may not be compatible everywhere. Most of the City's shorelines need restoration based on the Shorelines Inventory Report and not all shorelines need to have public access. 40. Section C, item 7.c.4,Recreational Development Regulations;page 85 Nonwater-oriented structures should be set back more than 70 feet to allow adequate room for shoreline restoration. 41. Section C, item 8,Table 9,Residential Regulations for Streams and Rivers,page 92 The proposed residential setback on the Green River is 140 feet but the proposed setback on Big Soos Creek is 200 feet. Please explain why the setback on the setback on the Green River is not 200 feet. 42. Section C,item 9.b.2,Transportation Policies,page 95 Trails and bike paths should not be encouraged in shorelines because they limit the opportunity to setback levees and restore riparian areas, 43. Section C,item 9.c.4,Transportation Regulations,page 96 See previous comment regarding bridge standards and the ability to pass,wood,water, sediment and fish. 44. Section C, item 9.c.5,Transportation Regulations,page 96 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 7 Culverts designed to pass up to the 25 year storm return frequency is inadequate and violates WAC 220-110-070. 45. Section C, item 9.c.6,Transportation Regulations,page 96 Bridge abutments should be located outside of floodplains and channel migration zones,not just the Ordinary High Water Mark, 46. Section C,item 10:c.4,Utilities Regulations,page 99 New pipelines and cables on shorelines,where no other feasible option exists, should be required to fully mitigate their impacts including the permanent loss of restoration areas and opportunities due to their vegetation standards. Chapter 8, Shoreline Restoration Plan 47. Section 3, item b,Biological Resources and Critical Areas,page,128 • Mill Creeks,Garrison Creek, Springbrook Creek all eventually flow to the Green River,not Lake Washington. • Also,please elaborate about the restoration work that is going in these `systems'. 48. Section C, item 1,bullet 1, System-wide restoration objectives,page 130 Please elaborate on the statement to"make additional efforts to meet and maintain state and county water quality standards in.contributing systems". In this discussion,please describe how the City intends to ensure compliance with Washington's Water Quality Standards on the Green River. 49. Section C, item 1,bullet 4, System-wide restoration objectives,page 130 Please explain how the draft SMP meets the best available science presented in the WRIA 9 foundation and management strategy documents. 50. Section C, item 2,bullet 2, Green River restoration objectives,page 131 In the second sentence,the infrastructure considerations that could limit levee and revetment setbacks should be spelled out and prioritized. For example,it is reasonable to expect that a major highway like SR 167 could not be relocated,but other more minor infrastructures such as some pipes or communication lines should be able to relocate to accommodate levee setbacks. 51. Section C,item 2,bullet 3, Green River restoration objectives,page 131 A sentence should be added such that trees that are removed from within 200 feet of the shoreline should be placed back into the Green River to avoid a net loss of wood recruitment and to partially mitigate for the permanent and/or temporal impact due to their removal. 52. Section C,item 2,bullet 5,Green River restoration objectives,page 131 Fish blockages caused by human created structures on Green River tributaries should be replaced with fish passable structures as required by the State's Hydraulic code. 53. Section D,Table 10,WRIA wide activities#5,page 132 The program to plant 2009 trees in 2009 is a good idea but will have little value to the City's shorelines if the trees are planted in upland areas and parks. 54. Section D,Table 10,WRIA wide activities#9,page 133 Please clarify if the City has a role in the volunteer efforts to revegetate the Green River. If the City does not have a Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 8 role,the SMP should explain why not. 55. Section D,Table 11, 2005 Salmon Habitat Programs,page 134-137 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Projects LG-3,LG-4,and LG-12 all listed in the Shoreline Inventory,but are missing from this table. 56. Section D, Table 11, 2005 Salmon Habitat Programs,Page 134 We would appreciate it if the City could send the MITFD the 30%design drawings and feasibility report for the Lower Mill Creek/Auburn LG-7 project for our review and comments. 57. Section D,Table 11, 2005 Salmon Habitat Programs,Page 134 Project LG-7,Riverview Park, fails to note that the City plans on building an active use park with 2 crossings of the new side channel and trails within its functional buffer that will reduce the effectiveness of the new side channel to provide summer rearing because;the park will constrain the side channel design and create human disturbance to fish trying to rear. 58. Section D,Table 11,2005 Salmon Habitat Programs,LG-9,page 136 Please clarify if an off-channel originally proposed for the Rosso Nursery site will be built at the Downey Farmstead site. Also,please indicate the timeframe when the Rosso Nursery site project will be built since its funding was diverted to the Downey Farmstead site. 59. Section D,Table 11, 2005 Salmon Habitat Programs,LG-10,page 136 Please clarify the City's role in the Boeing setback levee project and the projected timeframe for completion. 60. Section D,item 3,King County Flood Control District,page 138 Please clarify if the proposed Horseshoe Bend levee improvement project is the same as the proposed Horseshoe Bend levee repair projects that the Corps of Engineers is constructing this year.If so,please note that we do not agree that the repair project will result in a significant improvement to the Green River shoreline. 61. Section E,item 2,Other Recommended Projects,page 151 The section discussing the Corps of Engineers vegetation management policy is misleading. The implementation of this policy will result in the removal of existing trees that are 4 inches in diameter or greater off of levees and will limit the growth of future trees to 4 inches in diameter. It is doubtful that this policy will lead to the establishment of traditional riparian vegetation necessary to create a source of shade and wood in the Green River,two vital functions that are impaired currently. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 9 MITFD comments to the City of Kent's Final Shoreline Inventory 1. As we noted previously,the City failed to send the MITFD a copy of the draft Shoreline Inventory Report for our review and comments,despite our request by email on January 14, 2008. Since this precluded our opportunity for timely input on the draft Inventory,we are providing these comments on the Final for the record and to assist in improving future shoreline inventory work. 2.The Shoreline Inventory lacks any discussion about the Kent Shoreline Management Program planning area is within the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's Usual and Accustomed Fishing area and the Tribe has federally protected treaty rights for its fisheries resources, including shoreline fishing access. 3. Section 3.3.1,page 13 There should be some discussion about the potential impacts to shoreline functions as a result of water withdrawals. 4. Section 3.3.2,pages 13-14 The location of wastewater utilities can affect the shoreline by requiring armoring and maintenance and the limitations to establish large trees within utility corridors due to concerns about tree roots and pipeline integrity. 5. Section 3.3.3,page 15 The Shoreline Inventory lacks any discussion about the ongoing Total Maximum Daily Load work on-going within the Green River and Soos Creek. 6. Section 3.4,page 16 Table 3 is misleading and should note the total impervious area within Kent. 7. Section 3.7.2,page 21 Nature did not permanently transfer the White River to Commencement Bay;rather a dike was built in 1906 to divert the White River to the Stuck and Puyallup River. See page 38 of the Inventory Report for the correct discussion about this dike. 8. Section 3.7.2,page 22 The SMP should be updated to include the latest floodplain maps from FEMA. 9. Section 3.7.5,page 23 The citation for the Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory(SaSI)is incorrect. The Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory(SASSI)was a 1993 report developed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Western Washington Treaty Tribes. 10. Section 3.8.2,page 24 Channel migration zones are also a natural process that creates and maintains salmonid habitat. 11. Section 4.1.4,page 38 The Corps of Engineers is enforcing its levee vegetation management policies for local levee system eligibility, which will affect the existing vegetation and the ability of revegetated areas to grow in the future. 12. Section 4.1.6,page 41 It should be noted in the Shoreline Inventory that comprehensive fish distribution surveys have not been completed for the streams listed in this section.Also,some of the existing fish distribution information is missing,i.e. chum salmon are shown to be within Mill Creek/Auburn on the WRIA 9 Fish Distribution Map. Also steelhead salmon Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division July 15,2009 Comments to Kent's Draft Shoreline Master Program and Inventory Page 10 are shown to use Mullen Slough,Mill Creek/Auburn, Springbrook Creek,-the small tributary on the left bank of Horseshoe Bend, and Jenkins Creek. 13. Section 4.1.8,page 44 The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fishes areas of the Green River within Kent. This section implies that the Tribe has disappeared and no longer uses this area for fishing,which is incorrect as discussed in previous comments. 14. Section 4.1.9,pages 45-46 The WRIA 9 projects listed here should include LG-6. Also,the Corps of Engineers is doing levee repair work at Horseshoe Bend,which may limit or eliminate the potential to do Salmon Recovery Restoration projects LG-3 and LG-4. 15. Section 4.6,page 72 The discussion about the Black River pumping station fails to note that fish ladder and downstream passage is only accessible by salmonids during some times of the year(which is noted on page 108). The BR pumping station will be modified according to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat plan as Tier 3 action.Also,there is more anadromous fish use in Springbrook Creek than reported here. The City's 1995 report(Harza)has more details and it should be also noted that the Black River Pumping Station and several culverts likely impact fish distribution due to partial or full blockages. There is a project proposed to restore the lower mile of Springbrook Creek(LG-19)in the WRIA 9 plan. Also,the 2002 Early Action Plan for WRIA 9 indicated that Kent would be conducted smolt counts at the Black River Pumping Station.Did this activity occur and if so,can we get a copy of the survey report? 