HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/23/2022 (2)
Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 6 p.m. on the second
and fourth Mondays of each month in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 Fourth
Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.
For additional information please contact Tanya Kosen at 253-856-5461, or email
Tkosen@kentwa.gov.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at
253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 7-1-1.
Land Use and Planning Board
Monday, May 23, 2022
6:00 PM
THIS IS A REMOTE MEETING
To listen to this meeting,
call 1-888-475-4499 or 1-877-853-5257
and enter Meeting ID 892 4781 6998
Chair Dione Dittmar
Vice Chair Joseph O'Toole Shane Amodei
Chris McClain Sally McDonough
Sandra Pereira Michael Purwal
**************************************************************
Item Description Action Speaker Time
1. Call to Order Chair
2. Roll Call Chair 01 MIN.
3. Approval of May 9, 2022 Minutes YES Chair 01 MIN.
4. Changes to Agenda &
Announcements
Chair
5. City of Kent Surface Water
Design Manual Update - Public
Hearing
YES Laura Haren,
Environmental
Conservation Analyst
15 MIN.
6. 2022-2027 Parks and Open
Space Plan Update – Public
Hearing
YES Brian Levenhagen,
Deputy Director
30 MIN.
7. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Requests 2021/2022 – Public
Hearing
YES Kaelene Nobis, Senior
Long Range Planner
30 MIN.
8. Adjournment Chair
Page 1 of 2
Pending Approval
Land Use and Planning Board
Land Use Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 9, 2022
Date: May 9, 2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: THIS IS A REMOTE MEETING
Members: Dione Dittmar, Chair
Joseph O'Toole, Vice Chair
Shane Amodei,
Chris McClain,
Sally McDonough,
Sandra Pereira,
Michael Purwal
Agenda:
1. Call to Order 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dione Dittmar Chair Excused
Joseph O'Toole Vice Chair Present
Shane Amodei Present
Chris McClain Excused
Sally McDonough Present
Sandra Pereira Present
Michael Purwal Absent
3. Agenda Approval
4. Business
A. Approval of Minutes
Approval of Minutes dated April 25, 2022
MOTION: Move to approve the Minutes dated April 25, 2022
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sally McDonough
SECONDER: Shane Amodei
AYES: O'Toole, Amodei, McDonough, Pereira
ABSENT: Purwal
EXCUSED: Dittmar, McClain
5. Information Items
A. City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual Update
1.3
Packet Pg. 2 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 9, 2022 6:00 PM (Open Session)
Land Use and Planning Board Land Use Regular
Meeting
Minutes
May 9, 2022
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 2
Laura Haren, Environmental Conservation Analyst from Public Works gave a
brief presentation on the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual Update.
Kent has updated its Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) as required to
maintain compliance with the State of Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater General Permit (NPDES). Most of the changes are to fix errors
and omissions, provide clarity and consistency with Kent Standards, or to
implement new WA Department of Ecology requirements.
This item will be up for vote at the next Hearing on May 23, 2022.
6. Adjournment 6:30 p.m.
Tanya Kosen
Committee Secretary
1.3
Packet Pg. 3 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 9, 2022 6:00 PM (Open Session)
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
DATE: May 23, 2022
TO: Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Public Works
SUBJECT: City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual Update - Public
Hearing
MOTION: Recommend Council adopt an Ordinance repealing Section 2 of
Ordinance No. 4234 that had adopted the 2017 Kent Surface Water Design Manual
and adopting the 2022 Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
SUMMARY: Kent has updated its Surface Water Design Manual as required to
maintain compliance with the State of Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
General Permit (NPDES). Most of the changes are to fix errors and omissions,
provide clarity and consistency with Kent Standards, or to implement new WA
Department of Ecology requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Western Washington cities are mandated by Federal and State Clean Water Act
regulations (NPDES) to develop local stormwater management regulations that are
consistent with the State stormwater standards. Kent achieves compliance by
adopting the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The adoption of the King
County standards is accomplished through the Kent Surface Water Design Manual,
which highlights city-specific standards as well as deviations from the King County
standards due to geographic and procedural differences between Kent and King
County.
In 2021, King County updated its manual to achieve equivalency with the WA State
Department of Ecology’s updated standards. Therefore, Kent has updated its
Surface Water Design Manual to maintain equivalency with King County and State
standards. Most changes are to correct errors and omissions and provide further
clarity and consistency with Kent standards. Some changes are from WA
Department of Ecology as disseminated through the NPDES Municipal Stormwater
General Permit program.
The updates to this manual have been reviewed by technical staff from the
Economic and Community Development and Public Works departments. Some of
the new changes are a result of this internal review. Please see attached a
summary of changes to the Surface Water Design Manual.
1.5
Packet Pg. 4
The Surface Water Design Manual update was submitted for review and public
comment under SEPA and was granted expedited review by the WA Department of
Commerce on May 5, 2022.
This item was presented at the Economic and Community Development Committee
meeting and the Land Use and Planning Board meeting as informational items on
May 9, 2022. It is scheduled for presentation and action at the June 6, 2022 Public
Works Committee meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Evolving Infrastructure - Connecting people and places through strategic investments in physical
and technological infrastructure.
Sustainable Services - Providing quality services through responsible financial management,
economic growth, and partnerships.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2022 - PW (PDF)
2. City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (PDF)
3. City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (PDF)
1.5
Packet Pg. 5
1 Surface Water Design Manual
Repeal 2017 Ed. & Adopt 2022 Ed.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing Section 2 of
Ordinance No. 4234 that had adopted Kent’s 2017
Surface Water Design Manual, and adopting Kent’s
new 2022 Surface Water Design Manual.
RECITALS
A. The city of Kent’s existing Surface Water Design Manual
(“KSWDM”) was last updated approximately five years ago, in January of
2017, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 4234.
B. The public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Kent
require the proper design, construction, and maintenance of surface water
and stormwater control systems. The KSWDM presents the City’s strategy
to reduce public hazards due to floods, erosion, and landslides; enhance
public health, safety, and welfare; better protects the City’s environmental
resources, specifically our native salmon; improves regulatory review by
introducing more certainty in the requirements; assists developers by
providing more detailed information about how to analyze and design
acceptable stormwater control systems; provides the City with the latest
technology available for designing and constructing stormwater controls;
and meets state and federal regulatory requirements for local municipalities
under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Acts.
1.5.A
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Ordinance SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2022 - PW (3164 : SWDM)
2 Surface Water Design Manual
Repeal 2017 Ed. & Adopt 2022 Ed.
C. Due to the requirements of federal and state law, and updates
King County made recently to its Surface Water Design Manual, it is
appropriate for Kent to update its KSWDM. During preparation of the current
KSWDM, City staff met with the development community and the manual
was subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”).
The City’s SEPA responsible official has determined that the proposed
amendments to the KSWDM are procedural in nature and further SEPA
analysis is not required for the adoption of the KSWDM.
D. A draft version of this ordinance and the KSWDM was submitted
to the Washington State Department of Commerce for expedited review on
4/21/2022, which was granted on 5/5/2022. The ordinance and the KSWDM
were discussed as informational items before the Economic and Community
Development Committee and the City’s Land Use and Planning Board on
5/9/2022. They were considered by the City’s Land Use and Planning Board
after a duly noticed public hearing on 5/23/2022 and by the Public Works
Committee on 6/6/2022, both of which recommended Council adoption.
Council has considered this ordinance, the 2022 edition of the KSWDM,
together with all public comment, and has determined that adoption is
appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Repealer – 2017 edition of Kent Surface Water Design
Manual. Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4234, which adopted the 2017 edition
of the Kent Surface Water Design Manual is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. – Adoption – 2022 edition of Kent Surface Water Design
Manual. Kent’s 2022 Surface Water Design Manual, attached and
incorporated as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted for application and enforcement
1.5.A
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Ordinance SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2022 - PW (3164 : SWDM)
3 Surface Water Design Manual
Repeal 2017 Ed. & Adopt 2022 Ed.
within the city of Kent. To the extent not inconsistent with any express
provision of the Surface Water Design Manual, the Directors of the City’s
Public Works Department and the Economic and Community Development
Department may amend, revise, supplement, and incorporate minor
changes to the Surface Water Design Manual as they become necessary.
Major, substantive changes shall include an opportunity for public review
and comment before Kent City Council takes any action to adopt any such
major, substantive changes.
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance
and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Savings. The 2017 edition of the Surface Water Design
Manual, which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in
full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or
references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
1.5.A
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Ordinance SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2022 - PW (3164 : SWDM)
4 Surface Water Design Manual
Repeal 2017 Ed. & Adopt 2022 Ed.
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TAMMY WHITE, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
P:\Civil\Ordinance\SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2017.docx
1.5.A
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Ordinance SurfaceWaterDesignManual-2022 - PW (3164 : SWDM)
CITY OF KENT
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
June 30, 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Manual is based on the 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
Individuals involved in the preparation, review, or approval of this Kent Surface Water Design
Manual are as follows:
Mayor
Dana Ralph
Kent City Council
Toni Troutner
Bill Boyce
Brenda Fincher
Zandria Michaud
Satwinder Kaur
Marli Larimer
Les Thomas
Chief Administrative Officer
Patrick Fitzpatrick, Interim
Public Works Director
Chad Bieren, P.E.
Deputy Public Works Director, Engineering
Kelly Peterson
Environmental Engineering Manager
Mike Mactutis, P.E.
Project Manager
Laura Haren
Technical Review
Mike Mactutis, P.E.
Dave Brock, P.E.
Brennan Taylor, P.E.
Shawn Gilbertson
Stephen Lincoln, P.E.
Erin George
GIS Mapping
Jim Cordova
Document Production
Nancy Yoshitake
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City Of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
PREFACE
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
The city of Kent has adopted the 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as amended by this
document. This document includes all changes, additions, and deletions to the KCSWDM and is to be used for all
development, as applicable, within the city of Kent.
In the event a conflict exists between the King County Surface Water Design Manual and the Kent Surface Water
Design Manual, Kent City Code, or Kent Design and Construction Standards, Kent standards and code will generally
control. The applicant must notify city review staff if conflicts are discovered.
CITY EQUIVALENTS FOR COUNTY AGENCIES AND
ORDINANCES
For proposals located within the City of Kent, all references in the KCSWDM to the following King County
departments are to be replaced by reference to the Kent Economic and Community Development Department:
• DDES (Department of Development and Environmental Services)
• DNR (Department of Natural Resources)
• SWM (Surface Water Management)
• WLR (Water and Land Resources)
For proposals in the City of Kent, all references in the KCSWDM to the King County Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (SAO) are to be replaced by reference to the Kent City Code, particularly Chapters 11, 14, and 15.
COUNTY DESIGNATIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY IN THE CITY
The following designations are used in the 2021 KCSWDM but are not currently used in the City of Kent; any
reference in the KCSWDM to the existence of areas with these designations or thresholds or requirements for
such areas is to be disregarded for development applications within the City of Kent:
• Coal Mine Hazard Area
• Critical Drainage Area
• Rural Residential Development
• Shared Facility
MANUAL UPDATES
With a publication of this complexity there may be errors that must be corrected and clarifications that are
needed. There will also be new information and technological updates. The City of Kent Department of
Public Works intends to publish corrections, updates and new technical information on our Departmental
Home Page at http://www.kentwa.gov/stormwater/. The web site will not be used to make revisions in key
policy areas – such as the thresholds and minimum requirements in Chapter 1. We encourage you to visit this
web site periodically and incorporate updates and corrections into your copies of the manual. You can also
visit this web site for updates and additional information about other Kent Public Works surface water
activities.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
ADDENDUM ORGANIZATION
The information presented in this document is organized as follows:
• Preface—How to Use This Document: This preface provides instructions for using the City of Kent’s
SWDM. It also defines terms in the King County manual that are used differently for the City of Kent; City
departments that are equivalent to county departments referred to in the KCSWDM; and designations from the
King County manual that do not apply to proposals in the City of Kent.
• Chapter 1—Drainage Review Requirements: A completely revised Chapter 1 has been provided in this
document. It is to be used instead of Chapter 1 in the 2021 KCSWDM for all proposals in the City of Kent.
This chapter sets forth the thresholds and requirements for drainage review, describes the three types of
drainage review, and summarizes the nine Core and five Special Requirements.
• Chapter 2—Drainage Plan Submittal: A completely revised Chapter 2 has been provided in this document.
It is to be used instead of Chapter 2 in the 2021 KCSWDM for all proposals in the City of Kent. This chapter
describes the required format and components of submittals for the three types of drainage review.
• Chapter 3—Hydrologic Analysis and Design: The City of Kent has made no changes to Chapter 3 of the
2021 KCSWDM. The King County version of Chapter 3 applies for proposals in the City of Kent.
• Chapter 4—Conveyance System Analysis and Design: The City of Kent has made several minor changes to
Chapter 4 of the 2021 KCSWDM. This chapter provides replacement text for the sections that are changed.
Apart from these changes, the King County version of Chapter 4 applies for proposals in the City of Kent.
• Chapter 5—Flow Control Design: The City of Kent has made minor changes to Chapter 5 of the 2021
KCSWDM. This chapter provides replacement text for the section that is changed. Apart from these changes,
the King County version of Chapter 5 applies to proposals in the City of Kent.
• Chapter 6—Water Quality Design: The City of Kent has made a few minor changes to Chapter 6 of the
2021 KCSWDM. This chapter provides replacement text for the section that is changed. Apart from this
change, the King County version of Chapter 6 applies to proposals in the City of Kent.
• Appendices – Appendix A presents the City of Kent Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained
Drainage Facilities (reprinted from Appendix D of the Kent Construction Standards), there is no Appendix B
(King County includes Master Drainage Plan requirements here – does not apply in Kent), Appendices C and
D are the Small Site Drainage Requirements and Erosion and Sediment Control Standards, respectively. These
are included as separately bound documents included with the King County Manual.
• References - The City of Kent accepts certain reference materials as written in the 2021 King County Surface
Water Design Manual. Other references are not applicable in Kent. Some reference materials have been
revised to reflect Kent-specific forms or development procedures. References from the King County Manual
are identified below along with how they are to be utilized in Kent (in bold).
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... i
CHAPTER 1
Drainage Review and Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Drainage Review ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Projects Requiring Drainage Review ............................................................................................................... 1-3
Drainage Review Types and Requirements ..................................................................................................... 1-4
Drainage Design Beyond Minimum Compliance .......................................................................................... 1-11
Core Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 1-13
Core Requirement #1: Discharge at The Natural Location ............................................................................ 1-13
Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis ........................................................................................................ 1-15
Core Requirement #3: Flow Control Facilities ............................................................................................. 1-25
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System ................................................................................................... 1-40
Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................................... 1-44
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations .................................................................................... 1-50
Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability ........................................................................... 1-52
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 1-53
Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs ................................................................................................... 1-62
Special Requirements............................................................................................................................................. 1-76
Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ........................................................ 1-76
Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Deliniation .............................................................................. 1-77
Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities .................................................................................... 1-79
Special Requirement #4: Source Controls .................................................................................................... 1-80
Special Requirement #5: Oil Control ............................................................................................................ 1-82
Adjustment Process ................................................................................................................................................ 1-84
Adjustment Authority .................................................................................................................................... 1-84
Criteria for Granting Adjustments ................................................................................................................. 1-85
Adjustment Application Process .................................................................................................................... 1-88
Adjustment Review Process........................................................................................................................... 1-88
Request For Reconsideration Procedure ........................................................................................................ 1-90
CHAPTER 2
Drainage Plan Submittal ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Plans for Permits and Drainage Review................................................................................................................... 2-2
Plans Required for Initial Permit Submittal ..................................................................................................... 2-2
Plans Required for Drainage Review ............................................................................................................... 2-2
Plans Required with Initial Permit Submittal ........................................................................................................... 2-4
Subdivisions, Short Plats and Binding Site Plans ............................................................................................ 2-4
Commercial Site Development ........................................................................................................................ 2-6
Single-family Residential ................................................................................................................................. 2-6
Other Permits ................................................................................................................................................... 2-6
Plans Required for Drainage Review ....................................................................................................................... 2-7
Engineering Plan Specifications ...................................................................................................................... 2-7
Projects in Targeted Drainage Review ........................................................................................................... 2-32
Plans Required After Drainage Review ................................................................................................................. 2-34
Plan Changes After Permit Issuance .............................................................................................................. 2-34
Final Corrected Plan Submittal ...................................................................................................................... 2-34
Final Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Submittals................................................................................ 2-34
CHAPTER 3
Hydrologic Analysis and Design ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1
CHAPTER 4
Conveyance System Analysis and Design ........................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Route Design Easment Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Easment And Setback Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Pipes, Outfalls, and Pumps ...................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Pipe Systems .................................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Outfall Systems ................................................................................................................................................ 4-7
4.3 Culverts And Bridges ............................................................................................................................................... 4-8
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
4.3.1 Culverts ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-8
CHAPTER 5
Flow Control Design .............................................................................................................................................................. 5-1
Detention Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 5-1
Detention Ponds ............................................................................................................................................... 5-1
Detention Tanks ............................................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.5 Parking Lot Detention ...................................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.6 Roof Detention ................................................................................................................................................. 5-3
CHAPTER 6
Water Quality Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 General Requirements For WQ Facilities ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.3 Slopes, And Embankmetns .............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.7 Proprietary Facility Designs .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................................... A-16-1
Appendix A - Maintenance Requirements For Flow Control, Conveyance, And Facilities ................................................ A-3
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................................................................... A-5
Appendix B - Master Drainage Plan Objectives, Criteria, Components, And Review Process ........................................... A-7
APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................................................................................... A-9
Appendix C – Simplified Drainage Requirements ............................................................................................................. A-11
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................................................................................ A-13
Appendix D – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention .......................................................................................... A-15
D.1 General CSWPP Requirements ............................................................................................................................... A-15
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... R-1
MAPS
Erosion Hazard Areas ......................................................................................................................................................... M-1
Flow Control Applications ................................................................................................................................................ M-21
Landslide Hazard / Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas ..................................................................................................... M-31
Soils Wellhead Areas ........................................................................................................................................................ M-41
Water Quality Applications .............................................................................................................................................. M-51
Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................................................... M-61
Lower Mill Creek Regulatory Area .................................................................................................................................. M-71
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual i June 2022
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
A complete list of definitions follows Chapter 6.
Proper application of the drainage review and requirements in this chapter requires an understanding of the
following key terms and their definitions. Other key terms may be defined in subsequent chapters. All such key
terms are highlighted in bo ld italic throughout the manual. Oth er important terms that are not key terms are
defined in the text when they are first introduced. These are highlighted in italic when they are first introduced but
are not highlighted throughout the manual. All terms defined in this chapter are also found in the "Definitions"
section of this manual as are other important terms defined throughout the Manual.
Acceptable discharge point: An enclosed drainage system (i.e., pipe system, culvert, or tightline) or open
drainage feature (e.g., ditch, channel, swale, stream, river, pond, lake, or wetland) where concentrated runoff
can be discharged without creating a significant adverse impact.
Agricultural project: any project located on, and proposing improvements consistent with, the permitted uses
of land zoned for Agriculture.
Arterial: A high traffic-volume road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or
streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing
access to abutting property.
Base flood: The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also
referred to as the “100-year flood”. The base flood is determined for future flow conditions, except in areas
where the FEMA Flood Insurance Study includes detailed base flood calculations. In that case, the FEMA
data shall apply.
Bioretention: A flow control best management practice consisting of a shallow landscaped depression designed
to temporarily store and promote infiltration of stormwater runoff. Standards for bioretention design, including
soil mix, plants, storage volume and feasibility criteria, are specified in Appendix C.
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL): an individual who has current certification through
an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards
established by the Washington Department of Ecology Department (Ecology). The CESCL must have the skills
to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and, the
effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges.
Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course.
City Review Staff: the City of Kent employee(s) responsible for the conditioning, review, inspection, and
approval of development permits. This is generally staff from the Development Review section of the
Economic and Community Development Department but may include other city employees such as Public
Works staff.
Civil engineer: a person licensed by the state of Washington as a professional engineer in civil engineering.
Construct or modify: to install a new drainage pipe or ditch or make improvements to an existing drainage pipe
or ditch, for purposes other than maintenance, which either serves to concentrate previously unconcentrated
surface water or stormwater runoff or serves to increase, decrease or redirect the conveyance of surface water
or stormwater runoff. "Construct or modify" does not include installation or maintenance of a driveway culvert
installed as part of a single-family residential building permit.
Conveyance system nuisance problem: a flooding or erosion problem that does not constitute a severe flooding
problem or severe erosion problem and that results from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system for
runoff events less than or equal to a 10-year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a
roadway, overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding of crawl
spaces or unheated garages/outbuildings, and minor erosion.
Critical aquifer recharge area: the critical area designation, defined and regulated in KCC 11.06, which is
applied to areas where extra protection of groundwater quantity and quality is needed because of known
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual ii June 2022
susceptibility to contamination and importance to drinking water supply. Such areas are delineated on the King
County Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map available at DPER or on the County's Geographic Information
System (GIS). See the "Definitions" section for more details.
Development: any activity that requires a permit or approval, including, but not limited to, a building permit,
grading permit, shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, special use permit, zoning
variance or reclassification, subdivision, short subdivision, urban planned development, binding site plan, site
development permit, or right-of-way use permit. "Development" does not include a Class I, II or III, forest
practice conducted in accordance with Chapter 76.09 RCW and Title 222 WAC.
Director: the Economic and Community Development Director or the Public Works Director as appropriate
for the permit condition or other issue under consideration.
Drainage facilities: a constructed or engineered feature that collects, conveys, stores, treats, or otherwise
manages surface water or stormwater runoff. “Drainage facility” includes, but is not limited to, a constructed
or engineered stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression, or a pipe, channel, ditch, gutter, flow control facility,
flow control BMP, water quality facility, erosion and sediment control facility, and any other structure and
appurtenance that provides for drainage.
Effective impervious surface: impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to
a drainage system. Impervious surfaces are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is fully dispersed as
described in Appendix C of this manual; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with the full
infiltration BMP described in Appendix C of this manual; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods
indicate that the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
Erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals: materials or substances that, when exposed to rainfall,
measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff (Examples include but are not
limited to erodible soil, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, garbage
dumpster leakage, commercial-scale vehicle and animal wash waste, galvanized structural, architectural,
cabinet, and utility steel, architectural copper, bronze, brass, and lead, treated lumber, etc.).
Erosion hazard area: the critical area designation, defined and regulated in KCC 21A, that is applied to areas
underlain by soils that are subject to severe erosion when disturbed. See the "Definitions" section for more
details.
Existing flooding: Flooding over all lanes of the roadway or driveway has occurred in the past and can be
verified by City records, City personnel, photographs, or other physical evidence.
Existing site conditions: shall mean the native vegetation and soils that existed at the site prior to the influence
of Euro-American settlement. Existing site conditions outside of the Lower Mill Creek, Lower Springbrook
Creek, Lower Garrison Creek or within the Green River Natural Resource Area as shown on the Flow Control
Application Map shall be assumed to be forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided
that indicated that the site was prairie prior to settlement.
Exposed: subject to direct or blown-in precipitation and/or direct or blown in runoff. Not fully covered.
Exposed area or exposed material: not covered sufficiently to shield from rainfall and stormwater runoff. At a
minimum, full coverage to not be considered exposed requires a roof with enough overhang in conjunction with
walls of sufficient height to prevent rainfall blow-in; and the walls must extend into the ground or to a berm or
footing to prevent runoff from being blown in or from running onto the covered area.
Finished area: Any enclosed area of a building that is designed to be served by the building's permanent
heating or cooling system.
Frequently Flooded area: the critical area designation, defined and regulated in KCC 11.06, which is applied
to areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event or areas at risk from channel migration. Flood hazard
areas generally include, but are not limited to, aquatic areas (e.g., streams or lakes), wetlands, or closed
depressions. See the "Definitions" section for more details.
Floodway: the channel of the river or stream and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which are
reasonably required to carry and discharge the base flood flow. The portions of the adjoining floodplains that
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual iii June 2022
are “reasonable required” are defined by the City flood hazard regulations as stated in Chapter 14 of the Kent
City Code.
Flow control BMP: a small scale drainage facility or feature that is part of a development site strategy to use
processes such as infiltration, dispersion, storage, evaporation, transpiration, forest retention, and reduced
impervious surface footprint to mimic pre-developed hydrology and minimize stormwater runoff.
Flow duration: The aggregate time that peak flows are at or above a particular flow rate of interest (e.g., the
amount of time over the last 40 years that peak flows were at or above the 2-year flow rate).
Full build-out conditions: The tributary area is developed to its full zoning potential except where there are
existing streams, lakes, wetlands, closed depressions, geologic hazard areas, or open space tracts.
Fully covered: covered sufficiently to shield from rainfall and stormwater runoff. At a minimum, full coverage
requires a roof with enough overhang in conjunction with walls of sufficient height to prevent rainfall blow-in;
and the walls must extend into the ground or to a berm or footing to prevent runoff from being blown in or
from running onto the covered area. Not exposed.
Fully dispersed the runoff from an impervious surface or non-native pervious surface has dispersed per the
criteria for fully dispersed surface in Section 1.2.3.2.
Geologic Hazard Areas: Include Seismic Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, and Landslide Hazard Areas.
Groundwater protection areas: include critical aquifer recharge areas as defined in KCC 11.06, sole source
aquifer areas as designated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and wellhead protection areas as
mapped by the Washington State Department of Health.
High-use site: that area within a commercial or industrial site that typically generates or is subject to runoff
containing high concentrations of oil due to high traffic turnover, on-site vehicle or heavy or stationary
equipment use, or the frequent transfer of liquid petroleum or coal derivative products.
High-use sites include:
1. That area of a commercial or industrial site that:
a) has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count equal to or greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000
square feet of gross building area; or
b) is subject to petroleum storage or transfer in excess of 1,500 gallons per year, not including delivered
heating oil at the end-user point of delivery; or
c) is subject to use, storage, or maintenance of a fleet of 25 or more diesel or jet fuel (aviation turbine
fuel) vehicles that are over 10 tons net weight (trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, tugs, mobile and fuel-
driven or hydraulic stationary heavy equipment, etc.); or
2. The interior of any road intersection and that portion of lanes leading into the intersection subject to
braking, turning, or stopping, with a measured ADT count of 25,000 vehicles or more on the main roadway
and 15,000 vehicles or more on any intersecting roadway. Projects proposing primarily pedestrian or
bicycle use improvements are excluded.
Historic site conditions: those that existed on the site prior to any development in the Puget Sound region. For
lands not currently submerged (i.e., outside the ordinary high water mark of a lake, wetland, or stream), historic
site conditions shall be assumed to be forest cover unless reasonable, historic, site-specific information is
provided to demonstrate a different vegetation cover. In Kent this area is designated by the Lower Mill Creek
Regulatory Map. In some stream basins, as allowed per Section 1.2.3.1.B, historic site conditions for lands not
currently submerged may be assumed to be 75% forest, 15% grass, and 10% impervious surface.
Impaired waterbody or impaired receiving water: where the receiving waterbody is either:
(1) listed as impaired according to Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment categories 2, 4, or 5 for water or
sediment, as documented in the state’s Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and is
displayed in WA Ecology’s electronic database and map viewer of these waterbodies, or
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual iv June 2022
(2) is currently designated by the City as polluted based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for
exceedance of the state’s numeric water quality standard as documented in the latest published list of King
County-Identified WQ Problems (Reference Section 10) posted at
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/water-and-land/stormwater/documents/surface-water-design-
manual.aspx, or
(3) where subject to any other local, state, or federal cleanup plan or contaminated site designation.
Impervious surface: a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as
under natural conditions before development; or that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or
at an increased rate of flow compared to the flow present under natural conditions prior to development (see
also "new impervious surface"). Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof, walkways,
patios, driveways, parking lots, or storage areas, areas that are paved, graveled or made of packed or oiled
earthen materials or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water or stormwater.
For the purposes of applying the impervious surface thresholds and exemptions contained in this manual,
permeable pavement, vegetated roofs, and pervious surfaces with underdrains designed to collect stormwater
runoff are considered impervious surface while an open uncovered flow control or water quality facility is not.
However, for the purposes of computing runoff, uncovered flow control or water quality facilities shall be
modeled as impervious surfaces as specified in Chapter 3.
Land disturbing activity: any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover, both vegetative and
non-vegetative, or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to
demolition, construction, clearing, grading, filling, excavation, and compaction. Land disturbing activity does
not include tilling conducted as part of agricultural practices, landscape maintenance, or gardening.
Landscape management plan: a City of Kent approved plan for defining the layout and long-term maintenance
of landscaping features to minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers to reduce their discharge, and to reduce
the discharge of suspended solids and other pollutants.
Landslide hazard area: the critical area designation, defined and regulated in KCC 11.06, which is applied to
areas subject to severe risk of landslide due to topography, soil conditions, and geology.
Landslide hazard drainage area: an area mapped by the City of Kent where it has been determined that
overland flows from a project will pose a significant threat to health and safety because of its close proximity to
a landslide hazard area that is on a slope steeper than 15%. Such areas are delineated on the Landslide Hazard
Drainage Areas map adopted with this manual.
Low Impact Development (LID): A stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-
disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by
emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater
management practices that are integrated into a project design.
LID Best Management Practices: Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project
design, that emphasize pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and
transpiration. LID BMPs are referred to as flow control BMPs in this manual and include, but are not limited
to, bioretention, permeable pavements, limited infiltration systems, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil
quality and depth, and minimal excavation foundations.
LID Principles: Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on-site natural features,
and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
Maintenance: those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of currently
serviceable structures, facilities, BMPs, equipment, or systems if there is no expansion of any of these, and
there are no significant hydrologic impacts. Maintenance includes the repair or replacement of non-functional
facilities and BMPs, and the replacement of existing structures with different types of structures, if the repair or
replacement is required to meet current engineering standards or is required by one or more environmental
permits and the functioning characteristics of the original facility or structure are not changed. For the
purposes of applying this definition to the thresholds and requirements of this manual, city review staff will
determine whether the functioning characteristics of the original facility, structure, or BMP will remain
sufficiently unchanged to consider replacement as maintenance. Drainage review is not required for projects
proposing only maintenance.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual v June 2022
Note: The following pavement maintenance practices are not categorically exempt from drainage review:
removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or lower (i.e. “replaced impervious surfaces”),
extending the edge of pavement or paving graveled shoulders, or resurfacing that meets the definition of “new
impervious surface” in this manual.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): the national program for issuing, modifying,
revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits; and imposing and enforcing pretreatment
requirements; under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the federal CWA for the discharge of pollutants to
surface waters of the state. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits, and in the state of Washington are
administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Native vegetated surface: a surface in which the soil conditions, ground cover, and species of vegetation are
like those of the original native condition for the site. More specifically, (1) the soil is either undisturbed or has
been treated according to the "native vegetated landscape" specifications in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.8; (2)
the ground is either naturally covered with vegetation litter or has been top-dressed between plants with 4
inches of mulch consistent with the native vegetated landscape specifications in Appendix C; and (3) the
vegetation is either (a) comprised predominantly of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous
to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and that reasonably could have been expected to occur naturally
on the site or (b) comprised of plant species specified for a native vegetated landscape in Appendix C.
Examples of these plant species include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder,
big- leaf maple and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry and salal; and herbaceous
plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed.
Natural discharge area: an onsite area tributary to a single natural discharge location.
Natural discharge location: the location where surface and storm water runoff leaves (or would leave if not
infiltrated or retained) the site or project site under existing site conditions.
Natural onsite drainage feature: A natural swale, channel, stream, closed depression, wetland, or lake.
New impervious surface: the addition of a hard or compacted surface like roofs, pavement, gravel, or dirt; or
the addition of a more compacted surface, like paving over pre-existing dirt or gravel. Permeable pavement and
vegetated roofs are considered new impervious surface for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for
application of minimum requirements are exceeded, as are lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and
other areas that have modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains designed to
collect stormwater runoff. Open,
uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining
whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered
retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling.
New pervious surface: the conversion of a native vegetated surface or other native surface to a non- native
pervious surface (e.g., conversion of forest or meadow to pasture land, grass land, cultivated land, lawn,
landscaping, bare soil, etc.), or any alteration of existing non-native pervious surface that significantly increases
surface and storm water runoff (e.g., conversion of pasture land, grass land, or cultivated land to lawn,
landscaping, or bare soil; or alteration of soil characteristics).
New PGIS: new impervious surface that is pollution-generating impervious surface or any alteration of
existing pollution-generating impervious surface that changes the type of pollutants or results in increased
pollution loads and/or concentrations.
New PGPS: new pervious surface that is pollution-generating pervious surface or any alteration of existing
pollution-generating pervious surface that changes the type of pollutants or results in increased pollution loads
and/or concentrations.
Permeable pavement: Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or
porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an
aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual vi June 2022
Pervious Surface: Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include
lawn, landscape, pasture, and native vegetation areas. Note for purposes of threshold determination and runoff
volume modeling for detention and treatment, vegetated roofs and permeable pavements are to be considered
impervious surfaces along with lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have
modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains.
Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS): an impervious surface considered to be a significant source
of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those that are subject to vehicular use, industrial
activities, or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or
the run-on or blow-in of rainfall. A covered parking area would be included if runoff from uphill could
regularly run through it or if rainfall could regularly blow in and wet the pavement surface. PGIS includes
metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non-leachable material (see Reference 11-E); or roofs that are
exposed to the venting of significant amounts of dusts, mists, grease laden vapors/FOG, or fumes from
manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities. PGIS includes vegetated roofs exposed to pesticides,
fertilizers, or loss of soil. Other roofing types that may pose risk but are not currently regulated are listed in
Reference 11-E. Lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified runoff
characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains that have the pollution generating characteristics
described under the “pollution-generating pervious surface” definition are also considered PGIS.
Pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS): a non-impervious surface considered to be a significant source
of pollutants in surface and storm water runoff. Such surfaces include those that are subject to vehicular use,
industrial activities, storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct
rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; or subject to use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of soil. Such
surfaces include, but are not limited to, the lawn and landscaped areas of residential, commercial, and industrial
sites or land uses, golf courses, parks, sports fields (natural and artificial turf), cemeteries, and City approved
grassed modular grid pavement.
Project site: that portion of a site and any offsite areas subject to proposed project activities, alterations, and
improvements including those required by this manual.
Rain Garden: A shallow, landscaped depression with compost-amended native soils and adapted plants. The
depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow
stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Receiving waters: bodies of water, surface water systems, or groundwater receiving water from upstream man-
made or natural systems.
Redevelopment project: a project that proposes to add, replace, or modify impervious surfaces for purposes
other than a residential subdivision or maintenance on a site that is already substantially developed in a manner
consistent with its current zoning or with a legal non-conforming use, or has an existing impervious surface
coverage of 35% or more. The following examples illustrate the application of this definition.
Replaced impervious surface: any existing impervious surface on the project site that is proposed to be
removed and re-established as impervious surface, excluding impervious surface removed for the sole purpose
of installing utilities or performing maintenance on underground infrastructure. For structures, removed means
the removal of buildings down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, removed means the removal
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual vii June 2022
down to base course or bare soil. For purposes of this definition, base course is the layer of crushed rock that
typically underlies an asphalt or concrete pavement. It does not include the removal of pavement material
through grinding or other surface modification unless the entire layer of PCC or AC is removed. Replaced
impervious surface also includes impervious surface that is moved from one location to another on the project
site where the following two conditions are met:
(A) the area from which the impervious surface is moved from will be restored to the same or better runoff
discharge characteristics as the area being covered by the moved impervious surface, and
(B) impervious surface at the new location is either designated as non- pollution generating or the pollution
generating characteristics remain unchanged compared to that of the original location.
Replaced PGIS: replaced impervious surface that is pollution-generating impervious surface.
Sensitive lake: a designation applied to lakes that are particularly prone to eutrophication from development-
induced increases in phosphorus loading. The Water Quality Applications Map indicates the lakes within the
City of Kent that are affected by this problem.
Severe building flooding problem: there is flooding of the finished floor area1 of a habitable building,2 or the
electrical/heating system of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to a 100-year event.
Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings, or flooding of
electrical/heating system components in the crawl space or garage of a home.
Severe erosion problem: there is an open drainage feature with evidence of or potential for erosion/incision
sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or pose a landslide hazard by
undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway shoulder drilling or minor ditch
erosion.
Severe flooding problem: a severe building flooding problem or a severe roadway flooding problem.
Severe roadway flooding problem: there is flooding over all lanes of a roadway,3 or a sole access driveway4 is
severely impacted, for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. A severely impacted sole access
driveway is one in which flooding overtops a culverted section of the driveway, posing a threat of washout or
unsafe access conditions due to indiscernible driveway edges, or flooding is deeper than 6 inches on the
driveway, posing a severe impediment to emergency access.
Single family residential project: any project that (a) constructs or modifies a single family dwelling unit, (b)
makes improvements (e.g., driveways, roads, outbuildings, play courts, etc.) or clears native vegetation on a lot
that contains or will contain a single family dwelling unit, or (c) is a plat, short plat, or boundary line
adjustment that creates or adjusts lots that will contain single family dwelling units.
Site: a single parcel; or, two or more contiguous parcels that are under common ownership or documented legal
control; or a portion of a single parcel under documented legal control separate from the remaining parcel, used
as a single parcel for a proposed project for purposes of applying for authority from the city of Kent to carry out
r Finished floor area, for the purposes of defining severe building flooding problem, means any enclosed area of a building that is designed
to be served by the building's permanent heating or cooling system.
2 Habitable building means any residential, commercial, or industrial building that is equipped with a permanent heating or cooling
system and an electrical system.
3 Roadway, for the purposes of this definition, means the traveled portion of any public or private road or street classified as such City of
Kent Road Design and Construction Standards.
4 Sole access driveway means there is no other unobstructed, flood-free route for emergency access to a habitable building.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual viii June 2022
a proposed project. For projects located primarily within dedicated rights-of-way, the length of the project site
and the right-of-way boundaries define the site.
Steep slope hazard area: the critical area designation, defined and regulated in KCC 11.06 that is applied to
areas on a slope of 40% or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 10 feet. See the "Definitions"
section for more details.
Subject to vehicular use: the surface is regularly used by motor vehicles including but not limited to
motorcycles, cars, trucks, busses, aircraft, tractors, and heavy equipment. The following surfaces are
considered regularly used by motor vehicles: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled
lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards,
and airport taxiways and runways. The following surfaces are not considered regularly used by motor vehicles:
paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, fenced or
restricted access fire lanes, and maintenance access roads with a recurring use of no more than one routine
vehicle access per week.
Threshold discharge area: an onsite area draining to a single natural discharge location, or multiple natural
discharge locations that combine within one-quarter-mile downstream (as determined by the shortest
flowpath). The examples below illustrate this definition. This term is used to clarify how the thresholds,
exemptions, and exceptions of this manual are applied to sites with multiple discharge locations.
Transportation redevelopment project: a stand-alone transportation improvement project that proposes to add,
replace, or modify impervious surface, for purposes other than maintenance, within a length of dedicated public
or private road right-of-way that has an existing impervious surface coverage of thirty-five percent or more.
Road right-of-way improvements required as part of a subdivision, commercial, industrial or multifamily
project may not be defined as a separate transportation redevelopment project.
Treatment Chain: A combination of two or more treatment Best Management Practices connected in series
(i.e., the design water volume passes through each facility in turn).
Unsubmerged portion: Any portion outside the ordinary high water line of streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Wetlands: All areas in the city of Kent that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual ix June 2022
and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland
sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities farm ponds, and landscape amenities. The burden of proving an area
to be nonwetland rests with the applicant. Wetlands include artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland areas for the purpose of mitigating conversion of wetlands. The City relies on the methodology
contained in the Wetlands Delineation Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report Y-87-1 for
identifying and delineating wetlands within the city. Wetland classes are based on the classification system
described in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States (Cowardin et al. 1979) (See Kent City Code Chapter 11.05).
Wetland Buffer or wetland buffer zone: An area that surrounds and protects a wetland from adverse impacts
to the functions and values of a wetland (See Kent City Code Chapter 11.05
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual ii June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 1
DRAINAGE REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
CHAPTER 1
Drainage Review and Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
Drainage Review ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
Projects Requiring Drainage Review ....................................................................................................... 1-3
Drainage Review Types and Requirements ............................................................................................. 1-4
Drainage Design Beyond Minimum Compliance .................................................................................. 1-11
Core Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 1-13
Core Requirement #1: Discharge at The Natural Location .................................................................... 1-13
Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis ................................................................................................ 1-14
Core Requirement #3: Flow Control Facilities ..................................................................................... 1-25
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System ........................................................................................... 1-39
Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control ........................................................................... 1-43
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations ............................................................................ 1-49
Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability ................................................................... 1-51
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality ................................................................................................... 1-52
Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs ........................................................................................... 1-61
Special Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 1-76
Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ................................................ 1-76
Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Deliniation ...................................................................... 1-77
Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities ............................................................................ 1-79
Special Requirement #4: Source Controls ............................................................................................ 1-80
Special Requirement #5: Oil Control .................................................................................................... 1-82
Adjustment Process ....................................................................................................................................... 1-84
Adjustment Authority ............................................................................................................................ 1-84
Criteria for Granting Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 1-85
Adjustment Application Process ............................................................................................................ 1-87
Adjustment Review Process .................................................................................................................. 1-87
1.4.5 Request For Reconsideration Procedure ................................................................................................ 1-89
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 1
DRAINAGE REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-1 June 2022
1 DRAINAGE REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS
A completely revised Chapter 1 is provided below. It is to be used instead of Chapter 1 of the 2016
King County Surface Water Design Manual for all proposals in the city of Kent.
This chapter describes the drainage review procedures and types, the drainage requirements, and the
adjustment procedures necessary to implement surface water runoff policies codified in Chapters 7.05 and
7.06, of the Kent City Code. It also provides direction for implementing more detailed procedures and
design criteria found in subsequent chapters of this manual.
Chapter Organization
The information presented in Chapter 1 is organized into four main sections as follows:
• Section 1.1, “Drainage Review”
• Section 1.2, “Core Requirements”
• Section 1.3, “Special Requirements”
• Section 1.4, “Adjustment Process”
Formatting of Chapter Text
The text of Chapter 1 and subsequent chapters has been formatted using the following conventions to aid the
user in finding, understanding, and properly applying the thresholds, requirements, and procedures
contained in this manual:
• Italic is used to highlight the following: (a) terms when they are first introduced and defined within the
same paragraph; (b) special notes that supplement or clarify thresholds, requirements, and procedures; (c)
sentences considered important for purposes of understanding thresholds, requirements, and procedures; and
(d) titles of publications.
• Bold italic is used to highlight terms considered key to understanding and applying drainage review
thresholds, requirements, and procedures. These are called "key terms" and are defined below. This
convention applies after the key term is defined and does not necessarily apply to tables and figures.
• Bold is used to highlight words and phrases that are not key terms but are considered important to
emphasize for purposes of finding and properly applying thresholds, requirements, and procedures.
DRAINAGE REVIEW
Drainage review is the evaluation by city review staff of a proposed project's compliance with the
drainage requirements of this manual. During drainage review, city review staff may also consider the
proposed project’s compliance with other Kent requirements (which are not covered in this manual), such
as those specified in the Kent Wetland Management Code, Kent Geologic Hazard Areas Code, and other
environmental plans and policies. If required, drainage review becomes an integral part of the overall
permit review process. This section describes when and what type of drainage review is required for
a proposed project and how to determine the drainage requirements that apply.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-2 June 2022
Guide to Using Section 1.1
The following steps are recommended for efficient use of Section 1.1:
1. Determine whether your proposed project is subject to the requirements of this manual by seeing if it
meets any of the thresholds for drainage review specified in Section 1.1.1. Making this determination
requires an understanding of the key definitions listed below.
2. If drainage review is required per Section 1.1.1, use the flow chart in Figure 1.1.2.A to determine what
type of drainage review will be conducted by city review staff. The type of drainage review defines
the scope of drainage requirements that will apply to your project as summarized in Figure 1.1.2.A.
3. Check the more detailed threshold information in Section 1.1.2 to verify that you have determined the
correct type of drainage review.
4. After verifying drainage review type, use the information in Section 1.1.2 to determine the core
requirements (found in Section 1.2) and the special requirements (found in Section 1.3) that must be
evaluated for compliance by your project. To determine what actions are necessary to comply with
each applicable core and special requirement, see the more detailed information on these requirements
contained in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this chapter.
Note: For Steps 2 through 4, it is recommended that you arrange a preapplication meeting with city
review staff to confirm the type of drainage review and scope of drainage requirements that apply to your
proposed project.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-3 June 2022
PROJECTS REQUIRING DRAINAGE REVIEW
Drainage review is required for any proposed project (except those proposing only routine maintenance,
repair, or emergency modifications) that is subject to a Kent development proposal, permit, or approval
listed below, AND that meets any one of the following conditions:
1. The project adds or will result in 2,000 square feet5 or more of new impervious surface, replaced
impervious surface, or new plus replaced impervious surface, OR
2. Proposes to construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, or
receives surface water or stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in
size/depth, OR
3. Contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression, erosion
hazard area or landslide hazard area, OR
4. Is located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area, OR
5. Is a redevelopment project proposing $100,000 6 or more of improvements to an existing high-use
site, OR
6. The project proposes 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity.
If drainage review is required for the proposed project, the type of drainage review must be determined
based on project and site characteristics as described in Section 1.1.2. The type of drainage review defines
the scope of drainage requirements that must be evaluated for project compliance with this manual.
5 The thresholds for new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface, and land disturbing activity shall be applied by project site and
in accordance with the definitions of these surfaces and activities.
6 This is the “Total Cost Estimate" as declared on the permit application submitted to the City of Kent or a valuation as determined by
the Engineer’s Cost Estimate from the 2021 Kent Design and Construction Standards.
Kent Permits and Approvals
Construction Permits
Conditional Use Permits
Grade and Fill Permits
Flood Control Zone Permit
Planned Unit Developments
Rezones
Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permits
Short Subdivision Developments
(Short Plat)
Subdivision Developments (Plat)
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-4 June 2022
DRAINAGE REVIEW TYPES AND REQUIREMENTS
For most projects adding 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surface, the full
range of core and special requirements contained in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 must be evaluated for compliance
through the drainage review process. However, for some types of projects the scope of requirements
applied is narrowed to allow more efficient, customized review. Each of the following three drainage
review types tailors the review process and application of drainage requirements to a project's size,
location, type of development, and anticipated impacts to the local and regional surface water system:
• Simplified Site Drainage Review, Section 1.1.2.1.
• Targeted Drainage Review, Section 1.1.2.2.
• Full Drainage Review, Section 1.1.2.3.
Each project requires only one of the above drainage review types, with the single exception that a project
that qualifies for Simplified Site Drainage Review may also require Targeted Drainage Review. Figure
1.1.2.A can be used to determine the drainage review type that would be required. This may entail
consulting the more detailed thresholds for each review type specified in the above-referenced sections.
Table 1.1.2.A can be used to quickly identify the requirements that are applied under each type of drainage
review. The applicant must evaluate those requirements that are checked off for a particular drainage
review type to determine what is necessary to meet compliance.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-5 June 2022
FIGURE 1.1.2.A FLOW CHART FOR DETERMINING TYPE OF DRAINAGE REVIEW REQUIRED
Is the project a single family residential or agricultural project that results in ≥2,000
sf of new plus replaced impervious surface or ≥7,000 sf of land disturbing activity,
results in less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced pollution generating
impervious surface, results in less than ¾ acre of pollution generating pervious
surfaces AND meets one of the following criteria?
• The project meets the Basic Exemption from flow control in Core Requirement #3.
Note the Basic Exemption thresholds are applied by project site.
• For projects inside the Urban Growth Area on predominately till soils:
The project results in no more than 7,947 square feet of target impervious surfaces* as
defined in Section 1.1.2.1 AND proposed pervious area is equal to or less than 14,941 –
1.88 x (total target impervious surfaces)
• For projects inside the Urban Growth Area on predominately outwash soils:
The project results in no more than 6,872 square feet of target impervious surfaces* as
defined in Section 1.1.2.1 AND proposed pervious area is equal to or less than 20,343 –
2.96 x (total target impervious surfaces)
• Is an agricultural project that qualifies for the “Impervious Surface Percentage
Exemption For Agricultural Projects” detailed in Core Requirement 3
Yes Simplified SITE
DRAINAGE
REVIEW
Section 1.1.2.1
Note: The project
may also be
subject to
Targeted
Drainage Review
as determined
below.
No
Does the project add 2,000 sf of
new plus replaced impervious
surface or ≥7,000 sf of land
disturbing activity?
No
Does the project have the characteristics of one or more of the following
categories (see the more detailed threshold language in Section 1.1.2.2)?
1. Projects that contain or are adjacent to a flood, erosion, or steep slope
hazard area; or projects within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area.
2. Projects proposing to construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12" or
larger or receives runoff from a 12" or larger drainage pipe/ditch.
3. Redevelopment projects proposing $100,000 in improvements to an existing
high-use site.
Yes No Yes
Reassess whether
drainage review is
required per Section
1.1.2.1
TARGETED DRAINAGE REVIEW
Section 1.1.2.2
FULL DRAINAGE REVIEW
Section 1.1.2.3
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-6 June 2022
TABLE 1.1.2.A REQUIREMENTS APPLIED UNDER EACH DRAINAGE REVIEW TYPE
Simplified
Single-family residential projects that result in > 2,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface or ≥7,000 sf of land
disturbing activity but do not exceed the new plus replaced PGIS, new PGPS, and new pervious surface thresholds
specified in Sec. 1.1.2.1.
Targeted
Simplified Site projects or other small projects that are not subject to Full Drainage Review as determined in Section 1.1.2.3,
AND which have the characteristics of one or more of the following categories of projects:
1. Projects containing or adjacent to a flood, erosion, or steep slope hazard area; projects within a Landslide Hazard
Drainage Area.
2. Projects proposing to construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12" or larger or receives runoff from a 12" or
larger drainage pipe/ditch.
3. Redevelopment projects proposing $100,000 in improvements to a high-use site.(1)
Full All projects that result in ≥2,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface or ≥7,000 sf of land disturbing activity but are
not subject to Simplified Site Drainage Review.
DRAINAGE REVIEW TYPE
Simplified Targeted Full
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
SIMPLIFIED SITE REQUIREMENTS ✓
CORE REQUIREMENT #1
Discharge at Natural Location ✓(4) *(2) ✓ ✓
CORE REQUIREMENT #2
Offsite Analysis ✓(4) *(2) ✓(3) ✓(3)
CORE REQUIREMENT #3
Flow Control ✓(4) *(2) ✓(3)
CORE REQUIREMENT #4
Conveyance System ✓(4) *(2) ✓ ✓
CORE REQUIREMENT #5
Erosion & Sediment Control ✓(4) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
CORE REQUIREMENT #6
Maintenance & Operations ✓(4) *(2) ✓ ✓ ✓
CORE REQUIREMENT #7
Financial Guarantees & Liability ✓(4) *(2) ✓(3) ✓(3) ✓(3)
CORE REQUIREMENT #8
Water Quality ✓(4) *(2) ✓(3)
CORE REQUIREMENT #9
Flow Control BMP’s ✓(4) ✓
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #1
Other Adopted Requirements ✓(4) ✓(3) ✓(3)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #2
Developments within Floodplain/Floodway ✓(4) ✓(3) ✓(3)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #3 Flood
Protection Facilities ✓(4) ✓(3) ✓(3) ✓(3)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #4
Source Control ✓(4) ✓(3) ✓(3) ✓(3) ✓(3)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5
Oil Control ✓(4) ✓(3) ✓(3)
(1) Category 3 projects installing oil controls that construct or modify a 12-inch pipe/ditch are also Category 2 projects.
(2) May be applied by city review staff based on project or site-specific conditions. Documentation of compliance required.
(3) These requirements have exemptions or thresholds that may preclude or limit their application to a specific project.
(4) A proposed project subject to Simplified Drainage Review that complies with the Simplified drainage requirements detailed in
Appendix C is presumed to comply with all the core and special requirements in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 except those requirements that would
apply to the project if it is subject to Targeted Drainage Review as specified in Section 1.1.2.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-7 June 2022
1.1.2.1 SIMPLIFIED SITE DRAINAGE REVIEW
Simplified Site Drainage Review is a simplified alternative to Full Drainage Review for small residential
projects, clearing projects or small agricultural projects that meet the threshold requirements below. The
core and special requirements applied under Full Drainage Review are replaced with simplified site
requirements that can be applied by a non-engineer. These requirements include flow control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) such as setting aside open space to limit future site clearing, and using
simple measures such as splash blocks and gravel trenches to disperse or infiltrate runoff from impervious
areas. Also included are simple BMPs for erosion and sediment control (ESC). Formal water quality
treatment is not necessary. This alternative to Full Drainage Review acknowledges that drainage impacts
for many small development proposals can be effectively mitigated without construction of costly flow
control and water quality facilities.
The Simplified Site Drainage Review process minimizes the time and effort required to design, submit,
review, and approve drainage facilities for these proposals. In most cases, the requirements can be met
with submittals prepared by contractors, architects, or homeowners without the involvement of a licensed
civil engineer.
Threshold
Simplified Site Drainage Review is allowed for any project that is subject to drainage review as
determined in Section 1.1.1 and that meets all of the following criteria:
• The project is a single-family residential project, AND
• The project will result in 2,000 square feet7 or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious
surface, or new plus replaced impervious surface, or
• The project will result in 7,000 square feet7 or more of land disturbing activity,
AND that meets the following criteria:
The project will result in less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced pollution generating
impervious surface, will result in less than ¾ acre of new pollution generating pervious surfaces, AND
meets one of the following four additional criteria:
1. The project meets the Basic Exemption from flow control in Core Requirement #3. Note the
Basic Exemption thresholds are applied by project site.
2. For projects inside the Urban Growth Area on predominately till soils:
The project results in no more than 7,947 square feet of target impervious surfaces as defined below
AND proposed pervious area is equal to or less than 14,941 – 1.88 x (total target impervious
surfaces).
3. For projects inside the Urban Growth Area on predominately outwash soils:
The project results in no more than 6,872 square feet of target impervious surfaces as defined below
AND proposed pervious area is equal to or less than 20,343 – 2.96 x (total target impervious surfaces).
4. For Agricultural Projects:
The project is an agricultural project that qualifies for “Impervious Surface Percentage Exemption For
Agricultural Projects” as cited in Core Requirement 3 (Flow Control Facilities).
7 The thresholds of 2,000 and 7,000 square feet shall be applied by project site. All other thresholds specified in terms of square feet of
impervious or pervious surface shall be applied by threshold discharge area and in accordance with the definitions of these surfaces in
Section 1.1. Note: the calculation of total impervious surface added on after January 8, 2001 may exclude any such added impervious
surface that is confirmed by Planning and Economic Development engineering staff to be already mitigated by a County approved and
inspected flow control facility or BMP.
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-8 June 2022
Note: Some projects qualifying for Simplified Site Drainage Review may also require Targeted Drainage
Review if they meet any of the threshold criteria in Section 1.1.2.2.
Any potential Simplified site proposal may elect to go through Full Drainage Review described in Section
1.1.2.3.
Scope of Requirements
IF Simplified Site Drainage Review is allowed, THEN the applicant may apply the simplified site
submittal and drainage design requirements detailed in Simplified Drainage Requirements adopted as
Appendix C. These requirements include simplified BMPs for flow control and erosion and sediment
control. Note: An open space tract or covenant may be required to preserve uncleared areas.
Exemption from Core and Special Requirements
The simplified drainage requirements applied under Simplified Site Drainage Review are considered
sufficient to meet the overall intent of the core and special requirements in Sections 1.2 and 1.3, except
under certain conditions when a proposed project has characteristics that trigger Targeted Drainage
Review (see the threshold for Targeted Drainage Review in Section 1.1.2.2) and may require the
involvement of a licensed civil engineer. Therefore, any proposed project that qualifies for Simplified Site
Drainage Review as determined above and complies with the simplified site drainage requirements detailed
in Appendix C is considered exempt from all core and special requirements in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 except
those which would apply to the project if it is subject to Targeted Drainage Review as specified in Section
1.1.2.2.
1.1.2.2 TARGETED DRAINAGE REVIEW
Targeted Drainage Review (TDR) is an abbreviated evaluation by city review staff of a proposed project's
compliance with selected core and special requirements. Projects subject to this type of drainage review
are typically small-site proposals or other small projects that have site-specific or project-specific drainage
concerns that must be addressed by a licensed civil engineer. Under Targeted Drainage Review,
engineering costs associated with drainage design and review are kept to a minimum because the review
includes only those requirements that would apply to the particular project.
Threshold
Targeted Drainage Review is required for those projects subject to drainage review as determined in
Section 1.1.1, AND that are not subject to Full Drainage Review as determined in Section 1.1.2.3, AND
that have the characteristics of one or more of the following project categories:
• TDR Project Category #1: Projects that contain or are adjacent to a flood hazard area, erosion
hazard area, or steep slope hazard area as defined in KCC 11.06; OR projects located within a
Landslide Hazard Drainage Area.
• TDR Project Category #2: Projects that propose to construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is
12 inches or more in size/depth or receives surface and stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe/ditch
that is 12 inches or more in size/depth.
• TDR Project Category #3: Redevelopment projects that propose $100,000 or more of improvements
to an existing high-use site.
Scope of Requirements
IF Targeted Drainage Review is required, THEN the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project
complies with the selected core and special requirements corresponding to the project category or
R
E
Q
M
T
S
R
E
Q
M
T
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-9 June 2022
categories that best match the proposed project. The project categories and applicable requirements for
each are described below and summarized in Table 1.1.2.A.
Note: If the proposed project has the characteristics of more than one project category, the requirements
of each applicable category shall apply.
Compliance with these requirements requires submittal of engineering plans and/or calculations stamped
by a licensed civil engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless deemed unnecessary by city
review staff. The engineer need only demonstrate compliance with those core and special requirements
that have been predetermined to be applicable based on specific project characteristics as detailed below
and summarized in Table 1.1.2.A. The procedures and requirements for submittal of engineering plans
and calculations can be found in Section 2.3.
In addition, city review staff may require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with any one or more
of the nine core requirements in Section 1.2 based on project or site-specific conditions. For example, if
a Category #1 TDR Project contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area, erosion hazard area, or steep
slope hazard area, OR located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area city review staff may require
compliance with “Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location” (Section 1.2.1). This may in
turn require compliance with “Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis” (Section 1.2.2) if a tightline is
required by Core Requirement #1. If a tightline is found to be unfeasible, city review staff may instead
require a flow control facility per “Core Requirement #3: Flow Control” (Section 1.2.3). If a tightline is
feasible, “Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System” (Section 1.2.4) would be required to ensure proper
size and design. Any required flow control facility or tightline system may also trigger compliance with
“Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations” (Section 1.2.6), “Core Requirement #7: Financial
Guarantees and Liability” (Section 1.2.7), and possibly “Core Requirement #8, Water Quality” (Section
1.2.8) if runoff from pollution-generating impervious surfaces is collected.
The applicant may also have to address compliance with any applicable requirements in the Kent City
Code for flood hazard area, erosion hazard area, or steep slope hazard area, OR projects located within a
Landslide Hazard Drainage Area as determined by city review staff.
TDR Project Category #1
This category includes projects that are too small to trigger application of most core requirements, but
may be subject to site-specific requirements pertaining to floodplains, streams, lakes, wetlands, closed
depressions, Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, or other area-specific drainage
requirements adopted by the City. Such projects primarily include single-family residential projects
in Simplified Site Drainage Review.
IF the proposed project meets the characteristics of TDR Project Category #1, THEN the applicant
must demonstrate that the project complies with the following six requirements:
• Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis, Section 1.2.2
• Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5
• Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements, Section 1.3.1
• Special Requirement #2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation, Section 1.3.2
• Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities, Section 1.3.3
• Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4
TDR Project Category #2
This category is intended to apply selected core and special requirements to those projects that
propose to construct or modify a drainage system of specified size, but are not adding sufficient
impervious surface to trigger Full Drainage Review.
IF the proposed project meets the characteristics of TDR Project Category #2, THEN the applicant
must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the following requirements:
R
E
Q
M
T
S
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-10 June 2022
• Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location, Section 1.2.1
• Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis, Section 1.2.2
• Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Section 1.2.4
• Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5
• Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations, Section 1.2.6
• Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability, Section 1.2.7
• Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4
TDR Project Category #3
This category is intended to improve water quality by applying water quality, source control, and oil
control requirements to redevelopment projects located on the most intensively used sites developed
prior to current water quality requirements. These are referred to as high-use sites and are defined
below.
IF the proposed project meets the characteristics of TDR Project Category #3, THEN the applicant
must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the following requirements:
• Core Requirement #1: Discharge at Natural Location, Section 1.2.1
• Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5
• Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations, Section 1.2.6
• Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability, Section 1.2.7
• Core Requirement #8: Water Quality, Section 1.2.8
• Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4
• Special Requirement #5: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5
Note: In some cases, city review staff may determine that application of these requirements does not
require submittal of engineering plans and calculations stamped by a licensed civil engineer. For
example, if catch basin inserts are proposed to meet oil control requirements, engineered plans and
calculations may not be necessary. A plot plan showing catch basin locations may suffice.
1.1.2.3 FULL DRAINAGE REVIEW
Full Drainage Review is the evaluation by city review staff of a proposed project’s compliance with the full
range of core and special requirements in this chapter. This review addresses the impacts associated with
adding new impervious surface and changing land cover on typical sites.
Threshold
Full Drainage Review is required for any proposed new and redevelopment projects that are subject to
drainage review as determined in Section 1.1.1, AND which meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Projects which will result in 2,000 square feet8 or more of new impervious surface, or new plus
replaced impervious surface but which do not qualify for Simplified Site Drainage Review as
specified in Section 1.1.2.1, OR
8 The thresholds of 2,000, 5,000, and 7,000 square feet shall be applied by project site.
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
R
E
Q
M
T
S
R
E
Q
M
T
S
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-11 June 2022
• 7,000 square feet8 or more of land disturbing activity, but which do not qualify for Simplified Site
Drainage Review as specified in Section 1.1.2.1, OR
• Projects located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area which add 2,000 square feet or more of
new impervious surface but which do not qualify for Simplified Site Drainage Review per Section
1.1.2.1, OR
• Redevelopment projects proposing $500,000 or more of site improvements which create 5,000
square feet or more of contiguous pollution-generating impervious surface through any
combination of new and/or replaced impervious surface.
Scope of Requirements
IF Full Drainage Review is required, THEN the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project
complies with the following requirements:
• All nine core requirements in Section 1.2
• All five special requirements in Section 1.3
Engineering plans and calculations stamped by a licensed civil engineer registered in the state of
Washington must be submitted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. The procedures and
requirements for submittal of engineering plans and calculations are as directed by Economic and
Community Development in the Drainage Review Process.
Drainage review for a proposed project’s impact on surface and storm waters may be addressed by
processes or requirements apart from Kent’s. Agencies such as those listed below may require some form
of drainage review and impose drainage requirements that are separate from and in addition to Kent’s
drainage requirements. The applicant is responsible for coordinating with these agencies and resolving any
conflicts in drainage requirements.
Agency Permit/Approval
Seattle/King County Department of Public Health Onsite Sewage Disposal and Well permits
Washington State
Department of Transportation Developer/Local Agency Agreement
Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval
Department of Ecology Short Term Water Quality Modification Approval
Dam Safety permit
NPDES Stormwater permit
UIC Well Registration
Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Class IV permit
United States Army Corps of Engineers Sections 10, 401, and 404 permits
DRAINAGE DESIGN BEYOND MINIMUM COMPLIANCE
This manual presents Kent’s minimum standards for engineering and design of drainage facilities. While
the City believes these standards are appropriate for a wide range of development proposals, compliance
solely with these requirements does not relieve the professional engineer submitting designs of his or her
responsibility to ensure drainage facilities are engineered to provide adequate protection for natural
resources and public and private property.
R
E
Q
M
T
S
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-12 June 2022
Compliance with the standards in this manual does not necessarily mitigate all probable and significant
environmental impacts to aquatic biota. Fishery resources and other living components of aquatic systems
are affected by a complex set of factors. While employing a specific flow control standard may prevent
stream channel erosion or instability, other factors affecting fish and other biotic resources (such as
increases in stream flow velocities) are not directly addressed by this manual. Likewise, some wetlands,
including bogs, are adapted to a very constant hydrological regime. Even the most stringent flow control
standard employed by this manual does not prevent increases in runoff volume that can adversely affect
wetland plant communities by increasing the duration and magnitude of water level fluctuations. Thus,
compliance with this manual should not be construed as mitigating all probable and significant stormwater
impacts to aquatic biota in streams and wetlands, and additional mitigation may be required.
In addition, the requirements in this manual primarily target the types of impacts associated with the most
typical land development projects occurring in the City. Applying these requirements to vastly different
types of projects, such as rock quarries or dairy farms may result in poorer mitigation of impacts.
Therefore, different mitigation may be required.
Additional mitigation may also be required to compensate for loss of critical area habitat functions
associated with reducing standard buffer widths and clearing restrictions as allowed through the
approval of Rural Stewardship Plans and Farm Management Plans per KCC 11.06.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-13 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENTS
This section details the following eight core requirements:
• Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location, Section 1.2.1
• Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis, Section 1.2.2
• Core Requirement #3: Flow Control, Section 1.2.3
• Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Section 1.2.4
• Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5
• Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations, Section 1.2.6
• Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability, Section 1.2.7
• Core Requirement #8: Water Quality, Section 1.2.8
• Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs, Section 1.2.9
CORE REQUIREMENT #1: DISCHARGE AT THE NATURAL
LOCATION
All surface and stormwater runoff from a project must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be
diverted onto or away from downstream properties. The manner in which stormwater runoff and surface
water are discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact to downhill
properties or drainage facilities (see “Discharge Requirements” below)
Note: Projects that do not discharge all project site runoff at the natural location will require an approved
adjustment of this requirement (see Section 1.4). City review staff may waive this adjustment, however, for
projects in which only a small portion of the project site does not discharge runoff at the natural location and
the runoff from that portion is unconcentrated and poses no significant adverse impact to downstream
properties.
Intent: To prevent adverse impacts to downstream properties caused by diversion of flow from one flow path
to another, and to discharge in a manner that does not significantly impact downhill properties or drainage
systems. Diversions can cause greater impacts (due to greater runoff volumes) than would otherwise occur
from new development discharging runoff at the natural location. Diversions can also impact properties that
rely on runoff water to replenish wells and ornamental or fish ponds. Projects that do not discharge at the
natural location will require an approved adjustment of this requirement (see Section 1.4.
❑ DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Proposed projects must comply with the following discharge requirements (1, 2, and 3) as applicable:
1. Where no conveyance system exists at the abutting downstream property line and the natural (existing)
discharge is unconcentrated, any runoff concentrated by the proposed project must be discharged as
follows:
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-14 June 2022
a) IF the 100-year peak discharge 9 is less than or equal to 0.2 cfs under existing conditions and will
remain less than or equal to 0.2 cfs under developed conditions, THEN the concentrated runoff
may be discharged onto a rock pad or to any other system that serves to disperse flows.
b) IF the 100-year peak discharge is less than or equal to 0.5 cfs under existing conditions and will
remain less than or equal to 0.5 cfs under developed conditions, THEN the concentrated runoff
may be discharged through a dispersal trench or other dispersal system provided the applicant can
demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage
systems.
c) IF the 100-year peak discharge is greater than 0.5 cfs for either existing or developed conditions,
or if a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems is likely, THEN a
conveyance system must be provided to convey the concentrated runoff across the downstream
properties to an acceptable discharge point.10 Drainage easements for this conveyance system
must be secured from downstream property owners and recorded prior to engineering plan
approval
2. IF a proposed project or any natural discharge area within a project is located within a Landslide
Hazard Drainage Area and, in fact, ultimately drains over the erodible soils of a defined landslide
hazard area with slopes steeper than 15%, THEN a tightline system must be provided through the
landslide hazard area to an acceptable discharge point unless one of the following exceptions applies.
The tightline system must comply with the design requirements in Core Requirement #4 and in
Section 4.2.2 unless otherwise approved by city review staff. Drainage easements for this system
must be secured from downstream property owners and recorded prior to engineering plan approval.
Exceptions: A tightline is not required for any natural discharge location where city review staff
approves an alternative system based on a geotechnical evaluation/recommendation from a licensed
geotechnical engineer that considers cumulative impacts on the hazard area under built out conditions
AND one of the following conditions can be met:
a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added within the natural
discharge area, OR
b) The developed conditions runoff from the natural discharge area is less than 0.1 cfs for the
100- year runoff event and will be infiltrated for runoff events up to and including the 100-year
event, OR
c) The developed conditions runoff volume11 from the natural discharge area is less than 50% of
the existing conditions runoff volume from other areas draining to the location where runoff
from the natural discharge area enters the landslide hazard area onto slopes steeper than 15%,
AND the provisions of Discharge Requirement 1 are met, OR
9 Peak discharges for applying this requirement are determined using the approved runoff model with 15-minute time steps as detailed in
Chapter 3.
10 Acceptable discharge point means an enclosed drainage system (i.e., pipe system, culvert, or tightline) or open drainage feature (e.g.,
ditch, channel, swale, stream, river, pond, lake, or wetland) where concentrated runoff can be discharged without creating a significant
adverse impact.
11 For the purposes of applying this exception, the developed conditions runoff volume is the average annual runoff volume as computed
per Chapter 3. The analysis is performed using the entire period of record. The total volume is divided by the number of full water
years being analyzed to determine the annual average runoff volume. Any areas assumed not to be cleared when computing the
developed conditions runoff volume must be set aside in an open space tract or covenant in order for the proposed project to qualify for
this exception. Preservation of existing forested areas in Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas is encouraged.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-15 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #2: OFFSITE ANALYSIS
Project proponents must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage and water
quality impacts associated with development of the project site and that proposes appropriate mitigation
measures for those impacts. The initial permit submittal shall include, at minimum, a Level 1
downstream analysis as described in Section 1.2.2.1 below. If impacts are identified, the proposed
projects shall meet any applicable problem-specific requirements specified in Section 1.2.2.2 for mitigation
of impacts to drainage problems and Section 1.2.2.3 for mitigation of impacts to water quality problems.
Intent: To identify and evaluate offsite flooding, erosion, and water quality problems that may be created or
aggravated by the proposed project, and to ensure appropriate measures are provided for preventing creation or
aggravation of those problems. In addition, this requirement is intended to ensure appropriate provisions are
made, as needed, to mitigate other identified impacts associated with the quantity and quality of surface and
storm water runoff from the project site (e.g., impacts to the hydrology of a wetland as may be identified by a
"critical area report." The primary component of an offsite analysis report is the downstream analysis. This
examines the drainage system within one-quarter mile downstream of the project site or farther as described in
Section 1.2.2.1 below. It is intended to identify existing or potential/predictable downstream flooding, erosion,
and water quality problems so that appropriate mitigation, as specified in Section 1.2.2.2, and 1.2.2.3, can be
provided to prevent aggravation of these problems. A secondary component of the offsite analysis report is an
evaluation of the upstream drainage system to verify and document that significant flooding and erosion
impacts will not occur as a result of the proposed project. The evaluation must extend upstream to a point
where any backwater effects created by the project cease.