16. Section 4.6.2,pages 72-73 Plans to widen SR 167 will likely affect the shoreline of Springbrook Creek. 17. Section 5.1.4,pages 91-92 The MITFD has documented Chinook spawning beginning between River Mile 24 and River Mile 25. This information is documented in the WRIA 9 Fish Distribution Maps available at htlp://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/FishDist.aspx. 18. Section 5.6.2,page 110 There should be a map showing where the restoration projects along Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek/Kent were done in the last 10 years. 19. The last sentence above Section 5.6.3 may be incorrect. It is our understanding the King County Drainage District#1 will not allow trees to grow along the banks of Springbrook Creek nor allow trees to naturally recruit to the stream. i City of Kent Response to July 15, 2009 Letter from Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 1. According to RCW 90.58.350, nothing in SMA affects treaties to which the United States is a party. Thus the Muckleshoot Tribe's fishing activities are not subject to the SMP regulations. 2. This question is unclear. 3. See comment #1 above. 4. Mitigation is required for impacts per Chapter 3 Section B.4. The area mapped as GR-PAAB-1 is designated as High Intensity because of the presence of an existing wrecking yard and other open industrial uses. See the table in the Analysis Report on Page 34. 5. Water-oriented uses are given priority per Chapter 2 Section C.4.c.1. Also, the Use Table in Chapter 5 Section B requires a conditional use permit for nonwater-oriented commercial and industrial uses in the UC-LI environment, with footnote #4 requiring demonstration that water-oriented uses are not feasible. 6. The Shoreline Modifications Matrix in Chapter 4 Section B allows environmental restoration and enhancement projects outright in all environments. The A4 segment is designated as UC-LI because of the AG-S zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. 7. Segment GR-D3 is designated as Shoreline Residential because the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation of the area is SR-4.5, and is currently undergoing single-family development. See the table in the Analysis Report on Page 36. Regarding agricultural policies; see Chapter 5 Section C.2.b. 8. A variance is a type of shoreline permit; tree removal and mitigation or restoration will be associated with either a shoreline permit or an exemption request, thus they will all be tracked in the City's permit tracking system as stated in Chapter 2 Section B.1.b.2. 9. This policy states that tribal governments will be involved in the review process of shoreline applications; this includes variances and conditional use permits as they are applications reviewed by the City and require public notice. The Muckleshoot Tribe is on the City's list of agencies to notify. Shoreline exemptions do not require public notice. 10. "Full restoration of shoreline ecological functions" is not required by the SMA, but rather "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." The Cumulative 1 of 8 Impacts Analysis concludes that no net loss of ecological functions is projected in the City of Kent's shorelines. The Green River, specifically, is expected to increase in shoreline ecological functions due to the planned levee reconstruction, which will include setback benches with vegetation. See Table 5 in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis as well as Chapter 8 of the SMP for more details. 11. There are no regulated buffers for Kent's shorelines, rather setbacks, which are identified in Chapter 5. Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance refers to the SMP for all shorelines because shorelines of the state are not critical areas. SMA does not require undisturbed vegetated buffers like the Growth Management Act does for critical areas. Rather, SMA requires cities to balance "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions" with several other objectives such as protection of property and navigation rights, provisions for public access and recreation, preferential accommodation of single-family development and utilization by water-oriented uses. City staff feels the proposed SMP setbacks are appropriate for each environment designation, adequately accommodate preferred shoreline uses, while protecting public rights and combined with the Vegetation Conservation and Environmental Impacts regulations (Ch 3) as well as the Restoration Plan (Ch 8), meet "no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions. 12. This regulation requires demonstration that the program "will result in a greater benefit in terms of ecological functions and values" and "a comprehensive analysis of ecological systems." The City feels this language is sufficient to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. 14. Mitigation for impacts is required in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c(2) and (3). 15. Flood hazard reduction measures will require a Substantial Development Permit, and per WAC requirements, various environmental agencies, including the Muckleshoot Tribe, will be notified of the proposal and provided with a comment period. Further, impacts shall be addressed and mitigated per SMP Chapter 3 Section B.4. 16. The regulations in the Transportation use section (Chapter 5 Section C.9.c) sufficiently address this issue. The Flood Hazard regulations are intended to address flood hazard issues on a broad level, while the Use regulations address individual uses. 17. The Green River is indeed lacking gravel, however, this regulation is included in the SMP in case some gravel travels downstream from other jurisdictions. A biological and geomorphological study is required by this regulation and 2 of 8 the applicant must demonstrate a long term benefit and no net loss of ecological function. 18. A footnote has been added to the Shoreline Modifications Matrix in Chapter 4 Section B that prohibits private piers and docks in the Green River. A row has also been added to the matrix prohibiting moorage piles in all designations. 19. A regulation to this effect has been added to Chapter 3 Section B.10.c.5 and Chapter 5 Section C.10.c.17. 20. The Guidelines indicate in WAC 173-26-241(3)(e) and WAC 173-26- 221(5)(a) that SMPs should defer commercial forest uses to the Forest Practices Act and implementing rules. There are no commercial forest lands in the City. Class IV general forest practices are under the City's authority. However, under the Use Table in SMP Chapter 5 Section B, forest practices are prohibited in Kent's shorelines. Accordingly, additional language about forest practices is not necessary. 21. Language has been added to this effect in Chapter 3 Section B.11.b.4. 22. All references to 75 feet in Chapter 3 Section B.11 have been replaced with "in the required setback." The definition for significant vegetation removal is found in Chapter 6 of the SMP, and is taken directly from the Guidelines, WAC 173-26-020. The Shoreline Administrator may make exceptions to the vegetation removal standards for the High Intensity environment and for water-dependent uses in order to accommodate development that has been deemed suitable for the High Intensity environment (which was designated based on its current low level of function and planned/existing land uses) and to accommodate preferred uses. As directed by the SMA, the SMP is balancing environmental protection with accommodation of preferred uses in appropriate locations. Vegetation is currently very limited to lacking in the High Intensity environment due to those existing land uses. Any impacts that result from approved significant vegetation removal are required to be mitigated. Further, as noted in the Guidelines, methods to implement vegetation conservation standards may include "setback or buffer requirements, clearing and grading standards, regulatory incentives, environment designation standards, or other master program provisions." The Guidelines also say that vegetation conservation should be implemented AAas necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions and ecosystem- wide processes..." The SMP, including the vegetation conservation chapter specifically, comprehensively assures these things. 3 of 8 23. City staff feels that mandating specific detailed requirements for mitigation of significant vegetation removal is not necessary. Individual projects will be evaluated at the time of application, and the applicant must submit a mitigation plan that fully addresses impacts to ecological functions per Chapter 3 Section B.4.c(2) and (3). Given the existing levees along much of the Green River, tree removal within most of the area within 200 feet of that waterbody would not have an impact on large woody debris recruitment potential, but could have other impacts that would be addressed through a specific mitigation plan. The SMP allows for site-specific evaluation. 24. The SMP in several provisions of the Vegetation Conservation chapter and in the Environmental Impacts chapter requires mitigation for impacts to ecological functions. More specifically, Chapter 3 Section B.11.c7 requires retention of snags and living trees within shoreline jurisdiction unless part of a development with approved mitigation for impacts (this standard previously stated "within 75 feet" but has been revised to state "within shoreline jurisdiction"). Possible loss of large woody debris recruitment would be a consideration in development of mitigation plans submitted by applicants seeking removal of snags and other vegetation. Consideration of whether snags and trees proposed to be removed actually had potential for recruitment would be considered on a site-specific basis. For example, snags and trees upland of levees would not be a potential recruitment source. 25. The SMP only regulates properties within 200 feet of each shoreline's Ordinary High Water Mark. Requiring reduction of setbacks beyond this is outside the authority of the SMP. In addition, setbacks are only applied to proposed development actions, and WAC 197-11-080 provides some protection for existing non-conforming structures. The City has indeed purchased land in several locations near Kent shorelines for purposes of restoration projects; see the Restoration Plan (SMP Chapter 8) for locations and descriptions. 26. Language to this effect has been added to Chapter 3 Section B.11.c.9. 