❑ EXEMPTION FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #2
With the exception of:
• Projects that trigger Core Requirement #3 (Flow Control Facilities) which must at minimum
perform offsite analysis sufficient to identify and address “Downstream Drainage Problems
Requiring Special Attention (Section 1.2.2.1.1), Problem Type 4 (Potential Impacts to Wetland
Hydrology problem),” and
• Projects that trigger Core Requirement # 8 (Water Quality Facilities) which must at minimum
perform offsite analysis sufficient to identify and address “Downstream Water Quality Problems
Requiring Special Attention (Section 1.2.2.1.2),”
A proposed project is exempt from Core Requirement #2 if any one of the following is true:
1. City review staff determines there is sufficient information to conclude that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the downstream and/or upstream drainage system, OR
2. The project adds less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface, AND less than ¾ acre of new
pervious surface, AND does not construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in
size/depth or that receives runoff from a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth,
AND does not contain or lie adjacent to a landslide, steep slope, or erosion hazard area, OR
3. The project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges to and from the
project site (e.g., where existing impervious surface is replaced with other impervious surface having
similar runoff-generating characteristics, or where pipe/ditch modifications do not change existing
discharge characteristics).
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
The level of downstream analysis required depends on specific site and downstream conditions. Each
project submittal must include at least a Level 1 downstream analysis. Upon review of the Level 1
analysis, DPER may require a Level 2 or Level 3 analysis. If conditions warrant, additional, more
detailed analysis may be required.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-16 June 2022
The Level 1 downstream analysis is a qualitative survey of each downstream system and is the first step
in identifying flooding problems, or potential impacts to wetland hydrology problems as described below
under “Downstream Drainage Problems Requiring Special Attention.” Each Level 1 analysis is composed
of four tasks at a minimum:
• Task 1: Define and map the study area
• Task 2: Review all available information on the study area
• Task 3: Field inspect the study area
• Task 4: Describe the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems
Upon review of the Level 1 analysis, city review staff may require a Level 2 or 3 downstream analysis,
depending on the presence of existing or predicted flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems identified in
the Level 1 analysis.
Levels 2 and 3 downstream analyses quantify downstream flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems by
providing information on the severity and frequency of an existing problem or the likelihood of creating
a new problem. A Level 2 analysis is a rough quantitative analysis (non-survey field data, uniform flow
analysis). Level 3 is a more precise analysis (survey field data, backwater analysis) of significant
problems. If conditions warrant, additional, more detailed analysis may be required beyond Level 3.
For Levels 2 and 3 downstream analyses, an additional Task 5, addressing mitigation of existing and
potential flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems, will be required.
Extent of Downstream Analysis
The downstream analysis must consider the existing conveyance system(s) for a minimum flowpath
distance downstream of one-quarter mile and beyond that, as needed, to reach a point where the
project site area constitutes less than 15% of the tributary area. This minimum distance may be
increased as follows:
• Task 2 of a Level 1 downstream analysis (described in detail in Section 2.3.1.1) is a review of all
available information on the downstream area and is intended to identify existing drainage and
water quality problems. In all cases, this information review shall extend one mile downstream of
the project site. The existence of flooding or erosion problems further downstream may extend the
one-quarter- mile/15% minimum distance for other tasks to allow evaluation of impacts from the
proposed development upon the identified flooding or erosion problems. The existence of
documented water quality problems beyond the one-quarter-mile/15% distance may in some cases
require additional mitigation of impacts as determined necessary by city review staff based on the
type and severity of problem.
• If a project's impacts to flooding or erosion problems are mitigated by improvements to the
downstream conveyance system, the downstream analysis will extend a minimum of one-quarter
mile beyond the improvement. This is necessary because many such improvements result in a
reduction of stormwater storage or an increase in peak flows from the problem location.
• At their discretion, city review staff may extend the downstream analysis beyond the
minimum distance specified above on the reasonable expectation of drainage or water
quality impacts.
A detailed description of offsite analysis scope and submittal requirements is provided in Section 2.3.1.1.
Hydrologic analysis methods and requirements for Levels 2 and 3 downstream analysis are contained in
Chapter 3; hydraulic analysis methods are contained in Chapter 4.
DOWNSTREAM PROBLEMS REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION
While the area-specific flow control facility requirement in Core Requirement #3 serves to minimize the
creation and aggravation of many types of downstream drainage problems, there are some types that are
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-17 June 2022
more sensitive to creation/aggravation than others depending on the nature or severity of the problem and
which flow control facility standard is being applied. In particular, there are four types of downstream
problems where the City has determined that the nature and/or severity of the problem warrants additional
attention through the downstream analysis and possibly additional mitigation to ensure no
creation/aggravation:
1. Conveyance system nuisance problem
2. Severe erosion problem
3. Severe flooding problem
4. Potential Impacts to Wetland Hydrology problem.
These four types of downstream drainage problems are further described below and precisely defined at
the beginning of Chapter 1.
Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but chronic flooding or erosion problems that result
from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has become too small as a
result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional attention because of their chronic
nature and because they result from the failure of a conveyance system to provide a minimum
acceptable level of protection.
If a conveyance system nuisance problem is identified or predicted downstream, the need for additional
mitigation must be evaluated as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 under “Drainage Problem-Specific Mitigation
Requirements.” This may entail additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent
creation or significant aggravation of the problem.
For any other nuisance problems which may be identified downstream, this manual does not require
mitigation beyond the area specific flow control facility requirement applied in Core Requirement #3.
This is because preventing aggravation of such problems (e.g., those caused by the elevated water surfaces
of ponds, lakes, wetlands, and closed depressions or those involving downstream erosion) can require two
to three times as much onsite detention volume, which is considered unwarranted for addressing nuisance
problems. However, if under some unusual circumstance, the aggravation of such a problem is determined
by city review staff to be a significant adverse impact, additional mitigation may be required.
Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of runoff
into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional attention
because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property.
If a severe erosion problem is identified or predicted downstream, additional mitigation must be
considered as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 under “Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation Requirements.”
This may entail additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent creation or
aggravation of the problem.
Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3)
Severe flooding problems, (i.e., a severe building flooding problem or severe roadway flooding problem)
can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or
closed depressions. Severe flooding problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant
threat either to health and safety or to public or private property.
If a severe flooding problem is identified or predicted downstream, the need for additional mitigation must
be evaluated as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 under “Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation Requirements.”
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-18 June 2022
This may entail consideration of additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent
creation or significant aggravation of the problem.
Potential Impacts to Wetlands Hydrology Problem (Type 4)
Potential impacts to wetlands hydrology can be caused by changes in the rate, duration, and quantity
of stormwater discharged from the project site to a wetland.
Where wetlands are identified on the site, the applicant shall submit a critical area report at a
level determined by city review staff to adequately evaluate the proposal and probable impacts.
Where wetlands are identified off the site AND the project is not exempt from Core Requirement 3,
the applicant shall submit a critical area report at a level determined by city review staff to adequately
evaluate the proposal and probable impacts.
Projects or threshold discharge areas within projects discharging to wetlands, unless exempt from
providing a flow control facility per Core Requirement 3, must demonstrate that the existing wetland
hydroperiod is maintained in accordance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference
Section 5.
Based upon the critical area report and, if applicable, the analysis of project compliance with the wetland
hydrology protection guidelines in Reference Section 5, city review staff will determine if changes in the
rate, duration, and/or quantity of surface and storm water runoff from a proposed project or threshold
discharge area within a proposed project could significantly alter the hydrology of a wetland-- in which
case, city review staff will require (as described in Section 1.2.2.2 under “Drainage Problem Impact
Mitigation Requirements”), implementation of additional flow control or other measures to mitigate the
adverse impacts of this alteration in accordance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in
Reference Section 5.
DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS REQUIRING SPECIAL
ATTENTION
A water quality problem, for the purposes of impact mitigation in this manual, is a situation in which a
waterbody of the State is documented by the Federal Government, State, County, or City to be exceeding
or at concern of exceeding the State's numeric water quality standards, or is subject to a federal, state, or
county cleanup program or action. Water quality problems and associated water quality standards
encompass surface water, groundwater, and sediment quality. The goal of this manual is to prevent
creation or significant aggravation of such problems to the maximum extent practicable. While the area-
specific water quality facility requirement in Section 1.2.8.1, the source controls required in Section
1.3.4, and the oil controls required in Section 1.3.5 all serve to minimize the creation and aggravation of
many types of downstream water quality problems, there are some types that are either not addressed by
these requirements (e.g., temperature problems) or warrant additional measures/considerations to
minimize the proposed project's impacts to the maximum extent practicable. In particular, there are
currently 7 types of downstream water quality problems for which the County has determined that
additional attention needs to be given to preventing or minimizing increases in the pollutant or pollutants
of concern discharging from the site. These are as follows:
1. Bacteria Problem
2. Dissolved Oxygen Problem
3. Temperature Problem
4. Metals Problem
5. Phosphorus Problem
6. Turbidity Problem
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-19 June 2022
7. High pH Problem
These problems are defined below and the mitigation of impacts to them is addressed in Section 1.2.2.3.
Bacteria Problem (Type 1)
A bacteria problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1)
currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or concern
for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for fecal coliform as documented in the
state's Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA Ecology's
electronic database and map viewer 12 of these waterbodies, or (2) is currently designated by the City
as a bacteria problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of the
state's numeric water quality standard for fecal coliform.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Problem (Type 2)
A dissolved oxygen problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is
either (1) currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or
concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for dissolved oxygen as documented
in the state's Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA
Ecology's electronic database and map viewer12 of these waterbodies, or (2) is currently designated by
the City as a DO problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of
the state's numeric water quality standard for dissolved oxygen.
Temperature Problem (Type 3)
A temperature problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either
(1) currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or
concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for temperature as documented in
the state's Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA
Ecology's electronic database and map viewer12 of these waterbodies, or (2) is currently designated by
the City as a temperature problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for
exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for temperature.
Metals Problem (Type 4)
A metals problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1)
currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or concern
for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc, lead,
mercury, etc.) as documented in the state's Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report
and as displayed in WA Ecology's electronic database and map viewer12 of these waterbodies, or (2) is
currently designated by the City as a metals problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or
concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc,
lead, mercury, etc.), or (3) where subject to any other local, state, or federal cleanup plan or
contaminated site designation.
Phosphorus Problem (Type 5)
A phosphorus problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1)
12 The link to the Query Tool is https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx ; select all appropriate mediums.
The Map Tool is at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res=1280x1024
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-20 June 2022
currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or concern
for exceedance of the state's numeric action standard for total phosphorus as documented in the state's
Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA Ecology’s electronic
database and map viewer 13 of these waterbodies, or (2) is currently designated by the City as a
nutrient problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of the state's
numeric action standard for total phosphorus.
Turbidity Problem (Type 6)
A turbidity problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1)
currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or concern
for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for turbidity as documented in the state's
Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA Ecology's
electronic database and map viewer13 of these waterbodies.
High pH Problem (Type 7)
A High pH problem is defined as a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1)
currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Waterbody due to exceedance or concern
for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standard for high pH as documented in the state's
Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and as displayed in WA Ecology's
electronic
database and map viewer13 of these waterbodies, or (2) is currently designated by the City as a pH
problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of the state's
numeric water quality standard for pH.
NOTE: The Washington State Department of Ecology regularly updates its water quality
designations. Additional lake, stream, or river reaches may be included on the list without notice.
Please refer to the Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment and 303(D) List website at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/303d/index.html
DRAINAGE PROBLEM IMPACT MITIGATION
A proposed project must not significantly aggravate existing downstream problems or create new
problems as a result of developing the site. This manual does not require development proposals to fix
or otherwise reduce the severity of existing downstream drainage problems, although doing so may be an
acceptable mitigation.
❑ PRINCIPLES OF IMPACT MITIGATION FOR DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
Aggravation of an existing downstream problem means increasing the frequency of occurrence
and/or severity of the problem. Increasing peak flows at the location of a problem caused by
conveyance system overflows can increase the frequency of the problem's occurrence. Increasing
durations of flows at or above the overflow return frequency can increase the severity of the problem by
increasing the depth and duration of flooding. Controlling peaks and durations through onsite detention
can prevent aggravation of such problems by releasing the increased volumes from development at return
frequencies below the conveyance overflow return frequency, which limits their effect to just causing the
conveyance system to flow full for a longer period of time.
13 The link to the Query Tool is https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx ; select all appropriate mediums.
The Map Tool is at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res=1280x1024
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-21 June 2022
When a problem is caused by high-water surface elevations of a volume-sensitive water body, such as a
lake, wetland, or closed depression, aggravation is the same as for problems caused by conveyance
overflows. Increasing the volume of flows to a volume-sensitive water body can increase the frequency of
the problem's occurrence. Increasing the duration of flows for a range of return frequencies both above
and below the problem return frequency can increase the severity of the problem; mitigating these impacts
requires control of flow durations for a range of return frequencies both above and below the problem
return frequency. The net effect of this duration control is to release the increased volumes due to
development only at water surface elevations below that causing the problem, which in turn can cause an
increase in these lower, but more frequently occurring, water surface elevations. This underscores an
unavoidable impact of development upstream of volume-sensitive water bodies: the increased volumes
generated by the development will cause some range of increase in water surface elevations, no matter
what detention standard is applied.
Creating a new problem means increasing peak flows and/or volumes such that after development,
the frequency of conveyance overflows or water surface elevations exceeds the thresholds for the
various problem types discussed in Section 1.2.2.1. For example, application of the Level 1 flow control
standard requires matching the existing site conditions 2- and 10-year peak flows. The 100-year peak flow
is only partially attenuated, and the flow increase may be enough to cause a severe flooding problem. The
potential for causing a new problem is often identified during the Level 1 downstream analysis, where the
observation of a reduction in downstream pipe sizes, for example, may be enough to predict creation of a
new problem. A Level 2 or 3 analysis will typically be required to verify the capacity of the system and
determine whether 100-year flows can be safely conveyed.
❑ SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
The determination of whether additional onsite mitigation or other measures are needed to address an
existing downstream problem depends on the significance of the proposed project's predicted impact on that
problem. For some identified problems, city review staff will make t he determination as to whether the
project's impact is significant enough to require additional mitigation. For Type 1, 2, and 3 downstream
drainage problems described in Section 1.2.2.1.1, this threshold of significant impact or aggravation is
defined below. For a Type 4, “Potential Impacts to Wetland Hydrology problem,” city review staff will
make this determination based on required critical area report findings, whether the project is in
compliance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines found in Reference Section 5, the
project’s relative contribution to the identified wetland’s hydrology, and the mitigation proposed in
meeting other requirements (e.g. flow control facilities and flow control BMPs).
For conveyance system nuisance problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is
any increase in the project's contribution to the frequency of occurrence and/or severity of the problem for
runoff events less than or equal to the 10-year event. Note: Increases in the project's contribution to this
type of problem are considered to be prevented if sufficient onsite flow control and/or offsite improvements
are provided as specified in Table 1.2.3.A.
For severe erosion problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is any increase in
project's existing contribution to the flow duration14 of peak flows ranging from 50% of the 2-year peak
flow up to the full 50-year peak flow at the eroded area. Note: Increases in the project's contribution to
this type of problem are considered to be prevented if Conservation flow control or offsite improvements
are provided as specified in Table 1.2.3.A.
14 Flow duration means the aggregate time that peak flows are at or above a particular flow rate of interest (e.g., the amount of time
over the last 40 years that peak flows were at or above the 2-year flow rate).
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-22 June 2022
For severe building flooding problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is any
increase in the project's existing contribution15 to the frequency, depth, and/or duration of the problem for
runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event.
For severe roadway flooding problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if any of the
following thresholds are exceeded and there is any increase in the project's contribution19 to the frequency,
depth, and/or duration of the problem for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event:
• The existing flooding16 over all lanes of a roadway or overtopping the culverted section of a sole
access driveway is predicted to increase in depth more than a quarter-inch or 10% (whichever is
greater) for the 100-year runoff event.
• The existing flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway
is more than 6 inches deep or faster than 5 feet per second for runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -
year event. A severely impacted sole access driveway is one in which flooding overtops a culverted
section of the driveway, posing a threat of washout or unsafe access conditions due to indiscernible
driveway edges, or flooding is deeper than 6 inches on the driveway, posing a severe impediment to
emergency access.
• The existing flooding over all lanes of a sole access roadway17 is more than 3 inches deep or faster
than 5 feet per second for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event, or is at any depth for
runoff events less than or equal to the 10-year event.
❑ DRAINAGE PROBLEM-SPECIFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
1. IF a proposed project or threshold discharge area within a project drains to one or more of the Type
1, Type 2, or Type 3 downstream drainage problems described in Section 1.2.2.1 as identified through
a downstream analysis, THEN the applicant must do one of the following:
a) Submit a Level 2 or Level 3 downstream analysis per Section 2.3.1 demonstrating that the
proposed project will not create or significantly aggravate the identified downstream problem(s),
OR
b) Show that the natural discharge area or threshold discharge area draining to the identified
problem(s) qualifies for an exemption from Core Requirement #3: Flow Control (Section 1.2.3) or
an exception from the applicable area-specific flow control facility requirement per Section 1.2.3.1
OR
c) Document that the applicable area-specific flow control facility requirement specified in Core
Requirement #3 is adequate to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the identified
downstream drainage problem(s) as indicated in Table 1.2.3.A with the phrase, “No additional
flow control needed,” OR
d) Provide additional onsite flow control necessary to prevent creation or significant aggravation of
the downstream problem(s) as specified in Table 1.2.3.A and further detailed in Section 3.3.5, OR
15 Increases in the project's contribution are considered to be prevented if sufficient onsite flow control and/or offsite impro vements are
provided as specified for “severe flooding problems” in Table 1.2.3.A.
16 Existing flooding, for the purposes of this definition, means flooding over all lanes of the roadway or driveway has occurred in the past
and can be verified by City records, City personnel, photographs, or other physical evidence.
17 Sole access roadway means there is no other flood-free route for emergency access to one or more dwelling units.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-23 June 2022
e) Provide offsite improvements necessary to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the
identified downstream drainage problem(s) as detailed in Chapter 3 unless identified as not
necessary in Table 1.2.3.A, OR
f) Provide a combination of additional onsite flow control and offsite improvements sufficient to
prevent creation or significant aggravation of the downstream drainage problem(s) as
demonstrated by a Level 2 or Level 3 downstream analysis.
2. IF it is identified that the manner of discharge from a proposed project may create a significant
adverse impact as described in Core Requirement #1, THEN city review staff may require the
applicant to implement additional measures or demonstrate the impact will not occur.
3. IF it is identified through a critical area review as described under “Potential Impacts to Wetlands
Hydrology Problem (Type 4)”, that changes in the rate, duration, and/or the quantity of surface
and storm water runoff from a proposed project or threshold discharge area within a proposed
project could significantly alter the hydrology of a wetland (Type 4 problem), THEN city review
staff shall require the applicant to implement additional flow control or other measures to mitigate
the adverse impacts of this alteration in accordance with the wetland hydrology protection
guidelines in Reference Section 5.
Intent: To ensure provisions are made (if necessary) to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the
four types of downstream drainage problems requiring special attention by this manual, and to ensure
compliance with the discharge requirements of Core Requirement #1.
In addressing downstream problems per Drainage Problem-Specific Mitigation Requirement 1 above, the
additional onsite flow control will often be the easiest provision to implement. This involves designing the
required onsite flow control facility to meet an additional set of performance criteria targeted to prevent
significant aggravation of specific downstream drainage problems. To save time and analysis, a set of
predetermined flow control performance criteria corresponding to each of the three types of downstream
problems is provided in Table 1.2.3.A and described in more detail in Chapter 3.
Note that in some cases, the area-specific flow control facility requirement applicable to the proposed
project per Section 1.2.3.1 is already sufficient to prevent significant aggravation of many of the defined
downstream drainage problem types. Such situations are noted in Table 1.2.3.A as not needing additional
onsite flow control or offsite improvements. For example, if the project is located within a Conservation
Flow Control Area subject to the Level 2 flow control standard per Section 1.2.3.1.B and a conveyance
system nuisance problem is identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, no additional
onsite flow control is needed, and no offsite improvements are necessary.
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IMPACT MITIGATION
As stated in Section 1.2.2.1, the goal of this manual is to prevent creation and/or significant aggravation
of water quality problems to the maximum extent practicable. This is accomplished through a number of
mitigation requirements, including (1) the area-specific water quality facility requirement in Section
1.2.8.1, (2) any mitigation required by other adopted area-specific requirements per Special Requirement
#1, Section 1.3.1, (3) the source controls required in Special Requirement #4, Section 1.3.4, (4) the oil
control required in Special Requirement #5, Section 1.3.5, and (5) the water quality problem-specific
mitigation requirements presented in this section. Note that this manual does not require development
proposals to fix or otherwise reduce the severity of existing downstream water quality problems,
although doing so may be an acceptable mitigation.
❑ WATER QUALITY PROBLEM-SPECIFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
IF a proposed project drains to one or more of the 7 types of downstream water quality problems
defined in Section 1.2.2.1 as identified through a downstream analysis, THEN the applicant must
comply with the following problem-specific mitigation requirements that apply. Note that city review
staff may require additional measures if the opportunity exists to further mitigate the pollutants of
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-24 June 2022
concern associated with these types of problems.
Bacteria Problem (Type 1)
IF the proposed project drains to a bacteria problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance
downstream (or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff), THEN the following requirements
must be met as applicable:
1. IF a water quality facility is required per Core Requirement #8, THEN filter cartridges or
stormwater wetland shall be used to meet the area-specific water quality facility requirement.
Cartridge filters are the preferred option. Other treatment options for meeting the area-specific
facility requirement may be used in lieu of a filter cartridges or stormwater wetland only if
combined with an emerging technology treatment method that provides equivalent removal of
fecal coliform as demonstrated through an experimental design adjustment per Section 1.4.
2. IF the proposed project is a residential subdivision, THEN signage shall be provided in the
subdivision's public areas (i.e., recreation/open space areas and right-of-way) requesting that pet
waste be picked up in order to protect downstream water quality. The extent and location of this
signage shall be reviewed and approved by city review staff.
3. IF the proposed project is a multifamily development with a recreation/open area or is a park
improvement, THEN signage shall be provided requesting that pet waste be picked up in order
to protect downstream water quality. The extent and location of this signage shall be reviewed
and approved by city review staff.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Problem (Type 2)
IF the proposed project drains to a DO problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance downstream
(or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff), THEN the following requirements must be met as
applicable:
1. IF the proposed project includes a wetpond or wetvault, THEN the wetpool depth shall not exceed
6 feet, AND the outflow system shall include a measure designed to promote aeration of the
facility's discharges for 2-year runoff events and smaller. One way to do this is to create a drop in
flow elevation within a manhole by placing the outlet invert of the incoming pipe a minimum of 12
inches above the 2-year headwater elevation of the outgoing pipe. Alternatively, if the outflow
system discharges to an open channel, the same drop in flow elevation could be achieved by
placing the outlet invert a minimum of 12 inches above the 2-year tailwater elevation created by
the channel. Other equivalent approaches may be used as approved by city review staff.
2. IF the proposed project includes a wetvault, THEN the required ventilation area specified in
Chapter
6 shall be doubled.
3. IF the DO problem is documented to be caused by excessive phosphorus and a water quality
facility is required per Core Requirement #8, THEN a water quality facility option from the
Sensitive Lake Protection menu shall be a component of the required treatment system.
Temperature Problem (Type 3)
IF the proposed project drains to a temperature problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance
downstream (or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff), THEN the following requirements
must be met as applicable:
1. IF a water quality facility is required per Core Requirement #8, THEN use of a wetpond is
prohibited unless it will be at least 50% shaded at midday in the summer or its discharges will
flow through 200 feet or more of open channel that is at least 50% shaded at midday in the
summer. City review staff shall review and approve the extent and location of this shading.
2. IF the proposed project includes open drainage features, THEN vegetation or other means
shall be used where practicable to maximize shading of the drainage features, except
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-25 June 2022
bioswales and filter strips. The extent and location of this shading shall be reviewed and
approved by city review staff.
Metals Problem (Type 4)
IF the proposed project drains to a metals problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance
downstream (or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff), THEN the following requirements
must be met as applicable:
1. IF a water quality facility is required per Core Requirement #8, THEN a water quality facility
option from the Enhanced Basic WQ menu shall be a component of the project's required
treatment system.
2. IF the proposed project is a residential subdivision, THEN a covenant shall be recorded for each
lot and common area tract prohibiting use of leachable heavy metals (e.g., galvanized metals)
that will be exposed to the weather (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q).
3. IF the proposed project includes road right-of-way improvements, THEN use of leachable
heavy metals (e.g., galvanized metals) that will be exposed to the weather (e.g., guard rails,
street lights, etc.) shall be avoided.
Phosphorus Problem (Type 5)
IF the proposed project drains to a phosphorus problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance
downstream (or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff), THEN the following requirements
must be met as applicable:
1. IF a water quality facility is required per Core Requirement #8, THEN the project shall be
assumed to be located within a designated Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Area for the purposes of
applying the area-specific water quality treatment requirement in Section 1.2.8.1.
2. For the purposes of applying the Erosion and Sediment Control Standards in Appendix D, the
project shall be assumed to be located within a designated Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Area.
Turbidity Problem (Type 6)
IF the proposed project drains to a turbidity problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance
downstream (or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff) AND the downstream flow path from
the project site to the turbidity problem is through a landslide hazard area, steep slope hazard area,
erosion hazard area or any actively eroding area, THEN the project shall provide a tightline system
through the area in accordance with the same criteria and exceptions specified in Core Requirement #1,
Discharge Requirement 2 for projects located within a designated Landslide Hazard Drainage Area.
Other means for safely conveying project site discharges through the area of concern for erosion may be
proposed subject to approval by city review staff.
High pH Problem (Type 7)
IF the proposed project drains to a pH problem located within the quarter mile/15% distance downstream
(or beyond as deemed necessary by city review staff) AND the proposed project includes a concrete vault
structure for stormwater control purposes, THEN the vault's submerged surfaces shall be coated or
otherwise treated to prevent alteration of pH.
CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL FACILITIES
All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities to
mitigate the impacts of storm and surface water runoff generated by new impervious surface, new
pervious surface, and replaced impervious surface targeted for flow mitigation as specified in the
following sections. Flow control facilities shall, at a minimum, meet the performance criteria for one of
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-26 June 2022
the area-specific flow control standards described in Section 1.2.3.1 and be implemented according to
the applicable flow control facility implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3.2.
Intent: To ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources
from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. The level of control
varies depending on location and downstream conditions identified under Core Requirement #2.
❑ EXEMPTIONS/VARIANCES FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #3
The following are exemptions and variances from the flow control provisions of Core Requirement #3:
Basic Exemption
A proposed project is exempt if it meets the following criteria:
a) Less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, AND
b) Less than ¾ acres of new pervious surface will be added.
Green River Management Agreement and Detention Requirements
In accordance with the provisions of the Green River Management Agreement, if the proposed
development is located in an area that has a direct, gravity draining outlet to the Green River or is tributary
to such a system (other than via the Black River Pumping Station) then stormwater runoff can be released,
after all the following conditions are met:
1) Flood storage must be provided that is equivalent to the amount of rainfall falling on the entire site for
a 100-year, 7-day design storm, corresponding to 9.8 to 10.0 inches depending on the site’s location as
shown on the 100-year, 7-day Isopluvial Maps, AND
2) It must be demonstrated that the downstream conveyance system has the capacity to carry the resultant
flows without overflowing, AND
3) Appropriate water quality treatment is provided as required. AND
4) Conservation flow control is provided
Additional detention and release rate requirements may be required by the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife when a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is required by the agency, or by the City to
mitigate for conveyance problems downstream of the development or for impacts to critical areas.
For the S 259th/3rd Avenue Regional Detention facility (refer to flow control map) the above conditions
shall apply with the exemption that only one-half of the Green River Management Agreement flood
storage volume shall be required.
Flow Control Requirements for Horseshoe Acres and Union Pacific Pump Stations
Developments within the service areas draining to the Horseshoe Acres and Union Pacific Pump Stations
along the Green River are required to provide on-site Conservation flow control and are required to
provide on-site water quality treatment.
Release rates and/or detention requirements may be imposed by the City when the Applicant's downstream
analysis indicates that the existing stormwater conveyance system from the development to the pump
station does not have the necessary capacity to carry the increased flows, OR the pump station does not
have the capacity to store and/or pump the additional runoff flows without local flooding.
Appropriate off-site mitigation measures to off-set identified conveyance or pumping constraints may be
proposed by the Applicant and accepted at the discretion of the Director.
Area-specific Regional Facilities
Stormwater detention and treatment are not required for any development that discharges to the Valley
Regional Detention/Enhanced Wetland Facility also known as the Green River Natural Resource
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-27 June 2022
Area (see the flow control applications map for the relevant subbasin boundary). The facility has
been sized to provide detention and treatment for both existing and future developments.
Stormwater treatment and detention are required for any development that discharges to the 98th Avenue
South Regional Treatment/Detention Pond because this system is designed to handle existing erosion
problems and is not designed to provide adequate detention and treatment according to current standards
for existing or future developments.
Stormwater detention and treatment are also required for any development that discharges to the Meridian
Meadows (Springwood) Regional Detention Pond/Wetland Facility or the Upper or Lower Mill
Creek Regional Detention Facilities. These facilities were not designed to provide regional detention or
treatment according to current standards for existing or future developments.
Master Drainage Plans have been approved for Kentview and The Lakes development areas (shown on
the Flow Control Applications Map). Drainage standards applied within these areas shall be in accordance
with the provisions of the respective Master Drainage Plans.
1.2.3.1 AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT
Projects subject to Core Requirement #3 must, at a minimum, comply with the area-specific flow control
standards per the threshold information detailed in this section. These standards are described below.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-28 June 2022
Guide to Applying the Area-Specific Flow Control Facility Requirement
The flow control facility requirement varies across the city landscape according to the flow control area within
which the project or a threshold discharge area of the project is located. Flow control areas are designated by the
city to target the level of flow control performance to the broad protection needs of specific basins or subbasins.
There are currently nine such flow control areas, which are depicted on the Flow Control Applications Map
adopted with this manual:
• Conservation Flow Control Areas
• Flood Problem Flow Control Areas
• Green River Natural Resource Area regional FC facility
• Green River Management Agreement FC Areas
• Riverview Basin Plan FC Area,
• Lakes Regional Detention FC Area
• Horseshoe Acres FC Area
• Union Pacific Pump Station Area
• S. 259th/3rd Ave. S. Regional Detention Area
Each flow control area has an area-specific set of minimum flow control facility performance criteria, design
assumptions, surfaces that must be mitigated, and exceptions. These provisions all comprise what is referred to as
the "area-specific flow control facility requirement."
Note that the minimum required performance of the facility as specified by this requirement may need to be
increased to ensure that downstream drainage problems are not created or significantly aggravated as set forth in
Section 1.2.2.2, "Drainage Problem-Specific Mitigation Requirements." Table 1.2.3.A provides a quick guide for
selecting the flow control performance criteria necessary to meet both the area-specific flow control facility
requirement and the problem-specific mitigation requirement. This is further explained in Step 4 below.
For efficient application of the flow control facility requirement, the following steps are recommended:
1. Use the Flow Control Applications Map to determine the flow control area in which your project is located.
2. Consult the detailed requirement and exception language for the identified flow control area to determine if
and how the flow control facility requirement applies to your project. This requirement and exception
language is detailed on subsequent pages for each of the nine flow control areas depicted on the Flow
Control Applications Map. If a flow control facility is not applicable per the area-specific exceptions,
proceed to Step 6.
3. If downstream drainage problems were identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2 and are
proposed to be addressed through onsite flow control, use Table 1.2.3.A to determine if and what additional
flow control performance is necessary to mitigate impacts (i.e., to prevent creation or aggravation of the
identified problems).
4. Use Section 1.2.3.2 to identify the applicable requirements for implementing the flow control facility
requirement. These requirements cover facility siting, analysis and design, unusual situations, and other site-
specific considerations.
5. Use Core Requirement 9 to identify the flow control BMPs that must be applied to your project site
regardless of whether a flow control facility is required.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-29 June 2022
TABLE 1.2.3.A
SUMMARY OF FLOW CONTROL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT MITIGATION(1)
AREA-SPECIFIC STANDARD
Identified Problem Conservation FC Areas Flood Problem FC Areas
No Problem Identified
Apply the minimum area-specific
flow control performance criteria.
Apply the historic site conditions Level 2 flow
control standard, which matches historic durations
for 50% of 2-yr through 50-year peaks AND
matches historic 2- and 10- year peaks
Apply the existing or historic site conditions Level 2
flow control standard (whichever is appropriate
based on downstream flow control area) AND match
existing site conditions 100-year peaks
Type 1 Drainage Problem
Conveyance System
Nuisance Problem
Additional Flow Control
No additional flow control or
other mitigation is needed
No additional flow control or other mitigation is
needed
Type 2 Drainage Problem
Severe Erosion Problem
No additional flow control is needed, but other
mitigation may be required(4)
No additional flow control is needed, but other
mitigation may be required(4)
Type 3 Drainage Problem
Severe Flooding Problem
Additional Flow Control
Apply the historic site conditions Level 3 flow
control standard.
If flooding is from a closed depression, make design
adjustments as needed to meet the special provision
for closed depressions(3)(5)
Additional Flow Control
If flooding is from a closed depression, make design
adjustments as needed to meet the special provision for
closed depressions (3)(5)
Type 4 Potential Impact to
Wetland Hydrology as
Determined through a Critical
Area Review per KCC 11.06 or
Offsite Analysis
Additional Flow Control
ECD may require design adjustments per the
wetland hydrology protection guidelines in
Reference Section 5
Additional Flow Control
ECD may require design adjustments per the
wetland hydrology protection guide- lines in
Reference Section 5
Notes:
(1) More than one set of problem-specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream problems are identified through offsite analysis per
Core Requirement #2. If this happens, the performance goals of each applicable problem -specific criteria must be met. This can require extensive,
time-consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of outflow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only v iable option for
mitigating impacts to these problems. In these cases, it may be easier and more prudent t o implement the historic site conditions Level 3 flow
control standard in place of the otherwise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified
performance criteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements except if adjustments are required per the special provision for closed
depressions described below in Note 5.
(2) Overflow Tr is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To determine T r requires a minimum level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in
Section 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis, a Tr of 2 years may be assumed.
(3) Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or in combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2 and detailed in
Section 3.3.5.
(4) A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requ irements of Core
Requirement #1 or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement #4, or is deemed necessary by Economic and Community Development where the
risk of severe damage is high.
(5) Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem:
IF the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a severe floodin g problem AND the
amount of impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10% of the 100 -year water surface area of the closed depression,
THEN use the point of compliance analysis technique described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return
frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 100 -year frequency. If necessary, iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to
prevent increases. Note: The point of compliance analysis relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed depression (e.g., s oils
tests, topography, etc.). If permission to enter private property for such measurements is denied, city review staff may waive this provision and ap ply
the Level 3 flow control standard with a mandatory 20% safety factor on the storage volume.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERCENTAGE EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL
PROJECTS
For agricultural projects located within an Agricultural Production District (APD), Farmland Preservation
Program (FPP), or site zoned A, any onsite threshold discharge area is exempt from the flow control
facility requirement if it meets all of the following conditions:
a) The total (new, replaced, and existing) amount of impervious surface that is not fully dispersed per the
criteria on page 1-46 must be no more than 4% of the threshold discharge area, AND
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-30 June 2022
b) New impervious surfaces and new pervious surfaces must not disturb, impact, or replace native
vegetation, AND
c) Flow control BMPs must be applied to new impervious surfaces as specified in Core Requirement 9,
AND
d) All impervious surface area, except 10,000 square feet of it, must be set back from its natural location
of discharge from the site at least 100 feet for every 10,000 square feet of total impervious surface and
its runoff must be discharged in an unconcentrated manner that promotes infiltration and
evapotranspiration, AND
e) Increased runoff from the new impervious surface and new pervious surface must not significantly
impact a critical area, severe flooding problem, or severe erosion problem, AND
f) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse
impact per core requirement #1.
BASIC FLOW CONTROL AREAS
Basic flow control (Level 1) is not permitted anywhere in Kent.
CONSERVATION FLOW CONTROL AREAS
Conservation Flow Control Areas cover most developable areas of Kent. Conservation Flow Control
Areas are the default designation unless otherwise indicated on the City of Kent Flow Control
Applications Map adopted with this manual.
Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Conservation Flow Control Area, site
specific topography or drainage information may be needed to verify that a project or any threshold
discharge area of a project is within the flow control area. Any threshold discharge area is considered to
be within the Conservation Flow Control Area if the threshold discharge area drains to a waterbody or
drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Conservation Flow Control Area.
Minimum Required Performance
Facilities in Conservation Flow Control Areas must comply with the following flow control
performance standard and assumptions unless modified by offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2 (see
Table 1.2.3.A).
Level 2 Flow Control: Match developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for the range of
predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow.
Also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2- and 10-
year return periods. Assume historic site conditions as the predeveloped condition.
Intent
The Level 2 flow control standard assuming historic site conditions is intended to limit the amount of time
that erosive flows are at work generating erosion and sedimentation within natural and constructed
drainage systems. Such control is effective in preventing development-induced increases in natural erosion
rates and reducing existing erosion rates where they may have been increased by past development of the
site. This is accomplished by maintaining at historic predevelopment levels the aggregate time that
developed flows exceed an erosion-causing threshold (i.e., 50% of the historic 2-year peak flow).
Maintaining natural erosion rates within streams and their tributary areas is important for preventing
increases in stream channel erosion and sediment loading that are detrimental to salmonid habitat and
production.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-31 June 2022
Effectiveness in Addressing Downstream Problems
While the Level 2 flow control standard assuming historic site conditions provides a reasonable level of
protection for preventing most development-induced problems, it does not necessarily prevent increases in
existing site conditions 100-year peak flows that can aggravate severe flooding problems as described in
Core Requirement #2, nor does it necessarily prevent aggravation of all severe erosion problems.
Consequently, if one or more of these problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core
Requirement #2, additional onsite flow control and/or offsite improvements will likely be required (see
"Drainage Problem-Specific Mitigation Requirements" in Section 1.2.2.2.
Target Surfaces
Facilities in Conservation Flow Control Areas must mitigate (either directly or in effect) the runoff from
the following target developed surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is
required:
1. New impervious surface that is not fully dispersed or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix
C. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new impervious surface
shall be assumed as specified in Chapter 3.
2. New pervious surface that is not fully dispersed or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix
C. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new pervious surface shall
be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assumed impervious portion and any portion in which
native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract, or easement. In addition, the new pervious surface
on individual lots shall be assumed to be 100% grass.
3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001 that is not fully dispersed or not farmland
dispersed as specified in Appendix C, and not yet mitigated with a City-approved flow control facility
or flow control BMP. Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound
Chinook salmon.
4. Replaced impervious surface that is not fully dispersed or not farmland dispersed as specified in
Appendix C on a non-redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious
surface is 5,000 square feet or more, OR new pervious surface is ¾ acre or more.
5. Replaced impervious surface that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevelopment project in
which new impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing
impervious surface within the project limits.
6. Replaced impervious surface that is not fully dispersed or not farmland dispersed as specified in
Appendix C, on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious
surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including
interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed
value of: (a) the existing project site improvements on commercial or industrial projects or (b) the
existing site improvements on other projects.
Exceptions
The following exceptions apply only in Conservation Flow Control Areas:
1. The historic site conditions assumption for application of Level 2 flow control may be reduced
through a basin plan or study approved by the City and the Washington State Department of Ecology.
One possible reduction is to an assumption of 75% forest, 15% grass, and 10% impervious surface
(75/15/10 conditions) or existing site conditions, whichever generates the lowest 100-year peak flow.
Another possible change that could be made through a City and Ecology approved basin plan or study
is to the lowest peak flow (50% of the 2-year peak flow) above which discharge durations must be
matched. This peak flow, known as the geomorphic threshold of bed load movement, may be changed
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-32 June 2022
based on the actual channel conditions necessary to protect or allow for restoration of water body
beneficial uses and habitat functions essential to salmonids.
2. The facility requirement in Conservation Flow Control Areas is waived for any threshold discharge
area in which there is no more than a 0.15-cfs difference (when modeled using 15 minute time steps)
or no more than a 0.1-cfs difference (when modeled using 1 hour time steps) in the sum of developed
100-year peak flows for those target surfaces subject to this requirement and the sum of historic site
conditions 100-year peak flows (modeled using same time step unit (e.g., hourly or 15 minute) used to
calculate the developed flow) for the same surface areas. Agricultural zoned projects in current
agricultural use may use existing site conditions as the predeveloped condition for purposes of this
exception calculation. Note: for the purposes of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control
BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing
credits in Core Requirement 9, Table 1.2.9.A.
3. The facility requirement in Conservation Flow Control Areas may be reduced or waived for any
threshold discharge area where a plan or study approved by the City and Ecology shows that a lower
standard (e.g., Level 1 flow control) is sufficient or no facility is necessary to protect or allow for
restoration of water body beneficial uses and habitat functions essential to salmonids.
4. The facility requirement in Conservation Flow Control Areas as applied to replaced impervious
surface may be waived if the City has adopted a plan and implementation schedule approved by state
Department of Ecology for fulfilling this requirement in regional facilities.
5. The facility requirement in Conservation Flow Control Areas as applied to replaced impervious
surface may be reduced by DPER using the procedures detailed in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 of the
adjustment process, if the cost of flow control facilities to mitigate all target surfaces exceeds that
necessary to mitigate only for new impervious surface plus new pervious surface and also exceeds 1/3
of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a
facility to mitigate equivalent surfaces on a new development site, whichever is less.
❑ FLOOD PROBLEM FLOW CONTROL AREAS
Flood Problem Flow Control Areas are designated by the City of Kent where it has been determined that a
higher average level of flow control is needed to prevent aggravation of existing documented flooding or
erosion problems. Such areas are delineated on the Flow Control Applications Map.
Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Flood Problem Flow Control Area,
site-specific topography or drainage information may be needed to verify that a project or any threshold
discharge area of a project is within the flow control area. Any threshold discharge area is considered
to be within the Flood Problem Flow Control Area if the threshold discharge area drains to a waterbody
or drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Flood Problem Flow Control Area.
Minimum Required Performance
Facilities in Flood Problem Flow Control Areas must comply with the following flow control
performance standard and assumptions unless modified by offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2 (see
Table 1.2.3.A).
Level 3 Flow Control: Apply the Level 2 flow control standard, AND match the developed 100-year peak
discharge rate to the predeveloped 100-year peak discharge rate. If the Flood Problem Flow Control Area
is located within a Conservation Flow Control Area, then historic site conditions shall be assumed as the
predeveloped condition except for the purposes of matching 100-year peak discharge rates. For all other
situations and for the purposes of matching 100-year peak discharge rates, existing site conditions may be
assumed.
Intent
The Level 3 flow control standard is intended to prevent significant increases in existing water surface
levels for 2-year through 100-year return frequencies. Such increases are expected to occur as the volume
of runoff discharging to the water body is increased by upstream development. Because inflow rates to
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-33 June 2022
these water bodies are typically much higher than the outflow rates, increased runoff volumes from
upstream development are, in effect, stacked on top of existing volumes in the water body, resulting in
higher water surface levels. The duration-matching and 100-year peak-matching criteria of the Level 3
flow control standard counteract this stacking effect by slowing the arrival of additional runoff volumes.
Because it can prevent significant aggravation of existing flooding, the Level 3 standard is also applicable
to other flow control areas where severe flooding problems have been identified per Core Requirement #2.
Effectiveness in Addressing Downstream Drainage Problems
If the Level 3 flow control standard is implemented onsite, no additional measures are required to prevent
aggravation of the three types of downstream drainage problems described in Core Requirement #2. The
one exception is for a wetland or lake that is a closed depression with a severe flooding problem, and the
proposed project is adding impervious surface area amounting to more than 10% of the 100-year water
surface area of the closed depression. In this case, additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements
may be necessary as determined by a "point of compliance analysis" (see "Special Provision for Closed
Depressions" in Table 1.2.3.A and see Section 3.3.6, "Point of Compliance Analysis").
Target Surfaces
Facilities in Flood Problem Flow Control Areas must mitigate (either directly or in effect) the runoff
from the following target developed surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is
required:
1. The target surfaces are the same as those required for facilities in Conservation Flow Control Areas
unless otherwise allowed by the area-specific exceptions for Conservation Flow Control Areas.
Exceptions
The following exceptions apply only in Flood Problem Flow Control Areas:
1. Any required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to replaced
impervious surface may be waived if the City has adopted a plan and implementation schedule
approved by the state Department of Ecology for fulfilling this requirement with regional facilities.
2. Any required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to replaced
impervious surface may be reduced by the Economic and Community Development Department
using the procedures detailed in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 of the adjustment process, if the cost of flow
control facilities to mitigate all target surfaces exceeds that necessary to mitigate only for new
impervious surface plus new pervious surface and also exceeds 1/3 of the valuation of proposed
improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate the same
surfaces on a new development site, whichever is less. The amount of reduction allowed by this
exception shall be limited such that the cost of flow control facilities is at least equal to that
necessary to mitigate only for new impervious surface plus new pervious surface, and beyond
this amount, is no greater than 1/3 of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior
improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate equivalent surfaces on a new
development site, whichever is less.
3. Any required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to replaced
impervious surface may assume existing site conditions as the predeveloped condition for the
purposes of matching the developed 100-year peak discharge rate to the predeveloped 100-year peak
discharge rate.
1.2.3.2 FLOW CONTROL FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Flow control facilities shall be designed and implemented in accordance with the following requirements,
allowances, and flexible compliance provisions:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-34 June 2022
Onsite vs. Offsite Implementation
All required flow control facilities must be implemented onsite except where the below requirements can
be met for direct discharge to a regional or shared facility constructed to provide flow control for the
proposed project. Regional facilities are typically constructed as part of a basin plan. Shared facilities
may be constructed under a City-developed shared facility drainage plan or under an agreement between
two or more private developers. These requirements apply to proposed new facilities. The relationship
between onsite and offsite implementation for existing regional facilities is described under “Exemptions
from Core Requirement 3”.
1. The regional or shared facility must be of adequate size and design to meet the current flow control
requirements for the proposed project's increased surface and stormwater runoff. Note: the current flow
control requirements are those specified by Core Requirement #3 of this manual unless superseded by
other adopted area-specific flow control requirements per Special Requirement #1 (see Section 1.3.1). In
some cases where the current flow control requirements differ from those used to originally design the
regional or shared facility, additional analysis and possible retrofitting of the facility may be required to
ensure adequate size and design.
2. The regional or shared facility must be fully operational at the time the proposed project is constructed.
In the case of a shared facility, the proposed project must comply with the terms and conditions of all
contracts, agreements, and permits associated with the shared facility.
3. The conveyance system between the project site and the regional facility must be approved by city
review staff and meet all the following criteria:
a) The conveyance system between the project site and the ordinary high water line of the regional
facility shall be comprised of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, outfall protection, etc.)
and shall be within public right-of-way or a public or private drainage easement, AND
b) The conveyance system shall have adequate capacity per Core Requirement #4, Conveyance
System, for the entire contributing drainage area, assuming build-out conditions to current zoning
for the equivalent area portion (defined in Figure 1.2.3.A below) and existing conditions for the
remaining area, AND
c) The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion, assuming the same basin
conditions as assumed in Criterion (b), AND
d) The conveyance system will not divert flows from or increase flows to an existing wetland or stream
sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact.
In the case of a shared facility, the criteria are the same, except the conveyance system need only have
adequate capacity and erosion protection for buildout of the participating portion of the contributing
drainage area. The participating portion includes those properties that have agreements for use of the
shared facility.
Methods of Analysis and Design
Flow control facilities must be analyzed and designed using a continuous flow simulation method such as
HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN) or the simplified HSPF-based runoff files method.
Specifications for use of the runoff files method and associated computer program, Western Washington
Hydrologic Model, (WWHM3), are found in Chapter 3. Detailed design specifications for flow control
facilities are found in Chapter 5.
Flow control facilities to be constructed on the Valley floor (below elevation 35 feet) shall take into
account the anticipated Valley floor flood levels in the facility design. The facility is to be designed
assuming a freely draining outlet, but potential onsite flooding and facility performance should be
evaluated considering tailwater conditions that can exist due to Valley floor flooding for up to the 100-
year flood. This evaluation shall be completed by routing the 100-year flood through the site storm
drain/detention pond system considering high tailwater conditions (100-year flood). Potential onsite
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-35 June 2022
flooding needs to be identified and an overflow is to be provided that is capable of conveying the 100-year
peak flood flow from the site in accordance with these conditions:
1. The overflow shall be directed to and released at the natural location without causing risk or damage
to downstream properties, AND
2. No flooding of traffic lanes will occur, AND
3. No structural flooding will occur.
Developments sited on the Valley floor within the FEMA mapped floodplain will also be required to
include compensatory flood storage volumes. This volume shall be calculated as 100% of the flood
storage volume lost from the 100-year floodplain when comparing pre- and post-development conditions.
Compensatory flood volumes can be added to the on-site flow control facility after the flow control
volume has been determined. Storage volumes required for flow control will not be credited toward
compensatory flood volumes (see Special Requirement #2, Section 1.3.2).
SIZING CREDITS FOR FULLY DISPERSED SURFACES
A fully dispersed surface (either impervious or non-native pervious) is one that conforms to the BMP
strategy for "full dispersion" detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.1. This strategy calls for minimizing the
area of onsite developed surface relative to native vegetated surface, together with the application of
dispersion techniques that utilize the natural retention/detention capacity of the native vegetated surface to
mitigate the runoff effects of the developed surfaces. Developed surfaces conforming to this strategy are
considered to have a negligible impact downstream, and therefore, may be modeled as forest and are not
subject to the area-specific flow control facility requirement (Section 1.2.3.1) or the area-specific water
quality facility requirement (Section 1.2.8.1). In order for developed surfaces to qualify as fully dispersed,
they must meet the basic criteria listed below and further detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.
Criteria for Fully Dispersed Surfaces
1. The total area of impervious surface being fully dispersed must be no more than 15% of the total
area of native vegetated surface being preserved by a clearing limit per KCC 16.82 or by recorded
tract, easement, or covenant within the same threshold discharge area. The total area of impervious
surface plus non-native pervious surface27 being fully dispersed must be no more than 35% of a
threshold discharge area.
2. The runoff from a fully dispersed surface must be discharged using one of the following dispersion
devices in accordance with the design specifications and maximum area of fully dispersed surface for
each device set forth in Appendix C, Section C.2.1:
a) Splash blocks
b) Rock pads
c) Gravel filled trenches
d) Sheet flow
Note: The dispersion device must be situated so as to discharge within the same threshold discharge
area of the surface it serves.
3. A native vegetated flowpath segment of at least 100 feet in length (25 feet for sheet flow from a
nonnative pervious surface) must be available along the flowpath that runoff would follow upon
discharge from a dispersion device listed in Minimum Requirement 2 above. The native vegetated
flowpath segment must meet all of the following criteria:
a) The flowpath segment must be over native vegetated surface.
b) The flowpath segment must be onsite or an offsite tract or easement area reserved for such
dispersion.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-36 June 2022
c) The slope of the flowpath segment must be no steeper than 15% for any 20-foot reach of the
flowpath segment.
d) The flowpath segment must be located between the dispersion device and any downstream
drainage feature such as a pipe, ditch, stream, river, pond, lake, or wetland.
e) The flowpath segments for adjacent dispersion devices must comply with the minimum spacing
requirements in Appendix C, Section C.2.1. These requirements do not allow overlap of
flowpath segments, except in the case where sheet flow from a non-native pervious surface
overlaps with the flowpath of any dispersion device listed in Minimum Requirement 2 above. In
this case, the longer of the two overlapping flowpath segments must be extended at least 1 foot for
every 3 feet of distance along the most representative path that runoff would travel from the
upstream end to the discharge end of the non-native pervious surface.
4. On sites with septic systems, the discharge of runoff from dispersion devices must not be upgradient
of the drainfield. This requirement may be waived by city review staff if site topography clearly
prohibits flows from intersecting the drainfield.
5. The dispersion of runoff must not create flooding or erosion impacts as determined by city review
staff. If runoff is proposed to be discharged toward a landslide hazard area, erosion hazard area, or
steep slope hazard area (i.e., slopes steeper than 20%), city review staff may require the applicant to
have the proposal evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist.
SIZING CREDITS FOR USE OF FLOW CONTROL BMPS
Projects that implement flow control BMPs as detailed in Core Requirement 9 and Appendix C, whether
required or optional, may use the flow control BMP modeling credits as described and allowed in Section
1.2.9.4 and Table 1.2.9.A.
MITIGATION OF TARGET SURFACES THAT BYPASS FACILITY
On some sites, topography may make it difficult or costly to collect all target surface runoff for discharge
to the onsite flow control facility. Therefore, some project runoff subject to flow control may bypass
required onsite flow control facilities provided that all of the following conditions are met:
1. The point of convergence for runoff discharged from the bypassed target surfaces and from the
project's flow control facility must be within a quarter-mile downstream28 of the facility's project
site discharge point, AND
2. The increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak discharge from the area of bypassed target
surfaces must not exceed 0.4 cfs, AND
3. Runoff from the bypassed target surfaces must not create a significant adverse impact to
downstream drainage systems, salmonid habitat, or properties as determined by Economic and
Community Development, AND
4. Water quality requirements applicable to the bypassed target surfaces must be met, AND
5. Compensatory mitigation by a flow control facility must be provided so that the net effect at the
point of convergence downstream is the same with or without the bypass. This mitigation may be
waived if the existing site conditions 100-year peak discharge from the area of bypassed target
surfaces is increased by no more than 0.1 cfs (modeled using 1 hour time steps) or no more than 0.15
cfs (modeled using 15 minute time steps) and flow control BMPs as detailed in Appendix C are
applied to all impervious surfaces within the area of bypassed target surfaces. One or combination of
the following methods may be used to provide compensatory mitigation by a flow control facility
subject to permission/approvals from other parties as deemed necessary by Economic and Community
Development:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-37 June 2022
a) Design the project's flow control facility or retrofit an existing offsite flow control facility as
needed to achieve the desired effect at the point of convergence, OR
b) Design the project's flow control facility or provide/retrofit an offsite flow control facility to
mitigate an existing developed area (either onsite or offsite) that has runoff characteristics (i.e.,
peak flow and volume) equivalent to those of the bypassed target surfaces but is currently not
mitigated or required to be mitigated to the same flow control performance requirement as the
bypassed target surfaces.
BYPASS OF RUNOFF FROM NON-TARGET SURFACES
IF the existing 100-year peak flow rate from any upstream offsite area (not targeted for mitigation) is
greater than 50% of the 100-year developed peak flow rate (undetained) for the area that must be
mitigated, THEN the runoff from the offsite area must bypass onsite flow control facilities. The bypass of
offsite runoff must be designed so as to achieve all of the following:
1. Any existing contribution of flows to an onsite wetland must be maintained, AND
2. Offsite flows that are naturally attenuated by the project site under predeveloped conditions must
remain attenuated, either by natural means or by providing additional onsite detention so that peak
flows do not increase, AND
3. Offsite flows that are dispersed or unconcentrated on the project site under predeveloped conditions
must be discharged in a safe manner as described in Core Requirement #1 under “Discharge
Requirements.”
MITIGATION TRADES
A project's flow control facility may be designed to mitigate an existing developed non-target surface area
(either onsite or offsite) in trade for not mitigating part or all of the project's target surface area, provided
that the arrangement is approved by the city and all of the following conditions are met:
1. The existing developed non-target surface area (i.e., an area of existing impervious surface and/or
non-native pervious surface) must have runoff discharge characteristics (i.e., peak flow and volume)
equivalent to those of the target surface area for which mitigation is being traded and must not be
currently mitigated to the same flow control performance requirement as the target surface area, AND
2. Runoff from both the target surface area being traded and the flow control facility must converge
prior to discharge of the runoff from the target surface area being traded onto private property
without an easement or through any area subject to erosion, AND
3. The net effect in terms of flow control at the point of convergence downstream must be the same with
or without the mitigation trade, AND
4. The undetained runoff from the target surface area being traded must not create a significant
adverse impact to downstream drainage systems, salmonid habitat, or properties prior to convergence
with runoff from the flow control facility.
5. The existing non-targeted surface area that is mitigated for purposes of required flow control must be
documented and tracked by city review staff. Documentation should clarify that future redevelopment
of this existing non-targeted area used for the mitigation trade will incur additional flow control
mitigation requirements if the redevelopment exceeds Core Requirement #3 thresholds. This
additional flow control mitigation must be met in addition to that previously required and provided for
the mitigation trade. Applicants may be advised to size flow control facilities sufficient for both the
mitigation trade area and future development of the existing non-targeted area
FACILITY REQUIREMENT IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-38 June 2022
Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement #1 must provide a tightline
system except where city review staff approves an alternative system based on a geotechnical analysis that
considers cumulative impacts from the project and surrounding areas under full built- out conditions, AND
one of the following conditions can be met:
a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added within the natural
discharge area, OR
b) The developed conditions runoff from the natural discharge area is less than 0.1 cfs for the 100-
year runoff event and will be infiltrated for runoff events up to and including the 100-year event,
OR
c) The developed conditions runoff volume 29 from the natural discharge area is less than 50% of
the existing conditions runoff volume from other areas draining to the location where runoff from
the natural discharge area enters the landslide hazard area onto slopes steeper than 15%, AND
the provisions of Discharge Requirement 1 are met, OR
d) City review staff determines that a tightline system is not physically feasible or will create a
significant adverse impact based on a soils report by a geotechnical engineer.
Systems proposed as an alternative to the required tightline must meet all of the following requirements:
1. Approval by the city shall be based on a geotechnical analysis that considers cumulative impacts from
the project and surrounding areas under full built-out conditions.
2. Proposed facilities, FCBMPs, and dispersal systems must meet all applicable feasibility and setback
requirements contained in the SWDM.
3. Facility outflows must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement
1 of Core Requirement #1.
4. The geotechnical analysis and proposed system design must address facility overflows and
recommend additional measures, factors of safety in facility design, etc. based on an evaluation of risk
of slope instability or failure and potential impacts to life, structures, and property.
5. For projects adjacent to or containing a landslide, steep slope, or erosion hazard area as defined in
KCC 11.06, the applicant must demonstrate that onsite drainage facilities and/or flow control BMPs
will not create a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems.
Manifold Detention Facilities
A manifold detention facility is a single detention facility designed to take the place of two or more
otherwise required detention facilities. It combines the runoff from two or more onsite drainage areas
having separate natural discharge points, and redistributes the runoff back to the natural discharge points
following detention. Because manifold detention facilities divert flows from one natural discharge point to
another and then back, they are not allowed except by an approved adjustment (see Section 1.4,
“Adjustment Process”).
Use of Underground Detention Facilities
Open detention ponds are preferred over underground detention facilities (vaults or tanks) because open
vegetated ponds provide additional stormwater treatment in addition to quantity controls.
Underground vaults or tanks shall only be permitted to meet detention requirements with the following
conditions fully implemented:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-39 June 2022
1. All landscaping on the development site, including individual lots and open spaces, must strictly
comply with soil depth and amendment requirements outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 15.07.
2. All vaults must be thoroughly cleaned, and all filters changed after construction is complete and
prior to the release of any financial guarantees.
3. Vaults are not allowed in the City right of way.
4. Vaults shall be “Infiltration Vaults” as per Chapter 5, section 5.2.4 of the King County SWDM
unless site or project conditions warrant otherwise as determined by a geotechnical engineering
report to be reviewed and approved by the development engineering reviewer. The applicant shall
submit a geotechnical report that addresses the viability of a bottomless infiltration vault. Special
consideration should be given to the effect of groundwater on vault functionality and capacity.
5. Bottomless vault bottom must be at or above the seasonal high groundwater level for Infiltration
Vaults used for detention purposes.
6. Vaults are allowed when the water draining to them is from private property and the vault is
privately owned and maintained. For cases where the facility receives runoff from public Right-
of-Way, vaults (and associated water quality facilities) will be maintained by the city and the
associated property owners shall reimburse the city for the maintenance. The responsibility to
reimburse the city for required maintenance shall be memorialized in a recorded Stormwater
Facility Maintenance Covenant recorded against the property. For subdivisions, the homeowner’s
responsibility to reimburse the city for maintenance shall be included on the face of the recorded
subdivision and be included in the subdivision’s Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions,
(CC&R’s). The CC&R’s shall be recorded in conjunction with the Final Subdivision.
No credit will be permitted toward required detention volumes for any element of the conveyance system.
Aquifer Recharge Areas
The City of Kent implements a wellhead protection program to protect and preserve regional groundwater
resources. This program is critical to the City to ensure that the water supply obtained from groundwater
is maintained at the highest quantity and quality levels possible. Protection of quantity and quality of
groundwater is also important to the City and regional interests due to the linkage between groundwater
and surface water. Baseflow represents a high percentage of streamflow in the dry summer months in the
Puget Sound Region.
To work towards protection of the groundwater resource, the City of Kent, Covington Water District, and
Water District 111 have designated and mapped “Wellhead Protection Areas”. These areas are shown on
the Soils/Wellhead Area Map included with this manual in the cover pocket. The City of Kent requires
that any project located within Wellhead Protection Areas and subject to the requirements of this
manual enhance or maintain groundwater recharge quantity and quality to the maximum extent
possible. This shall predominantly be achieved through the construction of infiltration facilities as
described in Chapter 5 – Flow Control Design.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-40 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and
constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural
failure as specified in the following groups of requirements:
• “Conveyance Requirements for New Systems,” Section 1.2.4.1
• “Conveyance Requirements for Existing Systems,” Section 1.2.4.2
• “Conveyance System Implementation Requirements,” Section 1.2.4.3
Intent: To ensure proper design and construction of engineered conveyance system elements.
Conveyance systems are natural and engineered drainage facilities that provide for the collection and
transport of surface water or stormwater runoff. This core requirement applies to the engineered elements
of conveyance systems—primarily pipes, culverts, and ditches/channels.
CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SYSTEMS
All new conveyance system elements,18 both onsite and offsite, shall be analyzed, designed, and
constructed according to the following requirements. All analyses shall examine the full range of
anticipated tailwater conditions. Also see Section 4.1 for route design and easement requirements.
Pipe Systems
1. New pipe systems shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the
25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions
for any offsite tributary areas.
2. Pipe system structures may overtop for runoff events that exceed the 25-year design capacity,
provided the overflow from a 100-year runoff event does not create or aggravate a severe flooding
problem or severe erosion problem as defined in Core Requirement #2, Section 1.2.2. Any overflow
occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100-year event must discharge at the natural
location for the project site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an
onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or public right-of-way.
3. The upstream end of a pipe system that receives runoff from an open drainage feature (pond, ditch,
etc.) shall be analyzed and sized as a culvert as described below.
Culverts
1. New culverts shall be designed with sufficient capacity to meet the headwater requirements in Section
4.3.1 and convey (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite
tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas.
2. New culverts must also convey as much of the 100-year peak flow as is necessary to preclude creating
or aggravating a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem as defined in Core Requirement
#2, Section 1.2.2. Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100-year
event must discharge at the natural location for the project site. In residential subdivisions, such
overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or public right-of-
way.
18 New conveyance system elements are those that are proposed to be constructed where there are no existing constructed conveyance
elements.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-41 June 2022
3. New culverts proposed in streams with salmonids shall be designed to provide for fish passage based
on current Washington State fish-passage laws and regulations.
Ditches/Channels
1. New ditches/channels shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain, at minimum,
the 25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing
conditions for any offsite tributary areas.
2. New ditches/channels must also convey as much of the 100-year peak flow as is necessary to preclude
creating or aggravating a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem as defined in Core
Requirement 2, Section 1.2.2. Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including
the 100-year event must discharge at the natural location for the project site. In residential
subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or
public right-of-way.
Tightline Systems Traversing Steep Slopes
New tightline conveyance systems traversing slopes that are steeper than 15% and greater than 20 feet in
height, or are within a steep slope hazard area shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and
contain (at minimum) the 100-year peak flow, assuming full build-out conditions19 for all tributary areas,
both onsite and offsite. Tightline systems shall be designed as detailed in Section 4.2.2.
Bridges
New bridges shall be designed to pass the 100-year peak flow with clearance as specified in Section 4.3.3 and
in accordance with the floodplain development standards in KCC 14.09.
CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING SYSTEMS
The following conveyance requirements for existing systems are less rigorous than those for new systems
to allow some salvaging of existing systems that are in useable condition. Existing systems may be
utilized if they are capable of providing a minimum level of protection as-is or with minor modifications.
Existing Onsite Conveyance Systems
No Change in Flow Characteristics: Existing onsite conveyance systems that will not experience a
change in flow characteristics (e.g., peak flows or volume of flows) as a result of the proposed project
need not be analyzed for conveyance capacity.
Change in Flow Characteristics: Existing onsite conveyance systems that will experience a change in
flow characteristics as a result of the proposed project must comply with the following conveyance
requirements:
1. The existing system must be analyzed and shown to have sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at
minimum) the 10-year peak flow assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and
existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas.
2. The applicant must demonstrate that the 100-year peak flow to the existing system will not create or
aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem as defined in Core Requirement #2,
Section 1.2.2.
3. Minor modifications may be made to the conveyance system to achieve the required capacity stated
above. Examples of minor modifications include raising a catch basin rim, replacing or relaying a
19 Full build-out conditions means the tributary area is developed to its full zoning potential except where there are existing environmentally
sensitive areas, open space tracts, and/or native growth protection easements/covenants.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-42 June 2022
section of pipe to match the capacity of other pipes in the system, improving a pipe inlet, or enlarging
a short, constricted reach of ditch or channel.
4. Modifications to an existing conveyance system or element that act to attenuate peak flows due to the
presence of upstream detention storage shall be made in a manner that does not significantly increase
peak flows downstream. For example, if water is detained in a pond upstream of a restrictive road
culvert, then installing an overflow system for the culvert should prevent overtopping of the road
without significantly reducing existing detention storage.
Existing Offsite Conveyance Systems
1. Existing offsite conveyance systems need not be analyzed for conveyance capacity except as required
by Core Requirement #2, or if offsite improvements or direct discharge are proposed per Core
Requirement #3.
2. Improvements made to existing offsite conveyance systems to address the problem-specific mitigation
requirements in Section 1.2.2.2 need only change existing conveyance capacity sufficiently to prevent
aggravation of the drainage problem(s) being addressed.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Conveyance systems shall be designed and implemented in accordance with the following requirements,
allowances, and flexible compliance provisions:
Methods of Analysis and Design
Properly-sized conveyance elements provide sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey peak flows of the
return frequencies indicated in Sections 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.4.2. Conveyance capacity shall be demonstrated
using the methods of analysis detailed in Chapter 4. Design flows for sizing conveyance systems shall be
determined using the appropriate runoff computation method specified in Section 3.2.
Spill Control Provisions
Projects proposing to construct or replace onsite conveyance system elements that receive runoff from
non-roof-top pollution-generating impervious surface must provide a spill control device as detailed in
Section 4.2.1 prior to discharge from the project site or into a natural onsite drainage feature.20 More
specifically, this requirement applies whenever a proposed project does either of the following:
• Constructs a new onsite conveyance system that receives runoff from non-roof-top pollution-
generating impervious surface, OR
• Removes and replaces an existing onsite conveyance system element that receives runoff from 5,000
square feet or more of non-roof-top pollution-generating impervious surface onsite.
The intent of this device is to temporarily detain oil or other floatable pollutants before they enter the
downstream drainage system in the event of an accidental spill or illegal dumping. It may consist of a tee
section in a manhole or catch basin, or another alternative as specified in Section 4.2.1. The spill control
device should be installed upstream of any onsite water quality or flow control facility. Note that in
addition to this spill control requirement to protect offsite and natural drainage systems, there are other
spill control requirements in this manual for discharges to certain water quality facilities and all infiltration
facilities (see the design criteria for water quality facilities in Chapter 6 and the general requirements for
infiltration facilities in Section 5.2). The application of these requirements must be such that all stated
intents are satisfied. If no facilities are present, then the spill control device must be installed upstream
from the final discharge point to the downstream drainage system.
20 Natural onsite drainage feature means a natural swale, channel, stream, closed depression, wetland, or lake.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-43 June 2022
Composition
Where feasible, conveyance systems shall be constructed of vegetation-lined channels, as opposed to pipe
systems. Vegetative channels shall generally be considered feasible if all of these conditions are present:
1. The channel gradient generally does not exceed five percent, AND
2. No modifications to currently adopted standard roadway cross-sections in the Kent Design and
Construction Standards are necessitated by the channel, AND
3. The channel will be accessible for maintenance (see Section 1.2.6), AND
4. The channel will not be subject to erosion.
Exceptions: The following are exceptions to the requirement for vegetative channels:
• Conveyance systems proposed under roadways, driveways, or parking areas
• Conveyance systems proposed between houses in urban-zoned plats and short plats
• Conveyance systems conveying roof runoff only.
Outfalls
An outfall is defined as a point where collected and concentrated surface and stormwater runoff is
discharged from a pipe system or culvert.
Energy Dissipation: At a minimum, rock erosion protection is required at outfalls from all drainage
systems and elements except where city review staff determines that erosion protection is being provided
by other means or is not needed. Details on outfall structures are included in Section 4.2.2.
New Point Discharges Over Steep Slopes / Landslide Hazard Areas: Proposed outfalls that will
discharge runoff in a location where the natural (existing) discharge is unconcentrated over a slope steeper
than 15% and greater than 20 feet in height, or discharge runoff through a designated steep slope hazard
area must meet the following criteria:
1. A tightline conveyance system must be constructed to convey the runoff to the bottom of the
slope unless other measures are approved by city review staff based on an evaluation/report by a
licensed geotechnical engineer.
2. The geotechnical analysis must consider cumulative impacts from the project and surrounding
areas under full built-out conditions.
3. Tightline systems must be designed so that existing baseflow conditions are not significantly
changed and adequate energy dissipation is provided at the bottom of the slope.
4. Where alternative measures (e.g., dispersal trench) to the tightline system are approved upstream
of a landslide hazard area or steep slope hazard area, they may be placed no closer than 50 feet
from the top of the hazard area slope based on an evaluation/report by a licensed geotechnical
engineer.
Outfalls to the Green River
New stormwater outfalls or modifications to existing stormwater outfalls discharging to the Green River
are allowed only through the adjustment process. These outfalls must comply with requirements of the
Green River Pump Operations Procedure Plan, which establishes storage volumes and release rate criteria
for developments proposing to construct or modify outfalls. Copies of the plan are available from the city
of Kent.
Interflow and Interception
Interflow is near-surface groundwater that moves laterally through the soil horizon following the hydraulic
gradient of underlying relatively impermeable soils. When interflow is expressed on the surface, it is
termed a spring or seepage. Any significant springs or seepage areas that impact a roadway or structure
proposed by the project must be intercepted and directed into a conveyance system. Where roadways may
impede the passage of interflow to downstream wetlands or streams, provision for passage of
unconcentrated flows must be made.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-44 June 2022
Pump Systems
Pump systems may be used to convey water from one location or elevation to another within the project
site provided they meet the design criteria specified for such systems in Section 4.2.3 and will be privately
owned and maintained.