27. This provision applies in the High Intensity environment, which is highly impacted in its existing condition and in most cases physically separated from the shoreline waterbody by levees and public open space. The vegetation conservation requirements in the Guidelines relate to protection of existing vegetation where found, and planning for restoration of vegetation. Substantial restoration of ecological functions will occur in those areas located between the H-I environment and the shoreline waterbody (most often related to City implementation of levee improvements), including 4of8 native revegetation. The provision will result in improvement of vegetation conditions and related ecological functions compared to the current condition. 28. The City is currently undergoing an update of its Surface Water Design Manual, which is required by the State to be equivalent to the 2005 Ecology Manual. 29. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone requires a conditional use permit, and the regulations further restrict this to ensure protection of channel migration processes and ecological functions. 30. Chapter 4 Section C.2.c.1 refers specifically to new development while Chapter 4 Section C.2.c.12 refers to new or expanded shoreline stabilization, which is only allowed 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 (Ch 4 C.2.c.4). 31. The bank stabilization guidelines from the Corps of Engineers and National Marine Fisheries Service were developed specifically for Lake Washington based on protection of Endangered Species Act (ESA) protected species. Kent's lakes do not have ESA-protected species, thus these guidelines are inappropriate for Kent. 32. City staff feels that requiring monitoring reports would be too great an expense to applicants. However, the City would be interested in reviewing such data if the Muckleshoot Tribe would like to conduct such an analysis. 33. A footnote has been added to the Shoreline Modifications Matrix in Chapter 4 Section B that prohibits private piers and docks in the Green River. 34. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone requires a conditional use permit, and the regulations further restrict this to ensure protection of channel migration processes and ecological functions. 35. The definition of "habitat" in Chapter 6 is sufficiently broad to include fish habitat. 36. According to RCW 90.58.350, nothing in SMA affects treaties to which the United States is a party. Thus the Muckleshoot Tribe's fishing activities are not subject to the SMP regulations. The Guidelines indicate in WAC 173-26-241(3)(e) and WAC 173-26- 221(5)(a) that SMPs should defer commercial forest uses to the Forest Practices Act and implementing rules. There are no commercial forest lands 5 of 8 in the City. Simply removing trees would not require a Forest Practices permit. City staff feels that nonwater-oriented industrial uses should be allowed in the High Intensity environment due to the extent of existing industrial development in the Green River valley. Such development is separated from the river by a levee and is required by footnote #4 to the Use Table in Chapter 5 Section B to demonstrate that water-oriented uses are not feasible. The Use Table in Chapter 5 Section B has been revised to allow in-stream structures in all environments. 37. Footnote #1 of the Development Standards table in Chapter 5 Section B refers to Chapter Section B.1.c.7 for Green River setbacks. These setbacks are 140 feet where a levee is present and 150 feet where no levee is present. These setbacks were developed specifically to accommodate levee reconstruction and in fact, the regulation states that "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." Regarding agriculture, Chapter 5 Section C.2.c.3 requires a vegetated buffer of 20 feet be provided between new agricultural activities and the waterbody. The development standards table has been corrected to reference this 20 foot requirement in the other environments as well. 38. Ship and boat building is allowed in the High Intensity environment because it is a water-related industrial use. SMA policies state that SMPs shall consider utilization of appropriate water-oriented uses. 39. The SMP does not require public access "everywhere." See the Public Access regulations in Chapter 3 Section B.7.c. Restoration will be determined for each individual project based on the requirements in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c. 40. City staff feels that the proposed 70' setback for recreational development would still allow for some restoration without over-restricting recreational facilities. Restoration will be determined for each individual project based on the requirements in Chapter 3 Section B.4.c. 41. The setback difference between the Green River and Big Soos Creek is based on existing environmental conditions, existing development, and future levee reconstruction. Big Soos Creek is located within the City's urban separator area, is sparsely developed with large-lot single family residential and contains a great deal of wetlands and mature vegetation. The Green River, 6of8 however, is heavily developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses, primarily lacks mature vegetation and contains a levee in most areas. 42. Trails and bike paths are encouraged because they are one way to provide public access (physical and visual) and water enjoyment, both of which are policy goals of the SMA, which the City must balance in its SMP regulations. In addition, the new proposed levee design is set back farther than the existing design, allows for shelves with new plantings, and still provides space for a trail/bike path. 43. See response #16. 44. This inadvertent error in Chapter 5 Section C.9.c.5 has been revised to reference the 100-year storm return. 45. Location of bridge abutments outside the floodplain would not be feasible in Kent due to the current extent of the Green River floodplain. Due to the levees not being certified, the new FEMA maps show most of the Green River valley in the floodplain. Footnote #13 to the Use Table in Chapter 5 Section B requires a conditional use permit for any development in the channel migration zone and requires demonstration that such development would not prevent natural channel migration. 46. All impacts are required to be mitigated per Chapter 3 Section B.4.c. 47. This inadvertent error has been corrected. See Section D of the Restoration Plan for a list and descriptions of the restoration projects and programs. 48. Compliance with Washington's water quality standards is required through the NPDES program and the City's Surface Water Design Manual. 49. The SMP is not required by SMA to meet "best available science." That is a requirement of the Growth Management Act that only applies to Critical Areas Ordinances. 50. Individual infrastructure limitations will be determined at the time of levee reconstruction design. 51. See response #23. 52. The SMP cannot establish requirements for tributaries that are not jurisdictional shorelines. This would be a requirement that could be applied by the Critical Areas Ordinance. 53. A number of Kent parks are located within shoreline jurisdiction. 7of8 54. Kent cooperates with King County on this volunteer effort. 55. LG-3 and LG-4 are located within King County and LG-12 was mistakenly removed from the table, but has now been added. 56. Planning staff has asked Kelly Peterson, the manager of this project, to provide this information to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. If follow-up is needed, Kelly may be reached at 253-856-5547. 57. The funding for the park portion of the Riverview Park project is not currently in place. Staff believes that because the side channel portion of the project provides environmental and habitat restoration, it is relevant to include in the SMP's Restoration Plan. 58. Yes, an off-channel is proposed as part of the Downey Farmstead project, however, funding for construction is not yet in place. A feasibility study will be conducted next year. The earliest construction could begin is 2011 or 2012. 59. The City is partnering with the Army Corps of Engineers and the King County Flood Control District for the Boeing setback levee project. 60. The Corps of Engineers is doing the first phase of this project, and the City will do the next phases. The City's design is not yet drafted. 61. The City is still in discussion with the Corps of Engineers and King County Flood Control District regarding what size and location of plantings will be allowed on the levees. The City has also received the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division's July 15, 2009 comments regarding the Final Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report. The Inventory & Analysis Report will not be adopted as a part of the SMP, therefore, staff will address your comments separately from the Public Hearing. 8of8 SODS CREEK STATER & SEWER DISTRICT 14616 S.E. 1921-id St. ° P.O. Box 58039 ° Rent-on, WA 98058-1039 Phone (253) 630-9900 ° Fax (253) 630-5289 July 23,2009 ptECEIVED City of Kent 220—4`h Avenue S JUL 2 3 2009 Kent,Washington 98032 CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES Attention: Land Use and Planning Board RE: Draft City of Kent Shoreline Master Program Final Draft, May 29, 2000 Dear Board Members, Thank you for the opportunity to review the City's proposed Shoreline Master Program Draft Final, dated May 29, 2009. We provide the following comments for your consideration during the public hearing scheduled for July 27,2009. "CHAPTER 3—General Provisions Page 27 "Section B.3 (2) (c)" "Variance procedures and criteria shall be established in this S1YIP, Chapter 8 Section.B and in. Washington Administrative Cade WAC 173.27-170.4. m Chapter 8, Section B of the SMP discusses the Shoreline Inventory Summary not the variance procedures and criteria as stated. Variance procedures are discussed in Chapter 7, Section D.Please modify reference. a WAC 173.27.170.4 states, "In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent'with the policies of RCW 90.58.090 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Please clarify that the reference to WAC 173-27-170.4 would include maintenance, repair or replacement of underground utilities constructed within ashoreline.The District has existing sewer facilities,within permanent easements,along the entire shoreline of Lake Meridian and it is important that access to these facilities be maintained for repair or replacement as needed.Would such work require a variance? www.sooscreek.com Land Use and Planning Board SOOS CREEK WATER&SETTER DISTRICT July24,2009 Page 2 "Section B.