Pump systems that discharge flows from the project site that would not have discharged by gravity flow
under existing site conditions will require an approved adjustment to Core Requirement #1 (see Section
1.4, “Adjustment Process”). These pump systems will be considered only when they are necessary to
prevent creation or aggravation of a flooding or erosion problem as specified in Section 1.2.2. Pump
systems discharging to the Green River must also comply with the Green River Pump Operations
Procedure Plan.
CORE REQUIREMENT #5: EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL
All proposed projects that will clear, grade, or otherwise disturb the site must provide erosion and sediment
controls to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to
downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. All proposed projects that will
conduct construction activities onsite or offsite must provide stormwater pollution prevention and spill
controls to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to onsite or adjacent stormwater
systems or watercourses. To prevent sediment transport, Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures
and Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Control (SWPPS) measures that are appropriate to
the project site must be applied through a comprehensive Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention (CSWPP) plan as described in Sections 1.2.5.1 and 1.2.5.3 and shall perform as described
in Section 1.2.5.2. In addition, these measures, both temporary and permanent, shall be implemented
consistent with the requirements in Section 1.2.5.3 that apply to the proposed project.
Intent:
• To prevent the transport of sediment and other impacts, like increased runoff, related to land
disturbing activities. Erosion of disturbed areas on construction sites can result in excessive
sediment transport to adjacent properties and to surface waters. This sediment can result in major
adverse impacts, such as flooding from obstructed drainage ways, smothering of salmonid spawning
beds, algal blooms in lakes, and exceedances of state water quality standards for turbidity. These
impacts can also result from the increased runoff generated by land disturbing activities on
construction sites.
• To prevent, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to onsite or adjacent stormwater
systems or watercourses from construction-related activities such as materials delivery and
storage, onsite equipment fueling and maintenance, demolition of existing buildings and
disposition of demolition materials and other waste, and concrete handling, washout and disposal.
CSWPP MEASURES
Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (CSWPP) measures include Erosion and Sediment Control
(ESC) measures and Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) measures.
The following ESC measures shall be provided as specified below and as further detailed in the Erosion
and Sediment Control (ESC) Standards, adopted as Appendix D:
1. Clearing Limits: Prior to any site clearing or grading, areas to remain undisturbed during project
construction shall be delineated. At a minimum, clearing limit delineation flagging shall be
provided at the edges of all stream, lake, or wetland buffers.
2. Cover Measures: Temporary and permanent cover measures shall be provided when necessary
to protect disturbed areas. Temporary cover shall be installed if an area is to remain unworked for
more than seven days during the dry season (May 1 to September 30) or for more than two days
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-45 June 2022
during the wet season (October 1 to April 30), unless otherwise determined by the City. Any area
to remain unworked for more than 30 days shall be seeded or sodded, unless the City determines
that winter weather makes vegetation establishment unfeasible. During the wet season, slopes
and stockpiles 3H:1V or steeper with more than 10 feet of vertical relief shall be covered if
they are to remain unworked for more than 12 hours. The intent of these measures is to
prevent erosion by having as much area as possible covered during any period of precipitation.
3. Perimeter Protection: When necessary, perimeter protection to filter sediment from sheet flow
shall be provided downstream of all disturbed areas. Perimeter protection includes the use of
vegetated strips, as well as more conventional constructed measures such as silt fences. Such
protection shall be installed prior to upstream grading.
4. Traffic Area Stabilization: Unsurfaced entrances, roads, and parking areas used by construction
traffic shall be stabilized to minimize erosion and tracking of sediment offsite.
5. Sediment Retention: Surface water collected from disturbed areas of the site shall be routed
through a sediment pond or trap prior to release from the site. This does not apply to areas at the
perimeter of the site small enough to be treated solely with perimeter protection. Sediment
retention facilities shall be installed prior to grading any contributing area.
6. Surface Water Controls: Surface water controls shall be installed to intercept all surface water
from disturbed areas, convey it to a sediment pond or trap, and discharge it downstream of any
disturbed areas. However, areas at the perimeter of the site small enough to be treated solely with
perimeter protection do not require surface water controls. Significant sources of upstream
surface water that drain onto disturbed areas shall be intercepted and conveyed to a stabilized
discharge point downstream of the disturbed areas. Surface water controls shall be installed
concurrently with or immediately following rough grading.
7. Dust Control: Preventative measures to minimize wind transport of soil shall be implemented
when a traffic hazard may be created or when sediment transported by wind is likely to be
deposited in water resources.
8. Dewatering Control: The water resulting from construction site de-watering activities must be
treated prior to discharge or disposed of as specified.
9. Flow Control: Surface water from disturbed areas must be routed through the project's onsite
flow control facility or other provisions must be made to prevent increases in the existing site
conditions 2- year and 10-year runoff peaks discharging from the project site during construction
(flow control BMP areas (existing or proposed) shall not be used for this purpose).
10. Control Pollutants: Stormwater pollution prevention (SWPPS) measures are required to prevent,
reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to onsite or adjacent stormwater systems or
watercourses from construction-related activities such as materials delivery and storage, onsite
equipment fueling and maintenance, demolition of existing buildings and disposition of
demolition materials and other waste, and concrete handling, washout and disposal. Section D.2.2
describes BMPs specific to this purpose; additionally, several of the ESC BMPs described herein
are applicable.
11. Protect Existing and Proposed Flow Control BMPs: Sedimentation and soil compaction reduce
the infiltration capacity of native and engineered soils. Protection measures shall be
applied/installed and maintained so as to prevent adverse impacts to existing flow control BMPs
and areas of proposed flow control BMPs for the project. Adverse impacts can prompt the
requirement to restore or replace affected BMPs.
12. Maintain BMPs: Protection measures shall be maintained to assure continued performance of their
intended function, to prevent adverse impacts to existing flow control BMPs and areas of proposed
flow control BMPs, and protect other disturbed areas of the project.
13. Manage the Project: Coordination and timing of site development activities relative to ESC
concerns, and timely inspection, maintenance and update of protective measures are necessary to
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-46 June 2022
effectively manage the project and assure the success of protective ESC and SWPPS design and
implementation.
SWPPS MEASURES
Each of the following categories of SWPPS measures must be considered for application to the project
site as detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Control (SWPPS) Standards. The
SWPPS standards are located in the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Standards adopted as
Appendix D of this manual:
• Follow effective pollutant handling and disposal procedures.
• Provide cover and containment for materials, fuel and other pollutants.
• Manage the project site to maximize pollutant control and minimize pollutant sources.
• Protect from spills and drips of petroleum products and other pollutants.
• Avoid over application or untimely application of chemicals and fertilizers.
• Prevent or treat contamination of stormwater runoff by pH modifying sources.
CSWPP PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS
The changing conditions typical of construction sites call for frequent field adjustments of existing ESC
and SWPPS measures or additional ESC and SWPPS measures in order to meet required performance.
In some cases, strict adherence to specified measures may not be necessary or practicable based on site
conditions or project type. In other cases, immediate action may be needed to avoid severe impacts.
Therefore, careful attention must be paid to ESC and SWPPS performance and compliance in
accordance with the following provisions:
A. CSWPP Supervisor
For projects in Targeted or Full Project Drainage Review, or projects in Directed Drainage Review
as determined by city review staff, the applicant must designate a CSWPP supervisor who shall
be responsible for the performance, maintenance, and review of ESC and SWPPS measures and for
compliance with all permit conditions relating to CSWPP as described in the CSWPP Standards.
For projects that disturb one acre or more of land, the CSWPP supervisor must be a Certified
Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (see www.cpesc.net for more information) or a
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead whose certification is recognized by the City. The
City may also require a certified ESC professional for sites smaller than one acre of disturbance if
the City determines that onsite ESC measures are inadequately installed, located, or maintained.
For larger, more sensitive sites, the City may require a certified ESC professional with several
years of experience in construction supervision/inspection and a background in geology, soil
science, or agronomy (See Appendix D, Section D.2.3.1 for more information).
B. Monitoring Performance
The CSWPP supervisor shall have a turbidity meter onsite and shall use it to monitor surface and
storm water discharges from the project site and into onsite wetlands, streams, or lakes whenever
runoff occurs from onsite activities and during storm events. If the project site is subject to a
NPDES general permit for construction issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology), then the project must comply with the monitoring requirements of that permit.
The CSWPP supervisor shall also use the specific SWPPS control BMP procedures for monitoring
surface and stormwater discharge for pollutants and acceptable discharge levels. The CSWPP
supervisor shall keep logs as required by the procedures of all measurements taken onsite and make
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-47 June 2022
them available to the City on request.
C. ESC Performance
The above ESC measures shall be applied/installed and maintained so as to prevent, to the maximum
extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage systems or
surface waters or into onsite wetlands, streams, or lakes. This performance is intended to be achieved
through proper selection, installation, and operation of the above ESC measures as detailed in the
CSWPP Standards (detached Appendix D) and approved by the City. However, the City may
determine at any time during construction that such approved measures are not sufficient and
additional action is required based on one of the following criteria:
1. IF a turbidity test of surface and storm water discharges leaving the project site is greater than the
benchmark value of 25 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) set by the Washington State
Department of Ecology, but less than 250 NTU, the CSWPP Supervisor shall do all of the
following:
a) Review the ESC plan for compliance and make appropriate revisions within 7 days
of the discharge that exceeded the benchmark of 25 NTU, AND
b) Fully implement and maintain appropriate ESC measures as soon as possible, AND
c) Document ESC implementation and maintenance in the site log book.
2. IF a turbidity test of surface or storm water discharging to wetlands, streams, or lakes
indicates a turbidity level greater than 5 NTU above background when the background
turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or 10% above background when the background turbidity is
greater than 50 NTU, then corrective actions and/or additional measures beyond those
specified in Section 1.2.5.1 shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the City inspector
or onsite CSWPP supervisor.
3. IF discharge turbidity is 250 NTU or greater, the CSWPP Supervisor shall do all of the following:
a) Notify the City by telephone, AND
Notify the WA State Department of Ecology as required by NPDES Construction Stormwater
General Permit, as applicable, AND
b) Review the ESC plan for compliance and make appropriate revisions within 7 days
of the discharge that exceeded the benchmark of 25 NTU, AND
c) Fully implement and maintain appropriate ESC measures as soon as possible but no later
than 10 days after the discharge that exceeded the benchmark, AND
d) Document ESC implementation and maintenance in the site log book. AND
e) Continue to sample discharges until turbidity is 25 NTU or lower, or the turbidity is no more
than
10% over background turbidity.
4. IF the City determines that the condition of the construction site poses a hazard to
adjacent property or may adversely impact drainage facilities or water resources,
THEN additional measures beyond those specified in Section 1.2.5.1 may be required by
the City.
D. SWPPS Performance
SWPPS measures shall be applied/installed and maintained so as to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants to onsite or adjacent stormwater systems or watercourses or onto adjacent
properties. This performance is intended to be achieved through proper selection, installation, and
operation of the above SWPPS measures as detailed in the CSWPP Standards (detached Appendix
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-48 June 2022
D) and approved by the City. However, the CSWPP supervisor designated per Section 1.2.5.2.A or
the City may determine at any time during construction that such approved measures are not
sufficient and additional action is required based on the criteria described in the specific SWPPS
BMP standard and/or conditions of an approved adjustment:
E. Flexible Compliance
Some projects may meet the intent of Core Requirement #5 while varying from specific CSWPP
requirements contained here and in the CSWPP Standards. If a project is designed and constructed
such that it meets the intent of this core requirement, the City may determine that strict adherence to a
specific ESC requirement is unnecessary; an approved adjustment (see Section 1.4) is not required in
these circumstances. Certain types of projects are particularly suited to warrant this greater level of
flexibility; for instance, projects on relatively flat, well drained soils, projects that are constructed in
closed depressions, or projects that only disturb a small percentage of a forested site may meet the
intent of this requirement with very few ESC measures. However, SWPPS requirements may actually
be emphasized on well-drained soils, particularly in groundwater or well-protection protection areas,
or in close proximity to water bodies. More information on intent and general ESC principles is
contained in the ESC Standards.
F. Roads and Utilities
Road and utility projects often pose difficult erosion control challenges because they frequently cross
surface waters and are long and narrow with limited area available to treat and store sediment-laden
water. Because of these factors, road and utility projects are allowed greater flexibility in meeting the
intent of Core Requirement #5 as described in the CSWPP Standards. Projects that pose a very low
risk of erosion or sediment transport due to site conditions or project scope may also warrant greater
flexibility.
G. Alternative and Experimental Measures
All measures proposed for erosion and sediment control shall conform to the details and
specifications in the CSWPP Standards unless an alternative is approved by the City, and if the
alternative is a new technology, it must also be approved through Ecology's CTAPE program (see
"Alternative and Experimental Measures" in the CSWPP Standards, detached Appendix D).
CSWPP IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Proposed projects must identify, install, and maintain required erosion and sediment control and
stormwater pollution prevention and spill control measures consistent with the following
requirements:
A. CSWPP Plan
As specified in Chapter 2, all proposed projects must submit a CSWPP plan for implementing
CSWPP measures. The CSWPP plan is comprised of the ESC plan and the SWPPS plan. The
ESC plan must show the location and details of all ESC measures as specified in Chapter 2 and the
CSWPP Standards and shall include a CSWPP report, which contains additional directions and
supporting information like a detailed construction sequence as proposed by the design engineer and
any calculations or information necessary to size ESC measures and demonstrate compliance with
Core Requirement #5. The CSWPP plan shall also contain plan notes that outline specific permit
conditions as outlined in Appendix D Section D.4.2 Standard ESC and SWPPS Plan Notes. The City
may require large, complex projects to phase construction and to submit multiple ESC plans for the
different stages of construction. New CSWPP plans are not required for changes that are necessary
during construction, unless required by the City inspector.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-49 June 2022
B. Wet Season Construction
During the wet season (October 1 to April 30), any site with exposed soils shall be subject to the
“Wet Season Requirements” contained in the ESC Standards. In addition to the ESC cover
measures; these provisions include covering any newly seeded areas with mulch and seeding as
much disturbed area as possible during the first week of October to provide grass cover for the wet
season. Other ESC measures such as portable detention tanks and portable sand filters may be
required for use during the wet season.
C. Construction within Streams, Lakes, or Wetlands and Buffers
Any construction that will result in disturbed areas on or within a stream or associated buffer, within a
wetland or associated buffer, or within 50 feet of a lake shall be subject to the Kent city code section
11.06 “Critical Areas” as well as the “Critical Area Restrictions” contained in the CSWPP Standards.
These provisions include phasing the project whenever possible so that construction in these areas is
limited to the dry season.
D. Maintenance
All ESC and SWPPS measures shall be maintained and reviewed on a regular basis as prescribed in
the CSWPP Standards.
E. Final Stabilization
Prior to obtaining final construction approval, the site shall be stabilized, structural ESC and
SWPPS measures (such as silt fences, sediment traps, and concrete waste collection pits) shall be
removed, and drainage facilities shall be cleaned as specified in the CSWPP Standards. A separate
ESC plan describing final stabilization may be required by the City prior to implementation.
F. Consideration of Other Required Permits
Consideration should be given to the requirements and conditions that may be applied by other
agencies as part of other permits required for land-disturbing activities. In particular, the following
permits may be required and should be considered when implementing CSWPP measures:
• A NPDES General Permit for Construction (pursuant to the Washington State Department of
Ecology's Construction General Permit for Stormwater) is required for projects that will disturb
one or more acres for purposes of constructing or allowing for construction of a development, or
projects disturbing less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of sale21 that will
ultimately disturb one or more acres.
21 Common plan of development or sale means a site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may take place at
different times or on different schedules, but still under a single plan. Examples include: 1) phased projects and projects with multiple
filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g. a
development where lots are sold to separate builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under
a consistent plan for long-term development; and 3) projects in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still under the same
contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-50 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #6: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the applicant or property
owner, except those facilities for which Kent is granted an easement, tract, or right-of-way and officially
assumes maintenance and operation as described below.
Intent: To ensure that the maintenance responsibility for drainage facilities is clearly assigned and that
these facilities will be properly maintained and operated in perpetuity.
Drainage Facilities to be Maintained by the City of Kent
Kent will assume maintenance and operation22 of conveyance systems within improved public road rights-
of-way and flow control and water quality facilities if these systems/facilities are associated with a
residential subdivision with ten or more lots served by a public street, or a non-residential short plat or
long plat subdivision (i.e., commercial, industrial, etc.). Kent will not assume maintenance and operation
of stormwater facilities associated with residential subdivisions with 9 or less lots served by a private
street or stormwater facilities associated with commercial or industrial developments located on single
parcels.
Kent will not assume maintenance responsibility for underground detention vaults except as described in
section 1.2.3, Core Requirement #3.
Kent will assume maintenance and operation of these facilities two years after final construction
approval by the Public Works and Economic and Community Development departments and an
inspection by the City to ensure the facilities have been properly maintained and are operating as designed.
Flow control and water quality facilities and flow control BMP devices to be maintained and operated by
Kent must be located in a tract or right-of-way dedicated to Kent. Required vegetated flow paths for full
dispersion and basic dispersion BMPs require a recorded declaration of covenant that stipulates
restrictions on use AND shall be located in an easement that includes provisions for access and
maintenance. City of Kent maintenance of these vegetated flow paths will be limited to their FCBMP
functionality. All other maintenance shall remain the responsibility of the owner(s). Access roads
serving these facilities must also be located in the tract or right-of-way and must be connected to an improved
public road right-of-way.
Conveyance systems to be maintained and operated by Kent must be located in a drainage easement,
tract, or right-of-way granted to Kent. Note: Kent does not normally assume maintenance responsibility
for conveyance systems which are outside of improved public road right-of-way.
Exceptions to the above will be made on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Director.
Drainage Facilities to be Maintained by Private Parties
All privately maintained drainage facilities must be maintained as specified in Appendix A, “Maintenance
Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities,” and as further prescribed in Chapter 6
for water quality facilities unless otherwise approved by city review staff. A copy of the Operation and
Maintenance Manual submitted as part of the permit application (see Section 2.3.1) shall be retained on
site and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. A log of maintenance activity indicating
when cleaning occurred and where waste was disposed of shall also be kept by the owner and be available
for inspection by the City.
22 Kent does not assume maintenance of lot drainage systems or drainage stub-outs serving single-family residential lot downspout, footing,
or yard drains, nor does Kent assume maintenance of those water quality facilities installed and integrated into site landscaping.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-51 June 2022
All privately maintained flow control BMPs must be maintained as specified in the site/lot's
declaration of covenant and grant of easement per Section 1.2.9.
A “Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant” must be completed for all private
developments. Stormwater covenant to be obtained on COK website or from plan review staff.. The
timing of completion of this agreement varies depending on the type of development. For stormwater
facilities serving more than one single family residential unit in a short plat serving less than four lots, the
agreement shall be completed prior to plat recording. For all other developments or redevelopments
(including commercial, industrial, multifamily development or redevelopment or single family residential
building), the agreement shall be completed prior to engineering plan approval. If there is a shared
drainage system involved with the development, the covenant must provide clear language on the
ownership and maintenance responsibilities of each componant of the drainage system. The
responsibilities detailed in the document may be assumed by a homeowners association or other legal
organization as approved by the City of Kent.
Whenever a flow control or water quality facility or flow control BMP is proposed to be located on a
parcel separate from the parcel or parcels containing the target surfaces mitigated by the facility or
BMP, provisions must be made to ensure that the owner or owners of the target surfaces have a
perpetual right to operate and maintain the facility. This may be done either by recording an easement
granting this right to the owner(s) of the target surfaces, or by conveying the land on which the facility
sits (or an interest therein) to the owner(s) of target surfaces.
Kent may inspect all privately maintained drainage facilities for compliance with these requirements. If
property owner(s) fail to maintain their facilities to acceptable standards, the City may issue a written
notice specifying the required remedial actions and requiring a schedule for timely completion of the
actions. If these actions are not performed in a timely manner, the City may enter the property to perform
the actions needed and bill the property owner(s) for the cost of the actions. In the event a hazard to public
safety exists, the City may perform remedial actions without written notice.
If the proposed project is a residential subdivision development, all privately maintained conveyance
systems or other drainage facilities, which convey flows through private property, must be located in a
drainage easement dedicated to convey surface and stormwater. Individual owners of the properties
containing such easements must maintain the drainage facilities through their property. The legal instrument
creating drainage easements on private property must contain language that requires a private property
owner to obtain written approval from Kent prior to removing vegetation (except by routine mowing) from
any drainage easement containing open, vegetated drainage facilities (such as swales, channels, ditches,
ponds, etc.). A sample copy of the City of Kent’s Drainage Easement is included with the Manual as
Reference 8-G.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-52 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #7: FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AND
LIABILITY
All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects (except downspout infiltration and dispersion
systems), and any work performed in the right-of-way, must comply with City of Kent’s financial
guarantee requirements.
Intent: To ensure financial guarantees are posted to sufficiently cover the cost of correcting, if necessary,
incomplete or substandard drainage facility construction work, and to warrant for one year the satisfactory
performance and maintenance of those newly-constructed drainage facilities to be assumed by Kent for
maintenance and operation. Core Requirement #7 is also intended to ensure that a liability policy is
provided that protects the proponent and the City from any damages relating to the construction or
maintenance of required drainage facilities by private parties.
Surface Water and Drainage Facilities Construction Bond
Prior to commencing construction, applicants that are required to construct drainage facilities pursuant to
this manual and/or any other requirements of the Kent City Code must post a Surface Water and Drainage
Facilities Construction Bond (see Reference 8-E). This guarantee must be an amount sufficient to cover
the cost of project-related work performed on- or off-site. The exact amount of the bond shall be
documented in the approved engineers estimate. Note: City review staff may waive the requirement of this
guarantee on projects proposing only minor modifications or improvements to the drainage system (e.g.,
catch basin inserts, spill control devices, pipe replacements, etc.). In addition, this guarantee may be
combined with other required guarantees.
The bond shall be released in two stages as follows. Generally, 80% of the bond is released upon
completion of the following:
1. Payment of all required fees.
2. Construction of the drainage facilities.
3. Receipt of final construction approval from city review staff.
4. Provide the City with As-builts meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards
(including this manual).
The drainage facilities shall be maintained during a period of two years according to the City of Kent’s
“Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities.” At the end of the year, the
remaining 10% of the bond is released subject to the following requirements:
1. For plats, record the final plat.
2. For tracts containing drainage facilities to be maintained by Kent and not located within the final plat,
deed the tract to Kent and set property corners in conformance with state surveying standards.
3. For easements containing drainage facilities to be maintained by Kent and not located within the final
plat, provide easement documents and set temporary survey markers to delineate the easement
location.
4. Receive a final City inspection to ensure the drainage facilities have been properly maintained and are
operating as designed.
5. Correct any defects noted in the final inspection.
6. Submit a letter to the City formally requesting a release of the bond.
Following completion of these steps, the City will assume maintenance and operation of the drainage
facilities.
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-53 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY
All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to
treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surfaces and new
pollution-generating pervious surfaces targeted for treatment as specified in the following sections.
These facilities shall be selected from one of the area-specific WQ menus described in Section 1.2.8.1 and
implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2.
Intent: To require an efficient, cost-effective level of water quality treatment tailored to the sensitivities
and resource protection needs of the downstream receiving water to which the project site drains, or, in the
case of infiltration, protection of the receiving groundwater system.
Guide to Applying Core Requirement #8
Core Requirement #8 requires that WQ treatment facilities be provided to remove pollutants from runoff
discharging from the project site in accordance with water quality facility requirements menu found in
Section 1.2.8.1.
The WQ menus are a group of facility options designed to provide levels of treatment targeted to
resource protection needs.
WQ implementation requirements are the minimum requirements for analyzing and designing WQ
facilities to achieve intended performance and other protection goals.
Other Important Information about Core Requirement #8
Core Requirement #8 is the primary component of an overall water quality protection strategy required by
this manual. Other requirements include the following:
• Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Spill Control Provisions, Section 1.2.4—This provision
generally applies whenever a project constructs or replaces onsite conveyance system elements that
receive runoff from pollution-generating impervious surfaces. The provision requires that runoff
from such impervious surfaces be routed through a spill control device prior to discharge from the
project site or into a natural onsite drainage feature.
• Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Groundwater Protection, Section 1.2.4 — This
provision requires that ditches/channels be lined as needed to reduce the risk of groundwater
contamination when they convey runoff from pollution-generating impervious surfaces that comes
into direct contact with an outwash soil.
• Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4—This requirement applies water quality
source controls from the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual to those projects
proposing to commercial, industrial, and multifamily projects.
• Special Requirement #5: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5—This requirement applies special oil controls to
those projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-use site.
❑ EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #8
There are four possible exemptions from the requirement to provide a formal water quality facility per
Core Requirement #8:
1. Surface Area Exemption
A proposed non-redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such
a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) Less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS will be created, AND
R
E
Q
M
T
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-54 June 2022
b) Less than ¾ acre of new PGPS will be added.
2. Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects
A proposed transportation redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site
of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) The total new impervious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the
existing impervious surface, AND
b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS will be added, AND
c) Less than ¾ acre of new PGPS will be added.
3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects
A proposed redevelopment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area
within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) The total valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements
and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of (a)
the existing project site improvements on commercial or industrial projects, or (b) the existing
site improvements on other projects, AND
b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS will be added, AND
c) Less than ¾ acre of new PGPS will be added.
4. Soil Treatment Exemption
A proposed project or any drainage area within a project is exempt:
• If the runoff from pollution-generating impervious and pollution-generating pervious
surfaces is infiltrated in a facility per Section 5.2.1 in soils that meet the groundwater
protection soil quality, depth, and infiltration rate criteria given in Section 5.2.1. This
exemption is not allowed for areas that are infiltrated (1) within one quarter mile of a sensitive
lake23, or (2) within one quarter mile of fresh water with existing or designated aquatic life use
whose land use would otherwise trigger application of a facility from enhanced basic treatment
menu, or (3) within one quarter mile of a phosphorus or metals problem as described in section
1.2.2.1.2.
23 Sensitive Lake is a designation applied by the City to lakes that are particularly prone to eutrophication from development -
induced increases in phosphorus loading. Such lakes are identified on the Water Quality Applications Map adopted with this
manual.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-55 June 2022
AREA-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT
Projects subject to Core Requirement #8 must provide a water quality facility selected from a menu of
water quality facility options identified in the area-specific facility requirements and exceptions for the WQ
treatment area in which the proposed project or threshold discharge area of the proposed project is
located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below, and their requirements and exceptions are detailed in
the following subsections:
A. Basic WQ Treatment Areas
B. Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment Areas
C. Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas
Intent: The City of Kent contains numerous sensitive and significant water resources. The City has
determined that the minimum level of treatment adequate to prevent further degradation of water quality,
and to maintain the aquatic health of current fisheries, is that provided by the Enhanced Basic Water
Quality Treatment Areas Menu. The Director has the option to require additional treatment, or treatment of
existing impervious areas, when necessary to meet water quality standards and goals (see Reference 8-H).
❑ BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS
The Basic WQ Treatment Areas menu is applied where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is
adequate and where more intensive, targeted pollutant removal is not needed to protect receiving bodies.
In the City of Kent, the only acceptable use of the Basic WQ Treatment Areas menu is for redevelopment
projects that are subject to Core Requirement #8 and where approved on a project-specific basis by the
Director. Under no circumstances shall a level of treatment less than what currently exists on a
redevelopment site be permitted. For example, if a site already has an enhanced-basic WQ facility, it
cannot be replaced by a basic WQ facility.
Treatment Goals and Options
The treatment goal for facility options in the Basic WQ Treatment Areas menu is 80% removal of total
suspended solids (TSS) for flows or volumes up to and including the WQ design flow or volume for a
typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff24. TSS is the general
performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of
concern. TSS is not a single pollutant -- it is a general term for a highly variable mixture of solid pollutants
with variable particle size and particle density distributions, and to one degree or another containing a
variety of sorbed dissolvable pollutants. The basic WQ Treatment Areas menu includes facilities such as
wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, vegetated filter strips and sand filters. See
Chapter 6 for specific facility options and designs.
Intent
The Basic WQ menu is intended to be applied to both stormwater discharges that drain to surface waters
and those that infiltrate into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection (see Exemptions 3
and 4 from Core Requirement #8).
24 The influent concentration range for demonstrated pollutant removal is 100 to 200 mg/L. For influent concentrations lower than 100mg/l
the effluent goal is equal to or less than 20 mg/l. For influent concentrations greater than 200 mg/l, the goal is greater than 80% TSS
removal.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-56 June 2022
❑ ENHANCED BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS
The treatment goal for facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is to accomplish better
removal of heavy metals and potentially other toxic materials than can be achieved by basic treatment,
while still meeting the basic treatment goal of 80% TSS removal. The specific target performance is >
30% reduction of dissolved copper and > 60% removal of dissolved zinc. Dissolved copper and zinc are
indicators of a wider range of metals typically found in urban runoff that are potentially toxic to fish and
other aquatic life. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic-sized stormwater
wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series. See Chapter 6 for specific facility
options and designs. Additional facility designs may appear in Reference 14 in the future.
Intent
Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended to remove more metals than expected from
those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce the risk to fish from exposure to both
chronic and acute toxic concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc, and very low concentration
copper deleterious olfactory effects. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard
is most effective for project sites with a larger proportion of pollution-generating impervious surface like
roadways and medium to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply to
all such areas in Kent unless otherwise denoted on the Water Quality Applications Map.
Target Surfaces
Facilities in Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment Areas must treat (either directly or in effect) the
runoff from the following target surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the
facility is required:
1. New PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the Criteria for Fully Dispersed Surfaces in Core
Requirement #3, or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C. For individual lots within
residential subdivision projects, the extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected
driveway size as approved by city review staff.
2. New PGPS that is not fully dispersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge
in a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site, or not farmland dispersed as
specified in Appendix C. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of
new pervious surface shall be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assumed impervious
portion as specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by
covenant, tract, or easement.
3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001 that is not fully dispersed, or not
farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C, and not yet mitigated with a City-approved water
quality facility or flow control BMP. Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d)
Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
4. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C on
a non-redevelopment project.
5. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevelopment project in which
new impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing
impervious surface within the project limits.
6. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed, or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C,
on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is
5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior
improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value
of: (a) the existing site improvements on commercial or industrial projects or (b) the existing site
improvements on other projects, whichever applies.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-57 June 2022
Exceptions
The following exceptions apply only in Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment Areas:
1. The facility requirement in Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS
may be waived for projects where city review staff approves a landscape management plan
(LMP) that controls solids, pesticides, fertilizers, and other erodible or leachable materials leaving
the site.
LMP requirements can be found in Reference Section 4-C. LMP submittal requirements are given in
Section 2.3.1.5.
2. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any
runoff that is infiltrated per the standards of Section 5.2. This exception is not allowed where
infiltrating into soils that do not meet the groundwater protection standards described in Section
5.2.1, if within one-quarter-mile of a fresh water designated for aquatic life use or that has an
existing aquatic life use.
❑ SENSITIVE LAKE PROTECTION MENU
Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas are designated by Kent in the watersheds of lakes that have a
combination of water quality characteristics and watershed development potential that makes them
particularly prone to eutrophication induced by development. Such areas are delineated on the WQ
Applications Map adopted with this manual.
The usage of cartridge filter facilities shall be restricted to sites where the water quality facility will be
maintained by the private property owner; cartridge filters will not be allowed on sites where the City will
be maintaining the water quality facility.
Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Area,
site-specific topography or drainage information may be needed to verify that the project or any threshold
discharge area of the project is within the WQ treatment area. Any threshold discharge area is
considered to be within the Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Area if the threshold discharge area drains to
the sensitive lake itself or to any waterbody or drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Sensitive
Lake WQ Treatment Area.
Required Treatment Menu
Within Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas, a water quality facility option from the Sensitive Lake
Protection menu shall be used to treat runoff from the surfaces listed under "Target Surfaces" below,
except where such treatment is waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this
subsection and except where the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If 50% or more of the
runoff that drains to any proposed water quality facility is from one or more of the following land uses,
then a water quality facility option common to both the Sensitive Lake Protection menu and Enhanced
Basic WQ menu shall be used for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is waived or reduced
by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection:
1. Residential subdivision development in which the actual density of single family units is equal to or
greater than 8 units per acre of developed area.
2. Commercial, industrial, or multifamily land use.
3. A road with an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 2,000 or more vehicles or expected to
serve 200 or more homes.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-58 June 2022
Treatment Goal and Options
The treatment goal for facility options in the Sensitive Lake Protection menu is 50% annual average total
phosphorus (TP) removal assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff.25 This goal was
chosen as a realistic and cost-effective level of phosphorus removal. The Sensitive Lake Protection menu
includes options for using either Basic WQ facilities of larger size, combinations of two facilities in
series,26 or a single facility in combination with land use planning elements that reduce phosphorus. See
Chapter 6 for specific facility options and design details.
On some developments or portions thereof that have surface uses that generate the highest concentrations
of metals in stormwater runoff, the treatment goal is expanded to include > 30% reduction of dissolved
copper and > 60% removal of dissolved zinc. This expanded goal requires use of a water quality facility
option that is common to both the Sensitive Lake Protection menu and the Enhanced Basic menu.
Intent
A project discharging runoff via surface flow contributes phosphorus loading to a sensitive lake regardless
of distance from the lake. If discharge is via infiltration through coarse soils, it is also possible that
phosphorus would be transported through the ground for some distance without attenuation. This
groundwater transport distance is considered to be typically no more than one-quarter mile. Therefore,
onsite treatment using the Sensitive Lake Protection menu is required prior to infiltration within one-
quarter mile of a sensitive lake. Infiltration through finer soils is expected to provide significant
attenuation of TP, so the general groundwater protection criteria specified in Section 5.2.1 are considered
sufficient to reduce the facility requirement from the Sensitive Lake Protection menu to the Basic WQ
menu for infiltration through qualifying soils.
Where the treatment goal is expanded to include > 30% reduction of dissolved copper and > 60% removal
of dissolved zinc, the facility options common to both the Sensitive Lake Protection menu and the
Enhanced Basic WQ menu should meet this goal as well as the lake protection goal of 50% removal of
annual average total phosphorous.
Target Surfaces
Facilities in Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas must mitigate (either directly or in effect) the runoff
from the following target surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is required:
1. New PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the Criteria for Fully Dispersed Surfaces in Core
Requirement #3, or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C. For individual lots within
residential subdivision projects, the extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected driveway
size as approved by ECD.
2. New PGPS that is not fully dispersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge in
a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site, or not farmland dispersed as
specified in Appendix C. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new
pervious surface shall be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assumed impervious portion as
specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract, or
easement. Note: where the runoff from target PGPS is separated from the runoff from target PGIS, the
Basic WQ menu may be used in place of the Sensitive Lake Protection menu for treatment of runoff
from the target PGPS (see the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection).
25 Phosphorus concentrations of between 0.10 and 0.50 mg/L are considered typical of Seattle area runoff (Table 1, "Water Quality
Thresholds Decision paper," King County Surface Water Management Division, April 1994).
26 In series means that the entire treatment water volume flows from one facility to the other in turn.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-59 June 2022
3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001 that is not fully dispersed, or not farmland
dispersed as specified in Appendix C, and not yet mitigated with a City-approved water quality
facility or flow control BMP. Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for
Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
4. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed, or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C, on
a non-redevelopment project.
5. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevelopment project in which new
impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing impervious
surface within the project limits.
6. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed, or not farmland dispersed as specified in Appendix C,
on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is
5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior
improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value
of: (a) the existing site improvements on commercial or industrial projects or (b) the existing site
improvements on other projects, whichever applies.
Exceptions
The following exceptions apply only in Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas:
1. The Basic WQ menu may be used in place of the Sensitive Lake Protection menu for treatment of
runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.2. This exception is not allowed
where infiltrating into soils that do not meet the groundwater protection standards described in Section
5.2.1, if within one-quarter-mile of a phosphorous sensitive receiving water or a tributary to that
receiving water.
2. Application of the Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be
waived for treatment of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.2 (A
facility from the Sensitive Lake Protection menu is still required unless that requirement has been
reduced to the Basic WQ menu by another exception). This exception is not allowed where infiltrating
into soils that do not meet the groundwater protection standards described in Section 5.2.1, if within
one-quarter-mile of a fresh water designated for aquatic life use or that has an existing aquatic life use.
3. Application of the Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be
waived for treatment of any runoff that is discharged, via a non-fish-bearing conveyance system, all
the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at
the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger (A facility from the
Sensitive Lake Protection menu is still required unless that requirement has been reduced to the Basic
WQ menu by another exception). This exception is not applicable where the receiving water is
impaired for metals per Section 1.2.2.1: Downstream Analysis, and 1.2.2.1.2: Downstream Water
Quality Problems Requiring Special Attention, Metals Problem (Type 4).
4. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use
may be waived (A facility from the Sensitive Lake Protection menu is still required unless that
requirement has been reduced to the Basic WQ menu by another exception) if all of the following
criteria are met:
a) No leachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used or proposed to be used in areas of
the site exposed to the weather, AND
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-60 June 2022
b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such use of leachable metals on the site exposed to
the weather (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND
c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed water quality facility is from any area of the
site comprised of one or both of the following land uses:
• Commercial land use with an expected ADT of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of
gross building area.
• Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales.
5. The Basic WQ menu may be used for treatment of any runoff from target PGPS that is treated
separately from the runoff from target PGIS.
6. The facility requirement as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether for an agricultural
project if there is a farm management plan for agricultural uses per KCC 21A.24 and KCC 16.82, or
for other land uses if city review staff approves a landscape management plan (LMP) that controls
solids, pesticides, fertilizers, and other erodible or leachable materials leaving the site.
7. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS may be waived if the City has adopted a plan
and implementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities.
Note: If a lake management plan has been prepared and adopted by Kent, additional treatment and/or
other water quality measures may be required as specified in the plan and pursuant to Special
Requirement #1, Section 1.3.1.
WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Water quality facilities shall be designed and implemented in accordance with the following requirements,
allowances, and flexible compliance provisions:
A. Methods of Analysis and Design
Water quality treatment facilities shall be analyzed and designed as detailed in Chapter 6.
B. Siting of Treatment Facilities
Required water quality facilities shall be located so as to treat the runoff from all target surfaces, except
as allowed below under "Treatment Trades" and "Untreated Discharges."
Any other onsite or offsite runoff draining to a proposed treatment water quality facility must be
treated whether it is from a target pollution-generating surface or not and regardless of whether
the runoff has already been treated by another facility. The facility must be sized for all
flows/volumes entering the facility. This is because treatment effectiveness is determined in part by
the total volume of runoff entering the facility.
C. Treatment of Pervious Surfaces
Pollution-generating pervious surfaces subject to Core Requirement #8 need only be treated using the
Basic WQ menu. It is also possible for the facility requirement to be waived if there is a good faith
agreement with city review staff to approve a landscape management plan that controls solids,
pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site.
D. Treatment Trades
The runoff from target pollution-generating surfaces may be released untreated if an existing non-
targeted pollution-generating surface of equivalent size and pollutant characteristics lying within the
same watershed or stream reach tributary area is treated on the project site. Such substitution is
subject to all of the following restrictions:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-61 June 2022
1. The existing non-targeted pollution-generating surface is not currently being treated by any phase
of the proposed project, is not subject to NPDES or other permit requirements, and is not under a
compliance order or other regulatory action,
2. 2. The existing non-targeted pollution- generating surface that is treated for purposes of the
treatment trade must be documented and tracked by city review staff. Documentation
should clarify that future redevelopment of the existing non-targeted, treated area used for
the treatment trade will incur additional water quality treatment requirements if the
redevelopment exceeds Core Requirement 8 thresholds. Any additional water quality
treatment triggered by redevelopment of the non-targeted, treated area must be achieved
by implementing an additional treatment trade.
3. The proposal is reviewed and approved by city review staff.
E. Untreated Discharges
If site topographic constraints are such that runoff from a target pollution-generating surface must
be pumped to be treated by the required water quality facility, then city review staff may allow the
area’s runoff to be released untreated, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
1. Treatment of the constrained area by filter strip, biofiltration, or a linear sand filter is not feasible,
and a treatment trade as described above is not possible.
2. The untreated target surface is less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS.
3. Any target PGPS within the area to be released untreated shall be addressed with a landscape
management plan (LMP), which must be submitted to and approved by city review staff. The
LMP applies to the entire site and all drainage area tributary to the site within one or more
contiguous parcels under the same ownership or documented legal control.
F. Use of Experimental Water Quality Facilities
Water quality facilities other than those identified in Chapter 6 are allowed on an experimental basis if
it can be demonstrated they are likely to meet the pollutant removal goal for the applicable receiving
water. Use of such facilities requires an experimental design adjustment to be approved by Kent
according to Section 1.4, “Adjustment Process.”, Experimental and proprietary BMPs may be allowed
to provide pretreatment for filter BMPs or as the second WQ facility in the Two-Facility Treatment
Train option. Applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For an experimental or
proprietary BMP to be approved, it must be approved for use through the Washington Department of
Ecology’s TAPE Program.
G. Owner Responsibility for Water Quality
Regardless of the means by which a property owner chooses to meet the water quality requirements of
this manual—whether a water quality facility, a train of facilities, a treatment trade, or an
experimental water quality facility—it is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner to ensure
that runoff from their site does not create water quality problems or degrade downstream beneficial
uses. It is also ultimately the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the discharge from
their property is not in violation of State and Federal laws.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-62 June 2022
CORE REQUIREMENT #9: FLOW CONTROL BMPS
All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control BMPs to
mitigate the impacts of storm and surface water runoff generated by new impervious surface, new pervious
surface, existing impervious surfaces, and replaced impervious surface targeted for mitigation as specified
in the following sections. Flow control BMPs must be selected and applied according to the basic
requirements, procedures, and provisions detailed in this section and the design specifications for each
BMP in Appendix C, Section C.2.
Flow control BMPs are methods and designs for dispersing, infiltrating, or otherwise reducing or
preventing development-related increases in runoff at or near the sources of those increases. Flow control
BMPs include, but are not limited to, preservation and use of native vegetated surfaces to fully disperse
runoff; use of other pervious surfaces to disperse runoff; roof downspout infiltration; permeable pavements;
bioretention; limited infiltration systems; and reduction of development footprint.
Intent: To provide mitigation of hydrologic impacts that is not possible/practical to mitigate with a flow
control facility. Such impacts include increases in runoff volumes and flashiness and decreases in
groundwater recharge. Increased runoff volume and flashiness leads to higher and more variable stream
velocities at low flows and more frequent water level fluctuations in streams and wetlands. This causes
wash-out and stranding of aquatic species, algal scour and washout of organic matter, loss of vegetation
diversity and habitat quality, and disruption of cues for spawning, egg hatching, and migration.
Decreased groundwater recharge reduces water supply for human use and summer base flows in streams,
which is critical to water temperature, salmonid use of smaller streams, and the habitat quality of
mainstream side channels and wetlands used for spawning, rearing, and flood refuge. Flow control
BMPs seek to reduce runoff volumes and flashiness and increase groundwater recharge by reducing
imperviousness and making use of the pervious portions of development sites to maximize infiltration
and retention of stormwater onsite. Thus, the goal is to apply flow control BMPs to new impervious
surfaces, new pervious surfaces, replaced impervious surfaces, and existing impervious surfaces added
since January 8, 2001 (effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon) to the
maximum extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts.
EXEMPTION FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #9
There is a single exemption from the flow control BMP provisions of Core Requirement #9:
1. Basic Exemption
A proposed project is exempt if it meets the following criteria:
a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, AND
b) Less than 7,000 square feet of land disturbing activity will occur.
FLOW CONTROL BMP REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW
Projects that are subject to Core Requirement #9 must apply flow control BMPs to either supplement the
flow mitigation provided by required flow control facilities or provide flow mitigation where flow
control facilities are not required. All such flow control BMPs are detailed in Appendix C of this
manual. Flow control BMPs must be implemented per the requirements and approach detailed in
Sections 1.2.9.2 and
1.2.9.3 below for individual lots and subdivisions or road improvement projects, respectively. As
described within Sections 1.2.9.2 and 1.2.9.3, there are two methods of satisfying the FCBMP
requirement: (1) application of BMPs to the maximum extent feasible using lists specific to the
project location , size, and impervious coverage; or (2) using a continuous runoff model to
demonstrate compliance with the Low Impact Development (LID) Performance Standard, described
below.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-63 June 2022
Target surfaces
Target surfaces for application of Core Requirement #9 (FCBMPs) include new impervious surfaces, new
pervious surfaces, replaced impervious surfaces, and any existing impervious surfaces added on or after
January 8, 2001 (the effective date of the Endangered Species Act “take prohibition” issued by the federal
government to protect Puget Sound Chinook salmon) not already mitigated with an approved FCBMP or
flow control facility.
Projects that trigger Core Requirement #9 by disturbing 7,000 square feet or more of land, but where
new plus replaced impervious is less than 2,000 square feet, may consider basic dispersion as an equal
choice for treating the target impervious surfaces alongside full infiltration, limited infiltration,
bioretention, and permeable pavement FCBMPs. These projects are not required to meet the minimum
BMP implementation requirements described in “Small Lot BMP Requirements” and “Large Lot BMP
Requirements,” (Requirement #5 on both lists), and are not required to comply with Core Requirement
#6. Any impervious surface served by an infiltration facility designed in accordance with the flow
control facility requirement (Section 1.2.3.1), the facility implementation requirements (Section
1.2.3.2), and the design criteria for infiltration facilities (Section 5.2) is exempt from the flow control
BMPs requirement.
Any impervious or pervious surface served by the farmland dispersion BMP detailed in Appendix C,
Section C.2.5, is exempt from the flow control BMPs requirement. Note that new pervious areas that are
farmland dispersed are still required to comply with KCC 16.82.100 (F) and (G) as required to protect
the soil moisture holding capacity.
Projects or threshold discharge areas of projects qualifying as exempt from the flow control facility
requirement using the Direct Discharge Exemption in accordance with Section 1.2.3.1 do not have to
achieve the Low Impact Development (LID) performance standard (described below), nor consider
bioretention, permeable pavement, and full dispersion. However, the soil moisture holding capacity of
new pervious surfaces on those projects (or portions of projects) must be protected in accordance with
Kent Grading Standards and (G). Kent City Code Chapter 15.07. Full infiltration as detailed in Appendix C,
Section C.2.2, Basic Dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.4, and perforated pipe connection as
detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.11 must be implemented for roofs, if feasible; and Basic Dispersion
per Appendix C, Section C.2.4 must be implemented for other impervious surfaces, if feasible.
A. Low Impact Development Performance Standard
The LID Performance Standard is defined as follows:
For the target surfaces subject to Core Requirement #9, Stormwater discharges shall match
developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed discharge
rates from 8% of the 2-year peak flow to 50% of the 2-year peak flow. Assume historic site
conditions as the predeveloped condition.
Projects that are either required or opt to demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance
Standard using a continuous runoff model must protect the soil moisture capacity of new
pervious in accordance with Kent Grading Standards and Kent City Code Chapter 15.07.
Projects that are required or opt to model compliance with the LID Performance Standard are still
subject to meeting applicable area specific flow control requirements as determined in Core
Requirement #3 (Section 1.2.3).
Note that when demonstrating compliance with the LID Performance Standard, flow control BMPs
are modeled explicitly, utilizing design infiltration rates as determined and selected per Section
5.2.1. However, when modeling flow control facility sizing, water quality facility sizing, and the
peak flow exceptions from the area-specific flow control facility requirement in Sections 1.2.3.1.A,
B, and C, these BMPs are not modeled explicitly, but may use modeling credits as allowed and
subject to the limitations described in Section 1.2.9.4 and Table 1.2.9.A. FCBMPs used to
demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard must meet the implementation
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-64 June 2022
requirements described in Section 1.2.9.4.
B. Implementation
Three kinds of implementation for the FCBMP requirement are described in this section as follows:
1. For non-subdivision projects making improvements on an individual site/lot,
implementation of this requirement shall be in accordance with the "Individual Lot BMP
Requirements" in Section
1.2.9.2, which specify the selection of BMPs and the extent of their application on the site/lot.
This required implementation of flow control BMPs must occur as part of the proposed project
and provisions must be made for their future maintenance as specified in Section 1.2.9.2. As
allowed in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.8, credits for the application of flow control BMPs per Table
1.2.9.A may be used to reduce the size of a required flow control facility, reduce the size of a
water quality facility, qualify for a flow control facility exception or bypass of target surfaces,
or reduce the target surfaces subject to flow control or water quality facility requirements.
2. For subdivision projects, implementation of flow control BMPs for associated plat
infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, sidewalks) shall be done per Section 1.2.9.4 and must
occur concurrently and as part of the proposed project, while BMPs associated with the
individual lot improvements may be delayed until construction on the lots. As allowed
in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.8, credits for the application of flow control BMPs per Table 1.2.9.A.
may be used to reduce the size of a required flow control facility, reduce the size of a water
quality facility, qualify for a flow control facility exception or bypass of target surfaces, or
reduce the target surfaces subject to flow control or water quality facility requirements. To use
these credits, flow control BMPs must be implemented as part of the proposed project and
provisions must be made for their future maintenance as specified in Section 1.2.9.4. For
subdivision projects proposing to take credit for future implementation of BMPs on individual
lots, provisions must be made to assure their implementation as specified in Section 1.2.9.4.
3. For road improvement projects, implementation of flow control BMPs must occur as part of
the proposed project. As allowed in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.8, credits for the application of flow
control BMPs per Table 1.2.9.A may be used to reduce the size of a required flow control
facility, reduce the size of a water quality facility, qualify for a flow control facility exception or
bypass of target surfaces, or reduce the target surfaces subject to flow control or water quality
facility requirements. To use these credits, flow control BMPs must be implemented as part of
the proposed project and provisions must be made for their future maintenance as specified in
Section 1.2.9.4.
The information presented in this section is organized as follows:
• Section 1.2.9.2, “Individual Lot BMP Requirements”
“Small Lot BMP Requirements,” Section 1.2.9.2.1
“Large Lot BMP Requirements,” Section 1.2.9.2.2
“Implementation Requirements for Individual Lot BMPs,” Section 1.2.9.2.4
• Section 1.2.9.3, "Subdivision and Road Improvement Projects BMP Requirements"
“Small Subdivision and Urban Subdivision Projects BMP Requirements,” Section
1.2.9.3.1 “Small Road Improvement and Urban Road Improvement Projects BMP
Requirements,”
Section 1.2.9.3.2
• Section 1.2.9.4, “Requirements for Use of BMP Credits”
“Use of Credits by Subdivision Projects,” Section 1.2.9.4.1
“Use of Credits by Projects within Rights-of-Way," Section 1.2.9
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-65 June 2022
INDIVIDUAL LOT BMP REQUIREMENTS
For projects on individual sites/lots, flow control BMPs must be selected and applied according to the
individual lot BMP requirements in this section. For purposes of applying flow control BMPs to
individual sites/lots, two categories of requirements have been established based on the size of site/lot
subject to improvements by the project and the extent of impervious surface coverage resulting from
the project on the site/lot. These categories of requirements are as follows:
• Small Lot BMP Requirements (for sites/lots <22,000 square feet)
• Large Lot BMP Requirements (for sites/lots ≥22,000 square feet)
Flow control BMPs must be applied in the order of preference and to the extent specified for the category
of individual lot requirements applicable to the proposed project as described in the following
subsections. Note: for lots created by a previous subdivision, some or all of these requirements may have
been addressed by flow control BMPs installed on the lots or within common areas, tracts, or road right-
of- way. In some cases, the type of BMPs required for a subdivision lot have already been established by
a recorded covenant on the lot. See Section 1.2.9.4 for more information on pre-installed or pre-
determined BMPs in subdivision.
SMALL LOT BMP REQUIREMENTS
IF the proposed project is on a site/lot smaller than 22,000 square feet, THEN flow control BMPs
must be applied as specified in the requirements below OR the project must demonstrate compliance
with the LID Performance Standard (described in Section 1.2.9.1.B, p. 1-62) using an approved
continuous runoff model. Projects on small lots are typically single family residential improvements
(e.g., homes, outbuildings, etc.) but could be a small commercial development.
1. The feasibility and applicability of full dispersion as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.1 must
be evaluated for all target impervious surfaces. If feasible and applicable, full dispersion must
be implemented as part of the proposed project. Typically, small lot full dispersion will be
applicable only in subdivisions where enough forest was preserved by tract, easement, or
covenant to meet the minimum requirements for full dispersion in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.1.
2. Where full dispersion of target impervious roof areas is not feasible or applicable, or will cause
flooding or erosion impacts, the feasibility and applicability of full infiltration as detailed in
Appendix C, Section C.2.2 must be evaluated (note, this will require a soils report for the site/lot).
If feasible and applicable, full infiltration of roof runoff must be implemented as part of the
proposed project.
3. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirements 1 and 2 above, must be mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible using one or more BMPs from the following list. Use of a given BMP
is subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C. Feasible BMPs
are required to be implemented. The BMPs listed below may be located anywhere on the site/lot
subject to the limitations and design specifications for each BMP. These BMPs must be
implemented as part of the proposed project.
• Full Infiltration per Appendix C, Section C.2.2, or per Section 5.2, whichever is applicable
• Limited Infiltration per Appendix C, Section C.2.3
• Bioretention per Appendix C, Section C.2.6, sized as follows:
o Rainfall region SeaTac 1.0 and less: In till soils, provide bioretention volume based on
0.6 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils provide bioretention volume
based on 0.1 inches of equivalent storage depth,
o Rainfall regions greater than SeaTac 1.0: In till soils, provide bioretention volume
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-66 June 2022
based on 0.8 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils, provide
bioretention volume based on 0.4 inches of equivalent storage depth,
• Permeable Pavement per Appendix C, Section C.2.7
4. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirements 1, 2 and 3 above, must be mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible using the Basic Dispersion BMP described below. Use of Basic
Dispersion is subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C.
Feasible BMPs are required to be implemented. Basic Dispersion BMPs may be located anywhere
on the site/lot subject to the limitations and design specifications cited in Appendix C. The BMP
must be implemented as part of the proposed project.
• Basic Dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.4
5. BMPs must be implemented, at minimum, for an impervious area equal to at least 10% of the site/lot
for site/lot sizes up to 11,000 square feet and at least 20% of the site/lot for site/lot sizes between
11,000 and 22,000 square feet. OR one or more BMPs from the following list are required to be
implemented to achieve compliance. These BMPs must be implemented as part of the proposed
project.
• Reduced Impervious Surface Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.9
• Native Growth Retention Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.10
6. The soil moisture holding capacity of new pervious surfaces must be protected in accordance with
Kent Grading Standards and Kent City Code Chapter 15.07. Kent Grading Standards require that the
duff layer or native topsoil be retained to the maximum extent practicable. KCC 15.07 requires soil
amendment to mitigate for lost moisture holding capacity where compaction or removal of some or
all of the duff layer or underlying topsoil has occurred. The specifications for compost for soil
amendment can be found in Reference 11-C.
7. Any proposed connection of roof downspouts to the local drainage system must be via a
perforated pipe connection as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.11.
LARGE LOT BMP REQUIREMENTS
IF the proposed project is on a site/lot that is 22,000 square feet or larger, THEN flow control BMPs
must be applied as specified in the requirements below OR the project must demonstrate compliance
with the LID Performance Standard (described in Section 1.2.9.1.B, p. 1- 62) using an approved
continuous runoff model.
1. The feasibility and applicability of full dispersion as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.1 must be
evaluated for all target impervious surfaces. If feasible and applicable for any such surface, then
full dispersion must be applied to that surface and implemented as part of the proposed project.
Typically, full dispersion will be applicable only on the largest sites/lots where there may be enough
forest area available within a threshold discharge area to meet the 15% ratio of fully dispersed
impervious area to native vegetated surface.
2. Where full dispersion of target impervious roof areas is not feasible or applicable, or will cause
flooding or erosion impacts, the feasibility and applicability of full infiltration of roof runoff must
be evaluated in accordance with Appendix C, Section C.2.2, or Section 5.2, whichever is applicable
based on the type of project.27 If feasible and applicable, full infiltration of roof runoff must be
27 For projects subject to Simplified Drainage Review, and for any single family residential project subject to Full Drainage Review, the
design requirements and specifications in Appendix C, Section C.2.2 may be used for evaluation and design of full infiltration on
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-67 June 2022
implemented as part of the proposed project.
3. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirements 1 and 2 above, must be mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible using one or more BMPs from the following list. Use of a given BMP
is subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C. Feasible BMPs
are required to be implemented. The BMPs listed below may be located anywhere on the site/lot
subject to the limitations and design specifications for each BMP. These BMPs must be
implemented as part of the proposed project.
Full Infiltration per Section C.2.2, or per Section 5.2, whichever is applicable
Limited Infiltration per Appendix C, Section C.2.3
Bioretention per Appendix C, Section C.2.6, sized as follows:
o Rainfall region SeaTac 1.0 and less: In till soils, provide bioretention volume
based on 0.6 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils provide
bioretention volume based on 0.1 inches of equivalent storage depth
o Rainfall regions greater than SeaTac 1.0: In till soils, provide bioretention
volume based on 0.8 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils,
provide bioretention volume based on 0.4 inches of equivalent storage depth,
Permeable Pavement per Appendix C, Section C.2.7
4. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirements 1,2 and 3 above, must be mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible using the Basic Dispersion BMP described below. Use of Basic
Dispersion is subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C.
Feasible BMPs are required to be implemented. Basic Dispersion BMPs may be located anywhere
on the site/lot subject the limitations and design specifications cited in Appendix C. The BMP must
be implemented as part of the proposed project.
Basic Dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.4
5. BMPs must be implemented, at minimum, for impervious area amounts defined as follows. For
projects that will result in an impervious surface coverage on the buildable portion of the site/lot
of
less than 45%, flow control BMPs must be applied to 50% of target impervious surfaces. For
projects that will result in an impervious surface coverage 45-65% on the buildable portion of the
site/lot, flow control BMPs must be applied to 50% of target impervious surfaces reduced by 1.5%
for each 1% of impervious surface coverage above 45% (e.g. impervious coverage of 55% results in
a requirement of FCBMPs applied to 35% of target impervious surfaces). For projects that will
result in an impervious surface coverage greater than 65% on the buildable portion of the site/lot,
flow control BMPs must be applied to 20% of the target impervious surfaces or to an impervious
area equal to at least 10% of the site/lot, whichever is less. The buildable portion of the site/lot is
the total area of the site/lot minus
any critical areas and minus 200 ft. buffer areas from a steep slope hazard, landslide hazard area, or
erosion hazard area. If these minimum areas are not mitigated using feasible BMPs from
Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, one or more BMPs from the following list are required to be
implemented to achieve compliance. These BMPs must be implemented as part of the proposed
project.
individual lots. For all other projects, full infiltration must be evaluated and designed in accordance with the infiltration facility
standards in Section 5.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-68 June 2022
Reduced Impervious Surface Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.9
Native Growth Retention Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.10
6. The soil moisture holding capacity of new pervious surfaces must be protected in accordance with
Kent Grading Standards and Kent City Code Chapter 15.07. Kent Grading Standards require that the
duff layer or native topsoil be retained to the maximum extent practicable. KCC 15.07 requires soil
amendment to mitigate for lost moisture holding capacity where compaction or removal of some or
all of the duff layer or underlying topsoil has occurred. The amendment must take place between
May 1 and October 1. The specifications for compost for soil amendment can be found in Reference
11-C.
7. Any proposed connection of roof downspouts to the drainage system must be via a perforated
pipe connection as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.11.
1.2.9.2.3 IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOT BMPS
The flow control BMPs required in Sections 1.2.9.2 above must be implemented in accordance with
the following requirements:
1. Implementation Responsibility. All flow control BMPs required for the site/lot must be
implemented (installed) by the applicant as part of the proposed project unless they have
already implemented as part of a subdivision project that created the lot per Section 1.2.9.4.
2. Maintenance Responsibility. Maintenance of all required flow control BMPs is the responsibility
of the owner of the site/lot served by these BMPs. The responsibility for such maintenance must be
clearly assigned to the current and future owners of the site/lot through a “declaration of stormwater
facility maintenance covenant” as described in Requirement 3 below.
2 Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant. To ensure future maintenance of
flow control BMPs and allow for City inspection of BMPs, a declaration of stormwater facility
maintenance covenant must be recorded for each site/lot that contains flow control BMPs. A draft
of the proposed covenant must be reviewed and approved by city review staff prior to recording. All
required covenants must be recorded prior to final construction approval for the proposed project.
The stormwater facility maintenance covenant can be obtained on the COK website or from plan
review staff., and is designed to achieve the following:
a) Provide notice to future owners of the presence of flow control BMPs on the lot and the
responsibility of the owner to retain, uphold, and protect the flow control BMP devices,
features, pathways, limits, and restrictions.
b) Include as an exhibit, a recordable version28 of the following drainage plan information:
• The flow control BMP site plan showing all developed surfaces (impervious and
pervious) and the location and dimensions of flow control BMP devices, features,
flowpaths (if applicable), and limits of native growth retention areas (if applicable). This
plan(s) must be to scale and include site topography in accordance with the specifications
28 Recordable version means one that meets Kent's "Standard Formatting Requirements for Recording Documents" pursuant to RCW
36.18.010 and 65.04.045, available online at http://your.kingcounty.gov/recelec/records/docs/formatting_requirements.pdf or from the
King County Recorder's Office. These requirements include specifications for such things as page size (8-1/2" x 14" or smaller), font
size (at least 8-point), and margin width (1" on all sides of every page if there is a standard cover sheet).
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-69 June 2022
for such plans in Appendix C, Section C.4.2. Also indicate any areas where City access is
excluded (see paragraph 3.d below). Note: DPER may waive this element if, for example,
the only flow control BMP proposed is a limit on impervious surface (reduced footprint).
• The flow control BMP design and maintenance details for each flow control BMP per
Appendix C, Section C.4.3. This includes a diagram (if applicable) of each flow control
BMP device or feature and written maintenance and operation instructions and restrictions
for each device, feature, flowpath (if applicable), native growth retention area (if
applicable) and impervious surface coverage (if applicable). See Reference M for prepared
8-1/2”x11” maintenance instruction sheets.
Assure the exhibits are correctly cross-referenced in the declaration of covenant (the
site plan is typically Exhibit A and the design/maintenance details are typically Exhibit
B).
c) Require that each flow control BMP be operated and maintained at the owner's expense
in accordance with the above exhibit.
d) Grant the City of Kent or its successor the right to enter the property at reasonable times for
purposes of inspecting the flow control BMPs and to perform any corrective maintenance,
repair, restoration, or mitigation work on the flow control BMPs that has not been performed by
the property owner within a reasonable time set by the City of Kent, and to charge the property
owner for the cost of any maintenance, repair, restoration, or mitigation work performed by the
City of Kent.
The right to enter typically applies to the entire property, but occasionally exempts areas on
the property agreed upon by the City to be excluded from access. Such areas are to be shown
on the site plan described above.
e) Prohibit any modification or removal of flow control BMPs without written approval from the
City of Kent. In cases where the modification or removal is done under a City of Kent
development permit, the approval must be obtained from city review staff and a covenant must
be recorded to reflect the changes. In all other cases, the approval must be obtained from city
review staff and a covenant must be recorded to reflect the changes. Approval will be granted
only if equivalent protection in terms of hydrologic performance is provided by other means.
4. Timing of Implementation. All required flow control BMPs must be installed prior to final
inspection approval of constructed improvements. For BMPs that rely on vegetation, the
vegetation must be planted and starting to grow prior to final construction approval.
5. Acceptance standards. Flow control BMPs may be inspected during and/or following construction.
Approval of the constructed BMPs will be based on verification that the materials and placement
appear to meet the specifications and that the BMPs appear to function as designed. Onsite
observations may be used to verify that materials are as specified and material receipts checked.
Performance may be evaluated by a site visit while it is raining or by testing with a bucket of water or
garden hose to check pavement permeability or proper connection to BMP devices/features, etc.
6. Drainage concerns. If city review staff determines that there is a potential for drainage impacts to
a neighboring property, then additional measures may be required. Some flow control BMPs may
not be appropriate in certain situations, and will not be allowed by city review staff where they may
cause drainage problems.
7. Geotechnical concerns. A geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, or city review staff
contracted geologist must evaluate and approve flow control BMPs that are proposed: (A) on slopes
steeper than 15%; (B) within a setback from the top of slope equal to the total vertical height of the
slope area that is steeper than 15%; or (C) within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area, erosion
hazard area, or landslide hazard area. In addition, city review staff may require review by a
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist of any proposed BMP that infiltrates, disperses, or
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-70 June 2022
directs overflow adjacent to or towards a steep slope hazard area, erosion hazard area, or landslide
hazard area. City review staff may also require some projects to route flows down or around such
slopes using non-perforated pipes. Some flow control BMPs may not be appropriate for these
locations, and will not be allowed by city review staff where flows may cause erosion problems.
8. Sewage system concerns. If city review staff determines that there is a potential conflict between
onsite sewage systems and flow control BMPs, additional measures may be required. Some
projects may need to route flows past onsite sewage systems using non-perforated pipes. Also,
some flow control BMPs may not be appropriate for these sites, and will not be allowed where
sewage systems may be impacted.
SUBDIVISION AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BMP
REQUIREMENTS
For subdivision and road improvement projects, flow control BMPs must be selected and applied
according to the subdivision and road improvement projects BMP requirements in this section. For
purposes of applying flow control BMPs to these projects, two categories of requirements have been
established based on the size of site/lot subject to improvements and by the project. These categories
of requirements are as follows:
• Subdivision Projects BMP Requirements
• Road Improvement Projects BMP Requirements
Flow control BMPs must be applied in the order of preference and to the extent specified for the
category of requirements applicable to the proposed project as described in the following subsections.
SUBDIVISION PROJECTS BMP REQUIREMENTS
IF the proposed project is a subdivision project, THEN Flow control BMPs for plat infrastructure
improvements (e.g., road and sidewalk etc.) of these projects shall meet the requirements described in
Section 1.2.9.3.2 below for “Road Improvement Project BMP Requirements.” Implementation of flow
control BMPs required for/on the individual lots of the subdivision may be deferred until a permit is
obtained for construction on each lot and is therefore optional. However, if the applicant wishes to
implement or make provision for implementation of BMPs for the lot improvements as part of the
subdivision project for purposes of receiving BMP modeling credits, the individual lot BMP requirements
described in Section 1.2.9.2 and implementation requirements for subdivision projects described Section
1.2.9.4.1 must be met.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BMP REQUIREMENTS
IF the proposed project is a road improvement project, THEN flow control BMPs must be applied as
specified in the requirements below.
1. The feasibility and applicability of full dispersion as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.1 must
be evaluated for all target impervious surfaces. If feasible and applicable, full dispersion must be
implemented as part of the proposed project. Typically, small lot full dispersion will be
applicable only in subdivisions where enough forest was preserved by tract, easement, or
covenant to meet the minimum requirements for full dispersion in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.1.
2. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirement 1 above, must be mitigated to the
maximum extent feasible using one or more BMPs from the following list. Use of a given BMP is
subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C. Infeasible BMPs
are not required to be implemented. The BMPs listed below may be located anywhere on the
site/lot subject to the limitations and design specifications for each BMP. These BMPs must be
implemented as part of the proposed project.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-71 June 2022
• Full Infiltration per Section C.2.2, or per Section 5.2, whichever is applicable
• Limited Infiltration per Appendix C, Section C.2.3
• Bioretention per Appendix C, Section C.2.6, sized as follows:
o Rainfall region SeaTac 1.0 and less: In till soils, provide bioretention volume based on
0.6 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils provide bioretention volume
based on 0.1 inches of equivalent storage depth,
o Rainfall regions greater than SeaTac 1.0: In till soils, provide bioretention volume
based on 0.8 inches of equivalent storage depth; in outwash soils, provide bioretention
volume based on 0.4 inches of equivalent storage depth,
• Permeable Pavement per Appendix C, Section C.2.7
3. All target impervious surfaces not mitigated by Requirements 1 and 2 above, must be mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible using the Basic Dispersion BMP described below. Use of Basic
Dispersion is subject to evaluation of its feasibility and applicability as detailed in Appendix C.
Infeasible BMPs are not required to be implemented. Basic Dispersion BMPs may be located
anywhere on the site/lot subject to the limitations and design specifications cited in Appendix C.
The BMPs must be implemented as part of the proposed project.
• Basic Dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.4
4. The soil moisture holding capacity of new pervious surfaces must be protected in accordance with
Kent Grading Standards and Kent City Code Chapter 15.07. Kent Grading Standards require that
the duff layer or native topsoil be retained to the maximum extent practicable. KCC 15.07 requires
soil amendment to mitigate for lost moisture holding capacity where compaction or removal of
some or all of the duff layer or underlying topsoil has occurred. The amendment must take place
between May 1 and October 1. The specifications for compost for soil amendment can be found in
Reference 11-C.
REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF BMP CREDITS
Projects that implement flow control BMPs, whether required or optional, may use the flow control
BMP credits described in this section subject to the implementation requirements in Section 1.2.9.2.4
(for Individual Lots), Section 1.2.9.4.1 below (for Subdivision Projects), and Section 1.2.9.4.2 below
(for Right of Way Projects).
Two kinds of credits are available. First, any impervious surface served by a flow control BMP that
meets the design specifications for that BMP in Appendix C may be modeled as indicated in Table
1.2.9.A (below). Such credits may be used in the following situations:
1. To compute post-development runoff time series when sizing required flow control facilities.
2. To compute post-development 100-year peak flows when assessing any of the peak flow
exceptions from the area-specific flow control facility requirement in Sections 1.2.3.1.A, B, and C.
3. To compute post-development runoff time series when sizing required flow rate based water
quality facilities (e.g., bioswales) and to re-characterize post developed land types when sizing
volume based water quality facilities (e.g., wetponds, wetvaults).
Use of credits for water quality facility sizing as described above is limited to BMPs that are treating
flows downstream from the BMP and tributary to a required water quality facility.
Second, any impervious or non-native pervious surface that is fully dispersed per the full
dispersion criteria in Section 1.2.3.2.C is not considered a target surface of the area-specific
flow control facility requirement (Section 1.2.3.1) or the area-specific water quality facility
requirement (Section 1.2.8.1).
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-72 June 2022
TABLE 1.2.9.A FLOW CONTROL BMP FACILITY SIZING CREDITS(1)
Flow Control BMP Type Facility Sizing Credit
Full dispersion Model fully dispersed surface as forest(2)
Full infiltration(3) Subtract impervious area that is fully infiltrated
Limited infiltration Model tributary impervious surface as 90% impervious, 10% grass
Basic dispersion Model dispersed impervious surface as 90% impervious, 10% grass
Farmland dispersion Dispersed areas are considered non-targeted for flow control.
Dispersed areas on sites with farm management plans are considered non-
targeted for water quality treatment.
Bioretention Model tributary impervious surface as 90% impervious, 10% grass
Permeable pavement (unlined with no
underdrain)
Model permeable pavement area as 50% impervious, 50% grass
Grassed modular grid pavement Model modular grid pavement as all grass
Rainwater harvesting Credit only allowed via and as specified in an approved drainage adjustment that
details conditions of use.
Restricted footprint Model footprint as restricted
W heel strip driveways Model credited area as 50% impervious, 50% grass
Minimum disturbance foundation Model foundation area as 50% impervious, 50% grass
Open grid decking over pervious area Model deck area as 50% impervious, 50% grass
Native growth retention credit Model mitigated impervious area as 50% impervious, 50% grass
Perforated pipe connection None
Notes:
(1) These credits do not apply when determining eligibility for exemptions from Core Requirement #3, Core Requirement #8, or
exceptions from the flow control or water quality facility requirements unless otherwise noted in the exemption or exception.
Explicit modeling of BMP infiltration for facility sizing is not allowed. W hen applying modeling credits for flow control facility
sizing, infiltrative BMPs tributary to the facility that are included in the modeling scenario (including the permeable pavement
element with area reduced to 50% impervious area fraction, or other BMPs (e.g., bioretention, trenches, drywells) treating upstream
runoff) must have the infiltration option turned off during the flow routing analysis for facility sizing to avoid double-counting the
BMP infiltration benefit. Alternatively, the permeable pavement BMP with infiltration turned off may be represented by an
impervious area land use element of equivalent area.
(2) Surface shall be modeled using the soil type found at that location on the site.
(3) For any project subject to Simplified Drainage Review, and for any single family residential project subject to Directed, Full or Large
Project Drainage Review, the design requirements and specifications in Appendix C, Section C.2.2 may be used for design of full
infiltration on individual lots. For all other projects, including any project where full infiltration is proposed to serve more than one lot,
full infiltration must be designed in accordance with infiltration facility standards in Section 5.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-73 June 2022
USE OF CREDITS BY SUBDIVISION PROJECTS
If a proposed project is a subdivision project,29 implementation of flow control BMPs for plat
infrastructure improvements (e.g., road, sidewalk, or other non-lot improvements) is required concurrent
with the subdivision improvements. Implementation of flow control BMPs on the individual lots of the
subdivision may be deferred until a permit is obtained for construction on each lot and is therefore
optional as part of the subdivision project.
In order to receive the modeling credits (noted above) for flow control BMPs required for plat
infrastructure improvements (e.g., road, sidewalk, or other non-lot improvements), and/or for individual
lot BMPs where the applicant elects to implement or make provision for implementation of individual lot
BMPs as part of the subdivision project, the following requirements must be met depending on where the
BMPs are located on the site.
A. Subdivision Implementation of BMPs within Road Right-of-Way
These are flow control BMPs installed within public or private road right-of-way as part of the
construction of street and drainage improvements for the subdivision. To receive credit for these
BMPs, the subdivision project must meet all of the following requirements:
1. The BMPs must serve impervious surface located only within the road right-of-way.
2. The BMPs must be shown on the site improvement plans submitted with the engineering
plans for the proposed project as specified in Section 2.3.1.2.
3. If the road right-of-way will be maintained by the City of Kent, the BMPs must be approved by the
City of Kent Department of Public Works Operations through a road variance prior to engineering
plan approval.
4. If the road right-of-way will be privately maintained, provision must be made for future
maintenance of the BMPs in accordance with Core Requirement #6, Section 1.2.6. As
specified in Core Requirement #6, the City of Kent will assume maintenance of such BMPs in
certain cases.
5. If the City of Kent will be assuming maintenance of the BMPs, the BMPs must comply with the
drainage facility financial guarantee and liability requirements in Core Requirement #7,
Section 1.2.7.
B. Subdivision Implementation of BMPs within Dedicated Tracts
These are flow control BMPs installed on or associated with the features (e.g., forest) of
common area tracts dedicated by the subdivision. Such BMPs may serve future improvements
on lots, common area improvements, or road right-of-way improvements. To receive credit for
these BMPs, the subdivision project must meet all of the following requirements:
1. The BMPs must be shown on the site improvement plans submitted with the engineering
plans for the proposed project as specified in Section 2.3.1.2.
2. Provision must be made for future maintenance of the BMPs in accordance with Core
Requirement #6, Section 1.2.6. When maintenance by the City of Kent is specified by Core
Requirement #6, the City of Kent will assume maintenance of BMP devices (e.g., dispersion
trenches) that are within a tract dedicated to the City for drainage purposes. The City of Kent will
not assume maintenance of BMP devices located in common areas dedicated for purposes other
than just drainage (e.g., play areas, parks, etc.). Where the City of Kent maintenance is specified
29 For purposes of applying flow control BMPs, the term subdivision or subdivision project refers to any project that is a short plat, plat,
or binding site plan.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-74 June 2022
by Core 6, the City will assume maintenance for FCBMP vegetated flow paths that are within an
easement that allows for inspection and maintenance by the City. The City of Kent maintenance of
these vegetated flow paths will be limited to their FCBMP functionality. All other maintenance
shall remain the responsibility of the owner(s).
3. BMPs to be maintained by the City of Kent in accordance with Core Requirement #6 must
comply with the drainage facility financial guarantee and liability requirements in Core
Requirement #7, Section 1.2.7.
4. If the BMPs installed within a dedicated tract satisfy some or all of the BMP requirements
for individual lots per Section 1.2.9.2, then a note must be placed on the recorded
documents for the subdivision indicating those lots for which BMPs have been provided.
C. Subdivision Implementation of BMPs on Individual Lots
These are flow control BMPs installed on a subdivision's proposed lots as part of the subdivision
project. For example, the subdivision developer may elect to pre-install some or all of the flow
control BMPs required by the individual lot BMP requirements in Section 1.2.9.2. To receive
credits for these BMPs, the subdivision project must meet all of the following requirements:
1. The flow control BMPs must be installed and implemented in accordance with the individual lot
BMP requirements in Section 1.2.9.2. This includes recording a declaration of covenant and
grant of easement for each lot with BMPs as specified in Implementation Requirement 3 of
Section 1.2.9.2.4. If not all of the required BMPs are installed on a lot as part of the subdivision
project, language must be included in the covenant notifying the future lot owner of additional
required BMPs.
2. BMPs to be installed on individual lots as part of the subdivision project must be shown on
the site improvement plans submitted with the engineering plans for the proposed project as
specified in Section 2.3.1.2.
D. Subdivision Future Implementation of BMPs on Individual Lots
These are flow control BMPs stipulated to be installed on some or all of a subdivision's proposed
lots by a declaration of covenant recorded for each such lot. To receive credits for these BMPs, the
subdivision project must meet all of the following requirements:
1. Demonstrate through a lot-specific assessment that the flow control BMPs stipulated for each
lot are feasible and applicable according to the individual lot BMP requirements in Section
1.2.9.2 and the BMP design specifications in Appendix C. This lot-specific assessment must
be included in the TIR submitted with engineering plans for the subdivision. The assessment
shall include any soils reports, calculations, or other information necessary to select and
properly apply BMPs.
2. Record a declaration of covenant and grant of easement for each lot stipulating the type or
types of BMP being proposed for credit. This covenant must be as specified in Implementation
Requirement 3 of Section 1.2.9.2.4, except as follows:
a) The FCBMP site plan(s) may be waived depending on the BMPs proposed or may be
conceptual, showing only the information necessary to stipulate the type or types of BMP
being proposed for credit. For example, if the BMP is full dispersion, the approximate
location of future impervious surface and the limits of the "native vegetated flowpath
segment" (see Appendix C, Section C.2.1) must be shown. If the BMP is full infiltration,
the approximate location of future impervious surface, septic drain field (if applicable), and
infiltration devices must be shown. For all other BMPs, the "design and maintenance
details" (see Item b below) for each proposed BMP per Appendix C may be sufficient as
determined by city review staff.
b) The FCBMP design and maintenance details must include the dimensions of all
proposed devices, features, and flowpaths, expressed as unit amounts per square foot of
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-75 June 2022
impervious surface served or as a percentage of the lot size or impervious surface created.
c) The notice to future lot owners must indicate that they are responsible to install the flow
control BMP or BMPs stipulated for the lot prior to final inspection approval of
constructed lot improvements. Alternative BMPs that provide equivalent performance
may be proposed at the time of permit application for proposed lot improvements. In any
case, a revised covenant will need to be recorded to reflect the final approved BMPs and
site improvement plan(s).
3. If single family residential lots are being created, a note must be placed on the recorded
documents for the subdivision indicating the following:
"Single family residences and other improvements constructed on the lots created by this
subdivision must implement the flow control best management practices (BMPs) stipulated in
the drainage plan declaration of covenant and grant of easement recorded for each lot.
Compliance with this stipulation must be addressed in the small project drainage plan submitted
for drainage review when application is made for a single family residential building permit for
the lot."
4. If commercial lots are being created, a note must be placed on the recorded documents
for the subdivision indicating the following:
"Improvements constructed on the lots created by this subdivision must implement the flow
control best management practices (BMPs) stipulated in the drainage plan declaration of
covenant and grant of easement recorded for each lot. Compliance with this stipulation must be
addressed in the engineering plans submitted for drainage review when application is made for a
permit to make improvements to the lot."
5. If a binding site plan is being created, a note must be placed on the recorded documents
for the subdivision indicating the following:
"Improvements constructed on the lots created by this binding site plan must implement the flow
control best management practices (BMPs) stipulated in the drainage plan declaration of
covenant and grant of easement recorded for each lot. Compliance with this stipulation must be
addressed in the engineering plans submitted for drainage review when application is made for a
permit to make improvements to the lot."
USE OF CREDITS BY PROJECTS WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
If a proposed project is located primarily within an established public or private right-of-way,
implementation of flow control BMPs is as required per Section 1.2.9.3. To receive credit for
these BMPs, the project must meet all of the following requirements:
1. The BMPs must serve impervious surface located only within the right-of-way.
2. If the right-of-way is road right-of-way that will be maintained by the City of Kent, the BMPs
must be approved by the City of Kent Department of Public Works Operations through a road
variance prior to engineering plan approval.
3. If the right-of-way will be privately maintained, provision must be made for future maintenance of
the BMPs in accordance with Core Requirement #6, Section 1.2.6. As specified in Core
Requirement #6, the City of Kent will assume maintenance of such BMPs in certain cases.
4. If the City of Kent will be assuming maintenance of the BMPs, the BMPs must comply with the
drainage facility financial guarantee and liability requirements in Core Requirement #7, Section
1.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-76 June 2022
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
This section details the following five special drainage requirements which may apply to the proposed
project depending on its location or site-specific characteristics:
• Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements, Section 1.3.1
• Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation, Section 1.3.2
• Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities, Section 1.3.3
• Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4
• Special Requirement #5: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #1: OTHER ADOPTED
AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Other adopted area-specific regulations may be adopted and include additional requirements that have a
more direct bearing on the drainage design of a proposed project. An example is a basin plan or lake
management plan that is adopted by the City.
• Basin Plans (BPs): The City may adopt basin plans to provide for the comprehensive assessment of
resources and to accommodate growth while controlling adverse impacts to the environment. A basin
plan may recommend specific land uses, regional capital projects, and special drainage requirements
for future development within the basin area it covers.
• Master Drainage Plans (MDPs): MDPs are comprehensive drainage plans prepared for urban
planned developments (UPDs) or other large, complex projects (described in Section 1.1.2.5). Projects
covered by a MDP must meet any adopted requirements specific to that plan.
• Salmon Conservation Plans (SCPs): Salmon conservation plans are comprehensive, ecosystem
based plans intended to identify and assess the means to protect and restore salmon habitat through
mechanisms such as habitat improvements, regulations, incentives, BMPs, land acquisition, and public
education activities. These plans are developed in collaboration with other jurisdictions within a water
resource inventory area (WRIA) designated by the state under WAC 173-500-040 and spanning
several basins or subbasins.
• Flood Hazard Management Plan (FHMPs): The King County Flood Hazard Management Plan and
related updates is a regional plan prepared in accordance with RCW 86.12.200 and is a functional
element of the King County Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of reducing flood risks. It includes
(1) policies to guide floodplain land use and flood risk reduction activities; (2) geographically based
descriptions of hazards and associated strategic vision; (3) program and project recommendations,
including capital improvement projects, maintenance, relocation and elevation of homes, flood
warning improvements, and river planning activities; and (4) implementation priorities for program
and project recommendations. The FHMP is updated every 5 years.
• Lake Management Plans (LMPs): The City may adopt lake management plans to provide for
comprehensive assessment of resources and to accommodate growth while controlling adverse
impacts from nutrient loading to selected lakes. A lake management plan may recommend nutrient
control through special drainage and source control requirements for proposed projects within the area
it covers.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-77 June 2022
Threshold Requirement
IF a proposed project is in a basin plan or lake
management plan…
THEN the proposed project shall comply with
the drainage requirements of the basin plan
or management plan, respectively.
Application of this Requirement
The drainage requirements of adopted area-specific regulations such as basin plans shall be applied in
addition to the drainage requirements of this manual unless otherwise specified in the adopted regulation.
Where conflicts occur between the two, the drainage requirements of the adopted area-specific regulation
shall supersede those in this manual.
Examples of drainage requirements found in other adopted area-specific regulations include the following:
* More or less stringent flow control
* More extensive water quality controls
* Forest retention requirements
* Infiltration restrictions
* Groundwater recharge provisions
* Discharge to a constructed regional flow control or conveyance facility.
.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #2: FLOOD HAZARD AREA
DELINEATION
Flood hazard areas are composed of the 100-year floodplain, zero-rise flood fringe, zero-rise floodway,
FEMA floodway, and channel migration zones as described in KCC 21A.24. If a proposed project
contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area as determined by Economic and Community Development,
this special requirement requires the project to determine those components that are applicable and
delineate them on the project's site improvement plans and recorded maps.
Floodplains and floodways are subject to inundation during extreme events. The 100-year floodplains are
delineated to minimize flooding impacts to new development and to prevent aggravation of existing
flooding problems by new development. Regulations and restrictions concerning development within a
100-year floodplain are found in Chapter 14.09 of the Kent City Code.
The following requirements relate to mapping of the floodplain/floodway and compensatory storage
requirements.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-78 June 2022
Threshold Requirement
IF a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a
stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression, or if
other Kent regulations require study of flood
hazards . . .
THEN the 100-year floodplain boundaries (and
floodway, if available or if improvements are
proposed within the 100-year floodplain) based
on an approved flood hazard study (described
below) shall be delineated on the site
improvement plans and profiles, and on any final
subdivision maps prepared for the proposed
project.
IF a proposed project proposes to fill within a
FEMA designated floodplain that is outside of the
floodway (also known as the floodway fringe)
THEN the development must provide offsetting
storage for 100% of the pre-development
floodway fringe storage capacity that was
provided on the property that is to be filled.
Application of this Requirement
If an approved flood hazard study exists, then it may be used as the basis for delineating the floodplain and
floodway boundaries provided the study was prepared in a manner consistent with this manual and other
Kent flood hazard regulations. If an approved flood hazard study does not exist, then one shall be
prepared based on the requirements described in Section 4.4.2, “Floodplain/Floodway Analysis.”
Projects proposing to fill or alter the floodplain and/or floodway must prepare a flood hazard study that
analyzes and documents the effect of the proposed development and mitigating measures.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-79 June 2022
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #3: FLOOD PROTECTION
FACILITIES
Developing sites protected by levees, revetments, or berms requires a high level of confidence in their
structural integrity and performance. Proper analysis, design, and construction is necessary to protect
against the potentially catastrophic consequences if such facilities should fail.
Threshold Requirement
IF a proposed project either:
• contains or is adjacent to a stream that has an
existing flood protection facility (such as a
levee, revetment, or berm), OR
• proposes to construct a new or to modify an
existing flood protection facility . . .
THEN the applicant shall demonstrate
that the flood protection facility, as
determined by a licensed professional
engineer, conforms with siting,
structural stability, environmental, and
all other relevant standards cited in the
following regulations and documents:
• W ashington State Integrated
Streambank Protection Guidelines,
• Corps of Engineers Manual for
Design and Construction of Levees
(EM 1110-2-1913),
• KCC 14.09 and
• Special Requirement #1 (specifically
the King County Flood Hazard
Management Plan)
AND, flood containment levees shall
meet or exceed the professional
engineering standards summarized in
FEMA National Flood Insurance
mapping regulations (44 CFR,
subsection 65.10) or FEMA’s Analysis
and Mapping Procedures for non-
Accredited Levee Systems.
Application of this Requirement
Conformance with the requirements listed above shall be addressed in the Technical Information
Report submitted with the project's engineering plans (see Section 2.3.1.1).
Conformance also requires that certain easement requirements (outlined in Section 4.1) be met in
order to allow City access to the facility. If the proposed project contains an existing City of Kent flood
protection facility or proposes to rely on a City of Kent flood protection facility, the applicant shall
provide an easement to the City of Kent consistent with the river protection easement requirements
outlined in Section 4.1.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-80 June 2022
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #4: SOURCE CONTROLS
Water quality source controls prevent rainfall and runoff water from coming into contact with pollutants,
thereby reducing the likelihood that pollutants will enter public waterways and violate water quality
standards. King County prepared a Stormwater Pollution Control Manual for citizens, businesses, and
industries to identify and implement source controls for activities that often pollute water bodies. Kent
provides advice on source control implementation upon request. The City may, however, require
mandatory source controls at any time through formal code enforcement if complaints or studies reveal
water quality violations or problems.
Threshold Requirement
IF a proposed project is either:
• a commercial, industrial, or multifamily site
development, OR
• a redevelopment project proposing
improvements to an existing commercial,
industrial, multifamily site . . .
THEN the project must provide water quality
source controls applicable to the proposed project
in accordance with the King County Stormwater
Pollution Control Manual.
Application of this Requirement
When applicable per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, structural source control measures,
such as car wash pads or dumpster area roofing, shall be applied to the entire site containing the proposed
project, not just the project site. If the applicant is a tenant or lessee for only a portion of the site, city
review staff may limit the entire site application of structural source controls to only that portion of the site
occupied or leased by the applicant. All applicable structural source control measures, such as covering
storage piles with plastic or isolating areas where pollutants are used or stored, are to be implemented after
occupancy and need not be addressed during the plan review process. All commercial and industrial
projects (irrespective of size) undergoing drainage review are required to implement applicable source
controls.
Activities That May Result In Structural Improvements
There are a number of activities that may require structures and/or specific drainage configurations in
order to protect stormwater and maintain compliance with city code. Roof structures, wheel washes,
cement pads, shutoff valves, containment berms and indoor mop sinks are all examples of things that
need to be in place prior to commencing the activity. These may require building permits and other
approvals prior to construction.
Below are some highlighted activities and the numbered BMP activity sheets in the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Manual that provide more detail:
Commercial Composting
Structural improvements: paved composting and storage pads, leachate collection system, lined
collection ponds, wheel wash system
• A-24 Commercial Composting
Fueling of equipment and vehicles
Structural improvements: Portland cement pads, roofs, spill control devices, trench drains,
oil/water separators
• A-17 Fueling Operations
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-81 June 2022
• A-48 Older Fueling Operations
Horse stables
Structural improvements: Wash racks connected to sanitary sewer or separate infiltration area,
manure containment areas
• A- 35 Livestock
Processing and Stockpiling of sand or gravel
Structural improvements: Wheel wash system and track-out control, catch basin inserts
• A-41 Wheel Wash System
Painting, Finishing, & Coating of Vehicles & Equipment
Structural improvements: Permitted, enclosed paint booths
• A-22 Painting, Finishing, & Coating of Vehicles, Products, & Equipment
Restaurants and food trucks
Structural improvements: Indoor sinks for mat and rack washing and mop and wastewater disposal.
• A-8 Storage of Solid and Food Wastes
• A-12 Cleaning of Cooking Equipment
• A-39 Roof Vents and Fugitive Emissions
Outdoor storage of erodible materials, e.g. compost, bark, sand, etc.
Structural improvements: Wheel wash system and track-out control, berms, containment areas,
covering, catch basin inserts
• A-41 Wheel Wash and Tire Bath Track-Out Control
Outdoor storage or processing of galvanized materials
Structural improvements: Roofs or other covering, stormwater collection and treatment system
• A-21 Manufacturing and Post-Processing of Metal Products
Storage of liquid materials
Structural improvements: Secondary containment, roofed structures, spill control devices
• A-2 Storage of Liquid Materials in Stationary Tanks
• A-3 Storage of Any Liquid Materials in Portable Containers
Utility Corridor Maintenance
Structural improvements: Road stabilization
• A-45 Maintenance of Public & Private Utility Corridors & Facilities
Washing of cars, trucks and equipment (not just commercial car washes)
Structural improvements: Dedicated wash pads, sewer connection, holding tanks, catch basin inserts
• A-13 Vehicle washing
Wood Treatment & Preserving
Structural improvements: Paved, contained and covered storage and processing areas
• A-23 Wood Treatment & Preserving
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-82 June 2022
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5: OIL CONTROL
Projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-use site must provide oil controls in addition to any
other water quality controls required by this manual. Such sites typically generate high concentrations
of oil due to high traffic turnover, on-site vehicle or heavy or stationary equipment use, some business
operations, e.g., automotive recycling, or the frequent transfer of liquid petroleum or coal derivative
products..
A high-use site is any one of the following:
* A commercial or industrial site subject to an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count equal to or
greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area, OR
* A commercial or industrial site subject to petroleum storage and transfer in excess of 1,500 gallons per
year, not including routinely delivered heating oil, OR
* A commercial or industrial site subject to use, storage, or maintenance of a fleet of 25 or more diesel
vehicles that are over 10 tons gross weight (trucks, buses, trains, heavy equipment, etc.), OR
* A road intersection with a measure ADT count of 25,000 vehicles or more on the main roadway and
15,000 vehicles or more on any intersection roadway, excluding project proposing primarily
pedestrian or bicycle use improvements.
The oil control requirement for high-use sites applies to all sites that generate high concentrations of oil,
regardless of whether the project creates new impervious surface or makes site improvements to an
existing high-use site. The traffic threshold identified focuses on vehicle turnover per square foot of
building area (trip generation) rather than ADT alone. This is because oil leakage is greatest when engines
are idling or cooling. In general, all-day parking areas are not intended to be captured by these thresholds
except for diesel vehicles, which tend to leak oil more than non-diesel vehicles. The petroleum storage
and transfer stipulation is intended to address regular transfer operations such as service stations, not
occasional filling of heating oil tanks.
Threshold Requirement
IF a proposed project either:
• develops a site that will have high-use site
characteristics (defined above), OR
• is a redevelopment project proposing
$100,000 or more of improvements to an
existing high-use site.
• is a redevelopment project that results in new
plus replaced pollution generating impervious
surfaces of 5,000 square feet or more or new
pollution generating pervious surfaces of ¾
acre or more improvements to an existing
high-use site…
THEN the project must treat runoff from the
high-use portion of the site using oil control
treatment options from the High-Use menu
(described below and detailed in Chapter 6).
High-Use Menu
High-use oil control options are selected to capture and detain oil and associated pollutants. The goal of
treatment is to have no visible sheen in runoff leaving the facility, or to have less than 10 mg/L total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), depending on the facility option used. Oil control options include
facilities that are small, handle only a limited tributary area, and require frequent maintenance, as well as
facilities that treat larger areas and generally have less frequent maintenance needs. Facility choices
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-83 June 2022
include catch basin inserts, linear sand filters, and oil/water separators. See Chapter 6 for specific facility
choices and design details.
Application of this Requirement
For high-use sites located within a larger commercial center, only the impervious surface associated with
the high-use portion of the site is subject to treatment requirements. If common parking for multiple
businesses is provided, treatment shall be applied to the number of parking stalls required for the high-use
business only. However, if the treatment collection area also receives runoff from other areas, the water
quality facility must be sized to treat all water passing through it.
High-use roadway intersections shall treat the intersection itself, plus lanes where vehicles accumulate
during the signal cycle, including all lanes, from the beginning of the left-turn pocket (see Figure
1.3.5.A below). If no left-turn pocket exists, the treatable area shall begin at a distance of 75 feet from
the stop line. If runoff from the intersection drains to more than two collection areas that do not
combine within the intersection, treatment may be limited to any two of the collection areas. Oil
control facilities shall be designed for all flows tributary to the oil control facility including flow from
otherwise exempt areas that are not bypassed around the facility.
Note: For oil control facilities to be located in public road right-of-way and maintained by Kent, only
coalescing plate or baffle oil/water separators shall be used unless otherwise approved by an
adjustment. Catch basin inserts are not allowed for oil control.
Methods of Analysis
The traffic threshold for the High-Use menu shall be estimated using information from Trip Generation,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or from a traffic study prepared by a professional
engineer or transportation specialist with experience in traffic estimation.
FIGURE 1.3.5.A TREATABLE AREAS FOR HIGH-USE ROAD INTERSECTIONS
High-use
area
of
intersection
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-84 August 2022
ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
For proposed projects subject to drainage review by city review staff, this process is provided for the
occasions when a project proponent desires to vary from one of the core or special requirements, or any
other specific requirement or standard contained in this manual. Proposed adjustments should be approved
prior to final permit approval, but they may be accepted up to the time Kent approves final construction or
accepts drainage facilities for maintenance.
Types of Adjustments
To facilitate the adjustment process and timely review of adjustment proposals, the following types of
adjustments are provided:
* Standard Adjustments: These are adjustments of the standards and requirements contained in the
following chapters and sections of this manual:
* Chapter 1, "Drainage Review and Requirements"
* Chapter 2, "Drainage Plan Submittal"
* Chapter 3, "Hydrologic Analysis and Design"
* Chapter 4, "Conveyance System Analysis and Design"
* Chapter 5, "Flow Control Design"
* Chapter 6, "Water Quality Design"
* Appendix A, "Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities"
* Appendix B, "Master Drainage Plans."
* Appendix C, “Simplified Drainage Requirements” (detached)
* Appendix D, “Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Standards” (detached).
Requests for standard adjustments will be accepted only for permits pending approval or approved
permits that have not yet expired.
* Experimental Design Adjustments: This type of adjustment is used for proposing new designs or
methods that are not covered in this manual, that are not uniquely site specific, and that require
additional information to establish functional equivalence.
* Blanket Adjustments: This type of adjustment may be established by the City based on approval of
any of the above-mentioned adjustments. Blanket adjustments are usually based on previously
approved adjustments that can be applied routinely or globally to all projects where appropriate.
Blanket adjustments are also used to effect minor changes or corrections to manual design
requirements or to add new designs and methodologies to this manual. There is no application process
for establishing blanket adjustments because they are initiated solely by the City.
ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
The Economic and Community Development Department shall have full authority to approve or deny all
types of adjustments for any proposed project subject to drainage review by city review staff.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-85 August 2022
CRITERIA FOR GRANTING ADJUSTMENTS
Adjustments to the requirements in this manual may be granted provided that granting the adjustment will
achieve the following:
1. Produce a compensating or comparable result that is in the public interest, AND
2. Meet the objectives of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability
based on sound engineering judgment.
Granting any adjustment that would be in conflict with the requirements of any other Kent department will
require review and concurrence with that department.
Criteria Exception
If it can be demonstrated that meeting the above criteria for producing a compensating or
comparable result will deny reasonable use of a property, approval of the adjustment will require an
adjustment criteria exception to be approved by the Economic and Community Development
Director (whoever is approving the adjustment). An adjustment that requires a criteria exception
may be granted following legal public notice of the adjustment request, the director's proposed
decision on the request, and a written finding of fact that documents the following:
1. There are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that strict
application of the criteria for producing a compensating or comparable result would deprive the
applicant of all reasonable use of the parcel of land in question, and every effort has been made to
find creative ways to meet the intent of the requirement for which the adjustment is sought, AND
2. Granting the adjustment for the individual property in question will not create a significant
adverse impact to public health, welfare, water quality, and properties downstream or nearby,
AND
3. The adjustment requires the best practicable alternative for achieving the spirit and intent of
the requirement in question.
In addition, the written finding of fact must include the following information:
• The current (pre-project) use of the site.
• How application of the requirement for which an adjustment is being requested denies reasonable
use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed under the 2009 Surface Water Design
Manual.
• The possible remaining uses of the site if the criteria exception were not granted.
• The uses of the site that would have been allowed under the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual.
• A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements
of this manual versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements
that existed under the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual.
• The feasibility for the owner to alter the project to apply the requirements of this manual.
Experimental Design Adjustments
Experimental design adjustments may be required for departures from design specifications in flow
control facilities (Chapter 5), may be required for alternatives to erosion and sediment control (ESC)
facilities in Appendix D; and are required for alternatives to water quality facilities listed in Chapter 6
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-86 August 2022
and Reference 14. Required water quality monitoring is in addition to any required by Ecology for their
approval. Kent does not pay for this monitoring. Monitoring costs are covered by the applicant and/or
the facility vendor or manufacturer according to their agreement.
Flow Control Facilities
In most cases, a standard adjustment applies to alternative flow control designs. However, city review
staff may require an experimental design adjustment that includes monitoring when deemed warranted.
Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) facilities that have Ecology CTAPE approval do not require an
experimental design adjustment. The City of Kent will consider an experimental design adjustment for
an ESC without CTAPE approval, but only for those that Ecology has approved as equivalent.
Water Quality Facilities
Experimental design adjustments for water quality facilities may be approved by city review staff on a
limited basis if, upon evaluation, city review staff determines the following criteria are met:
• The facility has already been approved by Ecology's TAPE 3031 program, and has General Use
Level Designation (GULD). Facilities with conditional approval (CULD) may also be
considered if the manufacturer has applied to Ecology for GULD determination and will be
monitoring under the TAPE program. Approval by Ecology does not by itself constitute or
ensure approval by the City of Kent. For both GULD and CULD designations, Ecology’s
approval documentation must indicate that maintenance is required no more frequently than
annually for flow control and water quality facilities excluding temporary construction ESC
facilities.
• Experimental design adjustments are not permitted for facilities that the city will be responsible to
maintain.
• City review staff determines that technical reports and data suggest facility performance could be
replicated. City review staff must have access to the full technical report(s) submitted to Ecology for
TAPE, and may require any other reports or data referred to but not provided.
• The Applicant agrees to monitoring as described in Reference 8-F; a monitoring quality assurance
project plan has been submitted to, reviewed and approved by city review staff; and the Consultant
providing the monitoring has provided the Applicant and city review staff with a cost analysis of the
monitoring program.
• For Presettling and Basic treatment water quality facilities only, if the facility has already been
approved by Ecology through Ecology's TAPE program, and has GULD, additional TSS percent
removal monitoring will not be required, but city review staff may require other monitoring, e.g.,
constructability, durability, and/or maintenance monitoring. City review staff may limit the number
of installations until he/she is satisfied that the facility type is viable.
30 Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-87 August 2022
Additional Notes
• If review of Ecology's basis for granting GULD is found to be flawed and city review staff then
finds GULD should not have been issued, city review staff may rescind its approval for new
installations of the facility in the City of Kent.
• An experimental adjustment for ESC does not absolve the Applicant from meeting the requirements of
1.2.5.2. C, ESC Performance.
• Conditions for approval of experimental design adjustments may include a requirement for setting
aside an extra area and posting a financial guarantee for construction of a conventional facility
should the experimental facility fail to perform adequately. Once satisfactory durability, operation,
and performance of the experimental facility are verified, the set aside area could be developed and
the financial guarantee released.
• The number of experimental installations of any one kind will normally be limited to two, until the
City of Kent has obtained sufficient evidence indicating performance meets criteria.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-88 August 2022
ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION PROCESS
Adjustment Application Form
The adjustment application form for standard and experimental design adjustments can be obtained from
plan review staff.
Standard Adjustments
The application process for standard adjustments is as follows:
* Requests for standard adjustments will be accepted only for permits pending approval or approved
permits that have not yet expired.
* The completed adjustment request application forms must be submitted to city review staff along with
sufficient engineering information (described in Chapter 2) to evaluate the request. The application
shall note the specific requirement for which the adjustment is sought.
* If the adjustment request involves use of a previously unapproved construction material or
construction practice, the applicant should submit documentation that includes, but is not limited to, a
record of successful use by other agencies and/or evidence of meeting criteria for quality and
performance, such as that for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM).
* If the adjustment requires a criteria exception, additional engineering or other information may be
required by city review staff to document that denial of reasonable use would occur, that every effort
was made to achieve compliance, and that the best practicable alternative will not cause significant
adverse impact.
* A fee reduction may be requested if it is demonstrated that the adjustment request requires little or no
engineering review.
Experimental Design Adjustments
The application process is the same as for standard adjustments except that requests will be acce pted prior to
permit application. Justification supporting comparable performance of the proposed system to a
standard design is required.
Blanket Adjustments
There is no application process for establishing blanket adjustments because they are initiated and issued
solely by the City.
Applicants may apply to use SWDM web-posted blanket adjustments by submitting the adjustment
application form noted above to plan review staff assigned to the specific project proposal.
ADJUSTMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The general steps of the review process for specific types of adjustments are presented as follows:
Standard Adjustments
* City review staff will review the adjustment request application forms and documentation for
completeness and inform the applicant in writing as to whether additional information is required from
the applicant to complete the review. The applicant will also be informed if city review staff
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-89 August 2022
determines that special technical support is required in cases where the adjustment involves a major
policy issue or potentially impacts a Public Works drainage facility.
* The Economic and Community Development Director or designee will review and either approve or
deny the adjustment request following city review staff’s determination that all necessary information
has been received from the applicant.
* If a criteria exception is required for the adjustment, city review staff will issue a legal public notice
of the adjustment request that indicates the director's proposed decision on the request, including the
written finding of fact specified in Section 1.4.2. The public notice will include a 15-working-day
public comment period within which a request for reconsideration may be made to the Economic
and Community Development Director as described in Section 1.4.5. Absent a request for
reconsideration, the Director's decision becomes final after the two week public comment period.
* Approvals of standard adjustments will expire upon expiration of the permit to which they apply.
Experimental Design Adjustments
• The City will consider any flow control adjustment request, but will only consider experimental
design adjustments for water quality facilities that have been approved by Ecology's TAPE
program, and erosion and sediment control facilities that have been deemed by Ecology to be
equivalent to facilities they have approved through their CTAPE program.
• All information including but not limited to reports and data submitted to Ecology for their
TAPE approvals must be submitted to City plan review staff. This may require coordination
between the manufacturer and the applicant.
• City review staff will review the submitted material and any recommendations, and inform the
review staff will also give the applicant an estimate of the time needed to complete the review.
There is no guarantee that an experimental adjustment will be granted.
• If a criteria exception is required for the adjustment, city review staff will issue a legal public notice
of the adjustment request that indicates city review staff’s proposed decision on the request,
including the written finding of fact specified in Section 1.4.2. The public notice will include a 15-
working-day public comment period within which a request for reconsideration may be made to the
Economic and Community Development Director as described in Section 1.4.5. Absent a request
for reconsideration, the Director's decision becomes final after the 15-working-day public comment
period.
• The Economic and Community Development Director or designee will review and either
approve or deny the adjustment request in writing, and this will in turn be communicated to the
Applicant by city review staff in writing.
Blanket Adjustments
Blanket adjustments will be established at the discretion of city review staff based on:
1. A previously approved standard or experimental design adjustment and supporting documentation,
AND
2. Experimental adjustment monitoring results in conjunction with any TAPE or CTAPE results AND
3. Information presenting the need for the blanket adjustment. Typically, blanket adjustments should
apply globally to design or procedural requirements and be independent of site conditions.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 1.4 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 1-90 August 2022
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION PROCEDURE
The applicant may request reconsideration of the denial or conditions of approval of an adjustment request
by submitting a formal letter to the Economic and Community Development Director within 15 working
days of the decision. This letter must include justification for review of the decision, along with a copy of
the adjustment request with the conditions (if applicable) and a listing of all previously submitted material.
The Economic and Community Development Director shall respond to the applicant in writing within 15
working days; this decision shall be final. A per-hour review fee will be charged to the applicant for City
review of an appeal.
Criteria Exceptions
A criteria exception decision for an adjustment is a Process 1 land use decision pursuant to Chapter
12.01 KCC. Because the public is given an opportunity to comment on a criteria exception decision, the
applicant may request reconsideration of the decision by submitting a formal letter to the Director within
15 working days of the legal public notice. This letter must include justification for reconsideration of
the decision, along with any supporting information/documentation. The Director shall respond to the
letter in writing within 15 working days. The Director's decision on the reconsideration request shall be
final.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 2
DRAINAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2021
CHAPTER 2
Drainage Plan Submittal ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Plans for Permits and Drainage Review................................................................................................... 2-2
Plans Required for initial permit Submittal ...................................................................................... 2-2
Plans Required for drainage review .................................................................................................. 2-2
Plans Required with Initial permit submittal ........................................................................................... 2-4
Subdivisions, short plats and Binding site plans ............................................................................... 2-4
Commercial Site Development ......................................................................................................... 2-6
Single-family Residential ................................................................................................................. 2-6
Other Permits .................................................................................................................................... 2-6
Plans Required for Drainage Review ....................................................................................................... 2-7
Engineering Plan Specifications ....................................................................................................... 2-7
Projects in Targeted Drainage Review ........................................................................................... 2-32
Plans Required After Drainage Review ................................................................................................. 2-34
Plan Changes After Permit Issuance ............................................................................................... 2-34
Final Corrected Plan Submittal ....................................................................................................... 2-34
Final Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Submittals ................................................................ 2-34
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 2
DRAINAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-1 June 2022
2 DRAINAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL
A completely revised Chapter 2 is provided below. It is to be used instead of Chapter 2 of the 2016
King County Surface Water Design Manual for all proposals in the city of Kent.
This chapter details the drainage related submittal requirements for engineering design plans as part of a
permit application to the Kent Economic and Community Development Department. The intent of these
requirements is to present consistent formats for design plans and the technical support data required to
develop the plans. These conventions are necessary to review engineering designs for compliance with
Kent ordinances and regulations, and to ensure the intent of the plan is easily understood and implemented
in the field. Properly drafted design plans and supporting information also facilitate the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed system long after its review and approval. When plans
comply with the formats and specifications contained herein, they facilitate review and approval with a
minimum of time-consuming corrections and resubmittals.
Note that this chapter primarily describes how to submit drainage plans for review—what must be
submitted, in what formats, at what times, and to what offices. The basic drainage requirements that these
plans must address are contained in Chapter 1, “Drainage Review and Requirements.” The specific design
methods and criteria to be used are contained in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Several key forms used in the plan review process are reproduced in Reference Section 8, “Plan Review
Forms and Worksheets” accompanying Chapter 5 of the Kent Construction Standards.
Chapter Organization
The information presented in this chapter is organized into four main sections as follows:
• Section 2.1, “Plans for Permits and Drainage Review”
• Section 2.2, “Plans Required with Initial Permit Application”
• Section 2.3, “Plans Required for Drainage Review”
• Section 2.4, “Plans Required After Drainage Review”
These sections begin on odd pages so that tabs can be inserted by the user if desired for quicker reference.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.1 PLANS FOR PERMITS AND DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-2 June 2022
PLANS FOR PERMITS AND DRAINAGE REVIEW
The Economic and Community Development Department is responsible for the review of all engineering
aspects of private development proposals. Drainage review is a primary concern of engineering design.
This section provides an overview of the types of engineered drainage plans required for engineering
review at various permit review stages. Detailed requirements are presented in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
PLANS REQUIRED FOR INITIAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
Most projects require some degree of drainage plans or analysis to be submitted with the initial permit
application (see Table 2.2.1.A). At the City of Kent, subdivisions and short plats are reviewed in two
stages: preliminary and final. Subdivisions and short plats will require a “Preliminary Plat/Short Plat
Drainage Package” with the initial permit application. The package will provide general information on
the proposal, including location of environmentally sensitive areas, road alignments and right-of-way, site
topography, building locations, land use information, and lot dimensions. It will be used to determine the
appropriate drainage conditions and requirements to be applied to the proposal during the drainage review
process.
Single-family residential building permits require only a site plan with the initial permit application.
Commercial permits require full engineering plans (see below). Other permits may have project specific
drainage requirements determined by the Economic and Community Development Department.
PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
For drainage review purposes, engineering plans consist of the following:
1. Site improvement plans, which include all plans, profiles, details, notes, and specifications necessary
to construct road, drainage, and off-street parking improvements (see Section 2.3.1.2).
2. A technical information report (TIR), which contains all the technical information and analysis
necessary to develop the site improvement plan and CSWPP plan. (see Section 2.3.1.1).
3. A construction stormwater pollution prevention (CSWPP) plan, which identifies the measures
and BMP’s required to prevent the discharge of sediment-laden water and other pollutants
associated with construction/land disturbing activities. The CSWPP plan includes two
component plans: an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan (see Section 2.3.1.3), which
addresses prevention of sediment-laden discharges; and stormwater pollution prevention and
spill (SWPPS) plan (see Section 2.3.1.4), which addresses prevention of other pollutant
discharges.
Note: A landscape management plan is also included if applicable (see Section 2.3.1.5).
Projects under Targeted Drainage Review usually require engineering plans, except that only certain
sections of the technical information report are required to be completed and the site improvement plan
may have a limited scope depending upon the characteristics of the proposed project. The scope of these
plans should be confirmed during the project pre-application meeting with the Economic and
Community Development Department. For other permits, such as single-family residential permits, the
scope of the targeted engineering analysis is usually determined during Economic and Community
Development Department engineering review.
Projects without major drainage improvements may be approved to submit a modified site
improvement plan. Major drainage improvements usually include water quality or flow control facilities,
conveyance systems, bridges, and road right-of-way improvements. For projects requiring engineering
plans for road construction, a modified site improvement plan is not allowed. See Section 2.3.1.2 for
further information.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-3 June 2022
Plans Required for Simplified Drainage Review
Simplified drainage plans are a simplified form of site improvement and CSWPP plans (without a TIR
or a separate SWPPS plan), that may be prepared by a non-engineer from a set of pre-engineered
design details. Simplified drainage plans are only allowed for single family or agricultural projects in
Simplified Drainage Review but may be required for individual lots created by a subdivision project to
show how required flow control BMPs, ESC, and SWPPS measures will be applied to future lot
construction.
For single-family residential permits, the level and scope of drainage plan requirements are determined by
the Economic and Community Development Department during drainage review. Some projects
qualifying for Simplified Drainage Review may also require Targeted Drainage Review.
TABLE 2.1.2.B DRAINAGE PLAN SUBMITTALS
Type of Permit or Project Plans Required with Initial
Land Use Permit
Application
Type of Drainage Review(5) Plans Required for
Building Permit Drainage
Review
SUBDIVISIONS AND SHORT
PLATS*
Preliminary Plat(1)
/Short Plat Drainage Package:
- Conceptual Drainage
Plan
- Level 1 Downstream
Analysis
- Survey/Topographic
Information
Full or Targeted Drainage
Review(2)
• Preliminary Plat/Short Plat
Drainage Package(1)
• Engineering Plans(3)
COMMERCIAL
Engineering Plans(2),(3) Full or Targeted Drainage Review Engineering Plans(3)
Simplified Drainage Review OR Simplified Drainage Plans(4)
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
PERMITS OR PERMITS FOR
AGRICULTURAL
PROJECTS
Conceptual Drainage Plan(1) Simplified Drainage Review AND
Targeted Drainage Review(2) OR
• Simplified Drainage Plans(4)
• Engineering Plans(3)
Full or Targeted Drainage
Review(2)
Engineering Plans(3)
OTHER PROJECTS OR
PERMITS
Project-specific (contact the
Economic and Community
Development Department)
Full or Targeted Drainage
Review(2)
Engineering Plans(3)
Notes:
(1) Submittal specifications for these plans are found in the application packages.
(2) Submittal specifications for Targeted Drainage Review are found in Section 2.3.2.
(3) Submittal specifications for engineering plans are detailed in Section 2.3.1.
(4) Specifications for submittal of Simplified drainage plans are found in Appendix C of the King County Manual, Simplified
Drainage Requirements (detached).
(5) Refer to Chapter 1, Table 1.1.2.A for definitions of the different drainage review types.
* Short plats meeting the thresholds defining small sites may go through the Simplified drainage review process.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.2 PLANS REQUIRED WITH INITIAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-4 June 2022
PLANS REQUIRED WITH INITIAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
This section describes the submittal requirements for initial permit applications at the City of Kent. The timing
for submittal of engineering plans will vary depending on permit type. For subdivisions and short plats, this
submittal usually follows the City’s approval of the Preliminary Plat/Short Plat Drainage Package. For
commercial building permits, engineering plans must be submitted as part of the initial permit application. For
other permit types the drainage plan requirements are determined during the permit review process.
Note: If engineering plans are required to be submitted with the initial permit application, they must be
accompanied by the appropriate supporting documents (e.g., required application forms, an environmental
checklist, etc.). For more details, see Reference Section 8.
Design Plan Certification
All preliminary plat/short plat drainage packages and engineering plans must be stamped by a licensed civil
engineer registered in the State of Washington.
All land boundary surveys and legal descriptions used for preliminary and engineering plans must be stamped
by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Washington. Topographic survey data and mapping
prepared specifically for a proposed project may be performed by the licensed civil engineer stamping the
engineering plans as allowed by the Washington State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and
Land Surveyors.
SUBDIVISIONS, SHORT PLATS AND BINDING SITE PLANS
Applications for preliminary subdivisions and short plats must include a preliminary plat/short plat drainage
package consisting of the following:
1. A Conceptual Drainage Plan prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed civil engineer registered in the
State of Washington. This plan must show the following:
The level of detail of the plan should correspond to the complexity of the project.
Plans submitted for review shall contain the following information at a minimum:
a) A brief narrative describing existing and proposed site conditions, including inventoried or delineated
wetlands, streams, ponds, lakes, rivers, steep or unstable slopes, erosion hazard areas and landslide
hazard areas. Include a description of the existing use of the site and the proposed use of the site after
development.
b) Two simple drainage plans are required for a Conceptual Drainage Plan: an existing condition
drainage plan and post-development drainage plan.
c) Both drainage plans must be drawn to an engineering scale (i.e. 1" = 20', or 1" = 30', for example, not
1/8" = 1'), and must contain a north arrow. NOTE: North arrows shall either point to the top of the
page or to the right side of the page only.
d) Include a vicinity map, which clearly shows the location of the development parcel with respect to
public streets and other parcels and developments.
e) Drainage plans shall include property lines, including line lengths (bearings of property lines are
preferred, but not required).
f) All public and private roads, driveway accesses and road easements, with dimensions. All manmade or
natural features (streams, rivers, drainage ditches, railroad tracks, hills, depressions, structures of all
kinds, steep slopes, ponds, lakes, etc.) and the existing direction of surface water flows shown by
arrows pointing in the direction of flow.
g) Setback dimensions from all property lines and from sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams, steep or
unstable slopes, and Native Growth Protection Tracts.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.2 PLANS REQUIRED WITH INITIAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-5 June 2022
h) Existing and proposed building and landscape locations.
i) Differentiate between developed portions of a parcel, and undeveloped / natural areas of a parcel, and
areas set aside for future development.
j) Outside storage areas and types of surfaces for storage areas.
k) The post-development drainage plan shall include a proposed conveyance system layout, and the
location of discharge points onto and off of the property; the total amount of impervious surface
created (including rooftops); the approximate building and parking lot / storage yard footprints; and all
proposed stormwater treatment, and proposed locations for stormwater management Best Management
Practices (detention ponds, biofiltration swales, oil / water separators, etc.).
l) A legal description for the property and the Assessor's Tax Lot Number for the property.
m) The name, address, and telephone number of the person preparing the Site Plan.
n) The location and type of existing and proposed flow control facilities, water quality facilities and
conveyance systems clearly marked individually as public or private to designate ownership and
maintenance responsibilities in accordance with the plat agreement.
2. A Level 1 Downstream Analysis as required in Core Requirement #2 and outlined under “TIR
Section 3, Offsite Analysis.” The Level 1 Downstream Analysis is required for all short plats except
those meeting the exemptions outlined in Section 1.2.2 or qualifying for Simplified Drainage Review
for the entire project. This offsite analysis shall be submitted to assess potential offsite drainage
impacts associated with development of the project, and to help propose appropriate mitigation of
those impacts. A higher level of offsite analysis may be requested by the Economic and Community
Development Department prior to preliminary approval, or as a condition of engineering plan
submittal. The offsite analysis must be prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed civil engineer
registered in the State of Washington.
3. Survey/topographic information. The submitted site plan and conceptual drainage plan shall
include:
a) Field topographic base map to accompany application (aerial topography allowed with city of
Kent permission)
b) Name and address of surveyor and surveyor's seal and signature
c) Notation for field or aerial survey
d) Datum and benchmark/location and basis of elevation
e) Location of all streams, lakes, wetlands, closed depressions, or Hazard Areas (include any
corresponding King County or Kent designation number, or identify as undesignated)
f) Contour intervals per the following chart:
Zoning Designation Contour Intervals
Densities of developed area of over 2 DU per acre 2 feet at less than 15% slope
5 feet at 15% slope or more
Densities of developed area of 2 DU or less per acre 5 feet
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.2 PLANS REQUIRED WITH INITIAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-6 June 2022
COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
Applications for commercial permits require that engineering plans be submitted as part of the initial permit
application. Most commercial projects will go through Full Drainage Review and require complete
engineering plans. Projects which may qualify for limited scope engineering design should request Targeted
Drainage Review during the Pre-Application meeting with the Economic and Community Development
Department.
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Applications for single-family residential permits require a non-engineered site plan to be submitted. Refer to
the minimum requirements listed at the beginning of Section 2.3 (see detached Appendix C, Section C.5.1),
OTHER PERMITS
Other permit applications will require project-specific information. Initial submittal requirements can be
obtained by contacting the Economic and Community Development Department.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-7 June 2022
PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
This section presents the specifications and contents required of plans to facilitate drainage review. Most
projects subject to Full Drainage Review will require engineering plans that include a technical
information report (TIR), site improvement plans, and a "construction stormwater pollution prevention
(CSWPP) plan," which includes an "erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan" and a "stormwater pollution
prevention and spill (SWPPS) plan." In addition, a landscape management plan may also be required to
comply with Core Requirement #8 (see Section 1.2.8). For more information on the types of projects
subject to Full Drainage Review, see Section 1.1.2.3.
Small projects with specific drainage concerns that are subject to Targeted Drainage Review also require
engineering plans that include the same elements, except that the TIR may be of limited scope. The site
improvement plans and ESC plans may also be of limited scope, but must meet all applicable
specifications. For more information on the types of projects subject to Targeted Drainage Review, see
Section 1.1.2.2.
Projects that qualify for Simplified Drainage Review may be required to submit simplified drainage
plans. These are simplified drainage and erosion control plans that can be prepared by a non-engineer from
a set of pre-engineered design details, and do not require a TIR. The Simplified Drainage Requirements
booklet available at the King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review and appended
to the King County Manual (detached Appendix C, Section C.5.1) contains the specifications for
simplified drainage plans and details on the Simplified Drainage Review process.
Note: Projects in Simplified Drainage Review may be required to submit engineering plans if they are
also subject to Targeted Drainage Review as determined in Section 1.1.2.2 and Appendix C of the King
County Manual. Also, short plats in Simplified Drainage Review will be required to submit engineering
plans if roadway construction is a condition of preliminary approval.
Design Plan Certification
All preliminary plat/short plat drainage packages and engineering plans must be stamped by a licensed
civil engineer registered in the State of Washington.
All land boundary surveys and legal descriptions used for preliminary and engineering plans must be
stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Washington. Topographic survey data
and mapping prepared specifically for a proposed project may be performed by the licensed civil engineer
stamping the engineering plans as allowed by the Washington State Board of Registration for Professional
Engineers and Land Surveyors.
ENGINEERING PLAN SPECIFICATIONS
For drainage review purposes, engineering plans must consist of:
1. A technical information report (TIR) as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1, AND
2. Site improvement plans as detailed in Section, 2.3.1.2 AND
3. A CSWPP plan, which includes an ESC plan as detailed in Section 2.3.1.3 and a SWPPS plan as
detailed in Section 2.3.1.4.
Also, if applicable per Section 1.2.8, a landscape management plan, as detailed in Section 2.3.1.5, must
be included.
Projects in Targeted Drainage Review require a limited scope TIR with site improvement plans and a
CSWPP plan, as detailed in Section 2.3.2. The Economic and Community Development Department may
allow a modified site improvement plan for some projects in Targeted Drainage Review (see Section
2.3.2) or where major improvements (e.g., detention facilities, conveyance systems, bridges, road right-of-
way improvements, etc.) are not proposed.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-8 June 2022
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR)
The full TIR should be a comprehensive supplemental report containing all technical information and
analysis necessary to develop the site improvement plan. This report should contain all calculations,
conceptual design analysis, reports, and studies required and used to construct a complete site improvement
plan based on sound engineering practices and careful geotechnical and hydrological design. The TIR must
be stamped and dated by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington.
The TIR shall contain the following ten sections, preceded by a table of contents:
1. Project Overview
2. Conditions and Requirements Summary
3. Offsite Analysis
4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design
6. Special Reports and Studies
7. Other Permits
8. CSWPP Analysis and Design
9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant
10. Operations and Maintenance Manual
Every TIR must contain each of these sections; however, if a section does not apply, the applicant may
simply mark “N/A” with a brief explanation shall be provided. This standardized format allows a quicker,
more efficient review of information required to supplement the site improvement plan.
The table of contents should include a list of the ten section headings and their respective page numbers, a
list of tables with page numbers, and a list of numbered references, attachments, and appendices.
When the TIR package requires revisions, the revisions must be submitted in a complete TIR package.
❑ TIR SECTION 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project overview must provide a general description of the proposal, predeveloped and developed
conditions of the site, site area and size of the improvements, and the disposition of stormwater runoff
before and after development. The overview shall identify and discuss difficult site parameters, the natural
drainage system, and drainage to and from adjacent property, including bypass flows.
The following figures are required:
Figure 1. TIR Worksheet
Include a copy of the TIR Worksheet (see Reference Section 8-A).
Figure 2. Site Location
Provide a map that shows the general location of the site. Identify all roads that border the site and all
significant geographic features including all streams, lakes, wetlands, closed depressions, and Hazard
Areas.
Figure 3. Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics
This figure shall display:
1. Acreage of all subbasins
2. All site characteristics
3. Existing discharge points to and from the site
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-9 June 2022
4. Routes of existing, construction, and future flows at all discharge points and downstream hydraulic
structures
5. A minimum City of Kent Storm Sewer Facility Map, 1” = 300’ as a base for the figure (available at
the Kent Permit Center)
6. The length of travel (also cite) from the farthest upstream end of a proposed storm system in the
development to any proposed flow control facility
Figure 4. Soils
Show the soils within the following areas:
1. The project site
2. The area draining to the site
3. The drainage system downstream of the site for the distance of the downstream analysis
(see Section 1.2.2)
Copies of King County Soil Survey maps may be used; however, if the maps do not accurately represent
the soils for a proposed project (including offsite areas of concern), it is the design engineer's
responsibility to ensure that the actual soil types are properly mapped. Soil classification symbols that
conform to the SCS Soil Survey for King County shall be used, and the equivalent KCRTS soil type (till,
outwash, or wetlands) shall be indicated (see Table 3.2.2.B).
All plats and short plats (creating lots less than 22,000 square feet) must evaluate onsite soils for suitability
of the full infiltration and other low impact flow control BMPs as specified in Core Requirement 9. This
soils report, as well as geotechnical investigations necessary for proposed infiltration facilities, shall be
referenced in the TIR Overview and submitted under Special Reports and Studies, TIR Section VI. A
figure in the required geotechnical report that meets the above requirements may be referenced to satisfy 1,
2, and 3 above.
Projects located in outwash soils may need to provide a low-permeability liner or a treatment liner
for water quality facilities and upstream conveyance ditches, consistent with the specifications for such
liners in Section 6.2.4.
❑ TIR SECTION 2
CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
The intent of this section is to ensure all preliminary approval conditions and applicable requirements
pertaining to site engineering issues have been addressed in the site improvement plan. All conditions and
requirements for the proposed project should be included.
In addition to the core requirements of this manual, adopted basin plans and other plans as listed in Special
Requirement #1 should be reviewed and applicable requirements noted. Sensitive area requirements32,
conditions of plat approval, and conditions associated with development requirements (e.g., conditional
use permits, rezones, variances and adjustments, SEPA mitigations, etc.) should also be included.
❑ TIR SECTION 3
OFFSITE ANALYSIS
All projects in engineering review shall complete, at a minimum, an Offsite Analysis, except for projects
meeting the exemptions outlined in Section 1.2.2. The Offsite Analysis is usually completed as part of the
32 Any specific regulations related to floodplains, streams, lakes, wetlands, closed depressions, or geologic hazard areas.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-10 June 2022
initial permit application and review process and is to be included in the TIR. Note: If offsite conditions
have been altered since the initial submittal, a new offsite analysis may be required.
The primary component of the offsite analysis is the downstream analysis described in detail below.
Upstream areas are included in this component to the extent they are expected to be affected by backwater
effects from the proposed project. Other components of the offsite analysis could include, but are not
limited to, evaluation of impacts to fish habitat, groundwater levels, groundwater quality, or other
environmental features expected to be significantly affected by the proposed project due to its size or
proximity to such features.
Levels of Analysis
The offsite analysis report requirements vary depending on the specific site and downstream conditions.
Each project submittal shall include at least a Level 1 downstream analysis. Upon review of the Level 1
analysis, the Economic and Community Development Department may require a Level 2 or Level 3
analysis. If conditions warrant, additional, more detailed analysis may be required. Note: Potential
impacts upstream of the proposal shall also be evaluated.
Level 1 Analysis
The Level 1 analysis is a qualitative survey of each downstream system leaving a site. This analysis is
required for all proposed projects and shall be submitted with the initial permit application.
Depending on the findings of the Level 1 analysis, a Level 2 or 3 analysis may need to be completed
or additional information may be required. If further analysis is required, the applicant may schedule
a meeting with city review staff.
Level 2 or 3 Analysis
If drainage problems are identified in the Level 1 analysis, a Level 2 (rough quantitative) analysis or a
Level 3 (more precise quantitative) analysis may be required to further evaluate proposed mitigation
for the problem. City review staff will determine whether a Level 2 or 3 analysis is required based on
the evidence of existing or potential problems identified in the Level 1 analysis and on the proposed
design of onsite drainage facilities. The Level 3 analysis is required when results need to be as
accurate as possible: for example, if the site is flat; if the system is affected by downstream controls;
if minor changes in the drainage system could flood roads or buildings; or if the proposed project will
contribute more than 15 percent of the total peak flow to the drainage problem location. The Level 2
or 3 analysis may not be required if city review staff determines from the Level 1 analysis that
adequate mitigation can be developed.
Additional Analysis
Additional, more detailed hydrologic analysis may be required if city review staff determines that the
downstream analysis has not been sufficient to accurately determine the impacts of a proposed project on
an existing or potential drainage problem. This more detailed analysis may include a point of compliance
analysis as detailed in Section 3.3.6.
Scope of Analysis
Regardless of the level of downstream analysis required, the applicant shall define and map the study area
(Task 1), review resources (Task 2), inspect the study area (Task 3), describe the drainage system and
problems (Task 4), and propose mitigation measures (Task 5) as described below.
Task 1. Study Area Definition and Maps
For the purposes of Task 2 below, the study area shall extend downstream one mile (minimum flow
path distance) from the proposed project discharge location and shall extend upstream as necessary to
encompass the offsite drainage area tributary to the proposed project site. For the purposes of Tasks
3, 4, and 5, the study area shall extend downstream to a point on the drainage system where the
proposed project site constitutes a minimum of 15 percent of the total tributary drainage area, but not
less than one-quarter mile (minimum flow path distance). The study area shall also extend upstream
of the project site a distance sufficient to preclude any back water effects from the proposed project.
The offsite analysis shall include: (1) a site map showing property lines, and (2) the best available
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-11 June 2022
topographical map (e.g., at a minimum use the 1” = 300’ City of Kent Storm Sewer Facility Maps
available at the Kent Permit Center) with the study area boundaries, site boundaries, downstream flow
path, and potential/existing problems (Task 4) shown. Other maps, diagrams, and photographs such
as aerial photographs may be helpful in describing the study area.
Task 2. Resource Review
To assist the design engineer in preparing an offsite analysis, the resources described below shall be
reviewed as applicable for existing/potential problems in the study area (upstream and one mile
downstream of the project site). Unless otherwise indicated, ask city of Kent review staff about the
availability and applicability of these resources:
• Adopted basin plans
• Finalized drainage studies
• Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports and 1"=400' scale problem summary maps (available at
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, King County Department
of Natural Resources and the library)
• Floodplain/floodway (FEMA) maps
• Other offsite analysis reports in the same subbasin, if available
• Critical and Sensitive Area maps
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, King County Soils Survey (available at King County Department
of Development and Environmental Services and the library)
• Wetlands Inventory maps (City-wide map included with this manual, detailed maps available at
the Economic and Community Development Department)
• City of Kent Erosion Hazard Area Map and Landslide Hazard Area Maps (City-wide map
included with this manual, detailed maps available at the Economic and Community Development
Department)
• Washington State Department of Ecology's latest published Clean Water Act Section 303d list of
polluted waters posted at the following website:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html.
• King County designated water quality problems listed and documented in the latest version of
Reference Section 10 posted on King County's Surface Water Design Manual website. See also
"Stormwater" on the iMap website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx.
Potential/existing problems identified in the above documents shall be documented in the Drainage
System Table (see Reference Section 8-B) and described in the text of the Level 1 Downstream
Analysis Report. If a document is not available for the site, note in the report that the information
was not available as of a particular date. If necessary, additional resources are available from Kent,
King County, the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW), the State
Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Task 3. Field Inspection
The design engineer shall physically inspect the existing onsite and offsite drainage systems of the
study area for each discharge location. Specifically, he/she shall investigate any evidence of the
following existing or potential problems and drainage features:
Level 1 Inspection:
1. Investigate any problems reported or observed during the resource review.
2. Locate all existing/potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system.
3. Identify all existing/potential drainage problems as defined in Section 1.2.2.1.
4. Identify existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation.
5. Identify significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms (e.g., severe siltation, bank erosion,
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-12 June 2022
or incision in a stream).
6. Collect qualitative data on features such as land use, impervious surfaces, topography, and soil
types.
7. Collect information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics, drainage structures, and relevant critical
areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes).
8. Verify tributary basins delineated in Task 1.
9. Contact neighboring property owners or residents in the area about past or existing drainage
problems, and describe these in the report (optional).
10. Note the date and weather conditions at the time of the inspection.
Level 2 or 3 Inspection:
1. Perform a Level 1 Inspection.
2. Document existing site conditions (approved drainage systems or pre-1979 aerial photographs) as
defined in Core Requirement #3.
3. Collect quantitative field data. For Level 2, collect non-survey field data using hand tapes, hand
reel, and rods; for Level 3, collect field survey profile and cross-section topographic data prepared
by a licensed land surveyor.
Task 4. Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions
Each drainage system component and problem shall be addressed in the offsite analysis report in three
places: on a map (Task 1), in the narrative (Task 4), and in the Offsite Analysis Drainage System
Table (see Reference Section 8-B).
Drainage System Descriptions: The following information about drainage system components such
as pipes, culverts, bridges, outfalls, ponds, tanks, and vaults shall be included in the report:
1. Location (corresponding map label and distance downstream/upstream from site discharge)
2. Physical description (type, size, length, slope, vegetation, and land cover)
3. Problems including copies of any relevant drainage complaints
4. Field observations
Problem Descriptions: All existing or potential problems (e.g., ponding water, high/low flows,
siltation, erosion, listed water bodies, etc.) identified in the resource review or field inspection shall
be described in the offsite analysis. These descriptions will help in determining if such problems are
one of three defined problem types that require special attention per Core Requirement #2 (see Section
1.2.2.1). Special attention may include more analysis, additional flow control, or other onsite or
offsite mitigation measures as specified by the problem-specific mitigation requirements set forth in
Section 1.2.2.2.
The following information shall be provided for each existing or potential drainage problem:
1. Description of the problem (ponding water, high or low flows, siltation, erosion, slides, etc.).
2. Magnitude of or damage caused by the problem (siltation of ponds, dried-up ornamental ponds,
road inundation, flooded property, flooded building, flooded septic system, significant destruction
of aquatic habitat or organisms).
3. General frequency and duration of problem (dates and times the problem occurred, if available).
4. Return frequency of storm or flow (cfs) of the water when the problem occurs (optional for Level
1 and required for Levels 2 and 3). Note: A Level 2 or 3 analysis may be required to accurately
identify the return frequency of a particular downstream problem; see Section 3.3.3.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-13 June 2022
5. Water surface elevation when the problem occurs (e.g., elevation of building foundation, crest of
roadway, elevation of septic drainfields, or wetland/stream high water mark).
6. Names and concerns of involved parties (optional for all levels of analysis).
7. Current mitigation of the drainage problem.
8. Possible cause of the drainage problem.
Whether the proposed project is likely to aggravate (increase the frequency or severity of) the
existing problem or create a new one based on the above information. For example, an existing
erosion problem should not be aggravated if Level 2 flow control is already required in the region
for the design of onsite flow control facilities. Conversely, a downstream flooding problem
inundating a home every 2 to 5 years will likely be aggravated if only Level 1 flow control is being
applied in the region. See Section 1.2.3.1 for more details on the effectiveness of flow control
standards in addressing downstream problems.
The following information shall be provided for each existing or potential water quality problem:
1. Description of the problem as documented by the State or City in the problem's listing. This
should include the pollutant or pollutants of concern, the nature or category of the listing, and
any other background information provided in the listing.
2. Flow path distance downstream of the project site and percentage of area draining to the
problem that the project site occupies.
3. Possible or probable cause of the water quality problem.
4. Any current mitigation of the water quality problem.
Task 5. Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems
For any existing or potential offsite drainage problem determined to be one of the three defined
problem types in Section 1.2.2.1, the design engineer must demonstrate that the proposed project
neither aggravates (if existing) nor creates the problem as specified in the drainage problem-specific
mitigation requirements set forth in Section 1.2.2.2. The engineer must review each relevant drainage
complaint found and include a narrative explaining how each complaint problems is addressed or
mitigated. Actual copies of the relevant complaints must be included in the Analysis. To meet these
requirements, the proposed project may need to provide additional onsite flow control as specified in
Table 1.2.3.A (see also Section 3.3.5), or other onsite or offsite mitigation measures as described in
Section 3.3.5.
For any existing or potential w ater quality problem determined to be one of the seven defined
water quality problem types in Section 1.2.2.1, the design engineer must document how the
applicable water quality problem-specific mitigation requirement in Section 1.2.2.3 will be met.
❑ TIR SECTION 4
FLOW CONTROL, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) AND WATER QUALITY
FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Existing Site Hydrology (Part A)
This section of the TIR shall include a discussion of assumptions and site parameters used in analyzing the
existing site hydrology. The definition of “existing site conditions” presented in Section 1.1 shall be
applied for this section.
The acreage, soil types, and land covers used to determine existing flow characteristics, along with basin
maps, graphics, and exhibits for each subbasin affected by the development, should be included.
The following information must be provided on a topographical map:
1. delineation and acreage of areas contributing runoff to the site
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-14 June 2022
2. flow control facility and BMP location(s)
3. outfall location and description
4. overflow route(s)
The scale of the map and the contour intervals must be sufficient to determine the basin and subbasin
boundaries accurately. The direction of flow, the acreage of areas contributing drainage, and the limits of
development should all be indicated on the map.
Each subbasin contained within or flowing through the site shall be individually labeled and KCRTS
parameters for the approved stormwater model referenced to that subbasin.
All natural streams and drainage features, including wetlands and depressions, must be shown. Rivers,
closed depressions, streams, lakes, and wetlands must have the 100-year floodplain (and floodway where
applicable) delineated as required in Special Requirement #2 (see Section 1.3.2) and by the critical areas
requirements in KCC 11.06.
Developed Site Hydrology (Part B)
This section shall provide narrative, mathematical, and graphical presentations of parameters selected and
values used for the developed site conditions, including acreage, soil types, land covers, roadway layouts,
and all constructed drainage facilities and any required flow control BMPs.
Developed subbasin areas and flows shall be clearly depicted on a map and cross-referenced to computer
printouts or calculation sheets. Relevant portions of the calculations shall be highlighted and tabulated in a
listing of all developed subbasin flows.
All maps, exhibits, graphics, and references used to determine developed site hydrology must be included,
maintaining the same subbasin labeling as used for the existing site hydrology whenever possible. If the
boundaries of the subbasin have been modified under the developed condition, the labeling should be
modified accordingly (e.g., Subbasin “Am” is a modified version of existing Subbasin “A”).
Performance Standards (Part C)
The design engineer shall include brief discussions of the following:
• The applicable area-specific flow control facility standard determined from the Flow Control
Applications Map.
• Modifications to the standard to address onsite or offsite drainage conditions.
• Applicable flow control BMP requirements determined from Section1.2.3.3 and Core Requirement
9.
• The applicable conveyance system capacity standards per Section 1.2.4.
• The applicable area-specific water quality treatment menu determined from the Water Quality
Applications Map per Section 1.2.8.1, and any applicable special requirements for source control
or oil control determined from Sections 1.3.4 and 1.3.5.
Flow Control System (Part D)
This section requires:
An illustrative sketch of the flow control facility (or facilities), required flow control BMPs, and
appurtenances. The facility sketch (or sketches) must show basic measurements necessary to
calculate the storage volumes available from zero to the maximum head, all orifice/restrictor sizes
and head relationships, control structure/restrictor orientation to the facility, and facility orientation
on the site. The flow control BMP sketch (or sketches) must show basic measurements and
dimensions, orientation on the site, flowpath lengths, etc.
The applicant shall include all supporting documentation such as computer printouts,
calculations, equations, references, storage/volume tables, graphs, soils data, geotechnical reports
and any other aides necessary to clearly show results and methodology used to determine the
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-15 June 2022
storage facility volumes and flow control BMP applications.
Facility documentation files, flow duration comparison files, peaks files, return frequency or
duration curves, etc., developed with the approved model shall be included to verify the facility
meets the performance standards indicated in Part C.
The volumetric safety factor used in the design shall be clearly identified, as well as the
reasoning used by the design engineer in selecting the safety factor for this project.
If flow control BMP credits are used as allowed in Core Requirement 9, documentation must be
provided, explaining how the credits will be used and how the criteria for use of credits will be
met.
If the flow control system is an infiltration facility, the soils data, groundwater mounding analysis,
and other calculations used to determine the design infiltration rate shall be provided.
Flow control BMP infeasibility discussion and supporting documentation shall also be included in
Part D.
Water Quality System (Part E)
This section provides an illustrative sketch of the proposed water quality facility (or facilities), source
controls, oil controls, and appurtenances. This sketch (or sketches) of the facility, source controls, and oil
controls must show basic measurements and dimensions, orientation on the site, location of inflow, bypass,
and discharge systems, etc.
The applicant shall also include all supporting documentation such as computer printouts, calculations,
equations, references, and graphs necessary to show the facility was designed and sized in accordance with the
specifications and requirements in Chapter 6. If the water quality credit option is used as allowed in
Section 6.1.3, documentation must be provided, identifying the actions that will be taken to acquire the
requisite credits.
❑ TIR SECTION 5
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
This section shall present a detailed analysis of any existing conveyance systems, and the analysis and
design of the proposed stormwater collection and conveyance system for the development. This section
also includes any analysis required for the design of bridges to convey flows and pass sediments and debris
per Section 4.4.3. Analysis information should be presented in a clear, concise manner that can be easily
followed, checked, and verified. All pipes, culverts, catch basins, channels, swales, and other stormwater
conveyance appurtenances must be clearly labeled and correspond directly to the engineering plans.