&b. (4) (a)" Page 38 "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". ® The District requests that the Ianguage "where feasible"be added at the end of this sentence. The addition of this language will allow flexibility when planning for and providing sewer service to City residents within the District service area.The District makes every effort to avoid areas of potential impact and keep environmental impacts to a minimum; however, existing topography and proposed developments do not always allow this avoidance where essential services are necessary.Adding the requested language will allow flexibility in providing'these services. "Section 10— Utilities (Accessory)" Page 40 a Chapter 5 addresses accessory utilities; however there is no discussion of primary utilities.The District requests that a section on primary, utilities;applicability,policies and regulations,be added to Chapter 3 of the SMP as not all water and sewer utilities %L would be classified as accessory; i.e. water or sewer mains and service lines as opposed T to sewage lift stations and water pump stations or reservoirs. The addition of this information will help classify the two distinct functions of accessory utilities and primary utilities and their permitted uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. "Section 10.c—Regulations" Page 41 It is unclear if this section addresses utility facilities such as pump stations or sewage lift stations. Again, adding a section on primary utilities would allow for this distinction. "Chapter S Shoreline Use Provisions Section B, Table 6" Page 71 Table 6 specifies Utilities(Primary) however primary facilities are not discussed in Chapter 3 or the SMP at all. Oa The District requests that Utilities(Accessory)be added to the table to clarify their shoreline use within the designated matrices. Use Matrix Note number 7 states "Roadways and public utilities may be allowed if there is no other feasible alternative, as determined by the City, and all adverse impacts are mitigated". Land Use and Planning Board SOUS CREEK WATER &SEWER DISTRICT July24,2009 Page 3 The District requests that ", as determined by the City"be deleted from this sentence. The location of sewer mains is determined by the District based on existing topography, the location of existing facilities,which may already be located within existing shorelines, buffers and aquatic areas, and proposed development:location,as well as the District Design and Construction standards. It may be necessary to construct utilities within a shoreline to serve development approved by the City. "Section B, Table 7" Page 73 The District requests that utilities, both primary and accessory, be added to this table to identify the development standards for proposed utility facilities and to clarify whether �—� utilities are considered commercial, industrial or miscellaneous development. "Section C.4.a—Applicability" Page 79 0 The District requests that utility facilities be added to this section if such facilities fall 06> under the City's definition of Commercial.Development. ";Section C.S.a—Applicability" Page 81 The District requests that utility facilities be,added to this section if such facilities fall O under the City's definition of Industrial Development. "Section C.5.c (3)—Regulations" Page 81 "Storage and/or 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. " Q This language implies that wastewater facilities are an industrial development. Please clarify as requested in the comments given in Section C.5.a-Applicability above. "Section C.S:c (10)" Page 82 . ® Chapter 3, Section B.l only goes to number 7. There is no Section B.1.c.8. Please confirm and modify reference. Land Use and Planning:Board SO OS CREEK WATER&SEWER DISTRICT July 24,2009 Page 4 "Section 10.a. — Utilities Page 98 "The provisions in this section apply to primacy uses and activities, such as solid waste handling and disposal, sewage treatment facilities and outfalls,public high tension utility lines on public property or easements,power generating or transfer,facilities, and gas distribution lines and storage facilities." 4 The District requests that language be added to address primary utilities such as water pump stations and treatment facilities. Adding this language would address the applicability of existing and future water facilities. "Section 1O.c.6 Page 99 "Utility develop shall, through coordination with local government agencies,provide for compatible, multiple uses of sites and rights:-of way. o The District requests that"where feasible"be added to the end of this sentence to allow for.flexibility;water and sewer facilities cannot always be placed within rights-of-ways ( �) or constructed on the same schedule as other utility projects.Further, existing, �— topography and development could preclude the placement of these services within rights-of-ways or alongside other utilities. Chapter 6—.Definitions Page 112 0 The District requests.that Utility(Primary)be added to the list of definitions. Both accessory and primary utilities are referenced in the document,though not consistently; accessory utilities are the only designation.discussed. See previous comments requesting. the addition of Primary Utilities to Chapter 3. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed City of Kent Shoreline Master Program, Final Draft. We look forward to your response. If you have any questions regarding our comments or would like to discuss them in more detail, please feel free to contact me at(253) 630-9900. Sincerely, Ron Speer District Manager cc: Erin George,City of Kent Mike Hanis—Hanis,Irvine,Prothero, PLLC' John Roth Jr.,Chris Schmidt,Pam Cobley—Roth Hill Engineering Partners,LLC EMD:emd City of Kent Response to 7/23/09 Comment Letter from Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 1) Staff recommends correcting this reference in Chapter 3 Section B.3.2.c to read "Chapter 7 Section D." 2) Normal maintenance and repair of existing structures is exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development permit and does not require a variance. Replacement may be authorized as repair if such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure (WAC 173-27-040(b) as referenced in SMP Chapter 7 Section B.1). 3) The District requests in several locations that flexibility be added to the SMP regulations such as adding "where feasible" and removing "as determined by the City." City staff recognizes the constraints on location of utilities, however, staff feels that the regulations for accessory and primary utilities contained in Chapter 3 Section B.10.c and Chapter 5 Section C.10.c adequately allow for the needed flexibility while ensuring sufficient City oversight. 4) Accessory utilities are addressed in Chapter 3, General Provisions (Section B.10), because they are regulated consistently in all shoreline environment designations and for this reason are not included in the Use Table in Chapter 5. The definition of"utility (accessory)" is contained in Chapter 6. Primary utilities are addressed in Chapter 5, Use Provisions, in the Use Table and in Section C.10, because regulations vary in different environment designations. "Utility" is defined in Chapter 6. 5) Utilities are not included in the Development Standards Matrix in Chapter 5 Section B because building setbacks do not apply to all types of utilities. Development standards applicable to accessory utilities are located in Chapter 3 Section B.10.c, and those applicable to primary utilities are located in Chapter 5 Section C.10.c. 6) Utilities do not fall under the SMP's definition of commercial or industrial development and thus are not included in Chapter 5 Section C (4) or (5). 7) This statement applies to treatment of industrial wastewater, hence the first sentence which refers to industrial waste. Such as system would be owned by the industrial entity as opposed to a utility provider. A wastewater treatment facility owned by a utility provider fits under the uses described in "applicability" of Chapter 5 Section C.10.a. 8) Staff recommends correcting this reference in Chapter 5 Section C.5.c.10 to read "Chapter 3 Section B.l.c.7."* 9) Water pump stations and treatment facilities fall under this section because they are "facilities that produce, transmit, carry, store, process or dispose of electric power, gas, water, sewage, communications, oil, and the like." This page intentionally left blank. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES 40 Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager • Phone: 253-856-5454 KENT Fax: 253-856-6454 W A 5 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document CITY OF KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE #ENV-2009-15 (KIVA #RPSA-2091735) Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Erin George I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent has initiated a nonproject environmental review for a comprehensive update to the Kent Shoreline Master Program. The goals and policies of the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan as the Shoreline Element. The SMP update will bring the City into compliance with RCW 90.58 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26, incorporating all new requirements for shoreline zone planning since adoption of the City's current amended SMP in 2004, and will comply with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through -251) that were adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on December 17, 2003. The Shoreline Master Program, as well as the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report and Cumulative Impacts Analysis may be accessed on the City's website at www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning. The proposed updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will be adopted for all areas falling within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act in the City of Kent. Due to the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines and more recent scientific data, new jurisdictional shoreline waterbodies and associated shorelands have been added to the SMP. As amended, the following waterbodies and associated shorelands are addressed by Kent's SMP: • Big Soos Creek • Green River • Green River Natural Resources Area ponds • Jenkins Creek • Lake Fenwick (north portion) • Lake Meridian • Springbrook Creek (small portion at northern city limit) • "Associated Wetlands" within 200 feet of the above waterbodies Decision Document Kent Shoreline Master Program #ENV-2009-15/#RPSA-2091735 • Wetlands located within the Green River floodplain • The Green River floodway bounded by the Green River to the north, SR 167 to the east and S 277t" Street to the south In addition, the proposed updated SMP contains recommendations for the following shoreline areas within the City's Potential Annexation Areas (PAA): • Panther Lake • South half of Lake Fenwick • Portions of the Green River • Small portion of the Green River floodway south of Lake Fenwick II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This update of the SMP is a non-project action as defined in WAC 197-11- 704(2)(b). The City has conducted a comprehensive analysis of Kent's shoreline resources as part of the SMP update. The Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report provides inventory and characterization of Kent's shorelines. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis evaluates cumulative impacts caused by the updated SMP, considering existing and future development and demonstrating no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The Restoration Plan (included as Chapter 8 of the SMP) sets forth goals, policies and actions for restoration of shoreline impacts via regulatory and non-regulatory measures. These documents, combined with extensive public outreach including a Citizens Advisory Committee and public open houses, were used to develop the goals, policies and regulations of the updated SMP. Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3222, amended by Ordinance 3698, and 3794-3797), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance 3117) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the applicant/owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the deeding/dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. Page 2 of 6 Decision Document Kent Shoreline Master Program #ENV-2009-15/#RPSA-2091735 In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth A majority of the City lies within the broad, low-lying Green River valley bottom, which was formerly part of a series of frequently flooded wetland areas along the river. The remainder of the City lies on the hillsides adjacent to the river valley. These upland areas reach elevations over 500 feet. According to the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, the steepest slopes within the City limits exceed 40 percent vertical grade. Soils vary throughout the City, depending on location, but are primarily glacial till as a result of the glacial formation of the Green River valley. Hydric soils found in the City include a variety of silt loams, which are primarily found along the valley floor. The upland areas consist of primarily gravelly sandy loam soils. See Figure 9 of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for specific details and locations of soils. B. Water The updated Shoreline Master Program addresses all areas of shoreline jurisdiction within the City of Kent and its Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Shorelines include streams with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or greater, lakes over 20 acres, wetlands within 200 feet of a shoreline water body as well as any wetlands in a 100-year floodplain, and floodways and portions of adjacent floodplains. In the City of Kent, shoreline streams include the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek and Big Soos Creek. Shoreline lakes include Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick and the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA) pond. Panther Lake, approximately 34.3 acres in size, is located entirely within the City's PAA. The adoption of an updated Shoreline Master Program is a non-project action. Individual projects submitted for review under the updated SMP will all 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 for proposals located within shoreline jurisdiction, and will be required to comply with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Page 3 of 6 Decision Document Kent Shoreline Master Program #ENV-2009-15/#RPSA-2091735 C. Animals Bald eagles, pileated woodpeckers, chinook, coho, chum, pink and sockeye salmon are known to be present in shoreline jurisdictional areas, in addition to bull trout, steelhead and cutthroat trout. Shoreline areas are also located within the Pacific Flyway and anadromous salmonid migration corridors. Impacts to these species and migratory routes are not anticipated with the implementation of the SMP as it is a nonproject action. The updated SMP includes a restoration element with existing and proposed measures and programs to restore degraded shoreline habitats. There are a number of policies and regulations in the SMP requiring that projects achieve no net loss of ecological functions as part of proposed development or uses. D. Land and Shoreline Use Land use along the shoreline area of the Green River widely varies, with a variety of open space areas, commercial uses, industrial uses, residential areas and agriculture. The Green River Natural Resources Area shoreline includes a City-owned and managed water quality management facility and a recreational trail. The Springbrook Creek shoreline is completely within and surrounded by light industrial uses, with two narrow undeveloped parcels owned by the City of Kent closest to the stream. The Lake Meridian shoreline consists of a large park, single-family residences, and a mobile home park. The Lake Fenwick shoreline consists of one single-family parcel and several city-owned properties that include parks and wetland areas. The south end of the lake is within King County jurisdiction and in Kent's PAA. This area includes open space and single-family residential. The Panther Lake shoreline, located within King County jurisdiction but within the City of Kent PAA, consists of open space, agricultural and residential land uses. The Big Soos Creek shoreline consists of single-family residences, a park and a property owned by WSDOT containing a stormwater detention pond and wetland mitigation. The Jenkins Creek shoreline affects only one parcel, which is City of Kent's Armstrong Springs municipal watershed area. Zoning and comprehensive plan designations within the proposed shoreline areas vary widely, however, the proposed shoreline designations take into account both zoning and comprehensive plan land use map designations, as well as existing land uses. The proposed shoreline designations include Natural-Wetlands (N-W), Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity (UC-LI), Urban Conservancy - Open Space (UC-OS), High Intensity (H-I), Shoreline Residential (SR), and Aquatic. Page 4of6 Decision Document Kent Shoreline Master Program #ENV-2009-15/#RPSA-2091735 The N-W designation applies to all associated wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction. The UC-LI designation is applied to agricultural areas as well as urban separator areas, which may be suited for low-density residential with the potential for PUDs and associated commercial uses. The UC-OS designation consists primarily of open space, natural areas, parks, and the Green River Trail. The H-I environment is only found along portions of the Green River and Springbrook Creek that have commercial and industrial uses. The SR environment is occupied by single- and multi-family residential uses. The Aquatic environment consists of those areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark of each of the shoreline waterbodies. E. Recreation There are a variety of parks located within the City's shoreline jurisdiction, including Foster Park, Riverview Park, Old Fishing Hole Park, Cottonwood Grove Park, Valley Floor Community Park, Briscoe Park, Three Friends Fishing Hole (Gateway Park), Anderson Park, Green River Natural Resources Area, Van Doren's Landing Park, BMX Park, Russell Woods Park, Riverbend Golf Complex, North Green River Park, Lake Meridian Park, Lake Fenwick Park, and the Green River Trail. A wide array of recreational activities occur at these parks and on the shoreline waterbodies, including swimming, fishing, boating (both motorized and non-motorized), walking or biking, among others. No existing recreational areas or uses will be displaced by implementation of the updated Shoreline Master Program. F. Historic and Cultural Preservation According to the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation website, four historic sites are located within shoreline jurisdiction; all within the Green River shoreline area. These include Maddocksville Landing, Alvord's Landing, Langston's Landing, and the Neely House. Chapter 3, Section B.2 of the proposed updated SMP includes policies and regulations to protect historic and archaeological resources. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. The city designates and adopts by reference the following additional policies, city codes, ordinances and resolutions as the basis for the city's exercise of authority: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act 2. The State Shoreline Master Program and the Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage code. Page 5 of 6 Decision Document Kent Shoreline Master Program #ENV-2009-15/#RPSA-2091735 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and Six-year Transportation Plan 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Public Improvements 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permit Requirements 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Protection 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivision Code 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Parks 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control 13. International Building and Fire Codes 14. Kent Zoning Code 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage and 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 Drainage Utility 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan 20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this project. KENT PLANNING SERVICES July 10, 2009 EG\bjb\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2009\2091735-2009-15.doc Page 6 of 6 4# " 0 KENT WASHINOTON T CITY OF KEY® DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2009-15 Project CITY OF KENT SHORELINE #RPSA-2091735 MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Description: The City of Kent has initiated a nonproject environmental review for a comprehensive update to the Kent Shoreline Master Program. The goals and policies of the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan as the Shoreline Element. The SMP update will bring the City into compliance with RCW 90.58 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26, incorporating all new requirements for shoreline zone planning since adoption of the City's current amended SMP in 2004, and will comply with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through -251) that were adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on December 17, 2003. The Shoreline Master Program, as well as the Shoreline Inventory & Analysis Report and Cumulative Impacts Analysis may be accessed on the City's website at www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning. Location: The updated SMP will be adopted for all areas falling within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act in the City of Kent. The waterbodies and associated shorelands that have been included in the SMP are: Big Soos Creek, Green River, Green River Natural Resources Area ponds, Jenkins Creek, Lake Fenwick (north half), Lake Meridian, Springbrook Creek (small portion at northern city limit), "associated wetlands" within 200 feet of the previous listed water bodies, wetlands located within the Green River floodplain, and the Green River floodway bounded by the Green River to the north, SR 167 to the east and S 277th St. to the south. jIn addition, the SMP contains.recommendations for shoreline areas within the City's Potential Annexation Areas: Panther Lake, South half of Lake Fenwick, Portions of the Green River, and a small portion of the Green River floodway south of Lake Fenwick. Applicant Erin George City of Kent Planning Department 220 4th Ave South 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. Determination ofNomsignificanoe City of Kent Shoreline Master Program Update #ENV-2009-15 #RPSA-2091735 There is no comment period for this DNS. )(_ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed bya14-day appeal period aa provided byVVAC1971168O. Comments must ba submitted by August 3' 2009. Responsible Official Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address56-5454 Dated S|gnatu | h PROCESS:APPEAL AN APPEAL DFA DETERMINATION OFNONSIGNIBCANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TOTHE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE bjb\s:\perrnit\p|an\env\2009\2091735-2009-15dns.doc | 2 of Planning services �h Location:400 W. Gowe * Mail to: 220 4Avenue South # Kent WA 98032-5895 Permit Center(253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter KENT WASHINGTON Environmental Checklist Application rm Public Notice Board and Application Fee...See Fee Schedule TO RIF r.nMPI FTi=n RV-QTAI=lz- K-PLAN SHORELINE ENV-2009-15 1-,?-10 MASTER PROGRAM RPSA-2091735 IVA 10 SA 7.35 UPDATE PROCESSING FEE: A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. _ ;f,�j�,�oa Signature of Respo' nsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED:��Yzz- RECEIVE D D. ZONING DISTRICT: JUN zW CITY OF KENT PERMIT CENTER City of Kent Planning Servivas Environmental Checklist—Page 2 TO BECOMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project: City of Kent Shoreline Master Program Update 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Planning Department Mailing Address: 400 West Gowe Street, Kent, WA 98032 Contact Person: Erin George Telephone: 253-856-5436 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): City of Kent staff 4. Name of Legal Owner: NIA Telephone: N/A Mailing Address: NIA 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP)will be adopted for all areas failing within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act in the City of Kent. Due to the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through -251) that were adopted by Washington Department of Ecology on December 17, 2003, and more recent scientific data, new jurisdictional shoreline waterbodies and associated "shorelands" (wetlands and floodways, see below) have been added to the SMP, including the following waterbodies and associated shorelands (see page 4 of the SMP for a jurisdiction map. Note the floodplain wetlands are not shown due to constant updates to the City's Wetland Inventory Maps): Big Soos Creek Green River Green River Natural Resources Area ponds Jenkins Creek Lake Fenwick(north half) • Lake Meridian • Springbrook Creek (small portion at northern city limit) "Associated Wetlands" within 200 feet of the above waterbodies Wetlands located within the Green River floodplain The Green River floodway bounded by the Green River to the north,SR 167 to the east and S 277th Street to the south In addition, the SMP contains recommendations for shoreline areas within the City's Potential Annexation Areas (PAA). City of Kent Planning Serviues Environmental Checklist— Page 3 Panther Lake South half of Lake Fenwick Portions of the Green River Small portion of the Green River floodway south of Lake Fenwick The City of Kent is located in King County,Washington south of the City of Renton and north of the City of Auburn. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): NIA. The SMP is a non-project action. b. Tax identification number: N/A 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The adoption of an updated Shoreline Master Program is a non-project action. Detailed descriptions of the City's shoreline jurisdiction can be found in the Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report(The Watershed Company 2009),and in more limited detail below. 8. Site Area: NIA Site Dimensions: N/A 9. Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): Adoption of the proposed City of Kent Shoreline Master Program,including incorporation of the Goals and Policies into a Shoreline Element of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. The SMP update will bring the City into compliance with RCW 90.68 and Washington Administrative Code(WAC)173-26,incorporating all new requirements for shoreline zone planning since adoption of the City's current amended SMP in 2004,and will comply with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through -251) that were adopted by Washington Department of Ecology on December 17, 2003. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule(include phasing and construction dates,if possible). Anticipated dates for local adoption process are as follows: • Land Use & Planning Board workshop: June 22, 2009 • Land Use & Planning Board Public Hearing: July 27, 2009 Planning&Economic Development Committee meetings:July 13 and August 10, City of Kent Planning Serviues Environmental Checklist—Page 4 2009 ® Council workshop and meeting: August 4 and August 18, 2009, respectively 0 Submittal to Department of Ecology for final approval immediately following local adoption 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Once adopted,the City will administer future Shoreline permitting in accordance with the updated SMP, and may implement or coordinate programs or activities outlined in the Restoration Plan (Chapter 8 of the SMP). Future amendments to the SMP may be necessary as a result of the future Critical Areas Ordinance Update, and/or federal guidance regarding implementation of the National Marine Fisheries Service's"Biological Opinion" issued following their appeal of FEMA's flood insurance program. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local,state,federal,or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. The updated SMP is being prepared under grant funding administered by the Washington Department of Ecology(DOE). Following submittal of the locally adopted SMP document by the City, DOE will conduct a final review and take final action on the SMP document. DOE has already reviewed and given comments on a preliminary draft of the SMP,and is currently reviewing a second draft. DATE —AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS" 60-day notice of CTED intent to adopt May 29, 2009 Pending Draft SMP DOE review June 11, 2009 Pending *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Final 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,June 2009. This report may be downloaded at www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning. City of Kent Planning Serviues Environmental Checklist—Page 5 Final Draft Restoration Plan Component of the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Kent, The Watershed Company, June 2009. (incorporated into SMP as Chapter 8) Final Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis Component of the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Kent, The Watershed Company, June 2009 (attached). 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 6 AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: See below. A majority of the City lies within the broad, low-lying Green River valley bottom, which was formerly part of a series of frequently flooded wetland areas along the river. The remainder of the City lies on the hillsides adjacent to the river valley. These upland areas reach elevations over 500 feet. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? According to the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, the steepest slopes within the City limits exceed 40 percent vertical grade. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils vary throughout the City, depending on location, but are primarily glacial till as a result of the glacial formation of the Green River valley. Hydric soils found in the City include a variety of silt loams,which are primarily found along the valley floor. The upland areas consist of primarily gravelly sandy loam soils. See Figure 9 of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report for specific details and locations of soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See above.Virtually all of the Green River valley floor is considered unstable and consists of soils that are susceptible to liquefaction. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. NIA f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 7 AGENCY USE ONLY NIA h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. N/A 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NIA b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. N/A 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The updated Shoreline Master Program addresses all areas of shoreline jurisdiction within the City of Kent and its Potential Annexation Area(PAA). Shorelines include streams with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or greater, lakes over 20 acres, wetlands within 200 feet of a shoreline waterbody as well as any wetlands in a 100-year filoodplain, and filoodways and portions of adjacent filoodplains. In the City of Kent, shoreline streams include the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek and Big Soos Creek. Shoreline lakes include Lake Meridian,Lake Fenwick and the Green River Natural Resources Area(GRNRA)pond. Panther Lake, approximately 34.3 acres in size, is located entirely within the City's PAA. i City of Kent Planning Services - EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 8 AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The adoption of an updated Shoreline Master Program is a non-project action. Individual projects submitted for review under the updated SMP will all be located within 200 feet of the listed waters,or within associated wetlands or floodways and floodplains. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The draft Shoreline Master Program includes portions of the 100-year floodplain within shoreline jurisdiction, as shown on Figure 10.1 in the Shoreline Inventory &Analysis Report 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 9 AGENCY USE ONLY applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater runoff from upland areas drains into the shoreline waterbodies of Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek or Jenkins Creek, which eventually flow into the Green River basin. Stormwater runoff from the Green River valley floor flows to the Green River, Springbrook Creek or the GRNRA pond. The Green River eventually flows northward into Tukwila, changing names as the Duwamish and emptying into Elliott Bay in Seattle. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Runoff will be addressed on an individual project basis for proposals located within shoreline jurisdiction,and will be required to comply with the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs X Grass X Pasture City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 10 AGENCY USE ONLY X Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup, bulrush,skunk cabbage,other X Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known in Kent's shoreline jurisdiction. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: �=wkheron, eagle, songbird other: Mamrnoil-sg —deer, bear, elk, eaver her: Fis ass, salmon, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald Eagles (nesting and/or foraging in Green River, Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake, Lake Meridian, Big Soos Creek), Pileated Woodpecker (Lake Fenwick), Bull Trout (Green River), Chinook Salmon (Green River, Big Soos Creek), Chum Salmon (Green River), Coho Salmon (Green River, Big Soos Creek), Pink Salmon,(Green River),Sockeye Salmon, (Green River), Steelhead (Green River, Big Soos Creek), Cutthroat Trout, (Green River, Big Soos Creek) c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The shoreline river/streams are all migratory corridors for anadromous salmonids. Kent is also located in the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds seasonally traveling between areas City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 11 AGENCY USE ONLY north of Kent to Central or South America. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The updated Shoreline Master Program contains a restoration element with existing and proposed measures and programs to restore degraded shoreline habitats. There are a number of policies and regulations in the SMP requiring that projects achieve no net loss of ecological functions as part of proposed development or uses. Application of mitigation sequencing is required. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil,wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1 Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NIA b. Noise City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY 1) , What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The shoreline area of the Green River widely varies,with a variety of open space areas including natural areas, trails, and parks; commercial uses such as light industrial and warehouses; residential areas consisting of single-family,multi-family and mobile home parks; and agricultural uses consisting of primarily pasture land. Big Soos Creek shoreline consists of single-family residences,Soos Creek Park and a property owned by WSDOT containing a three- celled stormwater detention pond and wetland mitigation. Lake Meridian shoreline consists of Lake Meridian Park, single- family residences, and a mobile home park. Lake Fenwick shoreline consists of Lake.Fenwick Park and single- family ownership. The south end of the lake is within King County jurisdiction and in Kent's PAA. A majority of this shoreline is open space, although a small area accommodates residential development. Green River Natural Resources Area ponds, a City-owned and managed water quality management facility, is surrounded by industrial development except on the west side by the Green River Regional Trail. i City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 13 AGENCY USE ONLY Springbrook Creek shoreline is completely within and surrounded by single-story light industrial uses,with two narrow undeveloped parcels owned by the City of Kent closest to the stream. Jenkins Creek shoreline affects only one parcel, which is City of Kent's Armstrong Springs municipal watershed area. Outside the shoreline jurisdiction, the area is surrounded by single-family residences. Panther Lake shoreline, located within King County jurisdiction but within the City of Kent PAA, consists of both open space and residential land uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. As noted above,some of the Green River shoreline jurisdiction has been utilized for agriculture. c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Zoning along the Green River shoreline is Industrial Agricultural (MA), Agricultural/General (AG), Agricultural (A-10), Industrial Park (M1), Limited Industrial(M2),Mobile Home Park(MHP),Single Family (SR-1),Single Family(SR-4.5),Single Family(SR-8),Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G), Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M), General Commercial (GC), Commercial Manufacturing II (CM-2), and Professional and Office (0). Zoning along Lake Meridian shoreline is Single Family(SR-1),Single Family(SR-3), and Mobile Home Park(MHP). Zoning along Lake Fenwick shoreline is Single Family (SR-1) and Single Family (SR-6). Zoning along Big Soos Creek shoreline is Single Family (SR-1). Zoning along Springbrook Creek shoreline is Industrial Park (M1) and Limited Industrial (M2). Zoning along the GRNRA shoreline is Industrial Agricultural (MA) and Industrial Park(M1). City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 14 AGENCY USE ONLY Panther Lake is located outside of the City of Kent within King County jurisdiction. King County zoning surrounding the lake is R1 (Residential I unit per acre), R6 (Residential 6 units per acre), R8 (Residential 8 units per acre)and R1 2(Residential 12 units per acre). Jenkins Creek shoreline does not have a zoning designation. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Comprehensive land use designations for the Green River shoreline are Commercial (C), Industrial (1), Agricultural Resource (AG-R), Urban Separator (UR), Parks and Open Space (OS), Single Family 4.5 units/acre (SF-4.5), Low Density Multifamily (LDMF), Medium Density Multifamily(MDMF),Mixed Use(MU),Agricultural Resource (AG-R), Agricultural Support (AG-S), Mobile Home Park (MHP) and Single Family 6 units/acre (SF-6). Big Soos Creek shoreline is designated as Open Space (OS) and Urban Separator(US). Lake Meridian shoreline is designated as Single Family 4.5 units/acre (SF-4.5) and Parks and Open Space (OS). Lake Fenwick shoreline is designated as Open Space and Single Family 6 units/acre(SF-6)within Kent jurisdiction. The south half of the lake is within King County jurisdiction and is designated as PW (Other Parks/Wilderness) and Urban Residential 1 unitlacre(UR-1). Panther Lake shoreline is located entirely within King County jurisdiction. King County land use designations for the lake shoreline include Urban Separator(US)and Urban Residential 4-12 units/acre (UR 4-12). Springbrook Creek shoreline is designated as Parks and Open Space (OS), Industrial (1), Manufacturing Industrial Center(MIC). GRNRA shoreline is designated as Parks and Open Space (OS). Jenkins Creek shoreline does not have a comprehensive land use designation. g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Proposed shoreline master program designations include: Natural- Wetlands(N-W), Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity(UC-LI), Urban Conservancy—Open Space(UC-OS), High Intensity(H-1),Shoreline Residential (SR), and Aquatic. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 15 AGENCY USE ONLY The-NW designation applies to all associated wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction. The UC-LI designation is generally applied to lands utilized for agriculture and agriculture-support services, and may contain or be suited for low-density residential or commercial uses. The UC-OS designation consists primarily of open space, natural areas, parks,and the Green River Trail. The H-1 environment is only found along portions of the Green River and Springbrook Creek that have commercial/industrial uses. The SR environment is occupied by single-and multi-family uses. The Aquatic environment consists of those areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark of each of the shoreline waterbodies. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Areas containing wetlands, streams, geologic hazard areas, frequently flooded areas,critical fish or wildlife conservation areas, and aquifer recharge areas are designated as "critical or environmentally sensitive" under Chapter 11.06 of Kent City Code (KCC). All wetlands located all or partly within 200 feet of the shoreline waterbodies are included within shoreline jurisdiction,as well as wetlands located within the Green River I 00-year floodplain under RCW 90.68. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NIA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed updated SMP will be adopted as a stand-alone document,as well as listing the goals and policies in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as the Shoreline Element. The SMP policies and proposed shoreline designations have been analyzed by the City's Planning Services Section and compared to the policies and designations in the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Code and map,and have been deemed compatible. ` City of Kent Planning Services ~-' / EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 1G AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing o. Approximately how many unite would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, ifany. NIA 10' Aesthetics . a. \K/het is the tallest height of any proposed otruoture(s), not including antennas; what iathe principal exterior building nnabaria|(a) proposed? NIA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, ifany. NIA 11' Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time ofday would it mainly occur? NIA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be o safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 17 AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. N/A 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of parks located within the City's shoreline jurisdiction, including Foster Park,Riverview Park,Old Fishing Hole Park, Cottonwood Grove Park, Valley Floor Community Park, Briscoe Park,Three Friends Fishing Hole(Gateway Park),Anderson Park, Green River Natural Resources Area, Van Doren's Landing Park, BMX Park, Russell Woods Park, Riverbend Golf Complex, North Green River Park,Lake Meridian Park,Lake Fenwick Park,and the Green River Trail.A wide array of recreational activities occur at these parks and on the shoreline waterbodies,including swimming, fishing, boating (both motorized and non-motorized), walking or biking, among others. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. NIA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OHP) WISAARD website was searched to identify known historical and archaeological features within the City. Four sites were identified, all within the Green River shoreline. These include Maddlocksville Landing, Alvord's Landing, Langston's Landing,and the Neely House. More detailed information regarding these sites may be found in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological, City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 18 AGENCY USE ONLY scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. See 13(a)above. Also refer to the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. See the policies and regulations for "Archeological and Historic Resources" in Chapter 3 of the proposed SNIP titled General Provisions. For example, regulation (3) under this section provides the following: "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. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,if any. There are 13 major crossings of the Green River within the City limits and PAA: SIR 167,SIR 18,SIR 516,S. 212th Street,SIR 181, East Valley Road, S. 200th Street/Russell Road S., S. 228th Street, W. Meeker St., S. 277 1h Street (PAA), 78th Ave. S. (PAA), Union Pacfic Railroad, Burlington Northern Railroad SIR 18 and Kent-Kangley Road/SR 516 cross the Big Soos Creek jurisdiction. Kent-Kangley Road/SR 616 is located on the southern end of the Lake Meridian shoreline, as well as some other minor residential streets. Lake Fenwick Road is the only road passing through Lake Fenwick shoreline. No roads pass directly through GRNRA or Jenkins Creek shorelines. S. 180th Street is the only road crossing Springbrook Creek shoreline within the City limits. SE 208th Street and SE 196 th Street both pass through the Panther Lake shoreline jurisdiction in King County. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmenta| Checkkst— Paoe 19 AGENCY USE ONLY b. |o site currently served bv public transit? |f not, what ia the approximate distance tothe nearest transit stop? King County Metro serves the City of Kent and surrounding King County jurisdiction. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public o[privofe). See above. e. Will the project uae(oroocurintheinnmnadiotevicinitvof)xveter. nsi|, oreir transportation? |f so, generally describe. NIA t How many vehicular trips per day would be generated bx the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NIA g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, ifany. NIA 15. Public Services o. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,other)?If so, generally describe. NIA b. Proposed measures to naduoa or control direct impacts on public services, ifany. NIA 16' Utilities a. Circle utilities curCentig aygolablp at the 'te�ctricity, natural gas,w City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY All of these services are available within the City of Kent and surrounding King County jurisdiction. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. N/A C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: zo� City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 21 AGENCY USE ONLY DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal,or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? As a non-project action, adoption of the updated SMP would not increase discharges to water;emissions to air; production of noise; or production,storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances. Projects reviewed under the Shoreline Master Program will be required to comply with numerous policies and regulations designed to reduce (either directly or indirectly) environmental impacts. There are management policies within the SMP located in the provisions for Environment Designations (Chapter 2); general regulations affecting a wide variety of uses and activities (Chapter 3); and regulations affecting proposed modification to shorelines (Chapter 4) and shoreline uses (Chapter 5). Many of these policies and regulations are included in the document to provide regulatory authority in support of limiting impacts to the environment,such as discharges to water, emissions to the air, and noise. In particular,Chapter 3.13.3(Critical Areas)and 3.B.4(Environmental Impacts)require use of mitigation sequencing for project proposals that may impact either critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction or shoreline ecological functions. In addition, the entire SMP has been prepared and evaluated with the intent of meeting a "no net loss of ecological functions" standard, which is required by WAC 173-26. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (attached) documents that evaluation and concludes with a determination that the updated SMP does in fact meet that standard. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: No additional measures are needed. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 22 AGENCY USE ONLY 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? See response to Question I above. Further, the updated SMP contains special provisions for water quality protection (a key element of fish habitat)and vegetation conservation and restoration (a key element of all fish and wildlife habitats), and includes setbacks intended to preserve and protect existing habitat. As documented in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis, ecological function will either remain the same as current condition, or more likely improve over time. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No additional measures are needed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The preparation of an updated SMP is a non-project action. Individual projects submitted for review under the new SMP will be required to comply with the policies and regulations in the SMP and the Kent City Code(KCC). The proposed Shoreline Master Program contains management policies and regulations intended to encourage, and in some cases require, conservation of natural resources associated with the shoreline, in accordance with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26. The SMP does not have a significant effect on energy use. Consumptive new or redeveloped uses would only be allowed to the extent already planned for and evaluated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: See above. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The updated SMP has been prepared to comply with requirements in State law, including RCW 90.68 and WAC 173-26, for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas associated with shorelines of the State. There are policies and regulations throughout the document that are designed to protect and preserve shoreline habitat and functioning conditions. In addition, the City ' City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist—Page 23 AGENCY USE ONLY has adopted regulations for the protection of critical areas (Kent City'Code Chapter 11.06) that meet the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requirements — these regulations are adopted by reference into the SMP. Policies and regulations in the master program will enhance public access to the shorelines and encourage continued protection of sensitive shoreline habitat, including those habitats occupied by state or federally listed fish and wildlife. Conditions for listed fish species, in particular, will improve as a result of the updated SMP and other City programs and activities targeting enhancement of the Green River corridor, as identified in Chapter 8 of the SMP. See additional discussion in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No additional measures are needed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The purpose of the Shoreline Master Program is to manage shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses while insuring development that will promote and enhance the public interest and protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. The SMP designates six shoreline environments: Natural- Wetlands (N-W), Urban Conservancy— Low Intensity (UC-LI), Urban Conservancy— Open Space(UC-OS), High Intensity(H-11),Shoreline Residential(SR),and Aquatic. Each environment is provided designation criteria and management policies. In addition, the SMP contains general provisions, policies and regulations for a variety of resources and uses within the shoreline environments. These management policies, provisions and regulations are intended to preserve shoreline processes, habitat and functional values, while giving preference to water-dependent and water-related uses and encouraging public access. Uses with a significant negative impact are prohibited or regulated so as to minimize impacts on the shoreline environment. The SMP has been evaluated for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code (KCC). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No additional measures are needed. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 24 AGENCY USE ONLY 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The SMP does not have a significant effect on transportation or public services and utilities. Consumptive new or redeveloped uses would only be allowed to the extent already planned for and evaluated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No additional measures needed. 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The adoption of an updated Shoreline Master Program will ensure City compliance with requirements in Washington State law for environmental planning and regulation within areas of shoreline jurisdiction (RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26), and the City's program will be integrated into the State's Coastal Zone Program by the Department of Ecology. The City's Critical Areas Regulations are adopted by reference into the SMP, as required by WAC 173-26. In addition, the goals and policies of the SMP will be integrated into the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, and will be consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code. The Shoreline Master Program does not supersede other agencies' authority to regulate projects within their jurisdiction (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). P:\Planning\ADMIN\FORMS\SEPA\SEPA—CHECKLIST.doc (REVISED 12/08)