The minimum information included shall be pipe flow tables, flow profile computation tables,
nomographs, charts, graphs, detail drawings, and other tabular or graphic aides used to design and confirm
performance of the conveyance system.
Verification of capacity and performance must be provided for each element of the conveyance system.
The analysis must show design velocities and flows for all drainage facilities within the development, as
well as those offsite, which are affected by the development. If the final design results are on a computer
printout, a separate summary tabulation of conveyance system performance shall also be provided.
❑ TIR SECTION 6
SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
Some site characteristics, such as creeks, closed depressions, lakes, wetlands, or Hazard Areas, pose
unique road and drainage design problems that are particularly sensitive to stormwater runoff. As a result,
Kent may require the preparation of special reports and studies to address further the site characteristics,
the potential for impacts associated with the development, and the measures that would be implemented to
mitigate impacts. Special reports shall be prepared by people with expertise in the particular area of
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-16 June 2022
analysis. Topics of special reports may include any of the following:
• Geotechnical/soils (soils documentation supporting flow control BMP design, infiltration rate
determination and infeasibility conclusions may also be located in TIR Section 6)
• Critical areas analysis and delineation Floodplain delineation in accordance with Section 1.3.2
• Flood protection facility conformance in accordance with Section 1.3.3
• Slope protection/stability
• Groundwater, including groundwater mounding analyses required for infiltration design
• Fluvial geomorphology
• Erosion and deposition
• Anadromous fisheries impacts
• Structural design
• Geology/Geologic Hazard Areas
• Hydrology
• Water quality
• Structural fill
❑ TIR SECTION 7
OTHER PERMITS
Construction of road and drainage facilities may require additional permits from other agencies for some
projects. These additional permits may contain more restrictive drainage plan requirements. This section
of the TIR should provide the titles of any other permits, the agencies requiring the other permits, and the
permit requirements that affect the drainage plan. Examples of other permits are listed in Section 1.1.3.
❑ TIR SECTION 8
ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
This section of the TIR should include the analysis and design information used to prepare the required
construction stormwater pollution prevention (CSWPP) plan. This information should be
presented in two parts associated with the CSWPP plan's two component plans, the erosion sediment
control (ESC) plan (Part A) and the stormwater pollution prevention and spill control (SWPPS) plan
(Part B). See Sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.4 for plan specifications and contents. This CSWPP plan is
intended to be equivalent to and may be more stringent than that required for the NPDES Stormwater
Construction Permit issued by Ecology.
ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part A)
This section must include all hydrologic and hydraulic information used to analyze and design the
erosion and sediment control measures, including final site stabilization measures. The TIR shall
explain how proposed ESC measures comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control Standards in
detached Appendix D and show compliance with the implementation requirements of Core Requirement
#5, Section 1.2.5.
Part A must include the following:
1. Provide sufficient information to justify the overall ESC plan and the choice of individual erosion
control measures. At a minimum, there shall be a discussion of each measure specified in Section
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-17 June 2022
1.2.5 and its applicability to the proposed project.
2. Include all hydrologic and hydraulic information used to analyze and size the ESC facilities shown
in the engineering plans. Describe the methodology, and attach any graphics or sketches used to size
the facilities.
3. Identify areas with a particularly high susceptibility to erosion because of slopes or soils as well as
areas to be protected for existing and proposed flow control BMPs. Discuss any special measures
taken to protect these areas as well as any special measures proposed to protect water resources on or
near the site.
4. Identify any ESC recommendations in any of the special reports prepared for the project. In the
project geotechnical report supporting flow control BMP design, provide recommendations to address
mitigation of flow control BMP areas impacted by erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. If
these special reports’ recommendations are not included in the ESC plan, provide justification.
5. If proposing exceptions or modifications to the standards detailed in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Standards (Appendix D of the King County Manual), clearly present the rationale. If
proposing techniques or products different from those detailed in the ESC Standards, provide
supporting documentation so the City can determine if the proposed alternatives provide similar
protection.
SWPPS Plan Design (Part B)
The stormwater pollution prevention and spill control plan must identify all activities that could
contribute pollutants to surface and storm water during construction. This section of the TIR must
provide sufficient information to justify the selection of specific stormwater pollution prevention
(SWPPS) BMPs proposed to be applied to the pollution-generating activities that will occur with
construction of the proposed project. BMPs applicable to such activities are found in the Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Control (CSWPP) Standards (detached Appendix D) and the
King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (viewable at
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/water-and-land/stormwater/documents/pollution-prevention-
manual.aspx ).
At a minimum, there shall be a discussion of each anticipated pollution-generating activity and the
pollution prevention BMPs selected to address it. If there are any calculations required for the
selected BMP, include those in the discussion. If an alternative BMP or major modification to one
of the City's standard BMPs will be used, a written request must be submitted for review and
approval, detailing how the alternative will work. An "Alternative BMP Request Form" is available in
the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual.
Updates or revisions to the SWPPS plan may be requested by the City of Kent at any time during
project construction if the City determines that pollutants generated on the construction site have the
potential to contaminate surface, storm, or ground water.
The SWPPS plan shall also discuss the receiving waters, especially if the receiving water body is listed
on the 303d list. Information must be provided that shows the plan meets TMDL requirements.
Discuss the 303(d) listed pollutant generated or used onsite and any special handling requirements or
BMPs.
❑ TIR SECTION 9
BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
Bond Quantities Worksheet
Each plan submittal requires a construction quantity summary to establish appropriate bond amounts.
Using the Bond Quantities Worksheet (Contact the City of Kent Economic and Community Development
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-18 June 2022
Department), the design engineer shall separate existing right-of-way and erosion control quantities from
other onsite improvements. In addition, the engineer shall total the amounts based on the unit prices listed
on the form.
Drainage facilities for single-family residential building permits shall be constructed and approved prior to
granting the certificate of occupancy.
Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch
Following approval of the plans, a Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch (see
Reference 8-C) shall be submitted along with an 81/2" x 11" plan sketch for each facility proposed for
construction. The plan shall show a north arrow, the tract, the facility access road, the extent of the facility,
and the control structure location. The approximate street address shall be noted. At project completion, the
Summary Sheet and Sketch shall be updated in the Final Corrected TIR to reflect the completed project
(see Section 2.4.2).
Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities
Any declaration of covenant and grant of easement required for proposed flow control and water quality
facilities per Section 1.2.6 must be included here for review and approval before recording. The
necessary covenant exhibits, and maintenance instructions associated with the facility type shall be
included with the declaration of covenant. After approval by city review staff, the declaration of
covenant and grant of easement must be signed and recorded with the City of Kent before any permit is
approved. A copy of the recorded document shall be included in the Final Corrected TIR (see Section
2.4.2).
Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs
Any declarations of covenant and grant of easement required for proposed flow control BMPs per Core
Requirement 9 must be included here for review and approval before recording. The necessary
covenant exhibits, and maintenance instructions associated with the flow control BMP type (see
Reference 5), shall be included with the declaration of covenant. After approval by city review staff,
all such documents must be signed and recorded with the City of Kent before any permit is approved. A
copy of the recorded document shall be included in the Final Corrected TIR (see Section 2.4.2) or
otherwise provided to the County if no TIR was required.
❑ TIR SECTION 10
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
For each flow control and water quality facility and/or BMP that is to be privately maintained, and for
those that have special nonstandard features, the design engineer shall prepare an operations and
maintenance manual. The manual should be simply written and should contain a brief description of the
facility or BMP, what it does, and how it works. In addition, the manual shall include a copy of the
Stormwater Facility Maintenance Guide (see Appendix A) and provide an outline of maintenance tasks
and the recommended frequency each task should be performed. This is especially important for flow
control BMPs and water quality facilities where proper maintenance is critical to facility performance.
For this reason, most of the flow control facility designs in Chapter 5 and the water quality facility
designs in Chapter 6 include “maintenance considerations” important to the performance of each
facility.
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Site improvement plans shall portray design concepts in a clear and concise manner. The plans must
present all the information necessary for persons trained in engineering to review the plans, as well as
those persons skilled in construction work to build the project according to the design engineer's intent.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-19 June 2022
Supporting documentation for the site improvement plans must also be presented in an orderly and concise
format that can be systematically reviewed and understood by others.
The vertical datum on which all engineering plans, plats, binding site plans, and short plats are to be
based must be North American Vertical Datum of 1988, (NAVD88) and the datum must be tied to at least
one City of Kent Survey Control Network benchmark. The benchmark(s) shall be shown or referenced on
the plans. Datum correlations can be found in Table 4.4.2.B of the King County Manual.
Horizontal control for all plats, binding site plans, and short plats shall reference the North American
Datum of 1983/1991adjustment (NAD83/91) as the coordinate base and basis of bearings. All horizontal
control for these projects must be in U.S. Survey Foot and referenced to a minimum of two City of Kent
Survey Horizontal Control monuments. If two horizontal control monuments do not exist within one mile
of the project, an assumed or alternate coordinate base and basis of bearings may be used. Horizontal
control monument and benchmark information is available from the Kent Public Works Department.
The site improvement plans consist of all the plans, profiles, details, notes, and specifications necessary to
construct road, drainage structure, and off-street parking improvements. Site improvement plans include
the following:
• A base map (described in Table 2.3.1.A), and
• Site plan and profiles (see Section 2.3.1.1).
Note: Site improvement plans must also include grading plans if onsite grading extends beyond the
roadway.
Modified Site Improvement Plan
City review staff may allow a modified site improvement plan for some projects in Targeted Drainage
Review (see Section 2.3.2) or where major improvements (e.g., detention facilities, conveyance systems,
bridges, road right-of-way improvements, etc.) are not proposed. The modified site improvement plan
must:
1. Be drawn on a 11" x 17" or larger sheet,
2. Accurately locate structure(s) and access, showing observance of the setback requirements given in
this manual, or other applicable documents, and
3. Provide enough information (datum, topography, details, notes, etc.) to address issues as determined
by city review staff.
❑ GENERAL PLAN FORMAT
Site improvement plans should use APWA Standard Map Symbols as appropriate, and must include
Standard Plan Notes (see Appendix A of the Kent Construction Standards). Each plan must follow the
general format detailed below:
1. Plan sheets and profile sheets, or combined plan and profile sheets, specifications, and detail sheets
as required shall be on 22 inch by 34 inch sheets. Right-of-way improvements must be on 22 inch by
34 inch. Original sheets shall be in PDF or DWG file format.
2. Drafting details shall generally conform to APWA Standard Map Symbols with lettering size (before
reduction) no smaller than Leroy 80 (Leroy 100 is preferred). Existing features shall be shown with
dashed lines or as half-toned (screened) to clearly distinguish existing features from proposed
improvements.
3. Each submittal shall contain a project information/cover sheet with the following:
a) Title: Project name and Kent Permit number
b) Table of contents (if more than three pages)
c) Vicinity map
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-20 June 2022
d) Name and phone number of utility field contacts (e.g., water, sanitary sewer, gas, power,
telephone, and TV) and the One-Call number (1-800-424-5555)
e) Kent's preconstruction/inspection notification requirements
f) Name and phone number of the erosion control supervisor
g) Name and phone number of the surveyor
h) Name and phone number of the owner/agent
i) Name and phone number of the applicant
j) Legal description
k) Plan approval signature block for the Development Review Engineer
l) Name and phone number of the engineering firm preparing the plans (company logos acceptable)
m) Fire Marshal's approval stamp (if required)
n) Statement that mailbox locations have been designated or approved by the U.S. Postal Service
(where required)
o) List of conditions of preliminary approval and conditions of approved adjustments and variances
on all site improvements.
4. An overall site plan shall be included if more than three plan sheets are used. The overall plan shall
be indexed to the detail plan sheets and include the following:
a) The complete property area development
b) Right-of-way information
c) Street names and road classification
d) All project phasing and proposed division boundaries
e) All natural and proposed drainage collection and conveyance systems with catch basin numbers
shown
5. Each sheet of the plan set shall be stamped, signed, and dated by a licensed civil engineer registered
in the State of Washington. At least one sheet showing all boundary survey information must be
provided and stamped by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington.
6. Detail sheets shall provide sufficient information to construct complex elements of the plan. Details
may be provided on plan and profile sheets if space allows.
7. A title block shall be provided on each plan sheet. At a minimum, the title block shall list the
following:
a) Development title
b) Name, address, and phone number of the firm or individual preparing the plan
c) A revision block
d) Page (of pages) numbering
e) Sheet title (e.g., road and drainage, grading, erosion and sediment control, stormwater pollution
prevention and spill control)
8. The location and label for each section or other detail shall be provided.
9. Critical areas, critical area buffers, and critical area building setbacks as required by Kent City Code
shall be delineated and labeled.
10. All match lines with matched sheet number shall be provided.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-21 June 2022
11. All division or phase lines and the proposed limits of construction under the permit application shall
be indicated.
12. Reference all identified wetlands (sequentially if more than one).
13. The standard plan notes that apply to the project shall be provided on the plans (see Appendix A of the
Kent Construction Standards).
14. Commercial building permit applications shall include the designated zoning for all properties
adjacent to the development site(s).
❑ BASE MAP
A site improvement plan base map provides a common base and reference in the development and design
of any project. A base map helps ensure that the engineering plans, grading plans, and CSWPP plans are
all developed from the same background information. This base map shall include the information listed
in Table 2.3.1.ATable 2.3.1.A.
TABLE 2.3.1.A BASE MAP REQUIREMENTS
Feature Requirements
Ground Surface
Topography
Provide topography within the site and extending beyond the property lines. Contour
lines must be shown as described in “Plan View: Site Plan and Roadway ElementsPlan
View: Site Plan and Roadway Elements” (see Section 2.3.1.2).
Surface Water
Discharge
Provide ground surface elevations for a reasonable “fan” around points of discharge
extending at least 50 feet downstream of all point discharge outlets.
Hydrologic Features Provide spot elevations in addition to contour lines to aid in delineating the boundaries
and depth of all existing floodplains, wetlands, channels, swales, streams, storm
drainage systems and BMPs, roads (low spots), closed depressions, springs, seeps,
swales, ditches, pipes, groundwater, and seasonal standing water.
Other Natural
Features
Show the location and relative sizes of other natural features such as rock outcroppings,
existing vegetation, and trees 12 inches in diameter and greater that could be disturbed
by the project improvements and construction activities (within tree canopy), noting
species.
Flows Provide arrows that indicate the direction of surface flow on all public and private
property and for all existing conveyance systems.
Floodplains/
Floodways
Show the floodplain/floodways as depicted on City of Kent maps or otherwise required
by the City of Kent.
General Background
Information
Show the location and limits of all existing:
• Property boundaries
• Structures
• Easements (including dimensions)
• Total property (including dimensions)
• Roads and right-of-way
• Sanitary sewers and water utilities
• Common open space
• Public dedications
• Other manmade features affecting existing topography/proposed improvements.
Development
Limitations
Delineate limitations to the development that may occur as identified on the TIR
worksheet, Part 11 (see Reference 8-A).
Formatted: Font: 9.5 pt, Not Bold
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-22 June 2022
❑ SITE PLAN AND PROFILES
The design engineer shall provide plans and profiles for all construction, including but not limited to the
following information.
Plan View: Site Plan and Roadway Elements
1. Provide property lines, right-of-way lines, and widths for proposed roads and intersecting roads.
Note: the condition of all public right-of-way and the right to use it as proposed must be verified.
2. Provide all existing and proposed roadway features, such as centerlines, edges of pavement and
shoulders, ditchlines, curbs, and sidewalks. In addition, show points of access to abutting properties
and roadway continuations.
3. Show existing and proposed topography contours at 2-foot intervals (5-foot intervals for slopes
greater than 15 percent, 10-foot intervals for slopes greater than 40 percent). Contours may be
extrapolated from USGS mapping, aerial photographs, or other topography map resources. However,
contours shall be field verified for roadway and stream centerlines, steep slopes, floodplains, drainage
tracts easements, and conveyance systems. Contours shall extend 50 feet beyond property lines to
resolve questions of setback, cut and fill slopes, drainage swales, ditches, and access or drainage to
adjacent property.
4. Show the location of all existing utilities and proposed utilities (except those designed by the utility
and not currently available) to the extent that these will be affected by the proposed project. Clearly
identify all existing utility poles.
5. Identify all roads and adjoining subdivisions.
6. Show right-of-way for all proposed roadways, using sufficient dimensioning to clearly show exact
locations on all sections of existing and proposed dedicated public roadway.
7. Clearly differentiate areas of existing pavement and areas of new pavement. If the project is a
redevelopment project, delineate areas of replaced impervious surface.
8. For subdivision projects, use drawing scales of 1"=50'. For commercial, multi-family, or other
projects, use scales of 1"=20'. Show details for clarification, including those for intersections and
existing driveways, on a larger scale.
9. Identify all section, township and range information for the project area.
Plan View: Drainage Conveyance
1. Sequentially number all catch basins and curb inlets starting with the structure farthest
downstream.
2. Represent existing storm drainage facilities and BMPs in dashed lines and label with “Existing.”
3. Clearly label existing storm drainage facilities to be removed with “Existing to be removed.”
4. Show the length, diameter, and material for all pipes, culverts, and stub-outs. Include the slope if not
provided on the profile view. Material may be noted in the plan notes. Where open conveyance is
provided, and a low-permeability liner or treatment liner is required per Section 6.2.4, indicate the
limits of such liner(s).
5. Clearly label catch basins as to size and type (or indicate in the plan notes).
6. Clearly label downspout and footing drain stub-out locations for those lots intending to connect to
the storm drainage flow control system. Locate all stub-outs to allow gravity flow from the lowest
corner of the lot to the connecting catch basin.
7. Show datum, benchmark locations, and elevations on each plan sheet.
8. Clearly label all stub-out locations for any future pipe connections.
9. Clearly show on the plans all drainage easements, tracts, access easements, Native Growth Retention
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-23 June 2022
Areas, Critical Area Tracts, Critical Area Setback Areas, and building setback lines. Show
dimensions, type of restriction, and use.
10. Using, arrows indicate drainage direction of hydraulic conveyance systems.
Plan View: Other
1. Show the location, identification, and dimensions of all buildings, property lines, streets, alleys, and
easements.
2. Verify the condition of all public right-of-way and the rights to use them as proposed.
3. Show the locations of structures on abutting properties within 50 feet of the proposed project site.
4. Show the location of all proposed drainage facility fencing, together with a typical section view of
each fencing type.
5. Provide section details of all retaining walls and rockeries, including sections through critical portions
of the rockeries or retaining walls.
6. Show all existing and proposed buildings with projections and overhangs.
7. Show the location of all wells on site and within 100 feet of the site. Note wells to be abandoned.
8. Show structural BMPs required by the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and any
subsequent revisions.
Profiles: Roadway and Drainage
1. Provide existing centerline ground profile at 50-foot stations and at significant ground breaks and
topographic features, with average accuracy to within 0.1 feet on unpaved surface and 0.02 feet on
paved surface.
2. For publicly maintained roadways, provide final road and storm drain profile with the same
stationing as the horizontal plan, reading from left to right, to show stationing of points of curve,
tangent, and intersection of vertical curves, with elevation of 0.01 feet. Include tie-in with intersecting
pipe runs.
3. On a grid of numbered lines, provide a continuous plot of vertical positioning against horizontal.
4. Show finished road grade and vertical curve data (road data measured at centerline or edge of
pavement). Include stopping sight distance.
5. Show all roadway drainage, including drainage facilities and BMPs, that are within the right-of-way
or easement.
6. On the profile, show slope, length, size, and type (in plan notes or on a detail sheet) for all pipes and
detention tanks in public right-of-way.
7. Indicate the inverts of all pipes and culverts and the elevations of catch basin grates or lids. It is also
desirable, but not required, to show invert elevations and grate elevations on plan sheets.
8. For pipes that are proposed to be within 2.0 feet of finished grade, indicate the minimum cover
dimensions.
9. Indicate roadway stationing and offset for all catch basins.
10. Indicate vertical and horizontal scale.
11. Clearly label all profiles with respective street names and plan sheet reference numbers, and indicate
all profile sheet reference numbers on plan sheets, if drawn on separate sheets.
12. Locate match points with existing pavements, and show elevations.
13. Show all property boundaries.
14. Label all match line locations.
15. Provide profiles for all 12-inch and larger pipes and for channels (that are not roadside ditches).
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-24 June 2022
16. Show the location of all existing and proposed (if available or critical for clearance) gas, water, and
sanitary sewer crossings.
17. Show energy dissipater locations.
18. Identify datum used and all benchmarks (may be shown on plan view instead). Datum and
benchmarks must refer to established control when available.
19. Use a vertical scale of 1"=5'. As an exception, vertical scale shall be 1"=10' if the optional 1"=100'
horizontal scale is used on projects with lots one acre or larger. Clarifying details, including those for
intersections and existing driveways, should use a larger scale.
20. Split sheets, with the profile aligned underneath the plan view, are preferred but not required.
❑ DETAILS
The design engineer shall provide details for all construction, including but not limited to the following.
Flow Control, Water Quality, and Infiltration Facility Details
1. Provide a scaled drawing and supporting details of each detention pond or vault, flow control BMP
and water quality facility, including the tract boundaries.
2. Show predeveloped and finished grade contours at 2-foot intervals. Show and label maximum
design water elevation.
3. Dimension all berm widths.
4. Show and label at least two cross sections through a pond or water quality facility, or any BMP large
enough to require design elements of ponds and/or water quality facilities. One cross section must
include the restrictor when included in the design.
5. Specify soils and compaction requirements for pond construction and flow control BMP
construction. Specify low-permeability liners or treatment liners as required for ponds and ditches per
Section 6.2.4.
6. Show the location and detail of emergency overflows, spillways, and bypasses.
7. Specify rock protection/energy dissipation requirements and details.
8. Provide inverts of all pipes, grates, inlets, tanks, and vaults, and spot elevations of the pond bottom.
9. Show the location of access roads to control manholes and pond/forebay bottoms.
10. Provide plan and section views of all energy dissipaters, including rock splash pads. Specify the
size of rock and thickness.
11. Show bollard locations on plans. Typically, bollards are located at the entrance to drainage facility
access roads.
12. On the pond or water quality facility detail, show the size, type (or in plan notes), slope, and length of
all pipes.
13. Show to scale the section and plan view of restrictor and control structures. The plan view must
show the location and orientation of all inlet pipes, outlet pipes, and flow restrictors.
14. Draw details at one of the following scales: 1"=1', 1"=2', 1"=4', 1"=5', 1"=10', or 1"=20'. Select a
scale that clearly shows required information.
Structural Plan Details
Any submittal that proposes a structure (e.g., bridge crossing, reinforced concrete footings, walls, or
vaults) shall include plan sheets that include complete working drawings showing dimensions, steel
placement, and specifications for construction. Structures may require a design prepared and stamped by a
professional structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington, and an application for a separate
commercial building permit.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-25 June 2022
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) PLAN
This section details the specifications and contents for ESC plans. Note that an ESC plan includes the
plan's drawings plus an ESC report, which provides all supporting information and any additional
direction necessary for implementing ESC measures and meeting ESC implementation requirements. The
ESC plan may be simplified by the use of the symbols and codes provided for each ESC measure in the
Erosion and Sediment Control Standards (detached Appendix D of the King County Manual). In
general, the ESC plan shall be submitted as a separate plan sheet(s). However, there may be some
relatively simple projects where providing separate grading and ESC plans is unnecessary.
General Specifications
The site improvement plan shall be used as the base of the ESC plan. Certain detailed information that is
not relevant (e.g., pipe/catch basin size, stub-out locations, etc.) may be omitted to make the ESC plan
easier to read. At a minimum, the ESC plan shall include all of the information required for the base map
(see Table 2.3.1.A), as well as existing and proposed roads, driveways, parking areas, buildings, drainage
facilities and BMPs, utility corridors not associated with roadways, relevant critical areas33 and critical
area relevant critical areas 3 and critical area buffers, and proposed final topography. A smaller scale may
be used to provide better comprehension and understanding.
The ESC plan shall generally be designed for proposed topography, not existing topography, since rough
grading is usually the first step in site disturbance. The ESC plan shall address all phases of construction
(e.g., clearing, grading, and installation of utilities, surfacing, and final stabilization). If construction is
being phased, separate ESC plans may need to be prepared to address the specific needs for each
construction phase.
The ESC plan shall be consistent with the information provided in Section 8 of the TIR and shall show the
following:
1. Identify areas with a high susceptibility to erosion.
2. Provide all details necessary to clearly illustrate the intent of the ESC design.
3. Include ESC measures for all on- and offsite utility construction included in the project.
4. Specify the construction sequence. The construction sequence shall be specifically written for the
proposed project. An example construction sequence is provided in Appendix D of the King County
Manual.
5. Include ESC Standard Plan Notes.
6. Include an inspection and maintenance program for ESC measures, including designation of a
CSWPP supervisor who is a certified ESC professional and identification of phone numbers for
24-hour contact.
7. Include the basis and calculations for selection and sizing of ESC measures.
33 Relevant critical areas, for the purposes of drainage review, include aquatic areas, wetlands, flood hazard areas, erosion hazard
areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-26 June 2022
Clearing Limits
1. Delineate clearing limits.
2. Provide details sufficient to install and maintain the clearing limits.
Cover Measures
1. Specify the type and location of temporary cover measures to be used onsite.
2. If more than one type of cover is to be used onsite, indicate the areas where the different measures
will be used, including steep cut and fill slopes.
3. If the type of cover measures to be used will vary depending on the time of year, soil type, gradient, or
some other factor, specify the conditions that control the use of the different measures.
4. Specify the nature and location of permanent cover measures. If a landscaping plan is prepared, this
may not be necessary.
5. Specify the approximate amount of cover measures necessary to cover all disturbed areas.
6. If netting or blankets, or plastic sheeting are specified, provide typical detail sufficient for
installation and maintenance.
7. Specify the mulch types, seed mixes, fertilizers, and soil amendments to be used, as well as the
application rate for each item.
8. For surface roughening, describe methods, equipment and areas where surface roughening will be
use.
9. If PAM is used, show location(s) and describe application method.
10. When compost blankets are used, show location, application rates, and the name of the supplier
to document that compost meets quality specifications per Reference 11-C.
Perimeter Protection
1. Specify the location and type of perimeter protection to be used.
2. Provide typical details sufficient to install and maintain the perimeter protection.
3. If silt fence is to be used, specify the type of fabric to be used.
4. If compost berms or socks are used, documentation must be provided to assure the supplier meets
the criteria and compost meets quality standards per Reference 11-C.
Traffic Area Stabilization
1. Locate the construction entrance(s).
2. Provide typical details sufficient to install and maintain the construction entrance.
3. Locate the construction roads and parking areas.
4. Specify the measure(s) that will be used to create stabilized construction roads and parking areas.
Provide sufficient detail to install and maintain.
5. If a wheel wash or tire bath system will be installed, provide location, typical details for installation
and maintenance.
6. Provide a list of dust control products that will be used onsite and the location of potential application
areas.
Sediment Retention
1. Show the locations of all sediment ponds and traps.
2. Dimension pond berm widths and all inside and outside pond slopes.
3. Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-27 June 2022
4. Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structures.
5. If chemical or electrocoagulation treatment of sediment-laden waters will be used, approval
documentation from Ecology must be included (see SWPPS plan requirements for chemical storage).
6. Provide details for disposal of contaminated or chemically treated waters (e.g., where Chitosan or CO2
have been used) (see SWPPS plan requirements for chemical storage).
7. Include appropriate approval documentation from local sewer districts if contaminated
or chemically treated water will be discharged to the sanitary sewer.
8. Provide typical details of the control structure and dewatering mechanism.
9. Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet protection.
10. Provide details sufficient to install cell dividers.
11. Specify mulch or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
12. Indicate the required depth gage with a prominent mark at 1-foot depth for sediment removal.
13. Indicate catch basins that are to be protected.
14. Indicate existing and proposed flow control BMP areas that are to be protected.
15. Provide details of the catch basin and flow control BMP protection sufficient to install and
maintain.
Surface Water Control
1. Locate all pipes, ditches, interceptor ditches, and swales that will be used to convey stormwater.
2. Provide details sufficient to install and maintain all conveyances.
3. Indicate locations of outlet protection, and provide detail of protections.
4. Indicate locations and outlets of any possible dewatering systems. Provide details of alternative
discharge methods from dewatering systems if adequate infiltration rates cannot be achieved. Do not
route dewatering water, clean or untreated, through stormwater sediment ponds.
5. Indicate the location of any level spreaders, and provide details sufficient to install and maintain.
6. Show all temporary pipe inverts.
7. Provide location and specifications for the interception of runoff from disturbed areas and the
conveyance of the runoff to a non-erosive discharge point.
8. Provide locations and details of rock check dams.
9. Provide details, including front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
Protection of Existing and Proposed Flow Control BMP Areas
1. Provide perimeter protection at existing and proposed flow control BMP locations.
2. Provide cautionary plan notes emphasizing avoidance of negative impacts to receptor soils
and existing vegetation to remain.
BMP Maintenance
1. Provide adequate plan notes for guidance of BMP maintenance methods and schedules.
2. Include an inspection and maintenance program for ESC measures.
Management of the Project
1. Provide plan notes to clarify and emphasize the management responsibilities for the project.
2. Include an inspection and maintenance program for ESC measures, including designation of a
CSWPP supervisor who is a certified ESC professional and identification of phone numbers for
24-hour contact.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-28 June 2022
Wet Season Requirements
1. Provide a list of all applicable wet season requirements.
2. Clearly identify that from October 1st through April 30th, no soils shall be exposed for more than two
consecutive working days. Also note that this tw o-day requirement may be applied at other times
of the year if storm events warrant more conservative measures.
3. Clearly identify that exposed soils shall be stabilized at the end of the workday prior to a
weekend, holiday, or predicted rain event.
Critical Areas Restrictions
1. Delineate and label the following critical areas, and any applicable buffers, that are on or adjacent
to the project site: aquatic areas, wetlands, flood hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, landslide
hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas.
2. If construction creates disturbed areas within any of the above listed critical areas or associated
buffers, specify the type, locations, and details of any measures or other provisions necessary to
comply w ith the critical area restrictions in Appendix D and protect surface waters and steep
slopes.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND SPILL (SWPPS) PLAN
This section details the specifications and contents for SWPPS plans, which together with ESC plans,
comprise the construction stormwater pollution prevention (CSWPP) plan that must be submitted as
part of the engineering plans required for drainage review. Additional guidance for developing the
SWPPS plan can be found in the SWPPS Standards in the KCSWDM Appendix D, Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Standards, in the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Manual and in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) published
by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
The SWPPS plan must be kept on site during all phases of construction and shall address the
construction-related pollution-generating activities outlined in Subsection A below. The plan must
include a description of the methods the general contractor will use to ensure sub-contractors are aware
of the SWPPS plan. A form or record must be provided that states all sub-contractors have read and
agree to the SWPPS plan.
A SWPPS plan consists of the following three elements, which are further described in Subsections B,
C, and D below:
1. A site plan showing the location and description of BMPs required to prevent pollution and
control spills from construction activities and from chemicals and other materials used and stored
on the construction site. See Subsection B below for more specifics on the SWPPS site plan.
2. A pollution prevention report listing the potential sources of pollution and identifying the
operational, source control, and treatment BMPs necessary to prevent/mitigate pollution from
these sources. See Subsection C below for more specifics on the SWPPS pollution prevention
report.
3. A spill prevention and cleanup report describing the procedures and BMPs for spill prevention
and including provisions for cleanup of spills should they occur. See Subsection D below for more
specifics on the SWPPS spill prevention and cleanup report.
A. ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-29 June 2022
At a minimum, the SWPPS plan shall address, if applicable, the following pollution-generating
activities typically associated with construction and include the information specified below for each
activity. If other pollution-generating activities associated with construction of the proposed project
are identified, the SWPPS plan must address those activities in a similar manner.
Storage and Handling of Liquids
1. Identify liquids that will be handled or stored onsite, including but not limited to petroleum
products, fuel, solvents, detergents, paint, pesticides, concrete admixtures, and form oils.
2. Specify types and sizes of containers of liquids that will be stored/handled onsite. Show
locations on the SWPPS site plan.
3. Describe secondary containment methods adequately sized to provide containment for all
liquids stored onsite. Show the locations of containment areas on the SWPPS site plan.
Storage and Stockpiling of Construction Materials and Wastes
1. Identify construction materials and wastes that may be generated or stockpiled onsite. Show the
locations where these materials and wastes will be generated and stockpiled on the SWPPS site
plan.
2. Specify type of cover measures to be used to keep rainwater from contacting construction
materials and wastes that can contribute pollutants to storm, surface, and ground water.
3. If wastes are kept in containers, describe how rainwater will be kept out of the containers.
Fueling
1. Specify method of onsite fueling for construction equipment (i.e. stationary tanks, truck
mounted tanks, wet hosing, etc.). If stationary tanks will be used, show their location on the
SWPPS site plan.
2. Describe type and size of tanks.
3. Describe containment methods for fuel spills and make reference to the SWPPS site
plan for location information.
4. If fueling occurs during evening hours, describe lighting and signage plan. Make reference to the
SWPPS site plan for location information.
Maintenance, Repairs, and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment
1. Identify maintenance and repair areas and show their locations on the SWPPS site plan.
Use of drip pans or plastic beneath vehicles is required. A note to this effect must be shown
on the SWPPS site plan.
2. Describe method for collection, storage, and disposal of vehicle fluids.
3. If an area is designated for vehicle maintenance, signs must be posted that state no vehicle
washing may occur in the area. A note to this effect must be shown on the SWPPS site plan.
Concrete Saw Cutting, Slurry, and Washwater Disposal
1. Assure that washout of concrete trucks is performed off-site or in designated concrete washout
areas only. Identify truck washout areas to assure such areas are not within a critical aquifer
recharge area. If they are, the washout area must be lined with an impervious membrane.
Show location information on the SWPPS site plan. Locate washout area at least 50 feet from
sensitive areas such as storm drains, open ditches, or water bodies, including wetlands.
2. Specify size of sumps needed to collect and contain slurry and washwater. Show location
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-30 June 2022
information on the SWPPS site plan.
3. Identify areas for rinsing hand tools including but not limited to screeds, shovels, rakes,
floats and trowels. Show the locations of these areas on the SWPPS site plan.
4. Describe methods for collecting, treating, and disposal of waste water from exposed
aggregate processes, concrete grinding and saw cutting, and new concrete washing and
curing water.
Handling of pH Elevated Water
New concrete vaults/structures may cause collected water to have an elevated pH. This water
cannot be discharged to storm or surface water until neutralized.
1. Provide details on treating/neutralizing water when pH is not within neutral parameters.
Written approval from Ecology is required before using chemical treatment other than CO2 or
dry ice to adjust pH.
2. Provide details on disposal of water with elevated pH or of the treated water.
Application of Chemicals including Pesticides and Fertilizers
1. Provide a list of chemicals that may be used on the project site and the application rates.
2. Describe w here and how chemicals will be applied. Show location information on the
SWPPS site plan.
3. Describe where and how chemicals will be stored. Show location information on the SWPPS
site plan.
B. SWPPS SITE PLAN
The site plan element of the SWPPS plan shall include all of the information required for the base
map (see Table 2.3.1.A, p. 2-23), as well as existing and proposed roads, driveways, parking areas,
buildings, drainage facilities, utility corridors not associated with roadways, relevant critical
areas34 and associated buffers, and proposed final topography. A smaller scale may be used to
provide more comprehensive details on specific locations of each activity and specific prevention
measure. In addition to this information, the following items, at a minimum, shall be provided as
applicable:
1. Identify locations where liquids will be stored and delineate secondary containment areas that
will be provided.
2. Identify locations where construction materials and wastes will be generated and stockpiled.
3. Identify location of fueling for vehicles and equipment if stationary tanks will be used.
4. Delineate containment areas for fuel spills.
5. Show location of lighting and signage for fueling during evening hours.
6. Delineate maintenance and repair areas and clearly note that drip pans or plastic shall be
used beneath vehicles. Also, clearly note that signs must be posted that state no vehicle
34 Relevant critical areas, for the purposes of drainage review, include aquatic areas, wetlands, flood hazard areas, erosion hazard
areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-31 June 2022
w ashing may occur in the area.
7. Delineate truck w ashout areas and identify the location of slurry/washwater sumps and
rinsing areas for tools.
8. Delineate where chemicals will be applied and identify where they will be stored.
9. Identify where spill response materials will be stored.
C. POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORT
This report provides the specifics on pollution prevention and must include the following
information in addition to the activity-specific information specified in Subsection A above:
1. List the possible sources of pollution per Subsection A above and identify the BMPs to be
used for each source to prevent pollution. Include any supporting information (site
conditions, calculations, etc.) for the selection and sizing of pollution prevention BMPs.
2. Identify the personnel responsible for pollution prevention and clearly list the responsibilities
of each person identified. Contact information for these personnel must be clearly identified
in the report and on the SWPPS site plan.
3. Describe the procedures to be used for monitoring pollution prevention BMPs and for
responding to a BMP that needs attention, including keeping records/reports of all inspections
of pollution prevent BMPs (see Reference Section 8-E for examples of worksheets that may be
used).
D. SPILL PREVENTION AND CLEANUP REPORT
This report provides the specifics on spill prevention and cleanup and must include the
following information in addition to any activity-specific information in Subsection A
above related to spill prevention:
1. List the possible sources of a spill and identify the BMPs to be used for each source to prevent a
spill.
2. Identify personnel responsible for spill prevention and cleanup and clearly list the responsibilities
of each person identified. Contact information for these personnel must be clearly identified in
the report and on the SWPPS site plan. (On typical projects, the primary contact for SWPPS issues
will be the CSWPP supervisor, who may be managing other spill responders to assure compliance;
complex projects may warrant specialist personnel for specific site applications.)
3. Describe the procedures to be used for monitoring spill prevention BMPs and for
responding to a spill incident, including keeping records/reports of all inspections and spills
(see Reference Section 8-E for examples of worksheets that may be used).
4. Identify where spill response materials will be stored. Make reference to the SWPPS site
plan for location information.
5. Identify disposal methods for contaminated water and soil after a spill.
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLANS (IF APPLICABLE)
A landscape management plan is a Kent approved plan for defining the layout and long-term maintenance
of landscaping features to minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and reduce the discharge of
suspended solids and other pollutants. General guidance for preparing landscape management plans is
provided in Reference Section 4-C.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.3 PLANS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-32 June 2022
If a landscape management plan is proposed, it must be submitted with the engineering plans for the
proposed project. The elements listed below are required for evaluation of landscape management plans.
1. Provide a site vicinity map with topography.
2. Provide a site plan with topography. Indicate areas with saturated soils or high water tables.
3. Provide a plant list (provide both common and scientific names) that includes the following
information:
a) Indicate any drought-tolerant plants, disease resistant varieties, species for attracting beneficial
insects (if any) and native plants.
b) For shrubs and groundcovers, indicate the proposed spacing.
c) For turf areas, indicate the grass mix or mixes planned. Indicate sun/shade tolerance, disease
susceptibility, drought tolerance, and tolerance of wet soil conditions.
4. Provide a landscape plan. Indicate placement of landscape features, lawn areas, trees, and planting
groups (forbs, herbs, groundcovers, etc.) on the site.
5. Include information on soil preparation and fertility requirements.
6. Provide information on the design of the irrigation method (installed sprinkler system, drip irrigation
system, manual, etc.)
7. Provide a landscape maintenance plan, including the following:
a) Physical care methods, such as thatch removal or aeration, and mowing height and frequency.
b) Type of fertilizer (including N-P-K strength) and fertilization schedule or criteria.
c) Type of chemicals to be used for common pests such as crane fly larvae, and the criteria or
schedule for application.
d) Any biocontrol methods.
8. Provide information about the storage of pesticides or other chemicals, and disposal measures that
will be used:
a) If applicable, indicate how the chemicals will be stored on the site between applications to prevent
contact with stormwater or spills into the storm drainage system.
b) Indicate how excess quantities of fertilizers or chemicals will be handled for individual
applications.
9. Provide an implementation plan (see Reference Section 4-C for guidance on preparing the
implementation plan).
PROJECTS IN TARGETED DRAINAGE REVIEW
This section outlines the specifications and contents of limited scope engineering plans allowed for
projects in Targeted Drainage Review. Table 2.3.2.A specifies the minimum required elements of the
targeted technical information report based on the type of permit or project, and on the three categories of
project characteristics subject to Targeted Drainage Review per Section 1.1.2.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
TABLE 2.3.2.A MINIMUM ENGINEERING PLAN ELEMENTS(1)
FOR PROJECTS IN TARGETED DRAINAGE REVIEW
Type of Permit or Project Drainage Review
Type
Project Category 1(2)
Projects that contain or are
adjacent to floodplains,
streams, lakes, wetlands or
closed depressions OR projects
within a Landslide Hazard
Area, Landslide Hazard
Drainage Area or Erosion
Hazard Area. Projects in TDR
that contain or are adjacent
to a flood, erosion, or
II. steep slope hazard area; or
are within a CDA or LHDA; or
propose ≥7,000 sf of land
disturbing activity (3 acres if
in Simplified DR).
Project Category 2(2)
Projects in Targeted
Drainage Review that
propose to construct or
modify a 12" or larger
pipe/ditch, or receive
runoff from a 12" or larger
pipe/ditch
Project Category 3(2)
Redevelopment projects (as
defined in 1.1) in Targeted
Drainage Review that propose
$100,000 or more of
improvements to an existing
high-use site
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
PERMITS
(SFRs)
Targeted Drainage
Review ONLY
• TIR Sections 1, 2, and 6
(minimum)
• Simplified Site ESC Plan(3)
and SWPPS Plan
• Site Improvement Plan(5),
• TIR Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, and 8 (minimum)
• Simplified Site ESC
Plan(3) and SWPPS Plan
• ESC Plan(4) for
conveyance work
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
N/A
&
SHORT PLATS
Targeted Drainage
Review COMBINED
WITH Simplified
Site Drainage
Review
• TIR Sections 1, 2, and 6
(minimum)
• Simplified Site ESC Plan(3)
and SWPPS Plan
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
• TIR Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, and 8 (minimum)
• Simplified Site ESC
Plan(3)
• ESC Plan(4) for
conveyance work
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
N/A
OTHER PROJECTS OR
PERMITS
Targeted Drainage
Review ONLY
• TIR Sections 1, 2, 6, and 8
(minimum)
• ESC Plan(4) and SWPPS Plan
for any site disturbance work
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
• TIR Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, and 8 (minimum)
• ESC Plan(4) and SWPPS
Plan for any site
disturbance work
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
• TIR Sections 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10
(minimum)
• ESC Plan(4) and SWPPS Plan
for any site disturbance work
• Site Improvement Plan(5)
Notes:
(1) The above plan elements are considered the recommended minimum for most development cases in Targeted Drainage Review. The
Development Review Engineer may add to these elements if deemed necessary for proper drainage review. Predesign meetings with the
Development Review Engineer are recommended to identify all required elements.
(2) For more detailed descriptions of project categories, see Section 1.1.2.2. If the proposed project has the characteristics o f more than one
category, the plan elements under each applicable category shall apply.
(3) Simplified site ESC plans are an element of the simplified site drainage plan as explained in the Simplified Site Drainage Requirements
booklet (detached Appendix C).
(4) ESC plans shall meet the applicable specifications detailed in Section 2.3.1.3
(5) Site improvement plans shall meet the applicable specifications detailed in Section 2.3.1.2. The Development Review Engineer may allow
modified site improvement plans as described in Section 2.3.1.2.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.4 PLANS REQUIRED AFTER DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-34 June 2022
PLANS REQUIRED AFTER DRAINAGE REVIEW
This section includes the specifications and contents required of those plans submitted at the end of the
permit review process or after a permit has been issued.
PLAN CHANGES AFTER PERMIT ISSUANCE
If changes or revisions to the originally approved engineering plans require additional review, the revised
plans shall be submitted to the Permit Center as a Plan Revision for approval prior to construction. The
plan change submittals shall contain all of the following in PDF format:
o The appropriate Revision form(s).
o The revised TIR or addendum.
o The engineering plans.
o Other information needed for review.
FINAL CORRECTED PLAN SUBMITTAL
During the course of construction, changes to the approved engineering plans are often required to
address unforeseen field conditions or design improvements. Once construction is completed, it is the
applicant's responsibility to submit to the Economic and Community Development Department a final
corrected plan (“as-builts”), which is an engineering drawing that accurately represents the project as
constructed. These corrected drawings must be professionally drafted revisions applied to the original
approved plan, excluding the CSWPP plan, and must include all changes made during the course of
construction; the ESC plan, however, should not be included. The final corrected plan must be
stamped, signed, and dated by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington. A CAD
drawing file (.dwg) of the final corrected plan must be submitted along with paper copies. The CAD
file must contain all the pages of the plan set for road and drainage infrastructure, but need not contain
other sheets. A final corrected TIR, updated to include all changes made to the originally approved
TIR during the course of construction, must be submitted with the final corrected plan. In addition to
any design changes and supporting calculations and documentation, the final corrected TIR shall
include a final updated Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet (see Reference 8-D) and signed/recorded
copies of all required easements and declarations of covenant. A copy of any required Landscape
Management Plan (see Section 2.3.1.5) shall accompany the plans and TIR. The electronic copy of the
final corrected TIR may be in .pdf or other approved format. Specific requirements for “as-built”
submittals are described in the Kent Design and Construction Standards.
FINAL PLAT, SHORT PLAT, AND BINDING SITE PLAN
SUBMITTALS
In addition to the requirements of the Economic and Community Development Department, submittals for
final recording of subdivisions and short plats must include the following information:
1. Indicate dimensions of all easements, tracts, building setbacks, tops of slopes, wetland boundaries,
and floodplains.
2. Include pertinent restrictions as they apply to easements, tracts, and building setback lines.
3. Include the dedication and indemnification clause as provided in Reference Section 8-G
accompanying Chapter 5 of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SECTION 2.4 PLANS REQUIRED AFTER DRAINAGE REVIEW
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
4. State the maximum amount of added impervious surface and proposed clearing per lot as
determined through engineering review. The maximum amount of impervious surface may be
expressed in terms of percentage of lot coverage or square feet.
5. Specify roof downspout controls by lot based on the “Sizing Credits for Roof Downspout Controls”
(see Section 1.2.3.2) as determined through engineering review and approval.
6. For a plat or short plat, record a note conditioning single-family residential permit approval on
compliance with approved roof downspout controls (see notes in Section 5.1).
7. Include a recorded declaration of covenant and grant of easement for each lot on which flow
control BMPs are installed or stipulated per Core Requirement 9, Section 1.2.9.4.1, and each lot
for which flow control BMPs are installed in a separate dedicated tract per Section 1.2.9.4.1.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 2-37 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 3
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
CHAPTER 3
Hydrologic Analysis and Design .......................................................................................................................... 3-1
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 3 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
3-1
3 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The City of Kent has made no changes to Chapter 3 of the 2021 King County Surface Water Design
Manual. Chapter 3 of the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual shall be used for all proposals
in the city of Kent.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 4 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 4
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
CHAPTER 4
Conveyance System Analysis and Design .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Route Design Easment Requirements ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Easment And Setback Requirements ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Pipes, Outfalls, and Pumps ...................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Pipe Systems ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Outfall Systems ................................................................................................................................. 4-8
4.3 Culverts And Bridges ............................................................................................................................... 4-8
4.3.1 Culverts ............................................................................................................................................. 4-8
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 4 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 4 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-1 June 2022
4 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND
DESIGN
The City of Kent has made the following revisions to Chapter 4 of the 2021 KCSWDM. Apart from these
changes, the King County version of Chapter 4 applies for proposals in the City of Kent.
ROUTE DESIGN EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS
EASEMENT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
This section shall read as follows:
Permanent onsite exclusive Easements for access, maintenance, and construction are required for all public
and private stormwater systems serving more than one property located outside of public right-of-way.
Private improvements such as buildings, fences, garages, carports, retaining walls, utilities, signs, light
standards, etc. are not allowed in these easements. Where an encroachment occurs, the developer shall
remove and relocate the conflicting private improvements. Easements shall be accessible by
construction equipment used to operate and maintain these facilities. When Easements are required,
then legal descriptions for same shall be submitted with a professional land surveyor stamp thereon. Also,
a current title report covering the properties to be encumbered by the Easements shall accompany said
description. Under no circumstances shall a Bill of Sale be placed on the City Council agenda for action
until all Easements have been approved and recorded.
When offsite Easements and/or onsite Easements for the extension of approved comprehensive stormwater
plans are required, these shall be approved and recorded prior to holding any preconstruction meeting.
The same conditions shall apply regarding legal descriptions and title reports.
A. Easements
The minimum easement widths are as follows:
1. Storm drain pipelines (under 10 feet deep) – 15 feet wide.
2. Storm drain pipelines (10 –15 feet deep) – 20 feet wide. Note: large diameter or deeper sewers
may require wider easements as determined necessary by the Director.
3. Access and/or maintenance roads are required to all retention/detention facilities, control
manholes, and other drainage structures. The minimum roadway width shall be 12 feet. The road
shall be paved with an all-weather surface, and the pavement shall be designed to support a HS-20
loading maintenance vehicle.
4. The Easements for detention facilities or other structures shall extend a minimum of 12 feet
around the outside of the facility, and shall include access Easements as well.
B. Right-of-way
Where possible, utility extensions shall be located within City Right-of-way. When possible storm
drainage Retention/Detention facilities shall be located adjacent to City Right-of-way.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-2 June 2022
Work inside County and State Right-of-way requires use permits from the appropriate agencies.
County and State Right-of-way Permits must be obtained by the developer/owner.
PIPES, OUTFALLS, AND PUMPS
4.2.1 PIPE SYSTEMS
DESIGN CRITERIA
Acceptable Pipe Sizes – This section is replaced with the following:
“The minimum diameter of storm drain approved for mainline conveyance systems, or for driveway
culverts, shall be 12 inches. Minor laterals and connections to catch basins may be 8 inches in diameter if
approved by the City. The minimum diameter acceptable for private systems shall be 8 inches, excluding
downspouts.”
Allowable Pipe Materials – This section is replaced with the following:
The designer shall have the option of constructing storm sewers, drains, and culverts of the type of pipe
listed below within the limits specified. It is not necessary that all pipe on the project be of the same type;
however, all contiguous pipe shall be of the same type.
Type of Pipe Minimum Cover (ft)
(from top of bell)
(See Note 1)
Public Systems
PCP (Bell & spigot Gasket joint) 2 Yes
RCP 1 Yes
HDPE 1.5 Yes
PVC SDR 35 3 Yes, see Note 2 for exemption
PVC SDR 21 1.5 Yes, See Note 2 for exemption
Ductile Iron 0.5 Yes
Ribbed PVC 2 Yes, see Note 2 for exemption
NOTES:
1. These are minimum depths. Actual depths must meet design loading requirements.
including maximum depths specified by the pipe manufacturer. Pipe cover in areas not
subject to vehicular loads may be reduced to 3 inch minimum. . Regardless of stated
minimum cover, the designer shall mitigate for pipe buoyancy.
2. PVC pipe shall not be used as driveway culvert and on pipe runs where one or both ends are
not terminated at a structure.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-3 June 2022
All materials used for construction of storm drainage systems and appurtenances shall be new and
undamaged. All materials used shall be subject to inspection by the City prior to use. The contractor shall
provide the City with shop drawings, manufacturer’s specifications, and certificates of materials as
requested.
The materials referred to herein, shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications
and the manufacturer’s recommended installation procedures.
1. Plain Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe (PCP) – All nonreinforced concrete pipe shall be ASTM C14-81
Class II or better with gasketed joints. Joints for concrete pipe shall use rubber gaskets per ASTM
C443. The maximum diameter for unreinforced pipe shall be 12 inches.
2. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) – All reinforced concrete pipe shall be ASTM C76-85a Class IV
or as specified. Elliptical and arch pipe shall be reinforced per ASTM C507 and ASTM C506
accordingly. Joints for reinforced concrete pipe shall use rubber gaskets per ASTM C443.
3. Protective Treatment – All steel pipe shall be coated with a protective asphalt treatment. The minimum
acceptable protective treatment shall be APWA Treatment 1.
4. PVC Pipe – PVC pipe conforming to ASTM 3034, SDR 35 and SDR 21 with rubber gasket joints
may be used where adequate cover can be obtained. Joints shall conform to ASTM D3212 using
elastomeric gaskets conforming to ASTM F477.
5. Ribbed PVC – PVC pipe conforming to ASTM F79H/UNI-B-9 with rubber gasket joints may be used
where adequate cover can be obtained. Joints shall conform to ASTM D3212 using elastomeric gaskets
conforming to ASTM F477.
6. HDPE Pipe – Non-corrugated solid walled High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) are manufactured
from resins meeting the requirements of ASTM D3350 and meeting or exceeding cell classification of
445574C, and a plastic pipe institute (PPI) designation of PE 4710. The pipe shall have a minimum
standard dimension ratio (SDR) of 32.5. HDPE pipe shall be joined into a continuous length by using
a butt-fusion joint method meeting the requirements of ASTM F2620 and the manufacturer’s
recommendations.
7. Ductile Iron Pipe – DI pipe shall be Class 50 in accordance with USA Standard A-21.1 (AWWA C-
51). All joints shall be push-on mechanical or flanged.
Pipe Alignment – Replace Requirement 1 with the following:
“All storm drains smaller than 36 inches in diameter shall be designed with a straight alignment between
manholes or catch basins.
Storm Drainage Manholes
A. Location – Storm drainage manholes or catch manholes for access are required at the following
locations on the conveyance system:
1. All changes in slope.
2. Changes in pipe diameter.
3. Connections of storm pipes from manholes to the conveyance systems that are larger than 24
inches in diameter.
The following exceptions may be connected to conveyance systems that are equal to a 48-inch-
diameter pipe using an approved saddle branch:
a. Connections of storm pipes from catch manholes that are 24 inches and smaller in diameter.
b. Connections of storm pipes from catch basins that are 18 inches and smaller in diameter.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-4 June 2022
4. Changes in alignment.
5. Distances not greater than 400 feet on pipe runs.
6. Dissimilar pipe materials and/or change in pipe material.
7. In a trunk line smaller than 12 inches, at every other catch basin but no greater than 400 feet.
B. Flow Channels – Where necessary to maintain the hydraulic gradeline, channeled storm drain
manholes shall be used. The manhole shall be fully channeled to the crown of the pipe to accomplish
smooth flow and minimize turbulence at junctions. Catch or drop section manholes are permitted on
the trunk system.
C. Flow at Transition Manholes – To maintain the energy gradient and the velocity through grade
changes and changes in diameter at manholes, the invert of the downstream pipe shall be lowered. A
general method to achieve the required drop at manholes is to match crowns of the storm pipes. In
cases where slopes are at a minimum, an alternate approach is to use the 0.8 rule. Where possible, a
0.1 foot drop in all manholes is desirable.
D. Standard Manholes – The minimum diameter of manholes shall be 48 inches and shall be precast
reinforced concrete structures. All manholes shall be equipped with safety steps. Larger diameter
manholes are required for larger pipelines and special pipe configurations. The following table lists
the minimum diameter of manholes for various runs of straight pipelines. (See Standard Details 5-
8(a), 5-8(b) and 5-9 in Appendix B of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
Pipe Diameter Manhole Diameter
8 inches – 21 inches 48 inches
24 inches – 36 inches 54 inches
36 inches – 42 inches 72 inches
42 inches – 60 inches 96 inches
Stormwater Inlets
Stormwater inlets, installed to intercept surface runoff, include catch basins, catch manholes, curb inlets,
and headwall structures. Catch type inlets are required to trap or minimize silts, sediment, and debris from
entering the main drainage systems. Curb type inlets without a drop section are permitted only where
approved by the City.
A. Catch Basin Locations for Street and Roadways – Catch basins or catch manholes shall be installed at
these locations:
1. At all street gutterline intersections in such a configuration as to minimize gutter flows through
pedestrian crossings.
2. At locations along gutters so as to provide a maximum gutter flow of 200 feet for street grades up
to 3%.
3. Where Type II catch basins are used for access to the trunk storm sewer, the maximum spacing
shall be 400 feet.
4. At all low points of vertical curves and grade breaks.
5. At the inlet of minor ditches to the drainage system.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-5 June 2022
B. The low point of vertical curves or roadway grades require catch basins with through curb inlet to
minimize the potential for property damage. Cul-de-sacs located at the low end of roadway grades
also require catch basins with through curb inlet. (See Standard Detail 5-2(a) and (b) in Appendix B
of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
C. In all cases, the location, size, and number of catch basins to be installed shall be sufficient to ensure
that there is adequate capacity to efficiently collect the stormwater.
D. Catch Basin Locations for Private Developments – Catch basins or catch manholes are required at
these locations for private developments:
1. At the junction of private storm drainage systems with City drainage systems.
2. At adequate locations throughout the development to provide efficient drainage of paved areas
and to ensure that surface water runoff to adjacent City streets and private property is minimized.
3. At locations as required to intercept natural drainage entering the site.
Castings
A. Manhole frames and covers shall be cast gray iron or ductile iron. All manhole covers located outside
the street shall have locking lids. (See Standard Plans in Section 5.9 of the Kent Design and
Construction Standards.)
B. Public catch basin frame and grates shall be ductile iron and bolt down. (See Standard Plans in Section
5.9 of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
C. Public catch basins used in areas not designed to receive surface drainage or where required by the
Director shall have ductile iron bolt down frame with solid lid. (See Standard Plans in Section 5.9 of
the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
D. Public catch basins used in low point of vertical curves or roadway grades and at the low end of
roadway grades in cul-de-sacs shall have through curb inlet frame and self-locking vaned grate.
(See Standard Plans in Section 5.9 of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
E. Public catch basins used in steep roadway grades of 6% and greater shall have ductile iron self-
locking vaned grate with vaned grate frame. (See Standard Plans in Section 5.9 of the Kent Design
and Construction Standards.)
F. Public catch basins used in rolled curb and gutter shall have rolled curb frame and grate. (See
Standard Details (See Standard Plans in Section 5.9 of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.)
G. Block lettering is required on the top surfaces of storm drain castings, and shall read as follows:
“NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO STREAMS!”
Manhole and Catch Basin Adapters
A. All aluminum surfaces in contact with the concrete or concrete pipe shall be treated to protect from
corrosion. The aluminum pipe to be treated shall be cleaned with solvent to remove contaminants.
After cleaning, the pipe shall be painted with 2 coats of paint conforming to Federal Specification TT-
P-645.
B. PVC pipe adapters shall be Kor-in-seal type flex joints or sand collars meeting ASTM D-303H-78
SDR35 specifications or other materials as approved by the Director to permit slight differential
movement.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-6 June 2022
C. Ribbed PVC adapters shall be Ribbed PVC sand collars meeting ASTM D-303H-78 SDR35
specifications. Where the pipe enters square to the manhole or catch basin, double gaskets may be
used. The gaskets must fall within a 1-inch tolerance of the inside and outside face of the wall of the
structure.
D. All pipe materials other than the above shall be mudded directly into the manholes and catch basins
using a smooth 45 degree bevel from the pipe to the structure. The allowable protrusion is 2 inches
inside the structure unless otherwise approved by the Director.
Pipe Bedding
Pipe bedding for storm drain and culvert pipe shall be 5/8-inch minus crushed rock. (Pea gravel is not
allowed). A continuous and uniform bedding shall be provided in the trench for all buried pipe. Bedding
material shall be tamped in layers around the pipe and to a sufficient height above the pipe to adequately
support and protect the pipe to 95% compaction ASTM D-1557, in accordance with the standard
specifications and details and in conformance with the following gradation:
Sieve Size Passing
3/4 Inch 100%
5/8 Inch 95 – 100%
1/4 Inch 45 – 65%
U.S. No. 40 6 – 18
U.S. No. 200 7.5 Max.
% Fracture 75 Min.
Sand Equivalent 40 Min.
L.A. wear 500 rev. 35% Max., Degradation 25% min. Free from wood waste, bark, and other deleterious
material.
Bedding shall be placed 6 inches under or around the pipe and 6 inches over the pipe where, in the opinion
of the Director, existing material is found unsuitable. The pipe shall be protected from damage when
compacting. At least 2 feet of cover is required over the pipe prior to using heavy compaction equipment.
Where determined necessary by the Director, ballast material shall be used below bedding to stabilize the
trench. Ballast shall conform to the requirements of Pipe Bedding and Foundation Material in Section
3.20.A of the City of Kent Design and Construction Standards.
Backfill
Pipe trench backfill shall be in accordance with Section 4.7.F of the City of Kent Design and Construction
Standards unless otherwise approved by the Director.
Cleaning
All storm drain pipe including the downstream system shall be thoroughly cleaned to remove any solids or
construction debris that may have entered the pipe system during construction.
The Contractor shall be responsible to ensure that materials flushed from the storm drain are trapped,
removed, and do not enter the downstream drainage system.
Storm Drain Marking
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-7 June 2022
The pavement adjacent to all new catch basins shall be marked with one of the standard pollution
prevention buttons shown below. The Contractor is responsible for installation of the buttons. Privately
maintained catch basins shall use marker b) and must be purchased by the contractor. Markers for publicly
owned catch basins, marker a), will be provided by the City. Public catch basin makers shall not be used
for privately maintained catch basins.
a) Public catch basin marker b) Private catch basin marker
Repairs
All storm drain system installations shall be new and undamaged. Repairs by grouting or collars are not
acceptable for new piping systems. The contractor shall bear all costs for correction of deficiencies.
Television Inspection
All new City storm drain extensions, 24 inches in diameter and smaller shall be TV camera inspected by
the City prior to acceptance. All construction must be completed and approved by the inspector prior to
the TV inspection. The manholes and catch basins must be set to grade, channeled, and grade rings set in
place prior to TV inspection. Castings and the top grade ring must be removed for paving and grouted in
place after paving.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to string each storm main when required prior to the inspection.
The string shall be a nylon cord of sufficient strength for the City equipment.
Pipe Design Between Structures – Add the following to the list of requirements:
4. Storm sewers with design velocities greater than 10 fps shall be designed with energy dissipation
structures as deemed necessary by the City. Pipes installed at a slope greater than 20% require pipe
anchors.
Spill Control – Delete the following item:
e) “active spill control plan.” This is not an acceptable option for spill control in the City of Kent.
4.2.2 OUTFALL SYSTEMS
4.2.2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 4-8 June 2022
General – Add the following to the list of requirements:
8. Points of discharge from culverts and storm sewers into ditches and swales 15% or greater in grade
shall require the design and installation of engineered energy dissipators.
4.3 CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
4.3.1 CULVERTS
4.3.1.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
General – Add the following to the list of requirements:
3. The minimum diameter of culvert for roadside ditches or other installations shall be 12 inches. Larger
diameter culverts shall be installed where required by appropriate hydraulic analysis.
Headwater – Requirement 3 is revised to read: “The maximum headwater elevation at design flow shall
be at least 12 inches below finished grade.”
Inlets and Outlets –Requirement 4 is revised to apply to all pipes larger than 12 inches. Requirement 5
is revised to apply to all new culverts unless deemed unnecessary by the City.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 5
FLOW CONTROL DESIGN
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
CHAPTER 5
Flow Control Design ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
Detention Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 5-1
Detention Ponds ................................................................................................................................ 5-1
Detention Tanks ................................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.1.5 Parking Lot Detention ....................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.6 Roof Detention.................................................................................................................................. 5-3
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 5 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 5-1 June 2022
5 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN
The City of Kent has made the following revisions to Chapter 5 of the 2021` KCSWDM. Apart from these
changes, the King County version of Chapter 5 applies for proposals in the City of Kent.
DETENTION FACILITIES
DETENTION PONDS
DESIGN CRITERIA
General - The following items are added to this section:
6. All retention/detention ponds shall have a minimum of one foot free board above the
maximum design water surface elevation.
7. Outlets of all detention ponds shall be provided with suitable debris barriers designed to
protect the outlet from blockage or plugging.
8. The site and grading plans for open ponds shall clearly denote all elevations, dimensions,
cross-section views (a minimum of one through each direction), soil preparation requirements
and other information necessary to construct the system as designed. The design plans shall
also denote that the design engineer shall verify the pond volume and construction prior to
landscaping.
9. All ponds shall provide for the energy reduction of incoming flows.
Side Slopes – This section is replaced with the following:
1. Side slopes for earth-lined ponds shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical,
unless specifically approved by the Director. See Section 6.4.4 for side slope requirements for
internal berms in combined ponds and wetponds.
2. Ponds constructed with rock walls or retaining walls shall be designed by a licensed structural
or civil engineer registered in the State of Washington. Walls shall not exceed 6 feet in
height.
3. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete
per Section 5.1.3; (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25% of the pond
perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3H:1V in addition to one access for
maintenance equipment at a maximum 6:1 slope; and (d) the design is stamped by a licensed
structural civil engineer.
4. Fencing is required for all ponds unless otherwise approved by the Engineer/Director.
Embankments – Requirements 1 and 2 have been revised as follows and item 7 has been added:
1. Any embankment for a pond in excess of four feet must be designed by a licensed civil
engineer and approved by the City.
2. The top width of the berm shall be 15 feet, unless otherwise approved by the City. The outer
edge of the berm slope may be located within the outer 10 feet of critical area buffers or
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 5 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-5-2 June 2022
within pond landscape setbacks, as long as the landscaping on the berm and slope within
those buffers and setbacks meets the geotechnical engineer’s requirements.
7. A licensed civil engineer experienced in soil mechanics shall inspect and certify the
construction of the berm.
Fencing – This section is replaced with the following:
1. Fencing is required for all ponds unless otherwise approved by the Engineer/Director.
2. Fences shall be 6 feet in height. For design examples, see WSDOT Standard Plan L-2, Type 1 or Type
3 chain link fence. Fence material shall be vertical metal balusters, 9 gauge stainless steel,
aluminized steel, or galvanized steel fabric. If galvanized, bonded vinyl coating is required. For steel
fabric fences, the following apply:
f) Vinyl coating shall be compatible with the surrounding environment (e.g., green in open, grassy
areas and black or brown in wooded areas). All posts, cross bars, and gates shall be coated the
same color as the vinyl clad fence fabric.
g) Fence posts and rails shall conform to WSDOT Standard Plan L-2 for Types 1, 3, or 4 chain link
fence, except that if galvanized, they must be coated with bonded vinyl.
3. Access road gates shall be 16 feet in width consisting of two swinging sections 8 feet in width.
Additional vehicular access gates may be required as needed to facilitate maintenance access.
4. Pedestrian access gates (if needed) shall be 4 feet in width.
5. For fences to be maintained by the City, fencing and gates shall be per details 5-22 and 5-23 of the
KDCS.
Signage – This section is replaced with the following:
Detention ponds, infiltration ponds, wetponds, and combined ponds to be maintained by the City of Kent
or privately maintained shall have a sign placed for maximum visibility from adjacent streets, sidewalks,
and paths. The sign shall meet the design installation requirements illustrated in standard plan 5-40 of the
Kent Design and Construction Standards Manual.
Right-of-Way – Requirement 2 has been revised as follows and item 3 has been added:
2. All storm water retention/detention systems and outlet control structures that service more than one
legally defined property are required to be located within a tract or recorded storm drainage easement.
In some cases, the City may approve locating detention piping within the street right-of-way. If the
detention facilities are not located adjacent to the roadway, a 12- foot-wide, all-weather surfaced
access road shall be constructed to the facility. This access road shall be located within a tract or
easement and shall provide for unobstructed ingress and egress to the facility.
3. A written restriction shall be added to final plat drawings that “Prior approval must be obtained from
the Department of Public Works before any structures, fill or obstructions, including fences, are
located within any drainage easement or tract.
DETENTION TANKS
DESIGN CRITERIA
Materials – The following is added to this section:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 5 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-5-3 June 2022
Corrugated steel storage pipes shall be uniformly coated with APWA Treatment 1 asphalt or better.
Corrugated aluminum or concrete pipe may be substituted without asphalt treatment. The use of
zinc chromate primer is prohibited unless approved by the City.
The Fire Authority shall be consulted during design of any underground facilities to ensure that
outrigger placement (pointload) requirements are met.
Stability – The following is added to this section:
The concrete structures shall be designed by a civil or structural engineer registered in the State of
Washington, and be designed for at least HS-20 traffic loading conditions. Concrete vaults shall be
designed in accordance with King County Surface Water Management Standard Details for
detention vaults. A City building permit is required for vault structures.
The Fire Authority shall be consulted during design of any underground facilities to ensure that
outrigger placement (pointload) requirements are met.
5.1.5 PARKING LOT DETENTION
Replace this section with the following:
1. Maximum depth for surface storage in parking lots shall be as follows:
a. Commercial/multi-family parking and maneuvering areas – six inches.
b. Industrial truck loading/maneuvering areas – 18 inches.
2. Parking lots designed for detention shall not exceed slopes of seven percent in areas of
vehicular parking or maneuvering.
3. All parking lot ponds shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to provide 0.50
feet of freeboard between the maximum water surface elevation and adjacent driveways,
landscaping or adjacent properties.
4. The maximum water surface elevation of any parking lot pond shall be a minimum of six
inches below the finished floor elevation of adjacent buildings. All ponding systems shall be
designed to go to overflow conveyance prior to flooding structures.
5. Where parking lot ponding is to be utilized, the site grading and paving plans shall clearly
denote all critical elevations, ponding, dimensions, and any other necessary information to
construct the detention pond as designed. The design plan shall indicate that the respective
details are critical for the storm drainage detention system operation and that the site grading
must be verified.
5.1.6 ROOF DETENTION
Add the following items
6. All rooftop detention facilities shall be provided with overflow scupper drains at the maximum
water surface elevation.
7. Rooftop detention rings shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications
and shall be designed to restrict rooftop runoff rates not to exceed two gallons per minute per
1000 square feet of roof area.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
CHAPTER 6
WATER QUALITY DESIGN
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
CHAPTER 6
Water Quality Design ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 General Requirements For WQ Facilities ................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.3 Slopes, And Embankmetns ............................................................................................................... 6-1
6.7 Proprietary Facility Designs..................................................................................................................... 6-1
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
CHAPTER 6 WATER QUALITY DESIGN
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 6-1 June 2022
6 WATER QUALITY DESIGN
The City of Kent has made the following revisions to Chapter 6 of the 2021 KCSWDM. Apart from these
changes, the King County version of Chapter 6 applies for proposals in the City of Kent.
6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WQ FACILITIES
USE OF MATERIALS
This section is replaced with the following:
Galvanized materials in stormwater facilities and conveyance systems is discouraged. If galvanized materials
are used, bonded vinyl coating is required. Where other metals, such as aluminum or stainless steel, or plastics
are available, they shall be used.
6.2.3 SLOPES, AND EMBANKMENTS
SIDE SLOPES, FENCING, AND EMBANKMENTS – Add the following to the list of requirements:
“Any above-ground stormwater facility will be screened from public right of way and adjacent property
per city of Kent underlying zoning perimeter buffer requirements.”
Requirement 4 is replaced with the following:
4. Non-residential commercial and industrial facilities that are privately owned and maintained shall follow the
fencing requirements of this manual as well as any fencing requirements in other codes or regulations.
6.7 PROPRIETARY FACILITY DESIGNS
This section is replaced with the following:
Water quality facilities other than those identified in Chapter 6 are allowed on an experimental basis if it
can be demonstrated they are likely to meet the pollutant removal goal for the applicable receiving water.
Use of such facilities requires an experimental design adjustment to be approved by Kent according to
Section 1.4, “Adjustment Process.”, Experimental and proprietary BMPs may be allowed to provide
pretreatment for filter BMPs or as the second WQ facility in the Two-Facility Treatment Train option.
Applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For an experimental or proprietary BMP to be
approved, it must be approved for use through the Washington Department of Ecology’s TAPE Program.
The general use level designation (GULD) of the TAPE Program confers a general acceptance for the
specified applications (land uses). Manufactured treatment devices with a GULD may be used for new
development, re-development, or retrofit situations anywhere in Washington, subject to conditions that
Ecology places within the use designation document. Manufactured treatment devices with a GULD can
have an unlimited number of installations without the need for an adjustment.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
APPENDIX
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
APPENDIX A
Appendix A - Maintenance Requirements For Flow Control, Conveyance, And Facilities .............................. A-1
APPENDIX B
Appendix B - Master Drainage Plan Objectives, Criteria, Components, And Review Process ........................ A-5
APPENDIX C
Appendix C – Simplified Drainage Requirements ............................................................................................ A-9
APPENDIX D
Appendix D – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ........................................................................ A-13
D.1 General CSWPP Requirements ............................................................................................................. A-13
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-2 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-1 June 2022
APPENDIX A
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,
CONVEYANCE, AND WATER QUALITY FACILITIES
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-2 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
APPENDIX A
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WATER QUALITY FACILITIES
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-3 June 2022
APPENDIX A - MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW
CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WATER
QUALITY FACILITIES
The City of Kent has made no changes to Appendix A of the 2021 KCSWDM. Users should refer to the
County document for guidance on the thresholds and standards for maintenance of all flow control facilities
and BMP’s, conveyance systems, and water quality facilities required in this manual.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-4 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
APPENDIX B
MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA, COMPONENTS, AND REVIEW PROCESS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-5 June 2022
APPENDIX B
MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA,
COMPONENTS AND REVIEW PROCESS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
The City of Kent does not adopt Appendix B of the 2021 KCSWDM.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-6 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-7 June 2022
APPENDIX B - MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN OBJECTIVES,
CRITERIA, COMPONENTS, AND REVIEW
PROCESS
The City of Kent does not adopt Appendix B of the 2021 KCSWDM.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-8 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
APPENDIX C
SIMPLIFIED DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-9 June 2022
APPENDIX C
SIMPLIFIED DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-10 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-11 June 2022
APPENDIX C – SIMPLIFIED DRAINAGE
REQUIREMENTS
The City of Kent has made no changes to Appendix C of the 2021 KCSWDM. Users should refer to the
County document for guidance on simplified drainage requirements for smaller projects that qualify for
Simplified Drainage Review.
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-12 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-13 June 2022
APPENDIX D
CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-14 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-15 June 2022
APPENDIX D – CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The City of Kent has made one minor change to Appendix D of the 2021 KCSWDM which describes the
required measures to be implemented during construction to prevent discharges of sediment-laden runoff from
the project site. It also describes effective management practices for spill control and chemical pollutants used
during construction that may be needed to supplement the required erosion and sedimentation control
measures. Apart from this change, the King County version of Appendix D applies for proposals in the City of
Kent. The City’s change to the County document is as follows:
D.1 GENERAL CSWPP REQUIREMENTS
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Sediment Retention (page D-58 of the 2016 KCSWDM) -
The following item is added to this section:
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual A-16 June 2022
TEMPORARY CATCH BASIN PIPE DETAIL
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-1 June 2022
REFERENCES
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2021
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-2 June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-1 June 2022
REFERENCES
The 2021King County Surface Water Design Manual includes many reference materials . Some references are for
guidance and some are required worksheets to be utilized during the development application, review, and
approval process. The applicant is responsible to ensure that the most current materials are used in preparing a
permit application.
The City of Kent accepts certain reference materials as written in the 2021 King County Surface Water Design
Manual. Other references are not applicable in Kent. Some reference materials have been revised to reflect
Kent-specific forms or development procedures. References from the King County Manual are identified
below along with how they are to be utilized in Kent (in bold).
Six separate maps are attached that must be utilized during the Development process (See Table of Contents
for list).
REFERENCES
1. KCC 9.04 – Surface Water Runoff Policy
Refer to Kent City Code sections 7.05
2. Adopted Critical Drainage Areas
None currently listed
3. Other Adopted Area Specific Drainage Requirements
Not applicable
4. Other Drainage Related Regulations and Guidelines
4.A. Grading Code Soil Amendment Standard
See Kent Design and Construction Standards and Kent City Code section 15.07
4.B. Clearing & Grading Seasonal Limitations
See Kent Design and Construction Standards and Appendix D (Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention)
4.C. Landscape Management Plan Guidelines
Utilize Reference 4.C from the King County Surface Water Design Manual
4.D. Shared Facility Maintenance Responsibility Guidance
Refer to Kent Design and Construction Standards
5. Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines
Utilize Reference 5 from the King County Surface Water Design Manual in consultation with city
review staff
6. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Design Methods
6.A. Infiltration Rate Test Methods
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-2 June 2022
Utilize Reference 6.A from the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable and in
consultation with city review staff
6.B. Pond Geometry Equations
Utilize Reference 6.B from the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable and in
consultation with city review staff
6.C. Introduction to Level Pool Routing
Utilize Reference 6.C from the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable and in
consultation with city review staff
6.D. Supplemental Modeling Guidelines
Utilize Reference 6.D from the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable and in
consultation with city review staff
7. Engineering Plan Support
7.A. King County Standard Map Symbols
Refer to Kent Design and Construction Standards
7.B. Standard Plan Notes and Example Construction Sequence
Refer to Kent Design and Construction Standards
7.C. Stormfilter Facility Access and Cartridge Configuration
Utilize Reference 7.C from the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable and in
consultation with city review staff
8. Forms and Worksheets
8.A. Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet
Utilize the TIR Worksheet provided in reference 8.A of the King County Surface Water Design
Manual or a TIR Worksheet provided by city review staff
8.B. Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table
Utilize the Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table from the King County Surface Water Design
Manual or an Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table provided by city review staff
8.C. Water Quality Facility Sizing Worksheets
Utilize the Water Quality Facility Sizing Worksheets provided in the King County Surface Water
Design Manual
8.D. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch
Utilize the Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch provided in the
King County Surface Water Design Manual
8.E. CSWPP Worksheet Forms
Utilize the CSWPP Worksheet Forms provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual
as applicable and in consultation with city review staff
8.F. Adjustment Application Form and Process Guidelines
Utilize Design and Construction Standards Deviation Request Application Form and Process
Guidelines provided by the Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit
Center or Development Review divisions
8.G. Dedication and Indemnification Clause - Final Recording
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-3 June 2022
Utilize Dedication and Indemnification Clause - Final Recording language as required by the Kent
Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or Development Review
divisions
8.H. Bond Quantities Worksheet
Utilize Engineer’s Cost Estimate as provided in Appendix D of the Kent Design and Construction
Standards
8.I. Maintenance and Defect Agreement
Utilize Maintenance and Defect Agreements provided by the Kent Economic and Community
Development Department Permit Center or Development Review divisions
8.J. Drainage Facility Covenant
Utilize Drainage Facility Covenant format as required by the Kent Economic and Community
Development Department Permit Center or Development Review divisions
8.K. Drainage Release Covenant
Utilize Drainage Release Covenant as applicable and as directed by the Kent Economic and
Community Development Department Permit Center or Development Review divisions
8.L. Drainage Easement
Utilize Drainage Easement standard procedure and format as applicable and as directed by the
Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or Development Review
divisions
8.M. Flow Control BMP Covenant and BMP Maintenance Instructions (Recordable format)
Utilize Reference 8.M as provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable
and as directed by the Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or
Development Review divisions
8.N. Impervious Surface Limit Covenant
Utilize Reference 8.N as provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable
and as directed by the Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or
Development Review divisions
8.O. Clearing Limit Covenant
Utilize Reference 8.O as provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable to
preserve native vegetative areas and as directed by the Kent Economic and Community
Development Department Permit Center or Development Review divisions
8.P. River Protection Easement
Utilize Reference 8.P as provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable
and as directed by the Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or
Development Review divisions
8.Q. Leachable Metals Covenant
Utilize Reference 8.Q as provided in the King County Surface Water Design Manual as applicable
and as directed by the Kent Economic and Community Development Department Permit Center or
Development Review divisions
9. Interim Changes to Requirements
9.A. Blanket Adjustments
Blanket Adjustments will be added by reference to this manual and posted on the City’s website. As
of January 2022, there are no applicable Blanket Adjustments to this manual.
9.B. Administrative Changes
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual R-4 June 2022
Administrative Changes will be added by reference to this manual and posted on the City’s website.
As of January 2022, there are no applicable Administrative Changes to this manual.
10. Kent-Identified Water Quality Problems
None at this time. Refer to Washington Department of Ecology’s Impaired Waterbody list for state
listed water quality problems.
11. Materials
11.A. (VACANT)
Not applicable
11.B. (VACANT)
Not applicable
11.C. Bioretention Soil Media Standard Specifications
Utilize the Bioretention Soil Media Standard Specifications provided in the King County Surface
Water Design Manual as applicable
11.D (VACANT)
Not applicable
11.E. Roofing Erodible or Leachable Materials
Utilize the Roofing Erodible or Leachable Materials guidance provided in the King County Surface
Water Design Manual as applicable
12. (VACANT)
Not applicable
13. (VACANT)
Not applicable
14. Supplemental Approved Facilities
14.A. Approved Proprietary Facilities
Utilize the Approved Proprietary Facilities Specifications provided in the King County Surface
Water Design Manual as applicable
14.B. Approved Public Domain Facilities
None at this time
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
MAPS
CITY OF KENT
Surface Water Design Manual
2022
MAPS
Erosion Hazard Areas ........................................................................................................................................ M-1
Flow Control Applications ................................................................................................................................. M-2
Landslide Hazard / Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas ...................................................................................... M-3
Soils Wellhead Areas ......................................................................................................................................... M-4
Water Quality Applications ............................................................................................................................... M-5
Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................................ M-6
Lower Mill Creek Regulatory Area ................................................................................................................... M-7
King County 100 Year 7 Day Isopoluvial Map………………………………………………………………..M-8
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual June 2022
1.5.B
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
EROSION HAZARD AREAS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-1 June 2022 EROSION HAZARD AREAS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
FLOW CONTROL APPLICATIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-2 June 2022 FLOW CONTROL APPLICATIONS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
LANDSLIDE HAZRD/LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-3 June 2022
LANDSLIDE HAZARD / LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
SOILS/WELLHEAD AREAS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-4 June 2022 SOILS WELLHEAD AREAS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
WATER QUALITY APPLICATIONS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M- 5 June 2022
WATER QUALITY APPLICATIONS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
WETLANDS
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-6 June 2022 WETLANDS 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
LOWER MILL CREEK REGULATORY AREA
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M-7 June 2022
LOWER MILL CREEK REGULATORY AREA 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
KING COUNTY 100 YEAR 7 DAY ISOPLUVIAL MAP
City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual M- 8 June 2022
KING COUNTY 100 YEAR 7 DAY ISOPLUVIAL MAP 1.5.B
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: City of Kent SWDM Updates 2022 draft_4-21 (3164 : SWDM)
Key to color codes:WA Dpet of Ecology required change.King County correction, update, or clarification.Kent correction, update, or clarification. Based on input from ECD and PW review staff.Initiator of ChangeSection Edited Page # Description of Change Justification/Why Was the Change Made?CommentsAll Chapters and Appendices, and Definitions SectionKentThroughoutN/AUpdated Header and Footers Per the 2021 Kent SWDM updateUpdateAcknowledgementsKentAcknowledgementsN/AUpdated information to acknowledge current position holders Update people and positionsUpdateDEFINITIONS SectionKC Impaired waterbody or impaired receiving water definition iii Revised definition consistent w/edits made to same in Chapter 1, key terms and definitionsConsistency w/key terms in Chapter 1CorrectionKent Pollution‐generating impervious surfaces definition vi added "grease laden vapers/FOG" to definition clarityClarityChapter 1, Drainage Review and RequirementsKentSection 1 first section1‐1Removed "7.07", will not exist after code update. Section 7.07 will be combined with section 7.05UpdateKCSection 1.1.3 Drainage Review Required by Other Agencies1‐11Added "UIC Well Registration" to list of Ecology Permit/approvals in table ClarificationClarityEcologySection 1.2.2.1.1 Downstream Problems Requiring Special Attention, Potential Impacts to Wetlands Hydrology Problem (Type 4) 1‐18Added text: "Projects or threshold discharge areas within projects discharging to wetlands, unless exempt from providing a flow control facility per Core Requirement 3, must demonstrate that the existing wetland hydroperiod is maintained in accordance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference Section 5." and "and if applicable, the analysis of project compliance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference Section 5, city review staff will determine if changes in the rate, duration, and/or" to "quantity of surface and storm water runoff from a proposed project or threshold discharge area within a proposed project could significantly alter the hydrology of a wetland ‐ in which case, city review staff will require (as described in Section 1.2.2.2 under "Drainage Problems‐Specific Mitigation Requirements"), implementation of additional flow control or other measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of this alteration in accordance with the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference Section 5." Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 9. Wetlands Guidance: Appendix I‐C (Wetland Protection Guidelines) and Minimum Requirement 8 (Wetlands Protection) have been updated to require monitoring and modeling of high value wetlands, if the project proponent has legal access to them. The 2014 wetland guidance is retained, but refined, for modeling requirements for lower value wetlands (and high value wetlands that the project proponent does not have legal access to).KCChapter 1, Section 1.2.2.1.2 Downstream WQ Problems Requiring Special Attention, Matals Problem (Type 4) 1‐19Added "or (3) where subject to an other local, state, or federal cleanup plan or contaminated site designation" to definition of problem type.Consistency w/impaired water bodies and receiving waters definition.ClarityEcologySection 1.2.2.2 Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation, Significance of Impacts to Existing Drainage Problems1‐21Modified text re: Type 4 potential Impacts to Wetlands Problems to indicate that compliance with hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5 is part of city review staff determination of whether significant impact will occur that requires mitigation. Ecology required edit per Table10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 9. Wetlands Guidance: Appendix I‐C (Wetland Protection Guidelines) and Minimum Requirement 8 (Wetlands Protection) have been updated to require monitoring and modeling of high value wetlands, if the project proponent has legal access to them. The 2014 wetland guidance is retained, but refined, for modeling requirements for lower value wetlands (and high value wetlands that the project proponent does not have legal access to).EcologySection 1.2.2.2 Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation, Drainage Problem Specific Mitigation Requirements1‐23Added text to #3 that…"changes in the rate, duration and/or…"duration…could significantly alter wetland hydrology Ecology required edit per Table10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 9. Wetlands Guidance: Appendix I‐C (Wetland Protection Guidelines) and Minimum Requirement 8 (Wetlands Protection) have been updated to require monitoring and modeling of high value wetlands, if the project proponent has legal access to them. The 2014 wetland guidance is retained, but refined, for modeling requirements for lower value wetlands (and high value wetlands that the project proponent does not have legal access to).KentSection 1.2 Core Requirements, Guide to Applying the Are‐Specific Flow Control Facility Requirement1‐28Added Union Pacific Pump Station Area and S. 259th/3rd Ave. S. Regional Detention Area to flow control areas . Corrected # of areas to nine from three. Correction to reflect all areas on Flow Control Map.CorrectionCity of Kent 2022 Surface Water Design Manual Updates 1.5.CPacket Pg. 227Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
KentChapter 1, Core Requirement 3, Target Surfaces, #21‐31Deleted text: "if located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and 50% grass/50% pasture if located outside the UGA. Not needed, Kent is all UGA.ClarityEcologyChapter 1, Core Requirement 3, Target Surfaces, #61‐31Text for Replaced surfaces for parcel redevelopment projects edited: "…exceeds 50% of the assessed value of: (a) the existing project site improvements on commercial or industrial projects or (b) the exisitng site improvements on other projects." Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of the NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 2. Replaced Hard Surfaces Redevelopment Threshold: The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non‐road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements.EcologyChapter 1, Core 3, Mitigation Trades1‐37Added text "5. The existing non‐targeted surface area that is mitigated for purposes of required flow control must be documented and tracked by city review staff. Documentation should clarify that future redevelopment of this existing non‐targeted area used for the mitigation trade will incur additional flow control mitigation requirements if the redevelopment exceeds Core Requirement #3 thresholds. This additional flow control mitigation must be met in addition to that previously required and provided for the mitigation trade. Applicants may be advised to size flow control facilities sufficient for both the mitigation trade area and future development of the existing non‐targeted area." Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 3. Equivalent Areas: The Redevelopment Project Thresholds have been updated to allow a project proponent to provide Stormwater Management BMPs for an equivalent area. The equivalent area may be on‐site, or off‐site if the area drains to the same receiving water and the guidance for in‐ basin transfers is followed.KentChapter 1, section 1.2.6, Core Requirement #6, Drainage Facilities to be Maintained by Private Parties1‐51Added text: "If there is a shared drainage system involved with the development, the covenant must provide clear language on the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of each componant of the drainage system." Provide clear langauge to determine ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all components of a shared drainage system.ClarityKent1.2.61‐51Stormwater covenant to be obtained on COK website or from plan review staff.We have modified the documents in REF‐8, but they have not previouly been in the manual updateClarityEcologySection 1.2.8, "Exemptions from Core Requierment 8"1‐531‐54Delete all occurrences of "that is not fully dispersed" from Exemption #1, 2, and 3 of Core 8 (Water Quality Facilities).Equivalency with Ecology Requirements. Included in Ecology review submittal as a "Table 10.2" substantial change.Ecology Table 10 requirementEcologySection 1.2.8 "Exemptions from Core Requirement #8", Excemption 3, Cost Excemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects.1‐54Edit text of part a: …less than 50% of the assessed value of (a) the existing project site improvements on commercial or industrial projects, or (b) the existing site improvements on other projects. Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of the NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 2. Replaced Hard Surfaces Redevelopment Threshold: The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non‐road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements.KCSection 1.2.8 "Exemptions from Core Requirement #8"1‐54Modified Exemption #4 "Soil Treatment Exemption by adding disallowances for using this exemption for areas that are infiltrated (1) within one quarter mile of a sensitive lake, or (2) within one quarter mile of fresh water with existing or designated aquatic life use whose land use would otherwise trigger application of a facility from the enhanced basic treatment menu, or (3) within one quarter mile of a phosphorus or metals problem as described in section 1.2.2.1.2Consistency w/Core Requirement 2, DS WQ problems, and 1.2.8.1 "Exceptions."CorrectionEcologySection 1.2.8, Target Surfaces, #6 1‐56Text for replaced impervious surfaces on Parcel redevelopment projects edited:…exceeds 50% of the assessed value of: (a) the existing projects site improvements on commercial or industrial projects or (b) the existing site improvements on other projects, whichever applies." Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of the NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 2. Replaced Hard Surfaces Redevelopment Threshold: The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non‐road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements.KCSection 1.2.8 "Area Specific WQ Facility Requirement" Subsection A "Basic WQ Treatment Areas, Exceptions"1‐57Deleted "altogether" from Exemption 1. Redundant language.CorrectionKCSection 1.2.8 "Area Specific WQ Facility Requirement" Subsection A "Basic WQ Treatment Areas, Exceptions"1‐57Rearranged sentence structure in Exemtion 2. Clarity.Clarity1.5.CPacket Pg. 228Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
KCSection 1.2.8, "Area Specific WQ Facility Requirement" Subsection B "Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas, Intent"I‐58Removed reference to 11‐B, instead pointiing to Section 5.2.1 where groundwater protection soil characteristics are listed. Accuracy/clarity.ClarityKCSection 1.2.8 "Area Specific WQ Facility Requirement" Subsection B "Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas, Exceptions"1‐58Rearranged sentence structure in #1 and #2. Added clarifying note: "A facility from the Sensitive Lake Protection menu is still required unless that requirement has been reduced to the Basic WQ menu by another exception" to Excemptions 2,3, and 4. Removed "altogether" from Excemption 6.Clarity.ClarityEcologyChapter 1, Treatment Trades, Part D (section 1.2.8.2)1‐601‐61Added text "2. The existing non‐targeted pollution‐generating surface that is treated for purposes of the treatment trade must be documented and tracked by city review staff . Documentation should clarify that future redevelopment of the existing non‐targeted area used for the treatment trade will incur additional water quality treatment requirements if the redevelopment exceeds Core Requiremnt 8 thresholds. Any additional water quality treatment triggered by redevelopment of the non‐targeted, treated area must be ahieved by implementing an additional treatment trade." Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 3. Equivalent Areas: The Redevelopment Project Thresholds have been updated to allow a project proponent to provide Stormwater Management BMPs for an equivalent area. The equivalent area may be on‐site, or off‐site if the area drains to the same receiving water and the guidance for in‐ basin transfers is followed.Kent1.2.9.2.1 Small Lot BMPs 1‐66 Eliminate the May‐Oct restriction on soil amendments May‐Oct timeframe is not a reasonable expectation for home builders or other contractors UpdateKent1.2.9.2.3 Implementation of BMPs 1‐68The stormwater facility maintenance covenant can be obtained on the COK website or from plan review staff.We have modified the documents in REF‐8, but they have not previouly been in the manual update ClarityEcologySection1.3.4, Special Requirement #4 Source Control, Activities That May Result In Structural Improvements 1‐81Under " Restaurants and Food Trucks" added Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual BMP A‐39 ‐ Roof Vents and Fugitive EmissionsSupports Table 10 requirement:8. Source Control BMPs: Volume IV (Source Control BMP Library) has been updated with Source Control BMPs for activities not listed in previous versions of the manual. S447 BMPs for Roof Vents Ecology Table 10 requirement.KCSection 1.4 "Adjustment Process", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐84Changed text from "do not have sufficient data" to "require additional information" Clarification.ClarityKCSection 1.4 "Adjustment Process", Blanket Adjustments1‐84Added text: There is no application process for establishing blanket adjustments because they are initiated solely by the City. Clarification of process and emphasis.ClarityKCSection 1.4.2 "Criteria For Granting Adjustments", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐85Rewrote first paragraph for clarity. Added text: "Required water quality monitoring is in addition to any required by Ecology for their approval. The City of Kent does not pay for this monitoring. Monitoring costs are covered by the applicant and/or the facility vendor or manufacturer according to their agreement." Clarification of process and emphasis.ClarityKCSection 1.4.2 "Criteria For Granting Adjustments", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐86Added subsections specific to Flow Control Facilities, ESC facilities, and WQ facilities.Clarification of process. Each facility type has unique requirements for EDAs.ClarityKCSection 1.4.2 "Criteria For Granting Adjustments", Experimental Design Adjustments, "Water Quality Facilities", bullet 1 and 31‐86Removed reference to CTAPE CTAPE applies to ESC facilities, not Chapter 6 WQ facilities.CorrectionKCSection 1.4.2 "Criteria For Granting Adjustments", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐86Added bullet text "Experimental design adjustments are not permitted for facilities that the city will be responsible to maintain." Clarification of process.ClarityKCSection 1.4.2 "Criteria For Granting Adjustments", Experimental Design Adjustments, bullet 51‐86Added "Presettling" to Basic treatment WQ facility types where TSS monitoring may not be required if/where conditions are met. Clarification of policy.ClarityKCSection 1.4.2, Experimental Design Adjustments "Additional Notes"1‐87Added text " The number of experimental installations of any one kind will normally be limited to two, until the City of Kent has obtained sufficient evidence indicating performance meets criteria" Clarification of policy.ClarityKCSection 1.4.3, "Adjustment Application Process"1‐88Added text: Adjustment Application FormThe adjustment application form for standard and experimental design adjustments can be obtained from plan review staff. Informational.ClarityKCSection 1.4.3, "Adjustment Application Process" Experimental Design Adjustments1‐88Deleted text "…and engineering information detailed in Reference 8F shall be included in the submittals." and added text: "justification supporting comparable performance of the proposed system to a standard design is required."Clarified. Reference 8F is revised. Added the referenced info within section 1.4.ClarityKCSection 1.4.3, "Adjustment Application Process" Blanket Adjustments1‐88Added text "Applicants may apply to use SWDM web‐posted blanket adjustments by submitting the adjustment application form noted above to plan review staff reviewing the specific project proposal." Clarification.ClarityKCSection 1.4.4 "Adjustment Review Process", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐89Edited text for clarity and consistency. Clarity/consistency.ClarityKCSection 1.4.4 "Adjustment Review Process", Experimental Design Adjustments1‐89Add new bullet text "All information including but not limited to reports and data submitted to Ecology for their TAPE approvals must be submitted to city plan review staff. This may require coordination between the manufacturer and the applicant. Clarification of process.Clarity1.5.CPacket Pg. 229Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
KCSection 1.4.4 "Adjustment Review Process", Experimental Design Adjustments, bullet 31‐89Deleted text "but if it is, monitoring will be required for any water quality treatment experimental adjustment and for any ESC adjustment utilizing any kind of chemical treatment. Monitoring may be required for other ESC experimental adjustments and for flow control experimental adjustments, up to the discretion of plan review staff. See Reference 8F for details." This is redundant to information in Section 1.4.2.CorrectionCHAPTER 2, Subdivisions, Short Plats and Binding Site PlansKent Section 1.m 2‐5 Removed text: "a) A vicinity map that clearly shows the project location, b) The location and type of existing and proposed flow control facilities, c) The location and type of existing and proposed water quality facilities, d) The location and type of existing and proposed conveyance systems." Combined b)‐d) and added as "n)".a) is covered under k), combined others for clarity. They did not belong as a subsection of m).CorrectionKent Section 1.n 2‐5 Added text: "water quality facilities and conveyance systems clearly marked individually as public or private to designate ownership and maintenance responsibilities in accordance with the plat agreement." Clarity ‐ to ensure that the ownership and maintenance responsibilities are clearly documented.ClarityKent 2.3.1.2 General Plan format 2‐191. remove mylar specify PDF and .DWGAll submittal docs are now PDF. DWG required at asbuilt.UpdateKent 2.4.2 , Final Corrected Plan SubmiƩal 2‐34Removed "Appendix E" from last sentence.Update to Kent Design and Construction Standards necesitated this change. UpdateCHAPTER 3, Hydrologic Analysis and DesignEcology Intro 3‐1Added text: "Note that MGS Flood is not currently approved for modeling bioretention. It will be allowed for modeling bioretention by King County only at such time that it is formally approved by Ecology for that use."Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 1. Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include:• The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs.• 15‐minute time steps• Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention.Ecology Section 3.1.3, Hydrologic Analysis Using Continuous Models 3‐7Added footnote 4 text: "Note that MGS Flood is not currently approved for modeling bioretention. It will be allowed for modeling bioretention by King County only at such time that it is formally approved by Ecology for that use."Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 1. Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include:• The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs.• 15‐minute time steps• Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention.Ecology Section 3.2, Runoff Computation and Analysis Methods 3‐11Delete Footnote 5. 15 minutes timesteps are now available throughout all areas of KC for the approved models, therefore removed notes in Ref 6D and Chapter 3 that reference 1 hour steps being allowable where 15 minute timesteps not available.Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 1. Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include:• The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs.• 15‐minute time steps• Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention.Ecology Section 3.2.2, Continuous Models and the Runoff Files Method 3‐21Added footnote 7 text: "Note that MGS Flood is not currently approved for modeling bioretention. It will be allowed for modeling bioretention by King County only at such time that it is formally approved by Ecology for that use."Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 1. Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include:• The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs.• 15‐minute time steps• Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention.1.5.CPacket Pg. 230Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
Ecology Section 3.2.3 The Approved Model 3‐34Added footnote 9 text: "Note that MGS Flood is not currently approved for modeling bioretention. It will be allowed for modeling bioretention by King County only at such time that it is formally approved by Ecology for that use."Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 1. Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include:• The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs.• 15‐minute time steps• Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention.KC Throughout N/A Delete references to "KCRTs" KCRTs no longer an approved model.UpdateKC Various N/A Deleted references to "in past editions" and "As of this manual update" Clarity. Reduce redundancy.ClarityCHAPTER 4, Conveyance System Analysis and DesignKent 4.1.1 Easement and Setback Requirements 4‐1Further define easement as EXCLUSIVE easement. Also require removal of structures from easements consistent with the requirements of the Kent Design and Construction Standards.Consistency with Kent Design and Construction Standards ClarityKent 4.2.1.1 Design Criteria 4‐2Delete CMP from Table of Allowed Pipe Materials and revises the allowable use for HDPE and other miscalleneous changes. NOTE is revised minimum pipe cover for when pipe is not subject to vehicular loads from 1 inch to 3 inches. 3 inches is required to allow 2 inch of asphalt over 1 inch of CSTC over pipe for non motorized trail applications. Also, regardless of minimum cover stated, the designer needs to mitigate for pipe bouyancy. This is specially critical in areas with shallow water table when using PVC or HDPE pipes.CMP provides long term maintenance concerns and is not allowed by the Design and Construction Manual. HDPE is allowed in Kent Right of Way by the Design and Construction Manual. Pipe bouyancy needs to be mitigated when using PVC or HDPE in areas where shallow ground water table are present.Update Kent 4.2.1.1 Design Criteria 4‐2; 4‐3Delete reference to corrugated pipes and other non approved pipe material. Update/correct ASTM references, and add references for pipe joint sealing requirementsUpdateCHAPTER 5, Flow Control DesignKent Section 5.1, Design Criteria, section 5.1.1.1, Signage 5.2 Updated section to refer to Kent specific pond sign updates in the updated Kent Design and Consruction Standards. Refer to updated detention pond signage standard 5‐40 in the Kent Design and Construction Standards.ClarityKC Section 5.2, "Presettling" 5‐50Deleted: "Roof runoff need not be treated before entering an infiltration facility".This statement is only true for roofing that is classified as non pollution generating. Further, determination of water quality treatment requirements is covered in detail in Core Requirement 8.ClarityKCSection 5.2.1, General Requirements for Infiltration Facilities, "Groundwater Protection"5‐51Replaced original text that was both redundant and inconsistent with requirements elsewhere with general text that points to requirements for infiltration facilities (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1); Water quality facilities (Core 8, Chapter 1,), and Oil Control (Special Requirement 5 ( Chapter 1).Eliminate redundancy and error.CorrectionKC Section 5.2.1, Soil Properties Required for Groundwater Protection 5‐52 Changed "may" to "are" in italicized example text. Clarification/accuracy.ClarityKCSection 5.2.1, Soil Properties Required for Groundwater Protection Outside of Groundwater Protection Areas5‐52Added "undisturbed" and "in situ" with note describing soil properties must be met by native soils onsite.Clarification. The intent is that soils used for groundwater protection must be in situ, not disturbedor imported. "Native soils onsite" and "Soil may not be imported" original statements still resulted in applicant's asking if they could "import" onsite soils from one location on site to another location onsite and qualify for groundwater protection.ClarityKCSection 5.2.1, Soil Properties Required for Groundwater Protection within Groundwater Protection Areas5‐53Added "undisturbed" and "in situ" with note describing soil properties must be met by native soils onsite.Clarification. The intent is that soils used for groundwater protection must be in situ, not disturbedor imported. "Native soils onsite" and "Soil may not be imported" original statements still resulted in applicant's asking if they could "import" onsite soils from one location on site to another location onsite and qualify for groundwater protection.ClarityKC Section 5.2.1, "Underground Injection Control Well Registration" 5‐54 Revised references to Ecology's UIC ProgramCorrectionCHAPTER 6, Water Quality Design1.5.CPacket Pg. 231Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
Kent Section 6.2 Use of Materials (p. 6‐17 of KC Manual) 6‐1 Added "If galvanized materials are used, bonded vinyl coating is required." Galvanized metals leach zinc into the environment, especially in standing water situations. High zinc concentrations, sometimes in the range that can be toxic to aquatic life, have been observed in the region. Therefore, use of galvanized materials in stormwater facilities and conveyance systems should not just be discouraged, but if used they need to be coated to prevent the release of zinc into the environment.ClarityKentSection 6.2.3, Side Slopes, Fencing, and Embankments, #4 (p.6‐24 of KC Manual)6‐1Revise 4. "Except for sand filters, if non‐residential commercial or industrial facilities are privately owned and maintained, the fencing requirements of this manual are recommended rather than required. However, the site must still comply with any fencing requirements in other codes or regulations." to read "4.Non‐residenƟal commercial and industrial faciliƟes that are privately owned and maintained, shall follow the fencing requirements of this manual as well as any fencing requirements in other codes or regulations."So that non‐residential commercial and industrial facilities are required to follow the fencing requirements of the manual to ensure that fencing is not leaching zinc into the environment.ClarityKent 6.7 Proprietary Facilities 6‐1Change text to allow GULD approved facilities, without an adjustment.We have been allowing propritary facilities without a formal adjustment approvalCorrectionKent SecƟon 6.7, Proprietary Facility Designs 6‐1 Updated language to be consistant with Chapter 1, Section 1.2.8.2 F, p. 1‐60ConsistencyConsistencyKC Section 6.1.2 Enhanced basic WQ Treatment Menu, Treatment Goal 6‐7 Deleted Footnote 7. Text of footnote is incorrect. Correct information is within the body of text currently.CorrectionEcologySection 6.2.4, Facility Liners, General Design Criteria, #3, b. addressing planting layer over low perm. Liners.6‐28Added to footnote: "Compost for application of this requirement in stormwater treatment wetlands must be Specification1 Compost detailed in Reference 11‐C."This change is considered necessary to be equivalent to Ecology compost requirements for low permeability liners in treatment wetland designs. Both Ecology and SWDM require 18" planting layer placed over low permeability liners where used in stormwater treatment wetlands.Ecology equivalencyKC Section 6.2.4, Table 6.2.4.A 6‐29 Retitled "Lining Types for Stormwater Facilities" and change column 1 header to "Facility Type"The table contains wq facilities. detention facilities, and combination facilities. Title changed to begeneric and accurate.ClarityKCSection 6.2.4.2, "Design Criteria for Treatment Liner Options", Organic Soil Layer, #6, re: Soil amendment, (page 6‐31).6‐31Added text: "Compost for application of this requirement in stormwater treatment wetlands must be Specification 1Compost detailed in Reference 11‐C."This change is proposed as it shares intent of same requirement applied to low permeability liner planting layer used in stormwater wetlands.ConsistencyEcologySection 6.4.3.2, "Design Criteria" (Stormwater Wetlands), Lining Requirements, #2, addressing planting layer over low perm liners. (page 6‐94).6‐94Added text: "Compost must be Specification 1 Compost detailed in Reference 11‐C. "This change is considered necessary to be equivalent to Ecology compost requirements for low permeability liners in treatment wetland designs. Both Ecology and SWDM require 18" planting layer placed over low permeability liners where used in stormwater treatment wetlands.Ecology equivalencyKC Section 6.7.2 King County Requirements 6‐154 Changed reference to section 1.4 instead of 1.4.4. Clarification.CorrectionKC Section 6.7.2.1, "General", #2 6‐154 Deleted "used for cartridge filters" Vaults need to conform with materials and structural stability requirements whether for cartridge filters or other types.CorrectionAPPENDIX A‐Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ FacilitiesKC No. 4 (Control Structure/Flow Restrictor) and No. 5 (Catch Basins and Manholes), "Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed" column for Metal GratesA‐8A‐10Deleted "Footnote to guidelines for disposal" text There is no associated footnote. Not needed.CorrectionKC No, 10 (Gates/Bollards/Access Barriers) "Conditions When Maintenance is Needed" for Chain Link Fencing Gate and BarGateA‐15 Edited "no functioning" to "non‐functioning". Correction.CorrectionAPPENDIX B, Master Drainage Plan Objective, Criteria, Components, and Review ProcessKC No changes except for changing DPER to DLS throughout and headers/footers updated.N/A N/AUpdateAPPENDIX C, Simplified Drainage Review RequirementsKC C.2.6.1 Bioretention, "Minimum Design Requirements (Cells, swales, and Planters) #19 and #20C‐78 Deleted "imported" from "Bioretention with imported compost materials are not allowed within one quarter mile of …"Ecology confirmed. "Imported" is not a relevant distinction.CorrectionKC C.2.6.2, Bioretention, "Minimum Design Requirements (Roadside Bioretention Ditch)" #18 and #19C‐81 Deleted "imported" from "Bioretention with imported compost materials are not allowed within one quarter mile of …"Ecology confirmed. "Imported" is not a relevant distinction.CorrectionEcology C.2.6.3 "Maintenance Instructions for Bioretention" C‐82 Added: "Mulch must comply with Reference 11‐C.3 specification for “Bioretention Mulch”. Compost must comply withReference 11‐C.2.B specification for “Bioretention Compost”."Ecology equivalency.Ecology equivalencyKC Table C.3.2.A Mulch Standards and Guidelines, Compost, Remarks C‐111 Deleted "Sources for compost are available from the KC Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials at (206) 296‐4439Reference is obsolete.Update1.5.CPacket Pg. 232Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
Appendix D, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention StandardsEcology D.2.1.4.3 Wheel Wash, Maintenance Standards, #3 D‐45 Deleted text : "such as a closed loop recirculation system or land application". Added text: "that prevents discharge to surface water"Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit.Ecology Table 10 requirement: 4. Minimum Requirement 2: The 13 Elements in Minimum Requirement 2 (Construction StormwaterPollution Prevention) have been updated to incorporate changes that were made to the 2015‐2020 Construction Stormwater General Permit.KC D.2.1.6.2 Pipe Slope Drains, Design and Installation Specifications D‐62 Clarified modeling methods for design flows. Clarification.ClarityEcology D.2.2.1 Concrete Handling D‐75 Added to #1 " chutes, pumps, or internals"; Added to #3 " ..awaiting future concrete pours only", New bullet 4: "Do not wash out to formed areas awaiting infiltration BMPs".Ecology required edit per Table 10.1 of NPDES Permit. Ecology Table 10 requirement: 7. Concrete Washout BMP: BMP C154 (Concrete Washout Area) has been updated to clarify that auxiliary concrete truck components and small concrete handling equipment may be washed into formed areas awaiting concrete pour, while concrete truck drums must be washed either off‐site or into a concrete washout area.Flow Control Applications MapKentMap keyM‐2"Kentview" should be "Riverview" Correction.CorrectionKent* All Maps have been updatedUpdate1.5.CPacket Pg. 233Attachment: City of Kent 2022 SWDM Summary of Changes (3164 : SWDM)
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
DATE: May 23, 2022
TO: Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Parks Department
SUBJECT: 2022-2027 Parks and Open Space Plan Update – Public
Hearing
MOTION: Recommend City Council adopt an ordinance amending the
Comprehensive Plan’s Parks and Recreation Element to incorporate the 2022 Parks
and Open Space Plan.
SUMMARY: The purpose of the 2022-2027 Parks and Open Space Plan (POSP) is
to develop a long-range vision to guide the continued planning and development of
the overall park system to better, and more equitably, serve current and future
residents of Kent. This document serves as a roadmap for the prioritization of
capital funds and a decision-making tool for city staff to carry out day-to-day
operations.
This plan update focuses on development of level of service metrics for land
acquisition, updates to recreational value scores, racial and social equity planning
and engagement, GIS data and analysis, sustainable funding plan, and an update to
project priorities.
The City is required to update the POSP every six years to be eligible for grant
funding through the state Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), which is a
significant source of funding for city-funded capital projects. Adoption of this
updated plan in July 2022 will allow the city to apply for grants in the upcoming
grant cycle.
BACKGROUND:
Parks make cities livable – infusing play, nature and gathering into publicly
accessible space. A POSP maintains the health of a parks system. It presents a
coherent plan for implementing the next phase of acquisition, development, and
maintenance for a park system, incorporating research, public input and financial
and logistical factors.
Every six years the City of Kent updates their Parks and Open Space Plan,
evaluating how the park system is serving the public and identifying strategic
projects, partnerships, and funding needed to serve the public better. The 2016
1.6
Packet Pg. 234
POSP created a new way to measure the quality of the park system and made clear
the need for sustainable funding to maintain a high-quality system. Using the 2016
POSP as a tool, the City has dedicated a sustainable source of capital funding. This
2022 POSP seeks to build on the work and accomplishments of the 2022 POSP to
reassess the quality of the system and continue building it to respond to the
diversity and population growth of Kent today and in the future.
The focus of the 2022 POSP is to create a resilient system that provides physical
access and a diversity of high-quality amenities prioritized by need and
using a transparent process to identify strategic projects, partnerships, and
funding.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Innovative Government - Delivering outstanding customer service, developing leaders, and
fostering innovation.
Evolving Infrastructure - Connecting people and places through strategic investments in physical
and technological infrastructure.
Thriving City - Creating safe neighborhoods, healthy people, vibrant commercial districts, and
inviting parks and recreation.
Sustainable Services - Providing quality services through responsible financial management,
economic growth, and partnerships.
Inclusive Community - Embracing our diversity and advancing equity through genuine community
engagement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (PDF)
2. City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (PDF)
1.6
Packet Pg. 235
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park and Open Space Plan
CPA-2021-8
ORDINANCE NO.________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the Parks and
Recreation Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan related to the adoption of the 2022 Park and
Open Space Plan. (CPA-2021-8).
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), the city’s
comprehensive plan provides for planning activities and capital budget
decisions that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RCW
36.70A.120. The Parks and Recreation Element provides the foundation and
guidance for the park system within the City. The Parks and Recreation
Element includes an inventory of existing parks and open spaces, level of
service standards, a summary of public participation, goals and policies, and
opportunities for regional coordination.
B. The city council’s strategic goals include the creation of
neighborhood urban centers, connections for people and places, fostering
inclusiveness, and beautifying Kent.
1.6.A
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (3166 : Parks)
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park and Open Space Plan
CPA-2021-8
C. The purpose of the 2022-2027 Parks and Open Space Plan is
to develop a long-range vision to guide the continued planning and
development of the overall park system to better, and more equitably, serve
current and future residents of Kent. The document serves as a roadmap
for the prioritization of capital funds and a decision-making tool for city staff
to carry out day-to-day operations.
D. This update focuses on development of level of service metrics
for land acquisition, updates to recreational value scores, racial and social
equity planning and engagement, GIS data and analysis, sustainable
funding plan, and an update to project priorities. When the Park and Open
Space Plan is integrated into the Parks and Recreation Element of the city’s
comprehensive plan, it will direct future development, acquisition and
renovation of parks and open spaces for the short and long-term future.
E. The City is required to update the Park and Open Space Plan
every six years to be eligible for grant funding through the state Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO), which is a significant source of funding for
city-funded capital projects. Adoption of this updated plan in July 2022 will
allow the city to apply for grants in the upcoming grant cycle.
F. The Park and Open Space Plan has undergone an extensive
public process. In 2021, Kent Parks put together a city-wide engagement
plan by sending 65,000 postcards, placing 100 signs in parks and along
trails, held 6 on-site events, conducted a social media campaign, and posted
in city newsletters and on reader boards. Community members were asked
to participate in a statically valid or/and a general survey, between these
surveys there were 817 responses. During the entire engagement process
there were 2,993 touch points made throughout the community.
1.6.A
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (3166 : Parks)
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park and Open Space Plan
CPA-2021-8
G. On April 25, 2022, the city provided the State of Washington
the required 60-day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 of the City’s
proposed amendments. No comments were received.
H. On May 21, 2022, the city’s State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Responsible Official issued an Addendum to the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action
Environmental Impact Statement and City of Kent Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The Addendum did not identify any additional significant adverse
environmental impacts associated with the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment.
I. On April 25th, 2022, the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”)
held a workshop to discuss the update to the Park and Open Space Plan as
well as the associated amendment to the Parks and Recreation Element of
the Kent Comprehensive Plan. On May 23rd, 2022, the LUPB held a public
hearing to consider the matter. At the close of the public hearing, the LUPB
voted to recommend adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment and
2022 Park and Open Space Plan.
J. The City Council’s Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the LUPB’s recommendation at its regularly
scheduled meeting on June 13th, 2022, and forwarded its own
recommendation to the full City Council. The Park and Open Space Plan
update was also considered by the City Council’s Parks and Human Services
Committee on June 2nd, 2022.
1.6.A
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (3166 : Parks)
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park and Open Space Plan
CPA-2021-8
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. – Amendment. The 2022 Park and Open Space Plan,
attached as Exhibit “A,” is hereby incorporated into the Parks and
Recreation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-
sections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection
numbering.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force 30 days from and after the date of passage as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR
1.6.A
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (3166 : Parks)
5 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park and Open Space Plan
CPA-2021-8
ATTEST:
KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TAMMY WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: ______ day of June, 2022.
APPROVED: ______ day of June, 2022.
PUBLISHED: ______ day of June, 2022.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. _______, passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
1.6.A
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CompPlanAmend_2022ParkOpenSpacePlan_5.18.22 LAW REVIEW (3166 : Parks)
Parks & Open Space Plan 2022
City of Kent
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Contents
Parks and Open Space Plan | City of Kent 2022
What Is a Parks and Open Space Plan?
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Glossary of Terms01The Role of Parks and Open Space in the City
The Role of Parks Planning in the City
A Brief History of the Park System
Why Do We Need a Plan?
11
12
15
16
3
5
7
Our Community02Role of a Parks Department
The City of Kent
Demographics of Kent
National Recreational Trends
Parks Plan Engagement
How Do Parks Respond
19
21
23
28
29
34
Where We Are03Benchmarking
Level of Service
Park Classifications
Geospatial Data and Heat Mapping
Nature Score
Athletic Capacity Study
Studying The System
37
38
45
47
53
55
62
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
How We Will Get There
Conclusion
05
06
Funding
O&M Versus Capital Funding
The Problem with Reactive Maintenance
Funding Status
Our Funding Bucket
Partnerships with Alternate Providers
Goals and Policies
Focus Group Interview Summaries
Kent PRCS Community Interest & Opinion Survey Report
Statistically Valid Survey Priority Investment Rating by Race
Statistically Valid Survey by Planning Region
General Survey Tabular Results
Website Input
Similar Providers
Technical Memo: Heat Mapping Methods
Kent Parks Property Inventory
Major Asset Inventory
Athletic Field Capacity Study
Expanded RV Methodology Explanation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
65
66
67
68
69
71
73
90
123
95
96
96
97
101
114
115
AppendicesWhere We Are Going04Vision and Goals
Project Outcomes
Strategic Projects
Systemwide Initiatives
Systemwide Operational and Maintenance Needs
Citywide Connections
Projects by Region
Strategic Projects Summary
Cover Photo Credits
1: View along the Kent
Valley Loop Trail,
credit Tom Gray
2: Lake Meridian Park
3: Arbor Heights 360
climbing pinnacle
4: Lake Meridian Park
5: Wilson Playfields
6: Clark Lake Park
7: Earthworks Park
8: Wilson Playfields
1
7
3
4 5 6
2
8
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
“Sweet Suite” Elizabeth Conner sculpture, Town Square Plaza
3
This plan is the end result of many community conversations, stakeholder interviews, and
input gathered from a broad representation of residents in Kent. The City of Kent Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department wishes to acknowledge and thank the
many individuals who participated in the surveys and various engagement opportunities that
helped shape this plan. Truly, it is this collaboration that gives this plan validity as we seek to
preserve and protect public land in Kent.
In this process, we want to acknowledge that the City of Kent and all its parks sit on the lands
of the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, and Coast Salish peoples, whose ancestors have lived here
since time immemorial. We are grateful to their stewardship of this land, and we give respect
to the many indigenous people who continue to flourish here.
We also wish to thank the Parks and Recreation Commission for their commitment to
understanding the complex issues and challenges associated with addressing the parks and
recreational priorities and needs of the residents of Kent. Their involvement and support of
the plan continues to profoundly influence the direction of the department.
Additional thanks go to the numerous staff in multiple departments who reviewed and
commented on the document in its various drafts, and who collaborated in building a
common understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and key metrics for promoting social
equity. Their input was indispensable in this effort.
The department extends our gratitude to the firms of Berger Partnership, PROS Consulting,
and Herrera Environmental Consultants, whose professional collaboration was crucial to the
development of the document and the continued evolution of a performance-based Level of
Service.
Our recognition and thanks are also extended to the Mayor and City Council for their interest
and support in this important effort.
Acknowledgments
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
4
Kent Mayor
Dana Ralph
Kent City Council
Bill Boyce
Brenda Fincher
Satwinder Kaur
Marli Larimer
Zandria Michaud
Les Thomas
Toni Troutner
City Staff
Derek Matheson
Pat Fitzpatrick
Julie Parascondola
Brian Levenhagen
Garin Lee
Lori Hogan
Phung Huynh
Terry Jungman
Kerry O’Connor
Lynn Osborn
Bryan Higgins
Michael Espenan
Cassidy Sawyer
Uriel Varela
Kaelene Nobis
Rob Brown
April Delchamps
David Paine
HB Harper
Lori Guilfoyle
Maria Tizoc
Dinah Wilson
Council President
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Chief Administrative Officer
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director
Deputy Director
Park Operations Superintendent
Recreation and Cultural Services Superintendent
Accounting Manager
Parks Planning and Development Manager
Parks Planner
Parks Planning and Development Specialist
Parks Capital Project Manager
Parks Capital Project Manager
GIS Analyst
Race and Equity Manager
Senior Long Range Planner
Transportation Engineering Manager
City Transportation Manager
City Transportation Planner
Long Range Planning Manager
Human Services Coordinator
Neighborhood Program Coordinator
Senior CDBG Coordinator
Kent Parks and Recreation Commission
Jennifer Ritchie Chair
Kristie Duggan Vice Chair
Edith Gonzalez
Elizabeth Carter
Kathleen Meehan
Matthew Morgan
Michael J. Javelli
Richard Minutoli
Roberto Arellano, Jr.
Sarah Veele
Scott R. Taylor
Stuart Chapman
Taek Kim
Berger Partnership, Consultants
Greg Brower
Andy Mitton
Stephanie Woirol
Christine Abbott
Ann Salerno
Laura Laney
Christine Gannon
Pros Consulting
Leon Younger
Scott Vollmer
Austin Hochstetler
Herrera Environmental Consultants
Jennifer Schmidt
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Wilson Playfields
5
Parks are part of what makes a place special. Kent is fortunate to have a rich diversity of
both people and parks, making our city an attractive place to live, work, and play. Kent is
growing both in terms of population and diversity, creating increased demand for parks and
open space and changes in how residents use the park system. The 2022 Parks and Open
Space Plan (2022 Plan) establishes goals and identifies strategic projects to meet the needs
of our community through earnest community engagement and tracks outcomes with
performance-based metrics.
First and foremost, the 2022 Plan centers diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as core principles
that guide all other components of the plan. Kent Parks is committed to providing a high-
quality recreational experience for all residents and visitors. Understanding what this means
for a growing and changing population can only be achieved through authentic community
engagement and transparent decision-making. With thousands of community touchpoints
through our engagement efforts and focused conversations with community-based
organizations, we feel that this is truly a shared vision formed by Kent residents and reflective
of the rich diversity that makes Kent unique.
The 2022 Plan furthers concepts established in the 2016 Parks and Open Space Plan (2016
Plan) with updates to the performance-based Level of Service (LOS). After a full six-year cycle
of implementing work under this methodology, there is clear and project-based evidence of
how focusing on both the quality and quantity of recreational amenities in each park results
in high-performing parks. With performance-based LOS concepts well established, this plan
also layers in more traditional LOS metrics, which focus on quantity of parkland to identify
areas of the city that are parkland deficient and inform a land acquisition strategy.
The LOS analysis gains a degree of precision in the 2022 Plan with the introduction of
geospatial mapping and analysis. Layering data related to park access, walkability, transit,
population density, and racial and social equity provides a clear view of park needs across the
city, proving certain recommendations that were previously known but also revealing and
informing new recommendations. Making this data publicly available and easy to interpret
serves the need for transparency, one of the primary goals of this plan.
Executive Summary
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
6
The 2016 Plan told the story of a park system laden with failing assets without the resources
to replace them. This powerful story led to new funding sources and reinvestment into the
system. Kent parks are more resilient today than they were in 2016, but there is more work to
be done. As Kent continues to grow and with the global pandemic shining a renewed light
on the importance of easy access to quality parks, trails, and open spaces in urban settings,
continued investment is more important than ever. This increased demand for parks can
only be met with increased funding for: 1) capital development to meet the demand for new
and expanded facilities and 2) operations and maintenance (O&M) to keep our parks system
performing at a high level. Funding one without a proportionate increase in the other knocks
the park system out of balance, leading to either a backlog of capital redevelopment or a park
system that is less inviting and less safe, with assets with reduced lifecycles due to reactive
maintenance.
The findings and recommendations of the 2022 Plan are summarized under four goals. These
four goals inform nine project outcomes, which are the basis for prioritization of individual
strategic projects:
While the 2022 plan is both ambitious and
achievable, the results of the 2016 plan prove
that the City of Kent will benefit from finding
a way to meet these objectives. This plan lays
out a clear framework for how to reach the
high bar that it sets, and the Kent community
deserves nothing less. The result will be a park
system that helps define the character of our
city and makes our residents proud to call
Kent home.
TRANSPARENCY &
COMMUNICATION
OUTCOMESGOALSPHYSICAL ACCESS
FOR ALL
DIVERSITY OF HIGH-
QUALITY AMENITY
SYSTEM
RESILIENCY
Trails
Athletics Operations &
MaintenanceAccess
Equity PartnershipsStrategic
Amenities
Programming Natural
Resources
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
7
Access Point
A place where a park user can enter a park by
walking, biking, rolling, or driving.
Acquisition
Purchase of new property, increasing overall
park acreage. The goal of most acquisitions is
to provide open space and Recreational Value
in areas of the city that are deficient.
Amenity
See ‘Recreational Amenity.’
Asset
Any built component in the park system
valued at over $10,000.
Asset Grade
A number assigned to each asset that
reflects the asset’s physical condition. The
scale ranges from 1 to 5, with a grade of 1
reflecting an asset that is near or at the end
of its useful life. A grade of 5 reflects an asset
that is new or like new.
Capacity or Carrying Capacity
The maximum use an asset, park, or system
can handle before it is either too full of
people or the use causes difficult-to-repair
damage.
Capital Development
Construction projects that develop previously
undeveloped parkland into a new formal park
space or expand the use of an existing park
space, including the addition of major new
amenities.
Capital Repair/Redevelopment
Construction projects that repair or replace
failing infrastructure or otherwise aging
amenities in kind. Examples are repaving a
parking lot, replacing worn-out athletic field
synthetic turf, or improving drainage of an
existing grass field.
Community Park
A useful traditional classification of parks.
Community parks serve the city with unique
activities and are generally expected to have
a high enough level of Recreational Value to
draw users from around the city. People are
anticipated to access these parks by foot, car,
bike, and transit.
Equality
Equality means providing everyone with
the same amount of resources regardless
of whether everyone needs them. In other
words, each person receives an equal share of
resources despite what they already have or
don’t have.
Equity
Equity is when resources are shared based
on what each person needs in order to
adequately level the playing field.
Heat Map
A tool that overlays various metrics onto
a map. Metrics can include a wide variety
of information; for this effort the metrics
included access points, equity, Recreational
Value, a 10-minute walk, and a 10-minute
drive. The metrics add together to create an
understanding of where highest needs for
new parks or new amenities exist in the park
system.
Level of Service (LOS)
A measure of how well a public agency is
providing for (or serving) the public. The
traditional measure of LOS for park systems
in the U.S.A. has been acres per thousand of
population. The 2016 Kent Parks and Open
Space Plan introduced a new approach to
LOS that evaluates the quality of amenities
and how they are distributed within the
city. The 2022 Plan continues refining the
approach introduced in 2016; refinements
include assessments of physical access and
demographic equity.
Glossary of Terms
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
8
Neighborhood Park
A useful traditional classification of parks.
Neighborhood parks provide convenient
access to active and passive recreational
opportunities for a neighborhood. Most
users are anticipated to walk or bike to these
parks. Recreational Value is generally lower
than community parks.
Overall Park Condition
A grade calculated for each park that reflects
the park’s physical condition. It is derived
by averaging the Park Property Grade and
average Asset Grade of that park. This score
is converted to the Park Condition Multiplier.
Park Asset Inventory
An inventory of every capital asset in the
Kent park system valued at over $10,000.
This is a planning tool that tracks year built,
condition, size, life-cycle, and replacement
cost of park assets. This tool is used to
understand the yearly capital costs and
maintenance costs that will be needed to
preserve the system.
Park Condition Multiplier
A number determined by the overall
park condition. The resulting number is
multiplied by number of amenities in a park
to determine the park’s Recreational Value.
Park Performance Tier
Implemented in the 2016 Plan, tiers are used
to categorize parks by their Recreational
Value. The lowest tier for a functional park is
Tier 1; parks assessed below 1 are considered
to not provide significant Recreational
Value. The highest performing park is a Tier
6, but higher tiers are possible. Tiers have
loose associations with more traditional
parks categories such as community and
neighborhood parks.
Park Property Grade
A grade given to each park capturing its
general condition. This is independent of the
condition of its inventoried assets. The grades
range from 1 (failing) to 5 (functionally new).
Recreational Amenity
Any feature in a park that provides
opportunities to recreate or that makes
recreation more comfortable, attractive, or
accessible. It may be a built feature, such as
a restroom, or a naturally occurring amenity,
such as a view of Mount Rainier. The number
of recreational amenities in a given park is
used in the Recreational Value formula to
assess the park’s current Recreational Value.
A conceptual level estimate of possible
complementary recreational amenities
is used to assess the park’s potential
Recreational Value.
Recreational Value (RV)
A type of Level of Service calculation that
measures the performance of an individual
park or an entire park system. The formula
takes into account how age and condition
of a park and its assets impact the quality
and quantity of recreational opportunities
provided. Newer parks and assets function at
a higher level (and provide a higher RV) than
deteriorated parks and assets.
Current Recreational Value (CRV)
An assessment of a park system’s or park’s
individual performance. A park’s CRV is
found by counting the park’s existing
recreational amenities and multiplying by
the Park Condition Multiplier.
Potential Recreational Value (PRV)
An assessment of how much Recreational
Value a park or property can provide at its
ultimate build-out, assuming the overall
park condition is a 5 (functionally new).
The assessment is done park by park by
determining how each park or property
would be developed/renovated, given
reasonable constraints and funding. That
expected development is then assessed
by adding up the number of recreational
amenities for each park or property.
Sustainable Funding
Perpetual and reliable sources of money.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Chestnut Ridge Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
01
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
The Role of Parks and Open Space in the City 11
The Role of Parks Planning in the City 12
A Brief History of the Park System 15
Why Do We Need a Plan? 16
What is a Parks and
Open Space Plan?
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
01 11
Parks make cities livable by infusing play, nature,
and gathering into publicly accessible space. A
Parks and Open Space (P&OS) Plan maintains
the health of a park system. It presents a
coherent plan for implementing the next phase
of acquisition, development, and maintenance
for a park system, incorporating research, public
input, and financial and logistical factors.
Every six years Kent Parks, Recreation and
Community Services (PRCS), or Kent Parks,
updates their Parks and Open Space Plan,
evaluating how the park system is serving
the public and identifying strategic projects,
partnerships, and funding needed to better
serve the public. The 2016 P&OS Plan created
a new way to measure the quality of the park
system and made clear the need for sustainable
funding to maintain high quality. Using the
2016 Plan as a tool, the city has dedicated a
sustainable source of capital funding. This 2022
P&OS Plan seeks to build on the work and
accomplishments of the 2016 Plan to reassess
the quality of the system and continue building
it to respond to the diversity and population
growth of Kent today and in the future.
The focus of the 2022 P&OS Plan is to create a
resilient system that provides physical access
and a diversity of high-quality amenities
prioritized by need and using a transparent
process to identify strategic projects,
partnerships, and funding.
People value parks and open spaces for
so many reasons: the opportunity to walk
a dog, learn to ride a bike, play organized
sports, explore a trail, or engage in a wide
variety of other recreational activities.
These activities lead to health benefits
by providing contact with nature,
opportunities for physical activity, and social
interaction. Well-designed and maintained
parks also contribute to the economic
development of a community by
providing popular amenities that people look
for when deciding where they want to live
and work. Healthy open spaces offer habitat
for urban wildlife, clean the air, and
absorb stormwater runoff. Parks and
open spaces contribute to a community’s
aesthetics and serve as landmarks that
people associate with a community’s identity.
The Role of Parks and Open Space in the City
What is a Parks and
Open Space Plan?
The city is not the only provider of
recreational opportunities in Kent. School
playgrounds and sports fields, private gyms,
and other recreational sites owned by other
organizations also provide space to play. All
these facilities are valued components of
Kent’s recreational “menu,” and they all play
important roles in the community. They’re
largely not discussed here because the city
has no authority to plan, manage, or improve
private, outside agency, and school-owned
facilities. Kent Parks has initiated partnership
conversations with other recreation providers
in the city to find mutually beneficial
opportunities to provide high-quality
recreation. These partnerships are discussed
throughout the report and include enhanced
athletic field partnerships with the Kent School
District.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Wilson Playfields
0112
Many city planning efforts are complementary
to park planning and together build the
blueprint for an evolving Kent. A Parks and
Open Space Plan fits into requirements and
guidance from the state of Washington’s
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA
requires the city to complete and regularly
update a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Last updated in 2015, Kent’s Comp Plan
provides a vision through 2035. It creates a
framework for how the city will accommodate
growth through land-use regulations and
infrastructure planning, including parks and
recreation, and guides future legally binding
regulations.
The P&OS Plan is a complementary document
that feeds into the Parks Strategic Framework,
which then feeds into the Comp Plan.
The Parks Strategic Framework outlines a
clear, accessible path for implementing the
foundation laid in the Comp Plan.
There are many city programs and plans that
look at various aspects of the city and inform
each other, working together to create a
vibrant and equitable Kent.
The Role of Parks
Planning in the City Transportation Master Plan provides a
20-year vision for the city’s holistic bike/
ped/vehicular/transit experience.
Why It’s Important: Multimodal (bike/ped/
transit/other) corridors create ease of access
for high numbers of residents and other park
users. Understanding how people access
parks and trails and providing transportation
options is an important consideration when
planning park projects.
Community Development Block Grant
Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development is updated
every five years and provides objectives
and outcomes for investment in the
development of urban communities.
Why It’s Important: The plan and grants
focus on providing decent housing, living
environment, and economic opportunities
to create a healthy, thriving, and inclusive
community for all Kent residents.
Rally the Valley Subarea Plan provides
a 20-year vision for the industrial valley
including amenities and trail connections.
Why It’s Important: The industrial valley
is where many people spend their days
working, and it has an interconnected
network of parks and trails for them to
enjoy during daytime hours. The majority of
land in the valley is already developed and
unavailable to the park system, so privately
owned amenities and connections to parks
and trails are to be celebrated and built upon.
City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan
pursues a dense, mixed-use urban center that
complements transit.
Why It’s important: The DSAP emphasizes
pedestrian and bicycle connections,
particularly to parks and transit, as part
of an integrated transportation system.
Developing, maintaining, and operating
high-quality parks in downtown is a key
action within the plan.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
01 13
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
O&M Plan is continuously updated and
focuses on preventative maintenance,
urban forestry, natural resources, fleet
management, and asset management.
Why It’s Important: This work supports
the health of the park system and ensures
high-quality recreation for Kent’s residents.
Golf Business Plan is updated every
six years and provides a plan for the golf
complex.
Why It’s Important: The plan provides a
golf experience for all levels of play ability
and aligns core, essential, and discretionary
services.
Human Services Strategic Plan is
updated every five years and creates a vision
for high-quality service for all residents.
Why It’s Important: This plan creates a
healthy, thriving, and inclusive community
by ensuring access to opportunity and
services that respect each person’s unique
experiences.
Kent Valley Loop Trails Plan looks at
linking together various parks and trail
segments (Green River, Interurban, Frager Rd.)
in the Downtown, Green River, and West Hill
regions.
Why It’s Important:
Parks and links between them already
existed but not in formal or intuitive ways.
Some connections only needed signage;
others needed infrastructure improvements.
Together the improvements create a
system of short and long trails for users of
all abilities and comfort levels connecting
workers, residents, and visitors to a large
urban and natural area.
Green Kent Plan looks at vegetation
management in Kent’s green spaces.
Why It’s Important:
Kent Parks has a unique opportunity to
protect and enhance habitat areas and
provide education about nature. Removing
invasive plant species and supporting native
species is a key part of this mission.
Comprehensive Recreation Program
Plan provides an eight-year vision for
programming of interior and outdoor
facilities in the park system.
Why It’s Important: Planning a system
includes looking at the spread of recreation
across a city. While interior facilities tend to
provide different sorts of amenities than
exterior parks, interior and exterior amenities
can complement and balance each other.
Facilities Master Plan provides a
condition assessment and 20-year vision for
city-owned interior facilities and strategic
projects for those facilities.
Why It’s Important: This assessment is
closely tied to the Recreation Program Plan
and the system of amenities and services
the city can provide residents, visitors, and
employees. Many park properties have
facilities within or adjacent to them that are
important considerations in identifying parks
amenities.
Kent Housing Options Plan provides a
20-year vision for housing in Kent.
Why It’s Important: Kent has a growing
demand for housing. The Housing Options
Plan establishes policy for how Kent can
meet this demand, influencing areas of
housing and business density. This in turn
influences the number of people in an area
of the city, which is a key factor in locating
and allocating funding to parks.
Parks Strategic Framework is updated every five years and consolidates the individual plans
that provide visions for the various divisions of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
(PRCS) department, links to city strategic planning, and overall vision for the department.
Why It’s Important: This is the guiding light of values, framework, and goals for the PRCS
department, driving work plans for each division of the department and connecting actions
to community outcomes.
14 01
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
01 15
Completed over decades, Kent’s park system
was forged through thoughtful planning
and community commitment. This planning
has been acknowledged in various venues,
including being the 1988 NRPA Gold Medal
Grand Award Winner for Parks and Recreation
and the recipient of the 1991 NRPA Gold
Medal for Adaptive Recreation. The Gold
Medal Award honors communities throughout
the United States that demonstrate
excellence in long-range planning, resource
management, and innovative approaches to
delivering superb park and recreation services
with fiscally sound business practices.
The late 90’s and early 2000’s saw a number
of significant parks built or annexed into the
city, including Lake Meridian Park (annexed
from King County), Wilson Playfields, Arbor
Heights 360, Town Square Plaza and Service
Club Ballfields. These gains were paired with
the loss of 2 soccer fields at Hogan Park, 3
youth ballfields at Borden Playfields and
a combination of soccer/baseball fields at
Commons Playfields. These tradeoffs shifted
parks from downtown to the new population
center on East Hill, but additional plans to add
parks to meet demand from Kent’s growing
population were put on hold due to reduced
capital and operating budgets. This ultimately
resulted in a net loss of 3 ballfields, 6 soccer
fields and a number of needed new parks not
getting built.
A Brief History of the Park System
Leading up to the 2016 plan, the lack of funding, going back a decade, had allowed many
park amenities to fall into disrepair and failure. Around that time, Kent was emerging from
a period of economic recovery and the Parks Department where the parks department had
to use its already limited operating budget to supplement its capital budget resulting in a
series of small playground renovations but did not keep up with bigger system needs for
reinvestment. Park amenities were deteriorating faster than they could be replaced and a
growing maintenance backlog resulted in a parks system that was falling further behind each
year. The 2016 Plan called for sustainable funding to allow reinvestment into and renovation
of the existing park system to begin to catch-up on this deficit.
In response to that plan, sustainable capital funding (business and occupation taxes) have
been allocated to parks, allowing for significant and sustainable progress in replacing failing
amenities and developing new amenities. That funding supported recently completed and
ongoing projects, some of which are reflected in the below list.
Recently Completed and Ongoing Projects
[Hogan Park at Russell Road Field 1 Turf Conversion
[Lake Meridian Restroom Renovation/Restoration
[Lake Fenwick Floating Walkway Replacement
[Mill Creek Canyon Cleanup and Trail Repair
[Service Club Ballfields Drainage Improvements
[WiffCo Field/New Playground at Kent Memorial Park
[Parkland Acquisition:
[Clark Lake
[Upper Mill Creek
[Morrill Meadows
[Kherson Park Playground and Green Space (construction in 2022)
[Morrill Meadows Phase 2 Improvements (construction in 2022)
[Springwood Park Renovation (design in 2022)
[Van Doren’s Landing Park Replacement (construction in 2022)
[Salt Air Vista Renovation (construction in 2022)
[Chestnut Ridge Renovation (construction in 2022)
[4th and Willis Greenways Trail and Landscape (construction in 2022)
[Lake Meridian Dock Replacement
[West Fenwick Park Renovation
[Riverbend Driving Range Improvements
[Kiwanis Tot Lot 3 Renovation
[Meridian Glen Park Renovation
[Wilson Playfields Shelter Installation
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0116
The sustainable capital funding achieved
since the 2016 Plan is a major step forward for
the park system, and when combined with a
recent surge in real estate excise tax revenues
it has allowed for a significant first wave of
reinvestment that has saved park amenities
from having to be closed or removed due to
failure. The park department also passed the
city’s first ever park impact fee to ensure that
growth in the city helps pay for the increased
demand it will put on the park system.
These additional capital funding sources
are only the first step toward addressing
the needs of Kent’s growing and diverse
population. As discussed in later chapters,
existing funding only partially addresses
the repair and renovation need of existing
amenities, leaving very little for the
acquisition, expansion and development
needed to equitably provide for Kent’s
growing population. Additionally, increased
daily operations and maintenance budget is
needed to responsibly ensure each old and
new asset is maintained consistently and at a
high quality to keep it performing for a long
lifespan.
The 2022 Plan looks to continue the
momentum of reinvestment of the 2016 Plan,
with the additional focus of providing a more
equitable spread of amenities, developing
new parks, and ensuring funding for
adequate maintenance.
Why Do We Need a Plan?
Creating a P&OS Plan and keeping it current
ensures the city is managing parks responsibly
and that they qualify for key funding. For
example, a city is only eligible for certain
state-funded capital grants if they maintain a
current Parks and Open Space Plan. The plan
ensures that the city can receive grant funding
through the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (RCO), a program that has
provided millions of dollars to Kent over the
years to acquire, develop, and redevelop parks.
Arguably more important is the vital need for
the city to regularly take a critical look at its
services and ask hard questions about how it is
performing those services. Are they still relevant?
Are they meeting the needs and priorities of the
community? Is the city investing an appropriate
level of resources into them? Addressing these
questions is part of the city’s responsibility to its
residents to do a prudent and responsible job of
stewarding the resources entrusted to it.
Kent is an evolving city, with an increasingly
dense and diverse population of people from
different backgrounds and countries. As density
increases, use demands increase on the park
system, and options to meet that demand
decrease. The 2022 Plan looks to determine if the
system adequately provides for Kent’s diversity
and density and to identify how to equitably
and thoughtfully apply its resources to provide
quality park access for the most residents
possible.
How can an existing park system adequately
respond to the recreational needs of
an increasingly diverse and urbanizing
community? This plan will attempt to answer
the question by focusing on four key goals
and nine project outcomes:
Goals
[Physical Access for All
[Diversity of High-Quality Amenity
[System Resiliency
[Transparency and Communication
Project Outcomes
[Access
[Strategic Amenities
[Partnerships
[Equity
[Trails
[Athletics
[Programming
[Operations and Maintenance
[Natural Resources
With these goals and outcomes, the city can
help ensure that this park system—more than
100 years old—can provide vibrant, relevant,
safe, and attractive recreational opportunities
for residents today and into the future.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Wilson Playfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Role of a Parks Department 19
The City of Kent 21
Demographics of Kent 23
National Recreational Trends 28
Parks Plan Engagement 29
How Do Parks Respond 34
Our Community 02
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
02 19
Role of a Parks Department
The job of Kent’s Parks, Recreation, and
Community Services, or Kent Parks, is to
enhance community health by providing a
range of services to the people who live in,
work in, and visit Kent. Kent Park’s mission,
“Dedicated to Enriching Lives,” commits
to providing safe and inviting parks and
facilities, meaningful, inclusive, and diverse
recreational programs, cultural activities, and
human services.
Kent’s park system includes 55 parks that
cover more than 1,070 acres, 54.7 miles
of trails, and programs and events that
serve over 1.4 million people annually. The
importance of public services and green
space has become starkly apparent during
the recent COVID-19 Pandemic and social
justice movements as people search for
physically and emotionally safe places to
recreate and connect.
To continue growing and enhancing
the system and community, Kent Parks
approaches decision making in a way that
emphasizes social, environmental, and
economic benefits with ten areas of focus:
[Social Equity and Inclusion
[Basic Needs and Self-Reliance
[Health and Community Wellness
[Economic Development
[Youth Development/Out-of-School Time
[Healthy Aging
[Land and Facilities Stewardship
[Arts and Culture
[Environmental Sustainability
[Active Transportation
In support of those ten areas, Kent Parks:
[Designs, builds, and maintains parks and
trails with guidance from the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
[Provides recreational programs.
[Oversees cultural arts programs with
guidance from the Arts Commission.
[Maintains city recreational facilities,
athletic facilities, and golf.
[Funds human services programs with
direction from the Human Services
Commission.
Informed decisions that build this mission
are based on an understanding of the city,
community, and national and local trends.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0220
Kiwanis Tot Lot #3
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
3 miles
02 21
The City of Kent is in a prime economic
location within Washington State’s most
populous county, King County. Within
20 miles of Kent City Hall there are two
interstate freeways, three highways, two
national railroad lines, three regional transit
commuter rail stations, one light rail station,
an international airport, and two international
deep-water seaports. These connections have
made Kent the fourth largest manufacturing
and distribution center in the country,
home to companies like Amazon, Boeing,
Blue Origin, and many other businesses
that populate the industrial valley. Kent’s
vibrant and diverse economy is the economic
barometer for the region; home to 10,000
businesses and 63,000 jobs, Kent is the
eighth most ethnically diverse city in the
United States with a diverse population of
approximately 137,000 people who speak 138
different languages.
The City of Kent
Situated as a suburb directly between Seattle and Tacoma, the City of Kent’s position in the
regional landscape lends itself to many connections with metropolitan and environmental
opportunities.
Regional Proximity
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
3 miles
0222
Natural and man-made edges create functional regions of Kent. Region edges are defined by
busy streets or highways, steep topography, rivers, and transitions between industrial and
residential development. These regions are useful for thinking about how people use and
move through the city, and they create a way of understanding where a certain type of park
development might be needed.
City Regions
In many ways, Kent is defined by the
diversity of its community and the rich mix of
industrial, residential, and natural areas within
its borders. The city is roughly bisected by
the Green River and its associated flat valley
bordered by steep steps up to the West Hill
and East Hill. The valley is further bisected
by Highway 167 and zoning boundaries,
creating areas thought of as Downtown
and the industrial valley. Creeks that feed
into the Green River cut through East Hill,
creating ravines and natural areas that restrict
movement. East Hill is a large area, mostly
residential with some retail, that is further
crisscrossed by major streets like Highway
515 and E James Street. West Hill is separated
from the rest of the city by the Green River,
Highway 516, and is bisected by I-5.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
2021
$
Total Population
136,766
46% White 24% Asian
12% Black or African3% American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander
47,650
Total Households
35.8
Median Age
$73,691
Median Household Income
Race
16% Hispanic or Latino
Ethnicity
02 23
Any discussion about system planning must be based on an understanding of the community
that the system serves. This section describes the current and future population of Kent,
including key characteristics such as age segment, race, ethnicity, and income levels. Future
projections and trends are based on historical patterns. Note that unforeseen circumstances
that diverge from these patterns may have significant impacts on these figures. All data were
acquired in July 2021 and reflect numbers as reported by the 2020 Census as well as estimates
for 2026, 2031, and 2036 as obtained by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI).
Demographics of Kent
Lake Meridian
Greenview Park
Wilson Playfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0-17 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+
2010
Census
4%
26%
26%
29%
15%
2021
Estimate
2026
Projection
2036
Projection
2031
Projection
5%
24%
25%26%
20%
6%
23%
24%
26%
20%
6%
23%
24%
25%
22%
7%
22%
24%
24%
23%
118,589
2010 2021 2026 2031 2036
136,766 144,658 152,935 161,101
42,626 47,650 49,975 52,257 54,551
0224
The city’s population has grown 1.30% per
year from 2010 to 2021, with a similar increase
in households. In 2021, the population
was estimated at 136,766 individuals living
within 47,650 households. Projecting ahead,
the total population and total number of
households are both expected to continue
growing at an above-average rate over the
next 15 years. Based on 2033 predictions, the
city is expected to have 161,101 residents
living within 54,551 households.
Nearly half the population of Kent is below
the age of 35, with a median age of 35.8
years old. In the coming years, Kent’s senior
population is anticipated to grow, and the
youth and child segments decline.
Population
Age
Population & Households
Population by Age Segment
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
$73,691
Median Household Income
City of Kent
2021
State of Washington United States of America
$35,753
Per Capita Income
$78,697
Median Household Income
$41,523
Per Capita Income
$65,712
Median Household Income
$35,672
Per Capita Income
$73,691
2021
Estimate
2026
Projection
2031
Projection
2036
Projection
$35,753
$88,783
$103,875
$118,967
$41,359 $46,965 $52,571
02 25
The city’s median household income ($73,691) is moderately lower than the state medium
income ($78,697) and considerable higher than the national average ($65,712). The average
per person (also known as per capita) income of Kent ($35,753) is lower than the state of
Washington ($41,523), and is nearly the same as the national average ($35,672).
This report uses race and ethnicity to
understand and address inequity. Our
working understanding of race is similar to
what is defined in the 2010 and 2020 Census:
“Racial categories generally reflect a social
definition of race recognized in this country
and not an attempt to define race biologically,
anthropologically, or genetically. In addition,
it is recognized that the categories of the
race item include racial and national origin or
sociocultural groups. People may choose to
report more than one race to indicate their
racial mixture, such as ‘American Indian’ and
‘White’” (https://www.census.gov/topics/
population/race/about.html).
The 2020 Census defined race as a person’s
self-identification with one or more of the
following social groups: White, Black or
African American, Asian, American Indian
and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or
a combination of these. Identification as
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity was viewed
independently from race. Ethnicity is not
directly tied to race but rather is about
cultural expression and origin. For example,
people who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish may be of any race. Hispanic and
Latino are understood here to be ethnic
categories and not racial ones.
Household Income
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
Median Household Income & Per Capita Income
Race and Ethnicity
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0226
The 2020 Census data on race are not directly
comparable with data from the 2000 and
earlier censuses, so caution must be used
when interpreting changes in the racial
composition of the U.S. population over time.
The 2010 Census and 2020 Census definitions
and nomenclature are used in this plan.
American Indian: This includes a person
having origins in any of the original peoples
of North and South America (including
Central America), and who maintains tribal
affiliation or community attachment.
Asian: This includes a person having origins
in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent
including, for example, Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the
Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American: This includes
a person having origins in any of the black
racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander:
This includes a person having origins in any of
the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White: This includes a person having origins
in any of the original peoples of Europe, the
Middle East, or North Africa.
Hispanic or Latino: This is an ethnic
distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the
Federal Government; this includes a person of
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central
American, or other Spanish culture or origin,
regardless of race.
ShoWare Center Event
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
02 27
Kent is a racially diverse city. The 2026
population estimate shows the largest
percentage is the White Alone category at
43% of the population, and the Asian Alone
category is the second largest percentage
at 27%. The racial diversification of the city
is much more than the national population,
which is approximately 70% White Alone,
13% Black Alone, and 7% Some Other Race.
The predictions for 2036 expect the city’s
population to continue a slow diversification.
The city’s population was also assessed
based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, which
by the Census Bureau definition is viewed
independently from race. Individuals who are
Hispanic/Latino in ethnicity can also identify
with any of the racial categories. Based on the
2010 Census, those of Hispanic/Latino origin
represented 15% of the service area’s current
population, which is slightly lower than the
national average (18% Hispanic/Latino). The
Hispanic/Latino population is expected to
grow marginally over the next 15 years.
Race
Ethnicity
85%
15%
84%
16%
83%
17%
82%
18%
82%
18%
2010
Census
2021
Estimate
2024
Projection
2029
Projection
2036
Projection
Population by Race
Hispanic Population
Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)All Others
White Alone
Black or African American Alone
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone
Native American and Other Pacific Islander Alone
Some Other Race
Two or More Races
2010
Census
6%
55%
11 %
1%
2%
17%
8%
2021
Estimate
2026
Projection
2036
Projection
2031
Projection
7%
46%
12%
24%
8%
7%
43%
12%
27%
9%
7%
40%
12%
27%
9%
8%
37%
13%
31%
9%
2%
2.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1%0.5%
0.5%0.5%
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0228
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s
(SFIA) 2021 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure
Activities Topline Participation Report
provides a reference for national recreational
trends. One important influence on trends
has been the impact of COVID-19. Active
lifestyles and participation in socially
distanced sports and activities such as tennis,
pickleball, golf, trail running, skateboarding,
surfing, day hiking, and recreational kayaking
has increased. Generally team sports have
shown consistent drops in participation, with
the exception of basketball and soccer, which
can be attributed to informal play.
National Recreational Trends
The top five sports with most participation
were basketball (27.9 million), golf (24.8
million), tennis (21.6 million), baseball (15.7
million), and outdoor soccer (12.4 million).
Between 2015 and 2021, the five sports with
largest growth in participation were golf
entertainment venues (72.3%), pickleball
(67.6%), tennis (20.5%), flag football (20.1%),
and basketball (18.6%). The five sports with
most rapid decline in participation were
Ultimate Frisbee (-47.3%), squash (-32%),
fast-pitch softball (-26.4%), touch football
(-25.3%), and roller hockey (-21.3%).
The top outdoor recreation activities with
most participation were walking (114.0
million), day hiking (57.8 million), running/
jogging (50.7 million), road bicycling (44.5
million), and freshwater fishing (42.6 million).
From 2015-2020, day hiking (55.3%), trail
running (45.6%), BMX bicycling (44.2%),
skateboarding (37.8%), and fly fishing (27.3%)
have undergone the largest increases in
participation.
Top water activities with most participation
were swimming (25.7 million), recreational
kayaking (13.0 million), and canoeing (9.6
million). Over the last five years, of activities
applicable to Kent, recreational kayaking
(36.9%) and stand-up paddling (21.7%) were
the fastest growing water activities.
114.0 million
57.8 million
50.7 million
44.5 million
42.6 million
27.9
24.8
21.6
15.7
25.7
13.0
9.6
12.4
Participation by the Numbers
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
02 29
Parks Plan Engagement
Engagement is an ongoing effort rooted in
authentic communication. The engagement
process in Kent’s park projects emphasizes
the importance of feedback representative
of all segments of Kent’s population: all
ages, genders, ethnicities, first and second
generations of immigrants, all economic
statuses, home renters and owners, workers,
and people who don’t generally have time
or interest in responding to requests for
participation in government projects and
activities.
To ensure that high-quality engagement
from the entire population is being received,
Kent Parks is using DEI (Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion) principles. This practice
acknowledges all the ways people differ: race,
sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical
ability, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs,
and more (Diversity). The intent is that all
feel welcomed, supported, respected, and
valued including those who have historically
had less access or limited voice in the process
(Inclusion). To ensure that all voices are heard,
Kent Parks strives to provide fair treatment,
access, and opportunity for all by identifying
and eliminating barriers that have prevented
full participation of some groups in the past
(Equity).
Traditional outreach methods do not
reach enough people generally, but more
importantly, they typically do not reach
a wide diversity of people. Traditional
outreach methods result in responses from
white, middle-income homeowners. As
demonstrated in the demographics section
of this report, this is not representative
of the average Kent resident. Traditional
outreach consists of in-person town hall style
meetings held after working hours in a single
location. This limits the opportunities for the
community to participate. To build equity
into this engagement process, non-traditional
methods were used to ensure more of the
population was given the opportunity to
participate.
These non-traditional engagement
methods included working with internal city
committees and commissions and external
community-based organizations (CBOs) to
build community relationships and provide
more opportunities for a wider array of
residents to participate in the engagement
process. The COVID-19 pandemic made
non-traditional and in-person engagement
techniques more challenging to facilitate,
although some events were able to occur
between waves of the virus.
Engagement Process
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0230
The project page on Kent Park’s engagement
platform EngageKentParks.com provided
a central point for information access and
input. Concurrent efforts to reach and engage
as many communities as possible included:
[Stakeholder Interviews
[Internal City Personnel and
Committees/Commissions
[Community-Based Organization
(CBO) Interviews
[EngageKentParks.com Online Activities
[Map and Stories
[Pop-Up Events
[After-school Student Engagement
[Surveys
[Statistically Valid Survey
[General Survey
Information and awareness about the
planning process was spread through:
[65,000 postcards mailed to Kent residents
[100 signs in parks and along trails
[Peachjar Flyer to all 42 schools
[Recreation and Mayor’s Newsletters
[Recreation Program Guide
[City readerboards at the Commons and
4th and Willis Street
[Facebook events and social media posts
The emphasis on authentic engagement and the strategies employed to that end allowed Kent Parks
to successfully engage a large part of Kent’s population. 2,992 total touchpoints were made during
this project. 72 people individually or in CBO groups were interviewed; website interactions included
1,799 visits making 275 contributions/stories; in-person pop-up events engaged 304 people with
input documented on the online platform; and 817 people took the survey. These numbers prove
that, given the opportunity, Kent residents want to engage.
WRITE
SURVEY
WRITE
ATHLETIC
SURVEY
STATISTICALLY
VALID SURVEY LIVE
GENERAL
SURVEY LIVE
ATHLETIC
SURVEY LIVE
CREATE
WEBSITE
FLIERS
MAILERS
SIGNS
SOCIAL MEDIA DATA
CRUNCHING
REPORTING
WEBSITE LIVE: MAPPING AND INPUTSTAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWSCBO
INTERVIEWS
817
PEOPLE
2,992 TOUCHPOINTS
304
PEOPLE
SURVEYS POP-UPS
GENERAL
383 PEOPLE
STATISTICALLY VALID
434 PEOPLE
YMCA 131
KENT COMMONS 69
WEST FENWICK PARK 27
TEEN CENTER 19
LIGHT FESTIVAL 58
POP-UP EVENTS
PREP
GATHER
LESSONS,
CONTACTSJUNE 2021JULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJAN 2022FEBINTERVIEWS
72
PEOPLE
STAKEHOLDERS
20 PEOPLE
COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS
53 PEOPLE
WEBSITE
1,799
VISITS
69 CONTRIBUTIONS
206 STORIES
1,593 AWARE
777 INFORMED
70+ ENGAGED
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
02 31
Information gathered during the engagement
process will help Kent Parks take a resident
driven approach to making decisions that
will guide the future of the system and better
serve all segments of the population.
Stakeholder interviews informed emerging
trends and guided the community survey
that was distributed in the fall of 2021. Two
methods of surveying were conducted:
[The Statistically Valid Survey and the
outreach surrounding it was structured to
reflect the demographic makeup of Kent.
The goal of this survey is to understand
how the park system can better serve all
segments of the population including
people who do not currently use it.
Segments of the population that
historically do not respond to surveys
were oversampled to achieve a response
that matches the demographics of Kent.
[The General Survey, asking identical
questions, provided all residents of Kent
with another opportunity to give input
online. The General Survey was largely
taken by people who use Kent’s parks and
trails multiple times per month.
Both surveys combined represent around
2% of Kent’s population and provide distinct
insights into how people perceive the current
and future park system.
Engagement Results
White
Asian
Black
Pacific Islander
Hispanic, Latino,
or Spanish
American Indian
or Alaska Native
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
16%
15%
7%
13%
12%
8%
47%
2020 Census Breakdown:
Population of 136,766
Statistically Valid Survey:
434 Respondants
General Survey Breakdown:
383 Respondants
49%
68%
21%
20%
15%
Survey Respondents by Race/Ethnicity
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
53%10%2%32%4%
54%6%2%30%8%
5%
7%
9%
10%
15%
15%Maintenance of Parks
Number & Variety
of Parks Offered
Qualtiy of Outdoor
Athletic Fields
Adequacy of
Parking at Parks
Feeling of Safety in Parks
Adequacy of
Lighting at Parks
Quality of Youth
Recreation Programs
Ease of Registering for
Park Programs/Rentals
Quality of Adult
Recreation Programs
Very Satisfied
43%16%3%34%
34%19%7%33%
32%15%3%42%
38%7%2%43%
29%11 %
3%42%
23%8%3%52%
58%4%2%30%6%
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
75.9%
56.5%
37.5%
28.0%
24.3%
15.1%14.9%11.8%
5.8%20%40%60%80%0%First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
0232
The results of the Statistically Valid Survey
showed that, overall, the level of satisfaction
with city parks is high, with more respondents
‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ than ‘dissatisfied’
or ‘very dissatisfied.’ Current maintenance of
parks had the highest level of satisfaction,
with 67% of respondents ‘very satisfied’ or
‘satisfied,’ an encouraging response. While
generally satisfied with current maintenance,
respondents emphasized that maintenance
should continue to be a priority over the next
five-year period. These sentiments about park
maintenance were reflected by those who
responded to the General Survey as well,
indicating that park maintenance now and in
the future is important to all Kent residents.
1. Feeling of Safety in Parks
2. Maintenance of Parks
3. Adequacy of Lighting at Parks
4. Adequacy of Parking at Parks
5. Number and Variety of Parks Offered
6. Quality of Youth Recreation Programs
7. Quality of Adult Recreation Programs
8. Quality of Outdoor Athletic Fields
9. Ease of Registering for Park Programs/Rentals
Level of Satisfaction with City of Kent Parks
Items That Respondents Think Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Five Years
by percentage of respondents using a 5-point scale, where 5 means very satisfied and 1 means very dissatisfied (excluding don’t know responses)
by the sum percentage of respondents who chose the item as one of their top three choices
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
02 33
In addition to park maintenance, the
Statistically Valid Survey and General Survey
respondents indicated many overlaps in
priorities, needs, and amenities. Investment
priorities were studied acknowledging that
certain city areas or demographic groups may
have a higher need for particular amenities.
Priorities were studied by city region where
respondents lived, race or ethnicity, and
owner/renter to inform appropriate locations
and equitable amenities for implementation.
Top priorities across all regions and
demographics focused on maintenance and
safety of parks. Additional priorities included
provision of a variety of amenities including
restrooms, nature trails, preservation of and
access to natural areas and habitat, farmer’s
market event spaces, local and regional paved
trails, gardens, shelters and gathering spaces,
off-leash dog areas, amenities for all ages and
abilities, access to water, and playgrounds.
Specialized sports and active-use facilities
were indicated to be a lower priority. This is
likely due to these amenities serving a more
specific segment of the population than, say,
a playground or shelter which have a broader
user base. Specialized sports amenities are
still considered important offerings in the
park system, supporting active lifestyles in
the city; some may be offered as one-offs in
the system while some may be deprioritized
for the next six-year cycle.
Amenity Top Priority Investments
Each category represents a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
‘Black’ includes those who identify as Black or African American.
‘Asian’ includes those who identify as Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese, or as part of other Asian or Southeast Asian cultures.
‘Latino or Hispanic’ includes those who identify as Latino, Hispanic, or of Spanish origin.
‘White’ includes those who identify as white, traditionally understood as those descending
from Caucasian communities.
‘Other’ includes those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native or Pacific Islander
including Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, or other Pacific Islander.
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100
PRIORITY INVESTMENT RATING LARGE COMMUNITY PARKS
All Respondents
Overall Priority Score
out of 200
Respondents’ Identified Race:
Key:
Asian
White
Latino or Hispanic
Black
Other87.2RESTROOMS
NATURE TRAILS
FARMER’S MARKET
EVENTS
PAVED WALKING &
BIKING TRAILS
NATURAL AREAS /
WILDLIFE HABITAT
BOTANICAL
GARDENS
PARK SHELTERS &
GATHERING AREAS
OFFLEASH
DOG AREA
AMENITIES FOR ALL
AGES & ABILITIES
ACCESS TO WATER
(RIVERS & LAKES)
REGIONAL TRAILS &
CONNECTIONS
PLAYGROUNDS
LARGE OPEN LAWN
AREAS
NATURAL PLAY AREAS
(BOULDERS & LOGS)
COMMUNITY GARDENS 200136.3134.6123.7114 .9109.3100.19490.488.579.877.471.660.158.90 50 100 150 200
0 50 100
PRIORITY INVESTMENT RATING LARGE COMMUNITY PARKS
All Respondents
Overall Priority Score
out of 200
Respondents’ Identified Race:
Key:
Asian
White
Latino or Hispanic
Black
Other87.2RESTROOMS
NATURE TRAILS
FARMER’S MARKET
EVENTS
PAVED WALKING &
BIKING TRAILS
NATURAL AREAS /
WILDLIFE HABITAT
BOTANICAL
GARDENS
PARK SHELTERS &
GATHERING AREAS
OFFLEASH
DOG AREA
AMENITIES FOR ALL
AGES & ABILITIES
ACCESS TO WATER
(RIVERS & LAKES)
REGIONAL TRAILS &
CONNECTIONS
PLAYGROUNDS
LARGE OPEN LAWN
AREAS
NATURAL PLAY AREAS
(BOULDERS & LOGS)
COMMUNITY GARDENS 200136.3134.6123.7114 .9109.3100.19490.488.579.877.471.660.158.90 50 100 150 200
0 50 100
PRIORITY INVESTMENT RATING LARGE COMMUNITY PARKS
All Respondents
Overall Priority Score
out of 200
Respondents’ Identified Race:
Key:
Asian
White
Latino or Hispanic
Black
Other87.2RESTROOMS
NATURE TRAILS
FARMER’S MARKET
EVENTS
PAVED WALKING &
BIKING TRAILS
NATURAL AREAS /
WILDLIFE HABITAT
BOTANICAL
GARDENS
PARK SHELTERS &
GATHERING AREAS
OFFLEASH
DOG AREA
AMENITIES FOR ALL
AGES & ABILITIES
ACCESS TO WATER
(RIVERS & LAKES)
REGIONAL TRAILS &
CONNECTIONS
PLAYGROUNDS
LARGE OPEN LAWN
AREAS
NATURAL PLAY AREAS
(BOULDERS & LOGS)
COMMUNITY GARDENS 200136.3134.6123.7114 .9109.3100.19490.488.579.877.471.660.158.91.6.B
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Lake Fenwick Park
0234
How Do Parks Respond
The challenges and expectations for a park system are wide ranging. Demographic trends
have shown a growing and diversifying Kent community, and COVID-19 has impacted
priorities, with national and engagement-indicated trends of decreased close contact team
sports and increased socially distanced activities. Major priorities noted through this planning
process include the need for increased access to nature and trails, access to safe and clean
parks, access to information, and continued involvement in planning. The engagement effort
of this plan has shown that people want to shape their park system, and they want their park
system to work for them. Kent Parks commits to continuing and growing the conversation
with the community and making information as transparent and readily available as possible
for this and future park projects.
Careful study and investment into the system must be done to prioritize projects with
acknowledgment of capital, maintenance, and operations budget constraints. Guided by
public engagement and observed trends, four goals are identified to meet the demands on
the park system, built around nine project outcomes (see Chapter 4 for more information):
TRANSPARENCY &
COMMUNICATION
OUTCOMESGOALSPHYSICAL ACCESS
FOR ALL
DIVERSITY OF HIGH-
QUALITY AMENITY
SYSTEM
RESILIENCY
Trails
Athletics Operations &
MaintenanceAccess
Equity PartnershipsStrategic
Amenities
Programming Natural
Resources
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Clark Lake Park
Clark Lake Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Benchmarking 37
Level of Service 38
Park Classifications 45
Geospatial Data and Heat Mapping 47
Nature Score 53
Athletic Capacity Study 55
Studying The System 62
Where We Are 03
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Acres of Park Land
Trail Miles
Soccer Fields
Baseball Fields
Softball Fields
Cricket Field
City of Kent NRPA (2021) Recommendations for Kent
7 Fields (1 Field / 20,000 Residents)
4 Fields (1 Field / 38,889 Residents)
5 Fields (1 Field / 28,081 Residents)
1 Field (1 Field / 10,936 Residents)
3 Fields (1 Field / 45,900 Residents)
2 Fields (1 Field / 68,850 Residents)
6 Fields (1 Field / 22,950 Residents)
0.4 Miles / 1000 Residents
7.81 Acres / 1000 Residents
0 Fields
.08 Miles / 1000 Residents
15.9 Acres / 1000 Residents
Metric
03 37
The purpose of the park system is to serve
the residents of Kent with high quality
amenities and access to outdoor recreation.
To meet this purpose, this plan strives to
make informed and transparent decisions by
creating and utilizing a variety of metrics and
tools, including:
[Benchmarking comparisons
to comparably sized cities
[Traditional and Performance-Based
Level of Service
[Park Classifications
[Heat Mapping
[Citywide Connections Mapping
[Nature Score
[Athletic Capacity Study
While each park system is unique with individual challenges, it is useful to compare the Kent
system to peer cities. This data is a useful metric when considering the optimal size of Kent’s
park system. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) collects data on cities of
various sizes. Data reflects 500 to 600 unique park and recreation agencies across the United
States, as reported between 2018 and 2020, and includes information on amenities and
budgets.
Kent’s population is around 137,000 which matches the NRPA’s 2021 National Agency
Performance Review upper quartile population of cities (populations of 100,000–250,000).
Evaluating Kent parks against NRPA data for amenities in similarly sized cities, Kent is largely
matched for softball fields and is exceeding expectations for miles of trails, but is underserved
in terms of parkland, soccer fields, baseball fields, and cricket fields. This information is a
useful starting point and can be weighed with engagement, Level of Service calculations,
heat mapping, and capacity studies to inform strategic projects for the system. NRPA data also
provides critical funding comparisons which are further discussed in chapter 5.
Benchmarking
Benchmark Comparisons
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0338
Two important tasks of a parks and open space
plan include measuring a city’s Level of Service
(LOS) for their park system and providing
recommendations for maintaining or adjusting
that LOS. Level of Service is a measure meant
to describe to a community how much of a
particular service residents are getting for their
tax dollars. For example, the LOS for emergency
services usually tells people how many minutes
they can typically expect to wait for emergency
responses to a 911 call, or how long they will
usually wait to get through a given intersection
during rush hour. Cities strive to set LOS goals
that reflect the overall priorities and resources of
the community.
Measuring LOS for a park system can be trickier
than doing so for other municipal services
because the benefits of parks, while numerous,
are difficult to quantify. It has been widely shown
that parks and recreational facilities provide
immense value to a community. Organizations
like the American Planning Association, the Trust
for Public Land, and the Urban Land Institute
tell us that well-used and well-maintained parks
tend to spur economic development in their
neighborhoods. The Centers for Disease Control
and the National Center for Biotechnology have
produced research demonstrating that parks
have positive impacts on physical and mental
health. Surveys consistently show that people
consider local parks an important public amenity.
Level of Service
Wiffco Field at Kent Memorial Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 39
Traditional Level of Service for a park system is
entirely quantity based, calculated by taking
the acreage of parks and open spaces divided
by the population of the city. This metric
focuses on quantity and does not consider
quality, location, or distribution of the parks
or trails. Despite its shortcomings, it is easy to
understand why park systems would rely on
this method, as quantity is generally easier to
measure than quality. When applied to the five
functionally distinct regions of Kent it provides
an estimate of how easily people can access
park space.
The 2016 Plan provided a new performance
based Level of Service that took into account
the current and potential quality of parks or
trails. Quality was calculated by identifying the
Recreational Value of each asset, the overall
condition of a park or trail, and then the total
Recreational Value provided by each park or
trail. This new metric provided a quality grade.
When applied to the five functionally distinct
regions of the city it identified the quality of
the park space serving each region.
Comparing and mapping the traditional LOS,
Current Recreational Value, and Potential
Recreational Value of current and yet-to-be
developed parks demonstrates the city’s
potential for improving the performance of
its park system for both current and projected
populations.
Meridian Glen Park
TRADITIONAL
LOS
DEFINITIONTYPE OF LOS RESULTING EMPHASIS
=
=
PERFORMANCE
BASED LOS
=
= the RECREATIONAL VALUE of a parkthe QUALITY
of the
# OF AMENITIES
AKA
reinvestmaintain
developacquire
This is synonymous with condition.
This is inherently tied to the size of a park. Examples of amenities: a grass field, playground equipment, a paved path.
reinvestmaintaindevelop
aquire
divided by the POPULATION
the # of ACRES
divided by the
POPULATION
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0340
Citywide By Region
East Hill
North
West Hill East Hill
South
Down-
town
Green
River
Traditional LOS:
Acres per 1,000
7.84 2.52 11.61 6.13 16.58 16.35
Current Performance-Based LOS:
CRV per 1,000
2.06 0.60 1.71 1.99 4.23 7.98
Potential Performance-Based LOS:
PRV per 1,000
4.91 2.16 4.68 3.92 11.02 13.42
Acres of Parkland 1,072.76 99.90 252.41 274.90 370.65 74.90
CRV 281.28 23.58 37.15 89.40 94.58 36.58
PRV 671.25 85.50 101.75 176.00 246.50 61.50
Residential Population 136,766 39,604 21,737 44,841 22,359 4,582
* Note that city region populations depicted in this chart are roughly based on Census Tract data and
do not total to the citywide population number.
LOS by City Region
This comparison shows that East Hill North
has both the lowest performance-based and
traditional LOS, which indicates an area of the
city that needs both capital reinvestment and
acquisition of additional parkland.
East Hill South and West Hill are the next
lowest-served regions, both in need of
reinvestment to serve their relatively large
populations. West Hill has a high traditional
LOS, or high acres per resident, but due to
freeways and highways bisecting the region, it
lacks easily accessible parks.
Downtown is relatively well served. Its existing
parks are largely older and in need of renewal,
as can be seen in the difference between the
current and potential performance-based
LOS, an area of focus that will be important as
the region continues to densify.
The Green River region is the highest performing region in the city, being
home to a significant trail system, a few large parks, and relatively few
residents. This region serves the entire city with trails and community parks, as
well as serving those who work in the region, population numbers that are not
accounted for in these LOS metrics.
These metrics are a good starting point to identify areas of the city in need of
growth and reinvestment, and they are useful for tracking how LOS has changed
over time. The adjacent chart shows that while traditional LOS has gone down
since 2016 due to population growth with minimal system expansion, the
performance-based LOS has gone up due primarily to capital reinvestment
in the system. It should be acknowledged that some of the increase to
performance-based LOS can be attributed to fine-tuning the Recreational Value
calculation. Heat mapping, discussed later in this chapter, uses these LOS metrics
to further hone areas in the city that can address access and equity.
Citywide
2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Residential
Population
122,900 136,766 144,658 152,935 161,101
RV **259.50 281.28 306.28 331.28 356.28
Acres *1,095.04 1,072.76 1,072.76 1,072.76 1,072.76
Traditional LOS:
acres per 1,000
Residents
8.91 7.84 7.42 7.01 6.66
Performance-
Based LOS:
RV per 1,000
Residents
1.62 2.06 2.12 2.17 2.21
* Assumes no property acquisition or sales** Assumes steady system reinvestment leading to RV increase of 25 points
every 5 years
LOS over Time
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 41
Current recreational amenities in the system
were counted and assessed for condition, then
each amenity in the system was inventoried in
a geospatial database. Amenities inventoried
included opportunities to play (both
organized sports and unstructured play),
individual support amenities (park shelter,
parking lots or restrooms), opportunities for
walking or biking, significant views, access to
natural landscapes, art, and other more varied
recreational opportunities (off-leash dog
areas, skate parks, climbing pinnacles, etc.).
Each asset was assessed and given an Asset
Grade that reflected its condition. A grade of 5
represented a new or like-new condition, and
a grade of 1 represented an asset at or very
near the end of its useful life. Each park was
given a Park Property Grade based on a set of
criteria to account for the property’s overall
condition, separate from the condition of its
amenities. The Asset Grades for every asset
in a park were averaged, and the resulting
grade averaged with the Park Property Grade
determined the Overall Park Condition grade.
The Overall Park Condition was converted to
a Park Condition Multiplier that was applied
to the park’s number of amenities. The result
of this calculation became the park’s Current
Recreational Value. Dividing the Current
Recreational Value per 1,000 residents
provides a current LOS for Kent’s park system.
Calculating the Performance-Based LOS
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
=
=
=
x
x
1000
divided by
KENT’S POPULATION
AVERAGE ASSET GRADE +
PARK PROPERTY GRADE
OVERALL
PARK CONDITION
PARK CONDITION
MULTIPLIER
CURRENT
RECREATIONAL
VALUE
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES
divided by 2
CONVERSION TABLECONVERSION TABLE5 1
4 0.9
3 0.8
2 0.7
1 0.6
Overall
Park Condition Multiplier
West Fenwick Park
Arbor Heights 360
Lake Meridian
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0342
A measurement of Current Recreational Value
(CRV) was determined for each park and
property in the city’s inventory. The resulting
list of 81 parks, trails, and properties can be
sorted and ranked to show the CRV each
contributes to the park system. The CRV of
a park can now be compared to the current
recreational amenities to show how much
Recreational Value (RV) has been lost due
to aging and failing assets and poor park
condition.
The CRV of Kent’s park system does not
include the potential of undeveloped
properties, planned park concepts, under-
developed parks, or renovations that
could be made to existing but tired parks.
In developing Kent’s new approach to
measuring LOS, planners understood
that the approach needed to be able to
compare the Recreational Value of Kent’s
existing park system with its Potential
Recreational Value. Such a comparison could
demonstrate the degree to which existing
parks could be restored or redeveloped to
provide additional Recreational Value to
accommodate population growth. In this
way, LOS measurements could reflect the
potential value to the system of proposed
improvements to existing properties.
A Potential Recreational Value (PRV)
measurement was created to evaluate
potential amenities that could be built at a
park or property, the natural opportunities
of a park, the feasibility of developing park
amenities, and the potential character of each
park site. It was determined that the best
way to measure PRV was to look at each park
or property and assess typical recreational
amenities that could reasonably be built
there, using the same point system used to
calculate current recreational amenities. This
method factors in size, critical areas, location,
and natural features, while also allowing
reasonably accurate comparisons of CRV and
PRV for each park, property, or concept. Kent
Parks staff assessed each park, property, and
concept and determined potential recreational
amenities. The resulting list ranked the
city’s parks, trails, properties, and concepts
according to their recreational potential.
The comparison of CRV to PRV provides an
indication of the degree to which current
parks are performing to their potential.
Looking at the PRV of undeveloped properties
shows how much the development of these
properties will add to the park system’s LOS.
Dividing the CRV per 1,000 residents provides
a current LOS measurement for the park
system, while dividing the PRV per 1,000
residents illustrates its potential LOS.
Current Recreational Value (CRV) and
Potential Recreational Value (PRV)
West Fenwick Park 2016 and 2022 RV
2016 RV
7.40 2022 CRV
17.55 2022 PRV
22.50
Clark Lake Park 2016 and 2022 RV
2022 PRV
26.00
2016 RV
2.3
2022 CRV
3.40
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 43
About Recreational Value
Understanding what the Recreational Value (RV) score is and how the concept is used is
critical to understanding the performance-based LOS. This discussion centers around the
basis for the formula.
To understand the concept of Recreational Value, it is helpful to understand the boundaries
of its use. The most significant boundary is that RV does not attempt to define the complete
value of any given park property or the park system. In addition to a property’s Recreational
Value, park and open space properties provide a wide range of benefits, including
economic value, health value, habitat value, and aesthetic value, as well as a location-based
opportunity to serve populations with highest need.
Recreational Value focuses on recreation. From a recreational perspective, how well a
park serves the community is strongly related to the number and quality of recreational
opportunities it offers.
In determining Potential Recreational Value, it is implied although not calculated that there
is a recreational “carrying capacity” for every park that should not be exceeded. For this
planning effort, the appropriate carrying capacity for a park is bound to traditional park
classifications (see discussion later in this chapter) and known limitations to development
such as park size or presence of steep slopes, wetlands, or floodplains. As Kent’s parks reach
their development limits and Kent’s population increases demands on the system, a formula
to estimate Recreational Carrying Capacity may be needed to inform acquisition strategies.
The inherent carrying capacity or potential score for a large community park is higher
than for a small neighborhood park or open space just because large community parks
have more space to contain more amenities. This diversity in sizes and types of spaces has
been identified as an important aspect of the system by the public. To reflect this priority, a
park tier system was created. If a small neighborhood park or open space property scores
from the mid to high range of its tier, this indicates it is performing its role in an acceptable
fashion. Using this scoring system, small parks or open space properties don’t need to
compete with large parks to demonstrate their value to the community.
The formulas presented here are tools to help with resource allocation decisions. The
goal of RV is to help the city make reliable, data-driven decisions when prioritizing capital
investments and other resource allocations.
West Fenwick Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0344
Park Orchard Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 45
Traditional Classifications
Community Parks: Serves the needs of
the city with unique activities and free or
fee-based programming. These parks have
infrastructure to support all-day use and can
support large gatherings. While these parks
might be walked, biked, or bused to, most
users drive to these parks. These parks draw
people from around the city and beyond and
are typically 10 acres or larger.
Neighborhood Parks: Provides convenient
access to active and passive recreation
opportunities for a neighborhood. These parks
are not intended for all-day use or for large
gatherings. Most users walk or bike to these
parks. These parks are 5-10 acres in size.
Special Use: Parks, usually smaller, that don’t
fit neatly into other categories. Examples
include urban parks, pocket parks, skate parks,
and tot lots.
Outdoor Recreational Facility: Provides
programmed recreational opportunities,
including athletic facilities. Most users drive to
these parks.
Natural Resource/Open Space: Largely
undeveloped properties that include open
space, environmentally sensitive areas, and/or
wildlife habitat.
Indoor Recreational Facility: Provides social,
cultural and programmed indoor recreation for
the city.
Undeveloped: Properties acquired for park
purposes that have not yet been developed.
The system of park classifications is an
important tool park planners and designers
use to help plan, design, and evaluate parks.
Parks are classified based on their size, their
recreational opportunities, and their carrying
capacity. Evaluating a park system by looking
at the number, location, and categories of its
parks helps planners analyze how the system
is serving its community. For example, few
would want a park system made up entirely
of athletic fields or pocket parks. One of the
challenges in parks planning comes from
trying to determine the mix of amenities,
locations, and park sizes to best serve a
community. Using park classifications helps
in the planning process. The traditional
approach to classifying parks utilizes eight
primary categories.
Park Performance Tier Classifications
Traditional park classifications provide
effective shorthand for describing each park’s
basic job. To reflect how well they perform
their job, an additional categorization tool
called “Park Performance Tiers” is used. These
tiers group parks based on ranges of Current
and Potential Recreational Value scores.
Park Performance Tiers acknowledge that not
all parks in the system are expected to provide
the same level of Recreational Value. A high-
functioning neighborhood park, even though it
plays a valued role in the park system, will never
have and is not expected to have the RV of
even a moderately well-functioning community
park. To evaluate how well a given park is
functioning, one must consider its Recreational
Value in the context of its designated tier.
The tier system does not include a
performance cap. Currently Kent’s highest
performing parks rank as Tier 6. Depending on
long-range assemblage and redevelopment
opportunities, some of Kent’s parks could
eventually achieve even higher rankings.
Trails, undeveloped properties, indoor facilities,
and properties not owned by the city are not
included in the park tier classifications. Each of
these categories can add value to the system
and are considered when analyzing system
connectivity.
Park Classifications
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0346
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 47
Recognizing that Kent Parks has limited access to geospatial data historically, the Park Planning
and Development (PPD) team made a concerted effort over the last two years to map all park
properties, recreational amenities, and access points into a geodatabase to be utilized during
the current system planning process. Having this data available in GIS has allowed for a deeper
understanding of our system of assets and how they work together as a system.
Geospatial mapping is a tool used by many planners to visualize and analyze geographical
data through Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This includes data such as population
density, demographics, topography, transit service, and so on. When combined with metrics
like the performance-based Level of Service, geospatial mapping becomes a powerful tool for
park system planning.
One powerful geospatial mapping tool is called heat mapping. Heat mapping is a way of
layering information on a map to reveal patterns that can guide planning and priorities. The
resulting data is called a “heat map” because a gradient of color indicates priorities which are
often interpreted as “hot” to “cold.”
The goal of heat maps is to identify high-priority areas for future investments. For this
planning effort there are four heat maps that guide project investments: All Existing Park
Access*, Existing Community Park Access, Equity, and Park Need maps. Each map is created
using two sets of information: Current Recreational Value (CRV) and Potential Recreational
Value (PRV). The CRV maps show how the current system is working. The PRV maps show how
the system could work if each park meets its full potential for recreation and access, showing
the system functioning at a higher level for the community. The PRV maps also highlight
where access and need cannot be met using only current parkland and where additional
acquisition might be necessary.
Layers of Information
Various layers of information were used to
create these maps. The collaboration and
input of many city departments was critically
important in building these datasets, and the
datasets are intended to be a living, evolving
resource for all city planning departments
to use in the future. Detailed information on
each dataset used to create the heat maps
can be found in the appendix. An online
resource further explaining and mapping as
data updates are available will be on the Kent
Parks website: mykentparks.com.
Geospatial Data and Heat Mapping
* Park Access includes all Kent Park properties and trails and the Soos Creek Trail and Green River Natural Resource
Area. These parks were included because they represent significant recreation within the Kent City limits.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
0348
Layers of Information:
Population
Areas zoned with multifamily residential land were given the highest
scores, and commercial/industrial were given the lowest scores.
Zoning is as indicated on the City of Kent Zoning Map. It is anticipated
that the city population will continue to grow, and zoning is a way of
anticipating where densification will occur. Assigning different scores
to areas based on zoning places helps to show more “heat” where the
most people live.
Racial and Social Equity
One of the four primary functions of parks that make them essential
services to the city and community is that they help to create social
equity and connection. Equity mapping identifies areas of the city
with vulnerable or traditionally underserved populations. This map
includes:
[Race and ethnicity characteristics
[Socioeconomic characteristics
[Health factors
These datasets were added together to create an overall Racial and
Social Equity Index map. Areas with higher scores and brighter colors
indicate areas of higher vulnerability and potential opportunities for
equitable investments.
Other
Manufacturing or Industrial
Commercial/Urban Center
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
Moderate-High
High
Parks
Water
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
03 49
Transit Service
Public transit routes and service frequency along those routes
were mapped, acknowledging that frequent transit allows a higher
number of people to easily access parks along transit routes.
Metro Transit Routes
Non-Frequent Service Areas
Frequent Service Areas
Parks
Water
Walksheds
Park “service areas” were created by mapping the areas that can be
reached within both a 10-minute and 15-minute distance of each park.
Walksheds were created based on the street grid, pedestrian access
points to each park, topography, and other physical barriers that a
person might encounter while walking to their park.
10-minute walk
15-minute walk
Parks
Water
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
0350
Park Access Maps
Park Access Maps study existing walking and transit access to
all parks and trails, and the quality of the recreation provided
by those parks and trails. These maps help identify if each
household or worker is within easy access of a park or trail and
within easy access of high-quality amenities. This map includes:
[Park Access: service area defined by a 15-minute walkshed to
pedestrian access points and frequency of transit service
[Park Recreation Value
Park Access
Current Recreational Value
Park Access
Potential Recreational Value
Reading the Park Access Maps:
If an area is dark purple in color, the access to
high-quality amenity is low.
If an area is yellow in color, the access to high-
quality amenity is very high.
Land that does not need to be served by parks
(like city-owned property, wetlands, and streams)
is shown in gray.
Parks
Water
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
Moderate-High
High
Very High
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 51
Reading the Park Need Maps:
If an area is yellow in color, the area has lower existing park
access, higher population density, and/or serves populations
with higher vulnerability. These areas provide the greatest
opportunity for equitable investments.
If the area is dark purple in color, the area has higher existing
park access, lower population density, and/or serves
populations with lower vulnerability.
Park Need Maps
Park Need mapping was done to study which areas of the city
need park investments the most based on existing park access,
equity, and population density. This map is useful for identifying
if high-need households are within easy access of a park or trail
These maps included:
[Park Access: Service area defined by a 15-minute walkshed to
pedestrian access points and frequency of transit service
[Park Recreation Value
[Population Density (estimated using Comprehensive Plan data)
[Racial and Social Equity Index
Park Need
Current Recreational Value
Park Need
Potential Recreational Value
1 mileParks
Water
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
Moderate-High
High
Very High
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
0352
East Hill South
West Hill
Heat Mapping Conclusions
The data in these maps was used to inform
a ranked list of existing park properties that
have the highest potential impact on access
and equity. These projects are integrated
into the strategic project list. In addition to
helping identify areas of the city with the
highest need for investments in existing
parks, the Park Access, Park Need, and Racial
and Social Equity heat maps can also be used
to help identify potential areas for property
acquisitions. For example, areas that are
completely outside of the existing walksheds
for a park can be overlaid with the Racial and
Social Equity mapping to identify areas where
acquisition investments might have the
most benefit.
The adjacent diagram shows four areas
in the city that have been identified as
potentials for acquisition investment.
East Hill North
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 53
Natural Resources and Sustainability
As leaders in building community resilience, Kent Parks connects community members
to environmental programming, ensures healthy ecosystems, advocates for the benefits
of nature, and implements sustainability practices. These priorities have been confirmed
consistently in public engagement, as seen in both the 2020 Comprehensive Recreation
Program Plan and this 2022 Park & Open Space Plan. All departmental strategic planning
efforts look to incorporate environmental sustainability goals wherever possible and
practical; these practices are inherent and intuitive for a parks department and can be further
strengthened through comprehensive planning. In the next 6-year cycle, Kent Parks will be
creating a departmental sustainability plan to address accreditation expectations and aims
to further reduce our collective impacts on the environment. The plan will establish realistic
goals and metrics for sustainability and resiliency and setup proper systems for tracking
progress and alignment with City and County goals.
Below is a list of major initiatives (not comprehensive) and best practices that Kent Parks is
currently implementing and will continue to grow into the future:
[Natural Resource Management
[Urban Forestry Plan
[Water conservation
[Integrated Pest Management
[Sustainable Building/Facility Management
[Composting and recycling at facilities
[LED lighting conversions
[Energy consumption audits
[Centralized HVAC controls
[Renewable Energy Sources for O&M
Equipment and Vehicles
[System Resiliency in Planning, Design and
Construction
[Reduce stormwater runoff through
Green Infrastructure
[Natural Resource Preservation
[Reducing overall O&M demand using
high-quality materials
[Promote non-motorized
transportation options through trails
[Public Education and Engagement
Huse Property
West Fenwick Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0354
Nature Score next steps:
Secure funding: High-quality natural areas can provide opportunities for people to
experience all of the natural benefits of spending time in nature. The ability for people to
spend time in our natural areas depends on two factors:
[Funding for a Natural Resource group in Park Operations to ensure that our natural areas
are safe, free of garbage, and ecologically high functioning. Critical O&M work includes
removing invasive species of plants, planting natives, and maintaining a safe, inviting
network of trails. This funding may allow reinstitution of the volunteer stewards program
and more hands-on community engagement.
[Capital funding to add amenities that add Recreational Value and protect our natural areas.
Boardwalks and bridges are needed to keep trail users from negatively impacting water
quality where a trail crosses a stream. Trailheads need to have adequate supporting amenities
like parking, restrooms, and shelters to make nature more easily accessible and inviting. Small
outdoor classroom spaces are needed for groups to gather and learn about nature.
Update scoring and tie to mapping: The Green Kent Plan is 12 years old. While it provides
a good jumping-off point for Nature Score metrics, reassessment of each site is needed.
Similar to the ongoing asset inventory for park amenities, natural area amenities need to
be inventoried. This will allow for easier management, as well as allow for heat mapping to
ensure equitable access to natural areas is being provided.Nature Score Tiers1These parks have the highest natural resource and habitat potential with
large contiguous natural areas. These parks tend to include ponds, lakes,
streams, or rivers, have the potential for salmon or bird habitat, and be
contiguous to green corridors. Some city properties in Tier 1 include Clark
Lake Park, Lake Fenwick Park, Mill Creek Canyon, and the GRNRA.2These parks have smaller natural areas, tend to have some
potential for habitat, and tend to connect to green corridors.3These parks have some to little natural areas and lower potential for habitat. These parks
tend to not be contiguous to green corridors. These sites still have value and maintenance
needs for our Urban Forest. Kent Parks is finalizing a Parks Urban Forest Management
Plan to factor this into workload planning for the proposed Natural Resource group.
Nature Score
Much like the active areas of our parks, our
natural areas require maintenance to ensure
they provide opportunities to connect
people to nature, provide quality habitat
for wildlife, keep our water clean, and fight
climate change. Nature Score is the natural
area equivalent of the performance-based
Level of Service for Recreational Value. Using
qualitative data from the 2010 Green Kent
plan such as acreage, habitat potential, and
presence of sensitive areas like lakes, streams,
or rivers, each of our natural areas was given
a score. Those scores showed that our natural
areas fall into three tiers.
Clark Lake Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 55
Kent has long been known as a destination
for sports and athletic programming in the
region and even across the nation, with sports
organizations traveling from every state and
even Canada to use facilities. Historically,
Kent’s history of park development focused
on athletic programming, causing some
parks to be limited to this singular use. The
late 90’s and early 2000’s saw a number
of significant parks built including Wilson
Playfields and Service Club Ballfields. These
gains were paired with the loss of 2 soccer
fields at Hogan Park, 3 youth ballfields at
Borden Playfields and a combination of
soccer/baseball fields at Commons Playfields.
Additional plans to add parks to meet
demand from Kent’s growing population
were put on hold due to reduced capital and
operating budgets. This ultimately resulted in
a net loss of 3 ballfields and 6 soccer fields.
Although the statistically valid survey results generally show a deemphasis on specialized sports
facilities, Kent Parks also recognizes that Athletics are an important amenity in the system and are
a critical part of having a rich diversity of assets, providing revenue to the budget, and drawing
people from the region to spend time in Kent. Rather than disinvestment in athletics, the survey
suggests a strategic approach to how the department manages these facilities and improved
efficiency with current assets. In an effort to better match athletic field demand with supply, an
Athletic Field Capacity Study was done as part of the 2022 Kent P&OS Plan. The primary purpose of
this study was to analyze service demands for athletic programming and compare it to the existing
inventory of use hours within the system to determine what strategic improvements can be made
to the existing system and/or if new developments are necessary.
Methodology
The Athletic Field Capacity Study includes a detailed analysis of existing reserved athletic field
use over a five-year period. The analysis presents use hours by field, park, and activity/sport.
This provides a comprehensive understanding of existing reserved (known) athletic field use.
To understand potential unmet needs and demand, an athletic field user survey was deployed
to gather feedback from existing athletic field user groups. Respondents provided insight for
existing demand, typical use patterns, ideas for improvements, and where they travel outside
of Kent to use facilities (if applicable).
Athletic Capacity Study
Wilson Playfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0356
Inventory
Before examining unmet needs, a more complete understanding of the Kent athletic field
landscape is necessary. Kent PRCS is not the only provider for these services as the school
district manages a large inventory of athletic fields.
Kent Parks
Kent Parks primarily utilizes seven park locations that offer athletic fields. Fields include large
and small soccer fields, football fields, softball fields, and baseball fields. Additionally, some
fields are natural turf whereas others are synthetic turf; however, synthetic turf fields tend to
be lined/designed for multiple purposes, but multiple activities occurring at once at the same
location may be limited due to field layout. Kent Parks also has some lit fields while others
are unlit. The turf type (natural or synthetic), playability (the ability to play multiple sports at
the same time), and field lighting all have a profound effect on Kent Parks’ ability to provide
athletic field programming.
Kent School District
The Kent School District (KSD) comprises 29 elementary schools, six middle schools, and four
high schools. The majority offer some type of athletic field facility(s). Moving forward, KSD will
be offering synthetic fields at high schools, and is examining that same feasibility at middle
schools. There is an upcoming KSD bond (2023/24) that may focus on enhancing all high
school facilities to minimum standards of play which should assist with this direction.Wilson Playfields Wilson Playfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 57
General Trends
From 2015–2019, the greatest number
of reservations are attributed to Wilson
Playfields (43%). The second most are
attributed to Hogan Park (28%), followed
by Service Club (12%), and Kent Memorial
Park (10%). Interestingly, Hogan Park has
almost the same number of reserved hours
on average as Wilson Playfields, mostly
attributed to a longer average number of
hours per reservation (5.4 vs. 3.6). Wilson
Playfields, Kent Memorial Park, and Hogan
Park have all experienced positive trends in
reservations and hours used from 2015–2019.
Glenn Nelson Park has received the strongest
decline over the same time period.
The individual fields within the park system
receiving the greatest number of reservations
and hours used on average are Rectangular
Field #1 and #2 located at Wilson Playfields.
Field #1 at Hogan Park ranked third in
reservations and hours used on average.
These three fields are synthetic turf.
Hogan Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0358
Use Trends by Sport
With the Kent Parks field reservation
nomenclature used between 2015–2019,
adult soccer (17%), parks adult softball (16%),
youth soccer (10%), and parks youth baseball
(10%) represent a little over half of all athletic
field reservations on average each year.
Positively trending sports field reservations
from 2015–2019 include Kent School District
sports (baseball, soccer, and softball), Kent
Parks sports (youth flag football, youth soccer,
and youth baseball), youth soccer, and adult
baseball. Negatively trending sports field
reservations over the same time period
include parks adult softball, parks youth
baseball, youth baseball, and youth softball
tournaments.
When combining all like sport activities
together (regardless of organization), adult
softball has the most reserved hours from
2015–2019 with 13,490. The least number
of hours are attributed to lacrosse (561) and
rugby (83). When looking at the field use by
hours, prime time (weekdays 5–11 p.m. and
weekends 9 a.m.–9 p.m.) is utilized the most
by all sports. Adult softball, youth baseball,
and youth soccer have the most prime time
use in general.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 59
Summary and Conclusions
Studying athletic capacity in the park system
is a balance of four things:
[Initial and cyclical redevelopment
costs of fields/amenities
[Ongoing costs of operations
and maintenance
[Amount of use
[Revenue from reservations +
community economic benefits
Examples of this balance include:
[If the amount of use on a site is too high, operations and maintenance will not be able to
keep pace to sustain the site. The site may become too damaged and need to shut down
to renovate, interrupting the schedule of athletic programming and losing revenue costs
and community economic benefits.
[Time and money invested into a site needs to be reflected by the number of reservation
hours. For example, the number of hours spent preparing a natural turf and skinned
infield for a game are more than the number of hours to prepare a synthetic turf field for
a game. The amount of operational time devoted to a field is only justified by optimal use
and revenue.
[This is a system-wide balance. Not all sites bring in revenue, but these sites can be
important for drop-in use. The costs of these sites need to be factored into this balance.
West Fenwick Park Multi-Use Court
North Meridian Park
Service Club Ballfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0360
A high-level look at balancing cyclical
development and operations and
maintenance costs indicates a rough similarity
in 16-year costs between natural turf and
synthetic fields that can be further balanced
by the six month per year increase of use and
revenue that a synthetic field would bring in
Kent’s rainy climate.
An in-depth look at the amount of reservation
use each site receives can be deceiving since
the system currently does not provide an
equal number of playfields for all sports,
some of which are overlays of diamond and
rectangular. Including overlapping fields, the
park system provides six full-sized softball
fields, three full-sized soccer fields, and two
full-sized baseball fields. In general, rectangular
fields are underrepresented in the system.
The user group survey indicates that more
rectangular field users have been turned away
due to lack of playing fields than diamond
field users. The user group survey identified
youth soccer with a high representation,
which can be accommodated on a variety of
fields, and adult soccer represents the highest
percentage of reservations in the system, but
is accommodated on only three fields. This
rectangular field trend is also supported by
benchmarking against NRPA for similarly sized
cities, which recommends seven full-sized
soccer fields, five full-sized softball fields, and
four full-sized baseball fields for a city the size
of Kent.
Cricket is currently not represented in the
system and is a challengingly large field
to accommodate that does not fit into the
rectangular and diamond field categories. It
is recommended to launch a practice pitch
trial run on existing lawn spaces that can
accommodate use with minor improvements;
if use demand proves to exist, sites have
been identified that can be used for formal
improvements.
Athletic Field Survey:
Sport/Activity Represented by Respondent
n=90
Athletic Field Survey:
Primary Field Type Utilized by Respondent
n=86
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
03 61
There are a few ways of adding lacking amenities while supporting important existing
reservation use and emphasizing operations and maintenance:
[Convert natural grass fields to synthetic where possible to increase reservations and
decrease O&M burden
[Alter existing field layouts and use:
[Strategically schedule youth sports (soccer, baseball, etc.) on smaller fields to free up
larger fields.
[Change fields from one use type to multi-use with field overlay to accommodate shifts
in sports trends (example: baseball and soccer overlay)
[Conduct pilot projects to test demand for emerging athletic trends like cricket, rugby
and lacrosse.
[Explore marketing drop-in use and pick-up games to attract users who may have
barriers that prevent them from participating in league play.
[Extend daily and year-round use time on existing fields:
[Add or upgrade lighting, including automated timers to reduce O&M costs
[Upgrade natural turf to synthetic turf
[Add fields to the system:
[Partner with school district for use hours, maintenance efficiency, and joint-
development of new facilities, especially at locations that can accommodate weekend
tournament use
Strategic projects include adding year-round use to already popular sites, shifting use
away from sites that are not cost feasible to develop, continuing to actively pursue school
partnerships for field use in non-school hours and joint-developed facilities, and transitioning
fields to more universal uses. There are projects that should be tackled in the near term, and
larger projects that should be assessed in the next six-year cycle dependent on usage trends
and partnerships.
Art Wright Field at Kent Memorial Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0362
Studying the System
Viewing the park system through a variety of
metrics creates a picture of how the system
is functioning and where improvements are
needed:
[National standards provide a high-level
understanding of trends in the country;
engagement and the Athletic Capacity
Study balance the national metrics with
city-specific information to verify and
identify amenities for investment.
[Performance-based Level of Service
measurements indicate how well
existing parks are serving their area of
the city, while traditional Level of Service
shows where access to parkland may
be deficient. Heat mapping adds a level
of precision to both of these metrics,
targeting areas of the city where new
projects and access are most needed.
[Implementing Park Classifications and
Nature Scoring ensures a diverse system
that provides a variety of space types.
Each metric is a data-driven tool for viewing
different aspects of the system, helping
planners measure and more accurately
describe the current performance of the
city’s park system and provide a reference
point for decision making. These tools inform
a list of strategic projects that respond to a
diversifying and densifying Kent. Lake Meridian Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Green River Trail
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Vision and Goals 65
Project Outcomes 66
Strategic Projects 67
Systemwide Initiatives 68
Systemwide Operational and Maintenance Needs 69
Citywide Connections 71
Downtown 73
West Hill 77
Green River 81
East Hill South 83
East Hill North 87
Strategic Projects Summary 90
Where We Are Going 04
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 65
The vision of the 2022 P&OS Plan is to create a system that responds to the needs of the diverse population
of Kent today and in the future, building community trust and ownership in the process. To achieve that
vision, the plan is built around four goals, which inform nine project outcomes.
We aim to create a system that
has easy access to parks from
home and work. To do this,
studies of street infrastructure,
density, racial and social indices,
park access points, and transit
routes were incorporated into
data-based mapping.
Strategies:
[Provide access to parks
throughout the city using
both existing parks and new
facilities
[Promote access to parks
by non-motorized means
looking toward citywide
infrastructure planning
[Integrate density and social
indices into data-based
mapping and analysis
Physical Access
for All
We aim to create a resilient,
sustainable park system.
Funding, partnerships,
operations, and maintenance
are key components to ensuring
the system provides high-
functioning amenities within a
budget that can be sustained.
Strategies:
[Add Recreational Value to
transform existing low-
performing parks and
existing parks where high-
quality amenities are lacking
[Transition Recreational
Value data into an asset
management system for
long-term management
[Focus on sustainable O&M
funding for new and existing
park development
[Partner with external
organizations to provide
high-quality amenities
System
Resiliency
We aim to create easily
accessible information about the
park system, build constituent
trust, and be transparent in our
decision-making process to share
how projects are identified.
Strategies:
[Enhance access to
information about the
park and trail system and
individual properties
using virtual and physical
platforms
[Build upon the 2016
performance-based
approach
[Use mapped data and
analysis to identify projects
[Engage the public and
partner with community-
based organizations
Transparency and
Communication
We aim to create a system that
provides high-quality amenities
that reflect the diversity of Kent.
Public engagement identified
which amenities are needed and
not needed in the system, and
provided guidance on where
these amenities are needed.
Strategies:
[Provide an equitable spread
of high-quality amenities,
including natural resources
and athletics throughout the
city using existing parks, new
facilities, and partnerships
[Create a park system that
reflects Kent’s diversity
with parks that are special,
unique, and authentic
Diversity of High-
Quality Amenity
Goals
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0466
The 2022 P&OS Plan is organized around nine project outcomes that together achieve the vision for Kent’s park
system. These outcomes were identified through public engagement and park system evaluation, support the four
goals, and provide a structure to prioritize strategic projects as funding becomes available.
Project Outcomes
Access
A project that
increases the service
area of the park
system. Projects might
include improving
access to an existing
park or adding an
entirely new park.
Equity
A project identified
as important through
heat mapping that has
opportunity to serve
priority populations.
Programming
A project that brings more
activation to a space.
Projects incorporate arts,
culture, and outdoor
programming and
may include spaces for
movies, music, or mobile
furnishings.
Strategic
Amenities
A project that adds
diversity of amenity
to Kent and amenities
identified as important
through engagement.
Trails
A project that
increases or enhances
trails and connectivity.
Operations &
Maintenance
A project that makes
maintaining or operating
the park system more
efficient. Projects might
include replacing
infrastructure that needs
constant upkeep.
Partnerships
A project that
leverages agreements
with other city
departments, projects,
or entities outside of
Kent Parks to mutual
benefit.
Athletics
A project that
addresses capacity
needs for various
sports, including
organized,
programmed, and
drop-in use.
Natural
Resources
A project that
increases access to
nature and enhances
environmental
sustainability.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
04 67
This plan proposes a list of strategic
projects to achieve Kent’s Parks and Open
Space vision. Projects are guided by public
engagement, data-based system studies,
and realistic system opportunities for
partnerships, maintenance, and funding.
In this report, projects are organized by city
region and categorized by outcome. Studying
projects by outcome shows how projects
work together to create a cohesive, diverse
system; studying projects by region shows
how to create a city-wide balance of high-
quality amenity.
Citywide, projects are sorted into three
priority buckets: near term, mid term, and
long term. Projects are scored for priority
based on potential of the project to enhance
the system and ease of implementation.
Scoring includes the number of outcomes
the project achieves, the LOS of the region
they reside in, and ease of implementation
or associated costs. These priority buckets
establish a guide for implementation and
are not intended to be a rigid schedule or
order for projects to be completed. Project
prioritization will be revisited annually
through the capital budgeting process and is
subject to change based on available funding,
asset deterioration, leveraging opportunities,
and staff resources.
Strategic Projects
near: Near-term projects are either currently
underway or targets for the next six year
budget cycle.
mid: Mid-term projects are not currently
funded but are good candidates for future
funding.
long: Long-term projects are not currently
funded and have barriers to implementation
such as O&M funding and property acquisition.
Mid and long-term projects may become
more feasible as appropriate funding becomes
available and partnerships progress, or may
have aspects that can be accomplished in the
near term.
$-$$$: Level of complexity and effort
associated with a particular scope of work is
tied to anticipated project costs, indicated for
each project as a range from $ to $$$.
Prioritization and Complexity
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0468
Some strategic projects have been identified that do not yet have a site or are systemwide projects.
These might include specific amenities, partnerships, or signage projects that would help achieve
the vision of the Parks and Open Space Plan.
Systemwide Initiatives
Update Partnership with
Kent School District
Update formal agreement with Kent School
District for use and management of facilities.
Develop after-hours partnerships with
schools for athletic facility use, playgrounds,
and other amenities. Partnership
opportunities might include: North Meridian
Park/Meridian Middle School, Campus Park/
Kent-Meridian High School, and Kentridge
High School.
Mountain Bike Park/Pump Track
Provide a high-quality bike park/pump track
in the park system, potentially partnering
with Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance.
Off-leash Dog Areas
Test various locations for off-leash dog areas
that are separated from active or residential
use and have natural features that do not need
long runs of fence. Public input will identify
the best long-term location for this use. Sites
to explore include Briscoe, Riverview, Russell
Woods, and Foster Parks.
Enhance Access to Information
Provide park and trail maps at strategic
locations throughout the city to spread
understanding of nearby available amenities
and connections, and continue enhancements
of online updates and interactive mapping.
Cricket Pitch
Designate a location for a practice pitch and
identify if there is a need for a permanent
formal pitch. Sites to explore for a practice
pitch include city-owned sites such as
Riverview Park and North Meridian Park,
and non-city-owned sites such as Pea Patch
Playfields and Kentridge High School. Sites to
explore for a formal pitch include Valley Floor
Community Park and new land acquisitions.
Nature Trail Access & Maintenance Plan
Develop and implement a plan to enhance
trail experience for users, with emphasis on
maintenance, safety, and access to nature.
Pickleball
Add pickleball court lines to existing tennis
courts, and install new pickleball-specific courts.
Install a Splashpad
Identify a favorable operating location for
above-ground water play in the park system,
a unique amenity in the system.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 69
Capital reinvestment into Kent’s park system as outlined in this plan will require a consistent increase in park’s operating budget to meet
systemwide O&M needs. Additional staff will be needed to keep up with an increase in park use, operational need and preventative maintenance.
A number of operational and maintenance needs have never been funded at the necessary level. Others are emerging needs due to added
complexities of managing a park system that did not exist in the past, and opportunities to leverage partnerships, volunteers or modernization.
Systemwide Operational and Maintenance Needs
Sustainable Replacement
for Seasonal Staff
Seasonal staff have long been a cornerstone
of responding to the increase in park use
and expanding service and support during
the spring and summer. These positions are
increasingly harder to hire, train and retain
as park use continues to increase demand
for evening and weekend staff presence. A
sustainable change in strategy is necessary.
This requires either additional resources
or a reduction in park operating hours,
locking/unlocking of parking lot gates, and
the number of restrooms that are opened
and closed daily. Other park amenities or
programs with high operating costs should
be considered for reduction to preserve core
park operations.
Natural Resource Management
Fund a natural resource group in Park
Operations to manage public use of open
space, nature trails and support environmental
community engagement/education. Initial
focus on Kent’s urban forest and natural areas
prioritizing tier 1 natural areas including
natural areas along the Green River, Lake
Fenwick, Clark Lake and Mill Creek Canyon.
Modernize Parks Waste Management
Waste management is a crucial part of
providing inviting, attractive public spaces
and as the amount of garbage in our public
spaces continues to increase sustaining
service levels is challenging. Currently the
Parks Department is responsible for emptying
almost 400 garbage cans across the 34 square
miles of Kent every week. Some of these cans
must be emptied multiple times a day while
some require emptying only every week or
two. A variety of strategic investments are
available to manage the amount of staff time
required to collect garbage in our parks.
These could include a direct-to-dump pickup,
higher volume receptacles, smart cans, on-
site dumpsters at high volume parks, at-grade
dumpsters at East/West Shops and carry-
in/carry-out litter policies and marketing
campaigns.
Volunteer Program Coordinator
Hire volunteer program coordinator to
leverage volunteers and partnerships to help
maintain Kent’s publicly accessible natural
areas. Restart Adopt-A-Park program that
was canceled due to budget cuts several
years ago. Hold regular cleanup events
to help keep Kent clean and build a sense
of community pride in our public spaces.
Update Green Kent Management Plan and
explore restarting the park steward program
if resources allow.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0470
Business Development/Grant Writer
Hire business development/grant writer
to increase the department’s leveraging of
existing funding. Consolidate department
grant writing and responsibility tracking. Reach
out to city businesses to encourage investment
in attracting people to work/live in Kent.
Increased Public Access to School
Grounds
In collaboration with local school districts, find
ways to increase access to school grounds for
recreation and recreational programming in
high need areas of Kent. Joint use agreement
could look at adding staff to manage after school
hours/school year access to school grounds,
address garbage or provide programming.
Could expedite increasing recreational value in
underserved areas of the city.
Park Rangers
Create Park Ranger program to improve park
code enforcement, reduce enforcement
burden on Police Department, improve
public understanding of park rules and
increase public perception of park safety.
A ranger program would improve the
department’s ability to react to park use
issues outside of regular working hours and
reduce reliance on seasonal staff.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Citywide Connections Map
1 mile
04 71
On- and off-street trails or multimodal routes
create important connections between people
and their destinations, including parks. Often
the combined value of an interconnected set
of trails, parks, and amenities creates synergies
for a corridor that is greater than the sum
of its parts. Understanding these strategic
connections, both on and off street, can be
an important consideration when identifying
projects that have multiple components—
parks, trails, transportation, stormwater
drainage, or utilities.
Kent has 50+ miles of trail ranging in character
and design type from paved regional trails to
soft-surface nature trails. When considered
individually, these trails have limited impact
in connecting people to places. But when
these trails are intertwined into an active
transportation system, they become an
important part of citywide connections. To
this end, a multi-departmental effort (Parks,
Public Works, Economic and Community
Development) was initiated during the recently
adopted Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and
resulted in the identification of many important
bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The
Citywide Connections map is intended to be
a continuation of the efforts started during
the TMP to leverage linkages between trails
and on-street infrastructure that can serve as
opportunities to serve multiple goals.
Citywide Connections
Key
On-Street Trails: These trails are part of the street
network and can be sidewalks, bike lanes, shared-
use paths, cycle track, or some other transportation
solution that centers on bicyclists and pedestrians.
Dashed lines are in progress or in planning; solid
lines are complete.
Park Trails: These trails can be paved or soft surface
(gravel or dirt) and typically move through a park setting
(neighborhood, community, or natural resource).
Regional Trails: These trails are typically paved,
12 feet wide, and are considered part of the King
County/Leafline regional trails network.
Looking toward next steps in this planning
effort, Kent Parks is proposing developing
an Urban Trails Master Plan that looks at
regional trails, park trails, and on-street
“trails” as part of an interconnected network
of urban trails that provide an expansion
of the non-motorized options for people
to navigate the city. This effort will be led
by Kent Parks but will follow the tone of
collaboration established during the TMP.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0472
Downtown and Green River: Meet Me on Meeker
Public Works, Economic and Community Development, and the Parks
Department are collaborating to implement a new vision for Meeker
Street. This project is transforming a key commercial corridor and
gateway to downtown into a multimodal, urban complete street with
a strong sense of place. Meeker Street will also serve as an east-west
bike/pedestrian connection between downtown, the Interurban Trail,
and the Green River Trail. In conjunction with the Central Park, Uplands,
Interurban, and Earthworks improvements, this connection will increase
Kent’s downtown as an area attraction.
Downtown and East Hill South:
Mill Creek Canyon Park Corridor and Downtown Connections
Nearly 40 years ago, Kent took a bold step by combining stormwater
infrastructure, a park, and art to create Earthworks Park at the base of Mill
Creek Canyon. This bold step was part of a vision to transform Mill Creek
Canyon into the jewel of Kent’s park system with trails, bridges, and other
recreational amenities throughout. It was an ambitious goal for what
was at that time a small city. After all these years, Kent has grown into
this vision and is ready for Mill Creek to meet its enormous recreational
potential. Doing so will make Mill Creek Canyon a top-tier park and form
a vital linkage between the East Hill and downtown.
East Hill: Lake Meridian Park, Huse Property, and Soos Creek Trail Corridor
Lake Meridian Park is currently Kent’s most popular park. The Huse
Property is in planning to become a top-tier community park in the
underserved Panther Lake region. These two parks are located along King
County’s Regional Soos Creek Trail. When improvements are completed,
Kent will have two top-tier parks connected by a comfortable bike ride on
the Soos Creek Trail.
West Hill and Downtown: Fenwick Park Corridor
Enhancing and providing formal connections between West Fenwick and
Lake Fenwick Parks will create a dynamic park corridor with numerous
passive and active recreational opportunities with trail access to the West
Hill, Green River, Kent Valley Loop Trails, Meeker Street, and downtown.
Downtown, Green River, and West Hill: Kent Valley Loop Trail
Decades ago, city leaders laid out a vision for a network of parks along
both sides of the Green River that were to be connected by separated bike/
pedestrian trails. Today this vision has been adapted into the Kent Valley
Loop Trail system, which is mostly complete and is a regional draw for park
users, bikers, runners, and walkers. Ensuring that the Green River Trail, Frager
Road, Interurban Trail, and the parks throughout the corridor are maintained
and updated is critical for a key component of Kent’s park system.
0472
Citywide Initiative: Neighborhood Greenways Program
There are many very low traffic neighborhood streets with no sidewalks
in Kent. This program looks at making those streets pedestrian-centric
experiences. Focus would be on streets that connect to parks or other
amenities for the surrounding neighborhood.
Federal Way Link Extension Trail: Sound Transit is currently under
construction on the Federal Way Link Extension, which will bring Light
Rail connections south of Angle Lake into Kent, Des Moines, Federal
Way, and eventually into Fife and Tacoma. The result will be major
improvements in access to transit for the West Hill and an expected shift
toward transit-oriented development and greater population density that
comes with it. To improve neighborhood access to these transit stations,
a trail that generally follows the light rail alignment is proposed.
Citywide: Bike/Ped. Corridors Around the city, there are segments
of sidewalk and bike lanes missing. These gaps and inconsistencies in
the system make it unattractive and difficult for users and can result
in unsafe conditions. As urbanization and traffic levels increase, street
improvements need to provide comfort and safety for pedestrians and
cyclists. Filling these gaps would provide pedestrian and bicyclist access
to transit and destinations such as schools, parks, and neighborhood
shopping. Corridors that have been identified for improvements include:
[East Hill: 116th Ave. SE, 132nd Ave. SE, 100th Ave. SE
[East Hill South and Downtown: SE 256th St., SE 248th St.
[West Hill: Reith Rd., Veterans Drive, Military Rd.
[Downtown: Central Ave.
[Green River: S 228th St., S 212th St., S 196th St.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 73
Downtown Strategic Projects
Downtown Map
Project Outcome Key
Access
Equity
Strategic Amenities
Programming
Natural Resources
Athletics
Operations & Maintenance
Trails
Partnerships
The Downtown Region is the commercial center of Kent.
Its current population is relatively small but is expected to
grow significantly over the next decade in the form of more
urban, multifamily housing. Downtown is an important
intersection between the Green River valley, East Hill, and
West Hill and is vital to Kent’s strategic vision for the future,
becoming a thriving mix of retail, business, and residential.
A destination itself, the center connects all Kent residents
and workers to transit (Sounder) and active transportation
(Interurban Trail). Woven through downtown are a number
of parks that were created to serve a small town and, later, a
suburban Kent. Most of the downtown parks are some of the
system’s oldest. Reinvestment is needed to replace failing
assets, provide quality recreational experiences, serve a high
weekday population, and play a key role in supporting the
development of a livable, urban downtown core.
F
D
CP
O
J
E
H
G
N
K
B
A
L
1 mile
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0474
C. Kherson Park
Construction is planned for 2022,
including installation of the lunar rover
replica in the space-themed playground
and improved urban green space.
near $$
A. 4th and Willis Greenway
Redevelop the two greenways along
SR 516 with enhanced landscape and
multimodal connection between the
Interurban Trail and downtown.
near $$
D. Earthworks
and Mill Creek Canyon
Celebrate this natural resource and gateway
between downtown and East Hill. Update
the master plan for Earthworks Park and Mill
Creek Canyon with a major emphasis on trail
and neighborhood connectivity, building
upon the recent work to cleanup and restore
existing nature trails within the canyon.
near $$$
B. Commons Neighborhood Park
Move the current Community Garden
program to this site. Update the
playground and improve the trail
experience in the park.
near $$
Earthworks and Mill Creek Canyon
Middle Mill Creek Park
[Create a new Tier 4 park, including resting point
at the halfway point of the canyon.
South Mill Creek Park
[Renovate to become a Tier 4 park. Improve gateway/trailhead to the
upper canyon utilizing recent property acquisition.
Mill Creek Canyon Trails
[Continue work on pedestrian connection between downtown and East
Hill on both sides of the canyon.
[Create crossings to connect Scenic Hill and East Hill. Crossings to include
bridges at strategic locations for connectivity and views of the canyon.
[Continue work on restoration of canyon and working with EarthCorps on
trail maintenance and improvement.
Mill Creek Canyon to 248th
[Create a safe off-street connection between 248th, Campus Park, and
Mill Creek Canyon.
Mill Creek Park to 277th Street Trail
[Implement the planned connection to 277th, eventually connecting Mill
Creek to the Green River Trail.
Earthworks Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
04 75
E. Foster Park
Improve trailhead and trailside amenities.
Implement pilot off-leash dog area
program.
mid $
G. Old Fishing Hole
Improve trailheads and amenities at this
property along the loop system.
mid $$
F. Russell Woods Park
Improve trailheads and amenities at this
property along the loop system.
mid $
H. Uplands Playfield and
Uplands Extension Renovation
[Convert two natural grass baseball fields
into an active park space.
[Expand Lions Skate Park.
[Add a new Interurban Trailhead and trail
amenities.
mid $$
Complete and Continue Enhancements to
the Kent Valley Loop Trail (KVLT) System
Frager Rd Trail Resting Area aka BMX Park - West Hill
[Enhance the existing amenities and add new
at this resting point along the trail system.
64th Ave Trail Repair and Extension - Downtown
[Repair and extend this existing trail to enhance
the Kent Valley Loop Trail.
Interurban Trail Improvements - Downtown and Green River
[Enhance connection at Naden Avenue.
[Enhance lighting at all Downtown connections.
[Add art installations, improve crossings, and
coordinate repair work with King County.
Nealy/Soames - Downtown
[Develop amenities and enhance recreational
opportunities in this area along the loop trail
system.
Green River Trail South Missing Link to Auburn - Downtown
[Fill the missing link of the Green River Trail south
in partnership with King County. This trail will
eventually connect south to Auburn.
Frager Rd - West Hill and Downtown
[Improve this currently mixed-use roadway to be
welcoming to bicycle and pedestrian users. The
segment from Cottonwood Park to Washington
Avenue is an area of priority along this road.
Kent Valley Loop Trails:
Connecting the Downtown, Green
River, and West Hill regions, this
trail system utilizes on- and off-
street trails to connect parks and
create recreational loops.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0476
K. Signature Pointe
Finish this last segment of the Green River
Trail that needs improvement to be off-
street, separated trail.
mid $$$
P. Town Square Plaza
Renovate Town Square Plaza to provide
improved access to green space and
programmable space downtown.
long $$$
L. Scenic Hill Park
Renovate and expand children’s play area
and add additional features to improve
recreational value.
long $$
J. Riverview Park
Create a new Tier 5 park that serves as
downtown’s Green River trailhead and southern
anchor for the Green River corridor of parks.
mid $$$
N. Hogan Park at Russell Road
Add supporting recreational amenities that
will make the park a dawn-to-dusk, year-round
recreational destination. Convert Field #2 to
synthetic turf and assess trends to determine
if additional synthetic fields are needed. Add
automated lighting controls. Improve trail
connections from the park.
long $$$
O. Kent Memorial Park
Improve connections to neighborhoods
and embrace the bordering creek as an
amenity. Add automated lighting controls.
Reassess use after school partnerships and
other sports facility improvements have
been achieved and consider options for
general park use and open space in lieu of
athletic programming.
long $$$
M. Downtown Central Park
Development
Locate and create a high Recreation Value
downtown central park.
long $$$I. Downtown Park Improvements
Update downtown park amenities and
look for potentials to add recreational
value where appropriate. Potential parks
include Kaibara Park, Burlington Green,
Titus Railroad Park, Rosebed Park, and First
Ave Plaza.
mid $$$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 77
West Hill is primarily residential with ribbons
of commercial development along Pacific
Highway and portions of Military Road. It is
bisected by Interstate 5. Development near
the in-progress Federal Way Link Extension
and future light rail station continues to
significantly increase the population and
development of this region with available
parkland becoming scarcer. Freeways,
highways, topography, and the Green River
create challenges for connectivity within this
region and to other areas of the city. The West
Hill of Kent has the fewest number of parks
but has more acres of parkland per person
than every region except downtown.
West Hill Strategic Projects
West Hill Map
Project Outcome Key
Access
Equity
Strategic Amenities
Programming
Natural Resources
Athletics
Operations & Maintenance
Trails
Partnerships
L
G
C
J
I
B F
D
K
A
1 mile
E
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0478
Fenwick Community Park
West Fenwick Park and Lake Fenwick Park
Explore combining the contiguous Fenwick Properties into one
combined management area known as Fenwick Community Park.B. Salt Air Vista Park
Renovate and expand children’s play area and
add additional features to improve recreational
value. Add nature-play and nature trail
connections to multifamily housing.
near $$
A. Linda Heights Park
Improve Recreational Value by adding open lawn
area, loop trail, and multi-use sports court.
near $$
C. Connect West Fenwick and
Lake Fenwick Parks
Provide formal connections between these parks
to create a dynamic park corridor with numerous
active and passive recreational opportunities
with trail access to the West Hill, Green River, and
Downtown. Work with Evergreen Mountain Bike
Alliance to create Kent’s first mountain bike park.
mid $$
D. Connect West Fenwick Park
to the Green River Trail
Improve pedestrian connection from West
Hill to the Green River Trail and downtown.
Collaborate with Public Works to address
crossing SR 516, as identified in the
Transportation Master Plan, and update
signage to reinforce connection.
mid $$
1/4 mile
WEST FENWICK
PARK
LAKE FENWICKLAKE FENWICK
PARK
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 79
H. West Hill Land Acquisition
Land acquisition on the West Hill for replacement
of the Kronisch property sale.
mid $$
F. Glenn Nelson Park
Renovate the playground to add
nature play elements; improve the park
connections to the neighborhood. Explore
diversifying athletic programming.
mid $$
G. West Fenwick Park
Renovate the existing tennis courts,
including adding pickleball striping, and
renovate the trails on the west and north
edges of the park.
mid $$
I. Lake Fenwick Park
Improve the park to a Tier 6 Park. Improve
access, parking, gathering, seating, play,
and water access opportunities.
[Connect to Green River Trail via a trail
under SR 516 and through King County
Mullen Slough Natural Area.
[Update the disc golf course.
mid $$$
Lake Fenwick Park
E. Evergreen Middle School
Partnership
Explore opportunities for partnership with the
Federal Way School District to utilize newly
constructed fields at Evergreen Middle School for
general park use during non-school hours.
mid $$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
Midway Neighborhood Park
0480
L. West Hill Sports Facility
Development
Develop a new sports facility as land
opportunities arise. Facility will likely focus on
rectangular fields and overlays, with emphasis
on providing fields that can be used for
tournament play.
long $$$
L. Valley Floor Community Park
Develop a community park, including large-
scale community garden space, parking,
restroom, and play area. Explore additional
amenities that would be appropriate for a
site constricted by wetlands and floodplains.
Celebrate connections to the KVLT.
long $$$
J. West Hill Neighborhood Park
Create a new Tier 4 neighborhood park. Consider
installing a splash pad here or elsewhere in the
park system.
mid $$$
K. Midway Neighborhood Park
Acquire land to fulfill need for park, recreation,
and trail connection opportunities along the west
edge of West Hill, providing access to parks in an
underserved area that will likely continue growing
as Link Light Rail Stations are completed.
long $$$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 81
This region is characterized by industry,
megablocks, few residences, and the Green
River, which is one of Kent’s most significant
recreational amenities. The Green River Trail,
Frager Road, and the parks along them serve
the 70,000 people who work in the valley, the
entire population of Kent, and all of South
King County. Over the past decades, the city
has acquired a significant amount of property
along the Green River to realize the vision of
riverside trails, open space, and recreational
opportunities on both sides of the river.
Reinvesting in these parks and trails will ensure
that the Green River corridor continues to be a
regional draw and recreational treasure.
Green River Strategic Projects
Green River Map
A
C
EB
D
Project Outcome Key
Access
Equity
Strategic Amenities
Programming
Natural Resources
Athletics
Operations & Maintenance
Trails
Partnerships 1 mile
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0482
Kent Valley Loop Trail signage
E. Green River Natural
Resource Area
Partner with Public Works to enhance the
Recreational Value and access to this natural
resource.
long $$$
C. Briscoe Park
Activate the park along the Kent Valley Loop Trail
system with additional recreational amenities.
mid $$
B. Van Doren’s Landing Park
Construction of park relocation is scheduled
to be completed in 2022, including flood
protection, habitat improvements, and
Recreation Value enhancements.
near $$$
D. Three Friends Fishing Hole
Broaden the recreational opportunities at
this park along the Kent Valley Loop Trail.
mid $$
A. Boeing Rock
Develop amenities and enhance recreational
opportunities in this area along the Kent Valley
Loop Trail system.
near $$
Three Friends Fishing Hole
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
D
F
A
C
B
H
L
I
J
E
K
1 mile
04 83
The East Hill South region includes the Lake
Meridian annexation area. This region is
largely residential with both single-family
and multifamily homes, and small pockets
of retail. The key parks in this region include
Lake Meridian Park, Morrill Meadows Park,
Wilson Playfields, Service Club Ballfields,
Clark Lake, and Arbor Heights 360. East Hill
South has a good distribution of parkland but
requires further reinvestment to reach the full
potential of this recreational offering.
East Hill South Strategic Projects
East Hill South Map
Project Outcome Key
Access
Equity
Strategic Amenities
Programming
Natural Resources
Athletics
Operations & Maintenance
Trails
Partnerships
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0484
A. Campus Park
Design work is scheduled to begin in 2022,
emphasizing the following elements:
[Play area to serve multifamily residential
surrounding the park.
[Explore feasibility of developing a short
18-hole disc golf course.
[Explore partnership with Kent School District
on the development of a joint-use facility.
[Connect to 100th Ave for bikes/pedestrians.
near $$
B. Morrill Meadows Park
Construct phase 2 of park improvements,
including expansion of playground, stage for
summer concerts, and nature play area.
near $$
D. Lake Meridian Park and
Soos Creek Trail Connection
Continue coordination with Public Works on
enhanced bike/pedestrian connection.
mid $$
C. Springwood Park
Continue design and construction to
transform this neighborhood park from a
Tier 3 to a Tier 4, including an expanded
children’s play area, community gathering
space, and trail connectivity.
near $$$
Springwood Park, photo credit Paul Johnston
Lake Meridian Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
04 85
F. Clark Lake Park
Enhance trail system, update master plan, and
develop amenities including restroom, park
shelter, nature play, and expanded parking.
Acquire land as available to complete park
assemblage. Explore addition of indoor
programmable space and unique system
amenities.
mid $$$
G. East Hill Southwest Park
Development
Explore providing access to a diversity of
amenity in this area. This might include a
combination of acquisition and developing
existing properties, such as 272nd Park and
Seven Oaks Park, to their maximum potentials.
mid $$$
E. Sun Meadows Park
Expand the recreational value by adding loop
trail, additional sport courts, and enhanced lawn
space.
mid $$
East Hill Southwest Park Development
Clark Lake Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0486
L. Wilson Playfields
Acquire adjacent property as available and
expand field space. Transition to LED lighting
and implement automated lighting controls.
Expand recreational opportunities with
additional amenities.
long $$$
J. Eastridge Park
Renovate and expand children’s play area and
add additional features to improve Recreational
Value.
long $$
K. Service Club Ballfields
In the near term, add automated lighted controls,
explore potential scheduling partnerships
with the Auburn School District, and reach out
to organizations that currently schedule the
fields for input. In the long term, assess if trends
indicate need to convert to other use types.
long $$$
I. 272nd Park
Develop a new Tier 3 neighborhood park.
long $$$
Wilson Playfields Playground
H. 132nd Ave Park
Develop into a Tier 4 Neighborhood Park.
long $$$
Service Club Ballfields
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
E D
CB
GA
F
04 87
East Hill North largely includes the Panther
Lake Annexation Area and is the city’s most
underserved park region under both the
traditional Level of Service (LOS) and the new
performance-based LOS. There are fewer
existing parks in this region than in the rest
of Kent, and because of this, it is necessary to
add Recreational Value in this region both by
redeveloping existing parks and building new
ones. To fully meet the need of this growing
area of the city, new parkland shall consist of
at least one top-tier park and several smaller
neighborhood parks.
East Hill North Strategic Projects
East Hill North Map 1 mile
Project Outcome Key
Access
Equity
Strategic Amenities
Programming
Natural Resources
Athletics
Operations & Maintenance
Trails
Partnerships
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0488
C. East Hill North Community
Park aka Huse Property
[Develop Huse Park into a Tier 6
community park. Include a trailhead for
Soos Creek Trail and improve connection
to Lake Meridian Park and Lake Youngs
Loop Trail.
[Scope of work to include parking, restroom,
children’s play area, loop nature trail, and
adaptive reuse of existing structure.
[Formalize north side access point along
216th.
[Explore possibility of easement with
current property owners to provide
formal trail access off 224th separate from
equestrian trail.
[Explore possibility of partnership with
utility corridor for trail easement.
near $$$
Garrison Creek Park
B. Garrison Creek Park
Continue renovation and replacement of
closed amenities. Priorities include:
[Replace the playground in 2022.
[Expand the use/play opportunities to
include amenities like soccer, pickleball, etc.
[Improve the trail connection down to
Garrison Creek to create a nature-play
experience.
[Consider restoring lighting.
near $$
A. Chestnut Ridge Park
Renovate and expand children’s play area and add
additional features to improve Recreational Value.
near $$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1 mile
04 89
G. East Hill North Neighborhood
Park aka Matinjussi Property
Develop the Matinjussi property into a Tier
3 or 4 neighborhood park that includes
public access to Panther Lake. Explore
west access to SE 203 Pl, south access to
SE 204th St, and north access to private
playground. Consider restoring lighting.
mid $$$
H. East Hill North Park
Development
Continue exploring access to parkland
in this area, particularly in the areas
surrounding the ravines that cut
diagonally across the region. This might
include a combination of acquisition
and securing partnerships with schools
for after-use hours of their sporting and
playground facilities.
long $$$
D. North Meridian Park
[Improve the park from Tier 2 to Tier 5.
[Add pedestrian access point to east side of
North Meridian Park off 125th Ave SE street
end; develop trail network.
[Explore creating space for informal cricket
pitch; develop further if well received.
[Explore potential partnership with local disc golf
advocates to activate forested area of park. This may
require a partnering agreement with King County
as they own some of the adjacent property.
[Explore partnership with the Kent School District.
near $$$
F. Turnkey Park
Renovate and expand children’s play area and add
additional features to improve recreational value.
mid $$
E. Park Orchard Park
Improve the park from Tier 1 to Tier 4. Explore
partnerships with Kent School District.
mid $
East Hill North Park Development
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0490
Strategic projects are sorted into three priority buckets: near term, mid term, and long term. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
projects are scored for priority based on potential of the project to enhance the system and ease of implementation. These priority
buckets establish a guide for implementation and are not intended to be a rigid schedule or order for projects to be completed.
Near-term projects are currently underway or targets for the next capital
improvement cycle. Mid-term and long-term projects may become more
feasible as appropriate funding becomes available and partnerships progress,
or they have aspects that can be accomplished in the near term. Level of
complexity and effort associated with a particular scope of work is tied to
anticipated project costs, indicated for each project as a range from $ to $$$.
Strategic Projects Summary
Kherson Park $$
4th and Willis Greenway $$
Earthworks and Mill Creek Canyon $$$
Commons Neighborhood Park $$near termProject NamePriority
Downtown Region AccessEquityStrategic AmenitiesProgrammingNatural ResourcesAthleticsOperations & MaintenanceTrailsPartnershipsProject Complexitymid termSignature Pointe $$$
Riverview Park $$$
Downtown Park Improvements $$$
Foster Park $
Old Fishing Hole $$
Russell Woods Park $
Uplands Playfield and Uplands Extension Renovation $$long termTown Square Plaza $$$
Scenic Hill Park $$
Hogan Park at Russell Road $$$
Kent Memorial Park $$$
Downtown Central Park Development $$$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
04 91mid termWest Hill Land Acquisition $$
Glenn Nelson Park $$
West Fenwick Park $$
West Hill Neighborhood Park $$$
Lake Fenwick Park $$$
Connect West Fenwick Park to the Green River Trail $$
Connect West Fenwick and Lake Fenwick Parks $$AccessEquityStrategic AmenitiesProgrammingNatural ResourcesAthleticsOperations & MaintenanceTrailsPartnershipsProject ComplexityProject NamePriority
West Hill Region
long termlongtermWest Hill Sports Facility Development $$$
Valley Floor Community Park $$$
Midway Neighborhood Park $$$
Green River Natural Resource Area $$$neartermSalt Air Vista Park $$
Linda Heights Park $$
Green River Region
near termVan Doren’s Landing Park $$$
Boeing Rock $$midtermThree Friends Fishing Hole $$
Briscoe Park $$
Evergreen Middle School Partnership $$
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0492AccessEquityStrategic AmenitiesProgrammingNatural ResourcesAthleticsOperations & MaintenanceTrailsPartnershipsProject ComplexityProject NamePriority
East Hill South Region
long termlong termWilson Playfields $$$
Eastridge Park $$
Service Club Ballfields $$$
272nd Park $$$
132nd Ave Park $$$
East Hill North Park Development $$$
East Hill North Regionnear termCampus Park $$
Morrill Meadows Park $$
Springwood Park $$$mid termClark Lake Park $$$
East Hill Southwest Park Development $$$
Sun Meadows Park $$
Lake Meridian Park and Soos Creek Trail Connection $$near termEast Hill North Community Park aka Huse Property $$$
Garrison Creek Park $$
Chestnut Ridge Park $$
North Meridian Park $$$mid termEast Hill North Neighborhood Park aka
Matinjussi Property
$$$
Turnkey Park $$
Park Orchard Park $
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
West Fenwick Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Funding 95
O&M Versus Capital Funding 96
The Problem with Reactive Maintenance 96
Funding Status 97
Our Funding Bucket 101
Current Funding Sources 103
Potential Funding Sources 109
Partnerships with Alternate Providers 114
Goals and Policies 115
How We Will
Get There 05
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 95
This plan creates a vibrant, constituent-led
roadmap for Kent’s park and open space
system. To make this system a reality,
strategies are needed to build the proposed
strategic projects and then maintain them
at the level necessary to achieve the desired
positive outcomes for Kent.
Funding is the foundation of the solution; a
city’s priorities are found in its budget, not
in planning documents. Kent Parks must
continue to find creative ways to partner
with other agencies to leverage funding even
further. As available land becomes scarcer, use
and maintenance partnerships with alternate
providers of assets in the city is another key.
Used strategically, funding and partnerships
can work together to provide a sustained high
quality of service to the Kent community.
When deciding how resources are allocated,
tough decisions are needed. The strategic
projects in this plan provide a roadmap for
decisions, but other projects and opportunities
arise. When this happens, goals and policies
provide guidance for decision making.
Based on the data-centric and engagement-
led conclusions, goals and policies lay out
priorities for the continuing development and
stewardship of the city’s park and open space
system. The goals and policies outlined in this
report are a continuation of those presented in
the 2016 Plan, but they will continue to evolve
based on community engagement, analysis of
data, and the changing needs of Kent.
Kent Parks funding is divided into two
separate categories that cannot be
intermingled: capital funding for new
or replaced assets, and operations and
maintenance (O&M) funding for maintaining
and repairing assets. The 2016 P&OS Plan
provided a vision for a vibrant urban park
system and made the case for substantial
financial commitment to support that vision.
Kent Parks was facing a significant capital
maintenance backlog without a dedicated
capital funding source. New revenue options
were needed to support the capital needs of a
system organized, renovated, and maintained
according to performance standards and
expectations.
Funding
Since the 2016 Plan, sustainable capital
funding has been obtained, allowing Kent
Parks to replace many failing assets in the
system with new assets. Parallel funding
increases for O&M have not been obtained,
setting up the system for a similar situation
as the 2016 Plan discussed: a system again
filled with deferred reactive maintenance
and failing assets instead of proactive
investment into long-term repairs to keep
the system functioning at a consistently high
level. To obtain the positive benefits that a
park system provides, it is necessary to have
Capital Funding for Repair, Replacement, and
Development, and O&M Funding that keeps
up with the increased demand of a growing
and urbanizing city.
Morrill Meadows Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0596
Kent has a Park Operations division tasked with daily operations and maintenance of all
parks, trails, open space, athletic complexes, gateways, and facility grounds. These employees
are generally responsible for routine maintenance tasks such as mowing grass, cleaning
restrooms, and emptying trash cans. They also complete minor construction projects such as
repairing plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes in parking lots and along paths. This work
is considered routine maintenance and is funded through the city’s general fund.
Larger projects are contracted out to construction firms and paid for as part of the Parks
capital budget. These projects fall into two categories: capital repair, replacement, and
redevelopment and capital development. Projects such as constructing a new restroom
building to replace an old one, repaving a park’s parking lot, or replacing an athletic field’s
worn-out synthetic turf are considered capital repair and replacement projects. New
development and acquisition projects, which aim to add amenities in areas of the city that are
underserved, are considered capital development projects.
All new and existing assets need routine maintenance and eventual capital reinvestment.
Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifespan, along with its own typical
amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital repair. The expected lifespan
of a restroom building and the amount of maintenance required to keep it functioning
are entirely different from those of a playground, which are different from those of a grass
athletic field. What they all have in common are finite life expectancies, requiring continual
investment throughout the course of their lifespans. Not surprisingly, routine maintenance
and capital repair costs increase as assets age, with older assets requiring more frequent and
more extensive maintenance and repair than their newer counterparts. For example, at Kent
Memorial Park, the restroom building is in near-constant need of repair, be it from a new leak
in the aged roof or problems with the failing plumbing system.
O&M versus Capital Funding The Problem with Reactive Maintenance
A high level of routine O&M ensures assets do
not degrade before the end of their expected
lifespan. For example, if a natural turf field
is overprogrammed or undermaintained it
can take years for the field to regrow to a
healthy stand of turf. Those are years of play
lost, where that field is basically unusable.
The impact of not investing in appropriate
O&M is a vicious cycle that can reduce the
quantity and quality of recreational amenities
provided by a park system. The best-case
scenario is a funding system where O&M
funding is paired with capital funding,
ensuring that each old and new asset is
maintained consistently and at a high quality
to keep it highly functioning for a long
lifespan.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 97
Capital Repair and Replacement
For this 2022 Plan, the city updated its Park
Major Asset Inventory, which inventoried and
assessed the condition of every existing park
asset valued at over $10,000. The analysis
looked at 500 assets, a more comprehensive
review than previous planning efforts, and
identified that the major assets in the system
are worth $125 million in 2022 dollars. Based
on each asset’s assessment and expected
lifetime, the average yearly capital investment
for replacing or renovating assets in the
current system is identified as $7 million in
2022 dollars. The current capital maintenance
backlog, or items that need to be replaced
in the next two years, is about $21 million or
$10.5 million per year.
The yearly capital investment average of $7
million is calculated for the next 20 years and
includes the capital maintenance backlog and
large spending years, such as when a synthetic
turf field may need replacement. This average
does not account for addition of new assets to
the park system. This average also assumes a
reasonably high level of routine O&M, some of
which is likely not happening now because of
reduced O&M budgets.
Current spending for capital reinvestment
averages around $6 million per year, $500,000
of which comes from a fund dedicated to
major maintenance, and $5.5 million of which
is estimated based on standalone work and
addresses capital reinvestment as part of a
more holistic project (example: West Fenwick
Park Renovation replaced several failing assets
in addition to expanded recreational value). An
additional $1 million per year is needed to keep
pace with the rate of system deterioration and
accommodate for:
[Repair/replacement backlog
[Saving for large expenditure replacements
such as synthetic turf resurfacing, which
is not accommodated with the current
major maintenance budget.
[Conservative estimates of lifespan
dictated by current O&M funding. Longer
lifecycle estimates would be appropriate
if sustainable O&M funding were
available to extend longevity of assets via
preventative maintenance.
Many of the projects in the Strategic Project
list are capital repair and replacement projects,
revamping existing amenities. Recently
obtained park impact fees do not help with
capital repair and replacement as that funding
source is dedicated to new or expanded park
amenities. Recent capital gains through B&O
tax revenue has provided additional funding
for capital needs but is still not enough to
cover the existing repair and replacement
costs, much less costs of new capital
development.
Funding Status
City of Kent
Current spending Spending needed
as identified by
Asset Inventory
$6,000,000 / yr $6,500,000 to
$7,000,000 / yr
Capital Reinvestment Spending
to maintain what is already owned
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
0598
Capital Development
The Strategic Project list in this 2022 Plan also
includes targeted projects that add amenities
and acquiring properties not currently in
the system. Some of these projects take
undeveloped parcels and create brand new
Community or Neighborhood Parks in areas
that are underserved.
These project costs are additional to capital
repair and replacement costs and will increase
the capital repair/replacement and O&M
funding needed to keep the system operating
at a high level.
The new development costs outlined in this
plan are $60 million over 20 years, or around
$3 million per year.
O&M
Community engagement has stated loud and clear that maintenance is a top priority for the
future of Kent’s parks. Engagement indicated general satisfaction with the current level of
maintenance but emphasized the need for continued focus in the next five years. This is an
important statistic to recall as the city grapples with future budget cycles and the potential
for further budget reductions. As funding for O&M declines, recreational value and the level of
satisfaction will drop proportionally.
Community engagement has also shown an increase in people who don’t feel as safe using the
park system. As parks are increasingly pressured by widespread societal issues, it is placing more
burden on O&M staff. On top of this, the responsibility for enforcing park rules through city code
falls to the police department, which is also stretched thin by budget and societal issues. When
prioritizing police response, park rules enforcement is often a lower priority. However, much like
other code enforcement responsibilities in the city being a lower priority, this does not mean
that enforcing the park code isn’t vital to ensuring that the investment in park assets and annual
operating expense achieves the positive benefits of parks and recreation for the community.
Other cities of Kent’s size have turned to park rangers to enforce park rules, which removes some
pressure from the police department to help regulate park use, something that Kent should
consider.
Lake Meridian
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 99
The 2016 P&OS Plan created an opportunity to align maintenance practices with the adopted
performance-based Level of Service. Typically maintenance levels of service are driven by
a traditional park classification system, but in Kent this failed to account for the significant
variance of Recreational Value between parks within the Community or Neighborhood Park
classifications. Since Recreational Value drives park use, RV is a useful determinant of LOS
standards and helps to inform where to expend maintenance resources.
Maintenance LOS Tiers
Seven Maintenance LOS Tiers were created based on park Recreational Value and park type.
Each Maintenance LOS Tier is associated with maintenance standards at peak and non-peak
times of year; this accommodates for higher maintenance needed at popular (high RV) parks
and the inherent maintenance of more complicated sites.
The majority of the operations budget is spent on Maintenance LOS Tiers A, B, C and Athletic
Complexes. Maintenance of Athletic Complexes is discussed in chapter 3, and associated costs
moving forward will be largely contingent on feasibility of partnerships with the school district.
Maintenance Level of Service Tiers:
LOS A: Tier 5 Parks, Urban Parks, and
Indoor Facilities
LOS B: Tier 3 and 4 Parks, Athletic
Complexes, and Citywide Gateways
LOS C: Tier 2 Parks and Minor Gateways
LOS D: Tier 1 Parks
LOS E: Open Space and Undeveloped
Park Properties
Trails: Regional Trails and Nature Trails
Maintenance Seasons:
Peak Season: April–September
[Resources are mainly focused on
routine services
[High dependency on availability of
seasonal labor
[Focus is keeping up with public
demand for use of park system
Non-Peak Season: October–March
[Less demand from public use and
seasonal vegetation growth
[Resources are focused on preventative
maintenance, larger projects,
inventory, inspections, and audits
Lake Meridian
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05100
Maintenance
LOS
Average
O&M
cost/year
per park*
Average
O&M
hours/year
per park*
2019 Park System 2022 Strategic Projects
including development of
undeveloped parcels**
O&M increase/
year for 2022
Strategic Projects **
Number
of Parks
Cost Hours Number
of Parks
Cost Hours Cost Hours
A $182,596 1640 6 $1,095,576 9,838 23 $4,199,707 37,712 $3,104,132 27,874
B $70,850 776 21 $1,487,851 16,304 26 $1,842,101 20,185 $354,250 3,882
C $26,517 238 24 $636,398 5,720 10 $265,166 2,383 -$371,232 -3,337
* Based on 2019 data $3,087,150 28,419** Does not include proposed land acquisitions
Average costs and O&M hours spent at Maintenance LOS Tier A, B, and C parks during 2019
created a baseline of costs and hours spent at each park in a tier (the year 2019 was used to
represent pre-Covid “normal” use). As seen in the chart below, from these baseline metrics an
approximate O&M hours and cost per year is calculated for the strategic projects proposed in
this 2022 Plan.
Assuming the projects in this plan are anticipated to be completed over 20 to 30 years, the O&M
hours are approximately equivalent to a little more than one new staff member every two years.
This new staff member would account for increased demand for O&M due to increased use of
the park system as Kent’s population grows, the Recreational Value of the system grows to meet
the new demand, and preventative maintenance of assets to extend life of capital investments.
This does not take into account program areas like urban forestry and natural areas that
are underfunded already and not directly linked to the need to maintain the developed
park system. Nor does it take into account the need for a park ranger program to increase
perceptions of safety in our park system and enforce park code.
If the strategic projects are implemented but these associated additional O&M funds and
hours are not obtained, operations staff will be forced to take a more reactive approach to
maintenance, which will likely lead to an active maintenance backlog with assets stretched
beyond their lifespan. Potential solutions to these problems will need to come from available
funding options.
Garrison Creek
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 101
Pebbles can range from moderate gifts (most
often from service clubs or corporations)
to sizable state grants. Pebbles can help fill
in large gaps, so it is smart to pursue them
aggressively. However, pebbles are also
unpredictable and sporadically available,
which makes it imprudent to rely on them
as a primary source for filling the funding
bucket.
Sand is primarily useful for filling in
remaining gaps not addressed by rocks and
pebbles. Since every source in this funding
bucket must be pursued, managed, and
administered individually, trying to fill an
entire bucket of any substantive size one
grain at a time would be futile. Sand, such as
volunteering, can still play a valuable role in
building community support and ownership
of the system.
The types of materials stand for the
categories of funding options to address
the prioritized need. Imagine you can fill
your bucket one piece at a time with rocks,
pebbles, and/or sand. You can mostly fill the
bucket quickly with a few rocks. However,
rocks alone leave many voids, and your goal
is to fill the bucket as completely as you can.
Those voids are best filled with a combination
of pebbles and sand.
You can also try to fill your buckets using only
pebbles, but this will take a greater effort, as
you have to gather a great number of pebbles
to fill the bucket. Trying to fill the bucket with
only sand, one grain at a time, amounts to a
monumental challenge.
Rocks are generally the largest and most
reliable funding sources. Without rocks, a
capital plan becomes more of an exercise in
wishful thinking. There are a few large sources
of municipal revenue that are allowed to be
used on parks capital projects.
Not all funding options are equal. Many
municipal revenues come with restrictions
that do not allow their use for capital or
operating programs. Other potential revenue
categories such as private grants and
donations tend to be smaller in scale and
provide one-off opportunities that do not
supply reliable funding for ongoing concerns
like public capital programs or consistent
maintenance.
Another consideration in seeking funding is
the comparison of the level of effort involved
in obtaining the resource with the size of the
resource obtained. For example, it generally
requires more staff time to plan, organize,
and hold a volunteer event to install a small
playground than it does to apply for and
administer a half-million-dollar state grant.
Staffing levels are a necessary consideration
when weighing resource options.
This chapter will organize revenue options
according to size, reliability, and efficiency of
effort to obtain. It will rely on the metaphor of
two buckets holding three types of materials:
rocks, pebbles, and sand.
Our Funding Bucket
an empty
Funding
Bucket big, reliable
sources
+ ROCKS + PEBBLES + SAND =less sustaining
sources
little
sources
a filled
Funding
Bucket!
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05102
Our system has two buckets. One bucket represents capital funding and the other represents
operations and maintenance funding. The buckets are the size of the resource commitment,
and the size of the buckets is the first decision the community must make. If the parks capital
need or maintenance need is not addressed in its entirety, strategic decisions will be needed
to address how assets and, potentially, entire parks are allowed to fail. The community has
indicated that high levels of maintenance are top priority, which supports increased funding
in this area. The community has also provided guidance on priority assets in the system; if
capital need is not fully addressed, medium- and low-priority existing assets, which represent
significant historic investment, may need to be closed.
Capital Reinvestment and Operating Budget
that meets need and demand
Operating Budget
that fails to meet need and demand
Capital Reinvestment
that fails to meet need and demand
For a long-lived highly functioning system
that provides recreation for a growing
population, the capital funding bucket and
O&M funding bucket need to be balanced
and grow in tandem with population. If capital
investment matches population growth but
O&M investment does not, RV will increase in
the short term but eventually assets will fall
into disrepair and RV will plummet. If O&M
investment matches population growth but
capital investment does not, RV will follow
the capital investment trend and not meet
recreational need for the growing population.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 103
In Kent and the surrounding cities, one-time capital funding is outstripping ongoing O&M
funding and creating an imbalance in the system. Additional O&M funding is needed to keep
pace with the size and quality of park system that is needed to serve Kent.
ROCK: General Fund
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) is funded primarily by the City’s General Fund which is
the principal operating fund of the City. The primary expenditures in the General Fund are
for general City administration, public safety, economic development, planning services,
operations and maintenance, cultural programs, and recreation services. In 2022, the adopted
budget for the General Fund was $111,172,050; of which Operations and Maintenance
accounted for less than 7%.
The City’s General Fund is tax and general revenue supported which includes but is not
limited to property tax, sales tax, utility & other taxes, licenses and permits, state shared
revenues, and charges for services.
Ever since the Great Recession (2007-2009), the City has continued to face budgetary
challenges within the City’s General Fund because expenditures continue to outpace revenues
due to inflation, medical increases, legal mandates, increase demand in use of City services,
and Streamline Sales Tax implementation. Property taxes are one of the major revenue
sources in the general fund and accounts for 28% of the general fund funding source but only
grows at a rate of 1% plus new construction per year. Inflation has grown 36% since 2007.
O&M Funding BucketCurrent Funding Sources
General Fund Challenges:
Washington State Constitution limits the annual rate of property taxes that may be
imposed on an individual parcel of property to 1% of its true and fair value. Property
tax funding makes up 28% of the General Fund. A 1% annual increase does not cover
inflation (CPI) increases that have ranged from 0.29% to 4.28% between 2007-2021.
Inflation has and will continue to outpace property taxes.
The City has primarily funded its parks and
recreation services through the General
Fund and capital needs from grants, real
estate excise tax (REET) and starting in
2019 Business & Occupation Tax (B&O). For
the next biennial budget and beyond, the
City expects spending in the general fund
to outpace collected revenues which will
increase competition for resources and likely
reduce the amount of funding available for
parks capital along with maintenance and
operations. The City has already addressed
the City’s fiscal cliff and the first rounds of
COVID-19 impacts in the 2019/2020 budget
and the City is moving into the next biennial
budget planning cycle uncertain of the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its
permanent fiscal outlook.
To continue investment in parks, the City
will need to identify and pursue additional
revenue enhancements. The following
list of rocks, pebbles, and sand is not an
exhaustive list but notes the primary types
of opportunities for filling Kent’s O&M and
capital funding buckets.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05104
Due to revenue limitation of growth in the general fund, the City has faced two major
budgetary reductions in the last biennial budget:
City Fiscal Cliff: The loss of state-shared Streamlined Sales Tax mitigation revenues beginning
in 2019, coupled with the expiration of the Panther Lake Annexation Sales tax credit in June
2020, resulted in a negative impact of over $10,000,000 or roughly 10% of the City’s General
Fund revenues. As part of the 2019/2020 adopted budget, the City reduced over $2,000,000
in ongoing expenditure by non-public safety General Fund departments. In addition,
$470,000 in sales tax collections from shifted from capital to fund ongoing operations in the
General Fund. The remainder of the gap was filled by over $1,000,000 annual increase in
permit and plans review revenues, increase in interest revenue as a result of new investment
strategy, new revenue from water and sewer franchise fees, and beginning in 2020 the budget
included an increase in City B&O tax rates which filled an additional $3,400,000 of this gap.
COVID-19 Reduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented disruption to
Washington’s economy. Governor Inslee on March 23, 2020 issued a “Stay Home, Stay
Healthy” order to help slow the spread of COVID-19 which allowed only essential businesses
to remain open to the public and restaurants were only allowed to offer take-out. In 2020,
prior to the 2019/2020 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment, the City proactively started to
determine what the impacts of the pandemic were to the General Fund. The estimated
shortfall of the General Fund was an estimated $14,200,000. To address this shortfall the City
reduced $3,200,000 in capital transfers (eliminated or reduced capital projects funded by the
General Fund), $5,000,000 ongoing department reductions, $1,500,000 one-time department
reductions, transfer of $1,000,000 fund balance from the City’s Wellness Fund and the use of
$5,000,000 General Fund fund balance.
The City’s General Fund will continue to have challenges as expenditures continue to outpace
revenues.
Kiwanis Tot Lot #3
General Fund Sources:
Since the Great Recession, the City has raised new revenues sources from water and
sewer franchise fees, increased utility taxes, implemented and increased busines and
occupation tax, and redirected capital sources to the general fund.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 105
The 2016 Plan made the case for consistent rock-based capital funding sources. Partially due to the argument made in that plan, the new rock
of B&O Tax has been implemented, which has hugely helped capital funding for the system, and the recent implementation of Park Impact
Fees is contributing toward a more sustainable capital budget for development projects. This plan builds on the work of the 2016 Plan and
continues the search for consistent funding sources to ensure an equitable park system today and in the future.
Capital Funding Bucket
ROCK: Real Estate Excise Tax (REET2), $0 - $4,500,000 per year
Any city or town that is fully planning under the Growth Management
Act (GMA) may impose an additional 0.25% excise tax (REET 2 or second
quarter percent) authorized under RCW 82.46.035 upon all real estate
sale, in addition to the tax imposed under REET1. REET2 revenues are
restricted and may only be used for financing “capital projects” specified
in the capital facilities plan element of the city’s comprehensive land use
plan. RCW 82.46.03(5) defines “capital project” as:
[Planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair,
replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals,
bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems.
[Planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvements of parks; and
[Until January 1, 2026, planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvements
of facilities of those experience homelessness and affordable housing
projects.
The City has further restricted the use of REET2 for park related capital
improvements.
REET Challenges:
Because REET is based on the total value of real estate
transactions each year, the amount of REET revenues
the City receives can vary substantially from year-to-year
based on the normal ebb and flow of the real estate
market. During the Great Recession (December 2017 –
June 2019), REET2 revenues available to fund parks capital/
lifecycle dipped below $0.
REET2 Funding Available for Capital / Lifecycle
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05106
ROCK: Business & Occupation Tax (B&O), $0 to $3,000,000 per year
In 2013, the City of Kent implemented a business & occupation tax (B&O tax) which is
comprised of two components: gross receipts tax and square foot tax. Taxpayers with a
business location located within the City limits must report both components, while taxpayers
with a business location located entirely outside City limits is required to only report gross
receipts tax. For taxpayers reporting both gross receipts tax and square foot tax, the tax due is
based on the greater amount of the two.
Square foot tax was implemented in 2019 which applies to taxpayers that lease, own, occupy
or otherwise maintain business warehouse space, outdoor warehouse space, or other
business floor space in excess of the threshold amounts within the City.
Square footage revenues equivalent to 0.03 quarterly on business warehouse floor space and
0.01 quarterly on other business floor space are allocated to the city’s capital resource fund.
The City allocated a portion of the square foot tax revenues to Park’s capital starting in 2019.
B&O Challenges:
The City has seen a decrease in overall payment of square foot tax due to businesses
reporting higher gross revenues. The original estimates of $3.0M/year has decreased to
$2.5M/year in available capital funding.
Additionally, B&O tax allocated to the City’s Capital Resources Fund are reviewed each
year by Council during the City’s adopted budget process to determine how much
funding will be allocated to City projects. This is a competitive process and Park’s capital
may or may not receive business and occupation tax per Council’s directions.
2021 Kent Cornucopia Days 5k
Interurban Trail
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 107
ROCK: King County Parks Levy, $0 - $400,000 per year
In 2007, King County voters approved two property tax levy lid lifts to support park
operations and open space and trails from 2008-2013. This levy was renewed in 2013 for
2014-2019 and then again in 2019 for 2020-2025. It’s important to note that the City of Kent
does not have any King County Parks within it’s geographic boundary, except a portion of the
Interurban Trail.
On August 6, 2019, King County voters approved a measure to renew the property tax levy
supporting parks, trails, and open space in King County. The measure replaced the levy that
expired at the end of 2019 and will generate an estimated $810 million over six years, costing
approximately $7.60 per month for the owner of a home with an assessed property value of
$500,000. King County will be going out for a renewal levy in 2025, which could impact any
voter initiatives the City of Kent may pursue.
The revenue generated by this levy is invested county-wide in parks, trails, recreation, and
open space protection for the benefit of all King County residents. King County allocates a
portion of their levy funds to cities.
King County Ordinance 18890, establishes a new formula for distributing each city’s levy
allocation:
[$25,000 shall be distributed annual to each town and city;
[an additional $75,000 shall be distributed annually to cities with a population greater than
four thousand; and
[of the remainder, 50% shall be distributed in proportion to each town or city’s population
and 50% shall be distributed in proportion to the assessed value of parcels within each
town or city.
ROCK/PEBBLE?: Park Impact Fees, $ varies
The City implemented park impact fees in 2021. This is a one-time fee paid at the time of new development
by the developers and it represents a share of the facilities needed for growth. The City’s consultant
estimated that the fee can raise up to $12,100,000 over the next six years for the city to help pay toward
a city parks project list that will cost $43,000,000. Due to COVID 19 pandemic, there was a lag in issuing
permits. Although this fee was implemented in 2021, the city has not yet seen a significant amount of park
impact fee revenue due to grandfathered permits that were applied prior to the implementation. Parks did
not start receiving park impact fees until early 2022. Through May 2022, Parks has received $124,500.
In 2021, King County Parks/Open Space
Levy generated $4.5M from the City of
Kent. The City received $377K.
King County transitioned Lake Meridian,
Springwood, Pine Tree, Turnkey, Meridian
Glen, Sun Meadows, Eastridge, North
Meridian, Park Orchard and Green Tree
Parks to the City between 1993-2010.
The City did not receive levy funding
until 2017.
King County Parks Levy
Challenges:
King County Parks Levy must be
renewed every six years; if this levy is
not renewed then these revenues will
no longer be available.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05108
PEBBLE: Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT), $9,000 - $10,000 per year
The City is required by RCW 47.30.050 to spend a minimum of 0.42% of MVFT receipts on
paths and trails (unless that amount is $500 or less).
PEBBLE: Local/State/Federal Grants, $ varies
State and federal grant programs provide one-time capital funding. The City has utilized
these grant opportunities for capital reinvestments along with property acquisitions. The
City has a history of successfully pursuing grants from the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office along with King County Conservations Futures grants (funded by
Conservation Futures Tax).
SAND: Sponsorships/Naming Rights, $ varies
The City can seek additional revenues by pursuing corporate partnerships, naming rights, and
advertisement opportunities at City of Kent parks and facilities; however that would require
adding new staff to be able to pursue this funding source.
SAND: Other Funding Sources, $ varies
The department has looked at creative techniques to infuse additional capital dollars into the
system by way of the Parks Foundation (501 C3), use of volunteers, implementation of fee-in-
lieu of, and various other avenues.
Challenges with Grants:
Grants typically include restrictions on future use of the properties acquired or improved.
Grants for maintenance support are relatively few, as compared to capital grants. They
are typically awarded on a year-to-year basis, making it unsustainable to rely on their
availability over time.
Grant Funding:
Between 2007-2021, the Parks
Department acquired $9.7M in land, of
which over $6.0M was reimbursed by
public grants. In total, the City received
over $12.0M in public grant funding
during this period.
Challenges with Naming Rights:
The public could react negatively to the concept of advertising in, and naming rights
to, community facilities such as public parks. In addition, corporate partnerships could
cause potential conflicts with sponsorships of prospective special events, which is why a
strategic and intentional approach to this type of funding must occur.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 109
Potential Funding Sources
ROCK: Voter-Approved Levies
Voter-approved levies can be for short-term (6 years) or long-term (up to 12 years). Both levies
would count towards the City’s property tax levy cap. For short-term levies, revenue is not
limited to 1% annual growth rate and can keep up with inflation, but long-term levies can only
grow by 1% annual which may be less than the rate of inflation. Funds can be used for operating
and/or capital and can be bonded (borrowed) against as long as the levy is 9 years or less.
ROCK: Metropolitan Park District (MPD)
Metropolitan park districts (MPD) is authorized by RCW 35.61. MPDs are quasi-municipal
corporations and independent taxing districts. This means that MPDs have separate governing
boards, however a district wholly located with the City can define the City Council to be the ex
officio governing board.
Metropolitan park districts generally offer more fiscal capacity and flexibility than park and
recreation districts or park and recreation service areas. In particular, metropolitan park districts
only require approval by a simple majority of voters (50% + 1%), after which MPD’s legislative
body may impose permanent property taxes, whereas park and recreation district/service areas
may only impose property tax levies for six years at a time, subject to 60% voter approval.
Metropolitan park districts would provide long-term stable funding that would alleviate reliance
on the general fund for parks capital and additional operations and maintenance funding to
meet industry level of service standards. Revenue is not limited to 1% annual growth and can
keep pace with inflation.
State law limits Metropolitan Park District funds to parks and recreation purposes only.
Levy Challenges:
If the levies expire, the program it funded will no longer have a revenue source and must
be cut or funded in another way. This makes term-limited levies an uncertain source for
ongoing maintenance, operations, and programing, which need stable, secure funding.
If levies were used to fund one-time capital improvements or expansion, ongoing
maintenance/operations will need to be funded within the City’s existing funding or the
level of service for all other parks will need to be reduced to accommodate.
Levies raise a specific amount of money
for specific identified park project and tax
is collected for a specific amount of time.
As of 2021, there are 23 metropolitan park
districts within the State of Washington.
The oldest being Metro Parks Tacoma
(1907) and the newest being Stevenson
Community Pool District (2021).
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05110
ROCK: Utility Tax
Per RCW 35 – any city or town can impose
these taxes on businesses doing business
within their boundaries. The utility tax may
be levied upon Cable TV, Electricity, Gas,
Sewer/Stormwater, Solid Waste, Steam,
Telephone, and Water. Utility tax may not
be levied upon broadcast satellite TV and
Internet Services.
There are no restrictions on how cities
use utility taxes revenues. Most cities use
these revenues for general fund purposes.
However, when voter approval is asked for
rates higher than 6% (for electric, natural gas,
telephone; there is no limit prescribed in state
or federal law for sewer, solid waste/garbage,
stormwater/drainage and/or water utility),
cities often dedicate the additional revenue
to specific uses.
The adjacent chart reflects City-placed
restricted use of utility tax collections.
Utility tax makes up nearly 18% of the
General Fund revenues. In 2015, an
additional 10.6% was authorized for garbage
utility tax allocated to the maintenance and
repair of residential streets.
Utility
Type
City of
Kent Rate
General
Fund
Street
Fund
Youth &
Teen Fund
IT Fund Capital
Resources
Cable 6.0%6.0%
Electric 6.0%4.7%1.0%0.3%
Garbage 18.4%6.5%11.6%0.3%
Gas 6.0%4.7%1.0%0.3%
Telephone 6.0%4.7%1.0%0.3%
Water *13.0%7.7%1.0%0.3%4.0%
Sewer *9.5%5.6%0.7%0.2%2.9%
Drainage * 19.5%11.6%1.5%0.4%6.0%
* Internal Utility Tax
For each 1% increase, this would generate $2.0M/year.
Utility Tax Challenges:
Comparing the City of Kent utility tax
rate to neighboring cities, the City is
already on the high end of some of the
utility tax rates.
Utility Tax Rate Comparison
Kent Bellevue Renton AuburnCableElectricGarbageGasTelephoneWater SewerDrainage25.00%
15.00%
5.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 111
ROCK: Parks Benefits District (HB 1025/SB 5006)
The State legislator finds that Washington state will continue to see significant population
growth, with the office of financial management (OFM) forecasts estimating nearly 2,000,000
more people by the year of 2040. In the face of this dramatic growth, the legislator finds that
it is more important than ever to help preserve, maintain, and enhance local parks, trails, and
open spaces that are key contributors to the state’s quality of life.
House Bill (HB) 1025 and Senate Bill (SB) 5006 proposes to add the following section to
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.14 – Local retail sales and use taxes:
[The legislative authority of a city or a county, the government body of a metropolitan park
district under chapter 35.61 RCW, or the governing body of a park and recreation district
under chapter 36.69 RCW may submit an authorizing proposition to voters at a special
or general election, and if the proposition is approved by a majority of persons voting,
impose a sales and use tax in accordance with the terms of this chapter. The title of the
ballot measure must clearly state the purposes for which the proposed sales tax will be
used.
[The tax authorized in this section is in addition to any other taxes authorized by law and
must be collected from those persons who are taxable by the state under chapters 82.08
and 82.12 RCW upon the occurrence of any taxable event within the taxing area. The rate
of tax equals one-tenth (0.1%) of one percent of the selling price in the case of a sales
tax, or the value of the article used, in the case of a use tax. The tax may be imposed only
within an existing city, county, metropolitan park district, or park and recreation district
boundary.
The moneys collected under this section must be used for the purpose of acquiring,
constructing, improving, providing, and funding park maintenance and improvement within
the taxing area.
City of Kent Sales Tax = 10.1%
6.50% State of Washington
0.10% Criminal Justice Sales Tax
0.10% King County Mental Health
0.90% King County Metro Transit
1.40% Sound Transit
0.84% City of Kent
0.10% King County housing and
related services
0.01% State of Washington – admin fee
0.15% King County
Parks Benefits District Challenges:
The tax imposed under this proposed
section may not be imposed for a period
of exceeding 10 years; this may be
extended if the tax imposed under this
section was imposed after July 1, 2021
and the funds are used for repayment
of indebtedness incurred in accordance
with the requirements of this section or
there is an affirmative vote of the voters
to extend the tax imposed under this
section.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05112
PEBBLE: Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Tax increment financing (TIF) is a financing tool that local governments in Washington State -
defined as cities, towns, counties, port districts, or any combination thereof - can use to fund
public infrastructure in targeted areas to encourage private development and investment
(RCW 39.114).
A local government wishing to utilize TIF, will designate an “increment area” surrounding
the site of the public improvements. The property tax portion of increases in assessed
value of the properties within the increment area is allocated towards paying for the public
improvement costs.
TIF revenues are not subject to the 101%
levy lid limit and may increase more
than 1% in any given year and TIF may
stimulate redevelopment of blighted
areas years before such activity might
occur naturally if ever.
TIF Challenges:
TIF may set different urban areas and different level of government in competition with
one another over funding. Cities can obtain revenues that would otherwise flow to
overlying government levels or school districts in addition is can be difficult to assess
precisely how much incremental gain in tax revenues relates to the TIF project.
“Local government revenues must adequately fund the public services
that a community desires without creating excessive inefficiencies or
unfairness in the revenue raising system. However, local government
revenue structures are largely based on assumptions that no longer hold
today due to digitization, globalization, demography, political changes,
and other trends. Furthermore, fairness is becoming an increasingly
important concern for public finance. Local governments should raise
revenues fairly and in a way that is consistent with community values”
Government Finance Officer Association
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 113
Lake Meridian
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05114
This plan will need support and commitment
from many entities including the community,
city staff, and public and private groups.
The projects and strategic actions of this
plan will require ongoing coordination and
collaboration to achieve success.
Partnerships with Alternate Providers
School District Partnerships
The schools within the Kent School District
(KSD) offer a wide variety of interior and
exterior athletic facilities and other amenities.
An existing interlocal agreement between
the school district and Kent Parks has been
in place for decades to share the use and
maintenance of school and park facilities to
mutual benefit. When considering access to
amenities in the park system, certain areas
in the city are lacking (see conversation on
Access and Equity Heat Mapping in chapter
3). Partnerships with KSD schools could help
fill those amenity gaps, especially on the East
Hill, and achieve strategic O&M efficiencies.
Amenities might include but are not limited
to playgrounds, gyms, and athletic facilities.
Partnerships with other school districts or
colleges including the Federal Way School
District, a portion of which is within Kent city
limits, could also fill the need for indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities.
Public Agency Partnerships
King County Parks are an important provider of amenity in the region. Maintenance and use
agreements are mutually beneficial to both entities and need to be revisited and updated in
the near term, specifically related to the Green River and Interurban Trails. Additionally, there
are opportunities to partner with King County Parks near the city’s fringe as the residents
served in this area reside both within Kent city limits and in unincorporated King County.
Additionally, Kent Parks should work toward improved collaboration and partnership with
neighboring cities (Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Covington) to
better plan regional trail connections and look more closely at service area gaps. Providing
high quality parks and recreation need not be limited to lines on a map, and residents will
benefit from improved coordination between municipal government.
Interdepartmental Partnerships
Many city departments are focused on improving the quality of life within the city, and
many departmental plans are working simultaneously toward that goal. Working in tandem,
the various city entities can provide a strength that no department can do alone, ensuring
an equitable city that provides for all its citizens. Key city partnerships for Kent Parks are
Economic and Community Development and Public Works, but all city departments are
critical to delivering high-quality services to our residents.
Other Providers
There are a variety of private entities in the area that provide outdoor park-like space that
are not identified as potential for partnerships, but do provide important amenity. These are
organizations like farmers markets, farms, outdoor adventure providers, and homeowner
associations that provide recreational opportunities for their own residents.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 115
The following P&OS goals and policies
provide guidance for decision making, laying
out priorities related to the continuing
development and stewardship of the city’s
park and open space system. The goals and
policies outlined in this report are those
presented in the 2016 Plan and will be
revisited and updated in the upcoming years.
Encourage and provide local public
opportunities for physical activity, connecting
to nature, community engagement, and
life-enrichment through the strategic
development and thoughtful stewardship
of parkland and recreational facilities,
professional programming, preservation of
natural areas, and the optimal utilization of
available community resources.
Maintain and steward a high-quality park and
recreation system designed to appeal to a
diverse range of abilities, ages, and interests.
GOAL P&OS-1:
Promote the provision of quality recreational
opportunities throughout the city.
[POLICY P&OS-1.1: Work with other
departments to encourage new single-
family and multifamily residential and
commercial developments to provide
recreation elements.
[POLICY P&OS-1.2: When acquiring,
planning, developing, or redeveloping
park properties, recognize that the
different areas of the city have different
recreational needs (e.g., the parks needs
for the downtown area are different from
those on, say, East Hill) and establish a
protocol for incorporating consideration
of those different needs into the various
decision-making processes.
[POLICY P&OS-1.3: Where appropriate,
initiate with other private and public
interests joint development ventures that
meet recreational needs and achieve City
of Kent strategic goals.
Goals and Policies
Overall Goal
I. Park and Recreation Facilities Goals
and Policies
GOAL P&OS-2:
Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality
system of indoor facilities designed to appeal
to a diverse range of abilities, ages, and
interests.
[POLICY P&OS-2.1: Manage existing
multiple-use indoor community centers
that provide indoor recreational and
gathering opportunities for a wide range
of ages, abilities, and interests on a year-
round basis.
[POLICY P&OS-2.2: Continue to seek
strategic partnerships with other public
and private agencies to provide indoor
recreational opportunities, particularly in
underserved areas of the city.
GOAL P&OS-3:
Where appropriate, possibly in conjunction
with other public and/or private
organizations, develop and operate
specialized park and recreational enterprises
that meet the interest of populations who are
able and willing to finance, maintain, and/or
operate them.
[POLICY P&OS-3.1: Where appropriate and
economically feasible (i.e., self-supporting),
develop and operate specialized and
special interest recreational facilities like
golf, ice skating, disc golf, mountain biking,
and off-leash parks.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05116
GOAL P&OS-4:
Further develop the performance-based
approach to stewarding park and recreation
facilities as outlined in the 2016 Parks and
Open Space Plan.
[POLICY P&OS-4.1: Prior to acquiring
and/or developing a potential park or
recreational facility, carefully evaluate its
potential contribution to the system, and
only proceed if the potential investment
is considered to be complementary to the
system and can contribute to the system’s
overall performance.
[POLICY P&OS-4.2: Prior to renovating
a park asset or redeveloping a park,
carefully evaluate its current and
potential contribution to the system, and
only proceed if the potential investment
is considered to be complementary to the
system and can contribute to the system’s
overall performance.
[POLICY P&OS-4.3: Periodically evaluate
the entire system in terms of each park
and facility’s performance. Consider
recommending the repurposing of
any asset or property whose current
and potential Recreational Value is not
expected to contribute to the system’s
overall performance.
GOAL P&OS-5:
Despite having multiple water bodies in its
jurisdiction, the city has limited public water
access. Work with other public and private
entities to preserve and increase waterfront
access and facilities.
[POLICY P&OS-5.1: Work with other
public and private agencies to acquire,
develop, and preserve additional
shoreline access for waterfront fishing,
wading, swimming, scenic viewing, and
other related recreational activities and
pursuits, especially on the Green River,
Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian,
and Panther Lake.
[POLICY P&OS-5.2: For any public or private
waterfront projects, work with the property
owner or project representative to find
ways to include public access, including
access to scenic views of the water.
The City of Kent contains significant public
open spaces and greenways. Through
careful and thoughtful stewardship of these
properties, the city can improve urban habitat
and pedestrian connectivity and increase the
public’s appreciation and understanding of
the importance of these spaces in the urban
setting.
II. Open Space Goals and Policies
GOAL P&OS-6:
Thoughtfully and strategically acquire and
manage public open space to improve wildlife
habitat and other environmental benefits, as
well as non-motorized connectivity and other
complementary recreational benefits.
[POLICY P&OS-6.1: Seek to improve
greenway corridors within the Kent area.
[POLICY P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages
of trails and other existing or planned
connections with greenways and open
space, particularly along the Green River,
Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos
Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick,
Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake,
and Lake Youngs; and around significant
wetland and floodways such as the Green
River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
GOAL P&OS-7:
Continue to develop an urban forestry
management program that balances
environmental benefits with recreation and
public safety priorities.
[POLICY P&OS–7.1: Connect people to
nature and improve the quality of life
in Kent by restoring and enhancing the
urban ecosystem.
[POLICY P&OS-7.2: Galvanize the
community around urban ecosystem
restoration and stewardship through a
volunteer restoration program.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 117
Develop a high-quality system of
multipurpose park trails and corridors that
create important linkages and/or provide
access to desirable destinations, including
significant environmental features, public
facilities, developed neighborhoods,
employment centers, and commercial areas.
GOAL P&OS-8:
Continue to work with other departments
and agencies to develop and improve a
comprehensive system of multipurpose off-
road and on-road trails that link park and
recreational resources with residential areas,
public facilities, commercial, and employment
centers both within Kent and within the region.
[POLICY P&OS-8.1: Seek opportunities to
develop trail “missing links” along existing
routes, including the Puget Power rights-
of-way, Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail,
Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail,
Frager Road, and the Interurban Trail.
[POLICY P&OS-8.2: Work with other city
departments to create a comprehensive
system of on-road trails to improve
connectivity for the bicycle commuter,
recreational, and touring enthusiasts
using scenic, collector, and local road
rights-of-way and alignments. Special
emphasis should be placed on increasing
east-west connectivity.
Through sensitive design, preservation and
interpretation, the park system can help
educate the public regarding Kent’s rich
cultural and historical legacy.
GOAL P&OS-10:
Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic
and cultural resources and multicultural
interests into the park and recreational
system.
[POLICY P&OS-10.1: Identify and
incorporate significant historic and
cultural resource lands, sites, artifacts,
and facilities into the park system, when
feasible.
[POLICY P&OS-10.2: Work with the
Kent Historical Society and other
cultural resource groups to incorporate
community activities at and
interpretation of historic homes and sites
into the park and recreation system.
Develop high-quality, diversified cultural
arts facilities and programs that increase
community awareness, attendance, and other
opportunities for participation.
III. Trail and Corridor System Goals and
Policies
IV. Historic and Cultural Resources
Goals and Policies
V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources
Goals and Policies
[POLICY P&OS-8.3: Work with neighboring
cities, King County, and other appropriate
jurisdictions to connect Kent trails to
other community and regional trail
facilities like the Green River, Interurban,
Frager Road, and Soos Creek Trails
[POLICY P&OS-8.4: Extend trails through
natural area corridors like the Green River,
Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos
Creek, and around natural features like
Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian
and Panther Lake in order to provide a
high-quality, diverse public access to
Kent’s environmental resources.
GOAL P&OS-9:
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other
supporting sites with amenities to improve
comfort, safety, and overall user experience.
[POLICY P&OS-9.1: Improve accessibility to
trails by siting trailheads and appropriate
improvements in high-visibility locations.
[POLICY P&OS-9.3: Design and develop
trail improvements that are easy
to maintain and easy to access by
maintenance, security, and other
appropriate personnel, equipment, and
vehicles.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05118
Design and develop facilities that are welcoming
to Kent’s diverse community, are attractive, safe
and easy to maintain, with life-cycle features
that account for long-term costs and benefits.
GOAL P&OS-13:
Design park and recreational indoor and
outdoor facilities to be accessible to a wide
range of physical capabilities, skill levels, age
groups, income levels, and activity interests.
[POLICY P&OS-13.1: Look for opportunities
to incorporate the principles of inclusive
design in any new construction.
[POLICY P&OS-13.2: When designing new
recreational facilities, reach out to the
public to learn their priorities, needs, and
desires for the improvements; and use
public input to inform the design.
GOAL P&OS-14:
Design and develop park and recreational
facilities to be of low-maintenance materials.
[POLICY P&OS-14.1: Design and develop
facilities that are of low-maintenance and
high-quality materials to reduce overall
facility maintenance and operation
requirements and costs.
[POLICY P&OS-14.2: Incorporate
maintenance considerations early in
the process in all designs for parks and
recreational facilities.
VI. Facility Design Goals and PoliciesGOAL P&OS-11:
Work with the arts community to utilize local
resources and talents to increase public access
to artwork and programs.
[POLICY P&OS-11.1: Support successful
collaborations among the Arts Commission,
business community, service groups,
cultural organizations, schools, arts patrons,
and artists to utilize artistic resources and
talents to the optimum degree possible.
[POLICY P&OS-11.2: Develop strategies that
will support and assist local artists and art
organizations. Where appropriate, develop
and support policies and programs that
encourage or provide incentives to attract
and retain artists and artwork within the
Kent community.
GOAL P&OS-12:
Acquire and display public artwork to furnish
public facilities and other areas and thereby
increase public access and appreciation.
[POLICY P&OS-12.1: Acquire public artwork
including paintings, sculptures, exhibits,
and other media for indoor and outdoor
display in order to expand access by
residents and to furnish public places in an
appropriate manner.
[POLICY P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies
that will support capital and operations
funding for public artwork within parks and
facilities.
GOAL P&OS-15:
Design for a safe and welcoming park
environment.
[POLICY P&OS-15.1: Using the Crime
Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED) and other design and
development standards and practices,
seek opportunities to improve park
safety and security features for users,
department personnel, and the public at
large.
Adhere to cost-effective, sustainable, and
efficient methods of acquiring, developing,
renovating, operating, and maintaining
facilities and programs that provide high-
quality and relevant recreational benefits
to the public. Provide options for long-
term financial sustainability to help ensure
an enduring, vibrant, and viable park and
recreation system.
GOAL P&OS-16: Investigate proven and
practical methods of financing park and
recreational requirements, including joint
ventures with other public agencies and
private organizations, and private donations.
VI. Facility Design Goals and Policies
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05 119
[POLICY P&OS-16.1: Investigate various
public financing options that may
contribute to a long-term, sustainable
approach to finance a vibrant, relevant,
safe, and attractive park and recreation
system.
[POLICY P&OS-16.2: Where feasible and
desirable, consider joint ventures with
King County, Kent, Highline, and Federal
Way School Districts, regional, state,
federal, and other public agencies, and
private organizations to acquire, develop
and manage recreational facilities (i.e.,
swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.).
[POLICY P&OS-16.3: Maintain and work
with foundations and non-profits to
investigate grants and solicit donations
to provide secondary support for facility
development, acquisition, maintenance,
programs, services, and operating needs.
Earthworks Park
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
05120
Old Fishing Hole
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Old Fishing Hole
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
Conclusion 06
KENTP&OSPLAN2022
chapter
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
06 123
Considering all the data and analysis in these pages, the 2022 Parks
and Open Space Plan (2022 Plan) comes down to one fundamental
objective: equitable access to high-quality parks and recreation for
all. This plan covers a lot of ground as it describes who we are as a
community and attempts to answer where we are, where we are
going, and how we will get there. While Kent’s park system has
improved significantly over the last six years, what we choose to
do from here will have a lasting impact on how our parks meet the
growing and changing demand into the future.
In our community engagement efforts, the survey showed that
residents are generally satisfied with the maintenance and the variety
and quality of offerings in our park system. While satisfaction with
parks is high, responses also emphasized a need for improved safety
and maintenance, which indicates that the standards for maintenance
we have set should be supported into the future. Top priority
amenities across all regions and demographics showed a focus on
restrooms, access to nature, trails, and community gathering space.
The park system’s properties and assets are set up well to achieve
these objects with the right strategic investments.
Whereas previous plans looked at data snapshots to make decisions,
the 2022 Plan seeks to integrate Level of Service (LOS) data as a layer
of our geospatial data and analysis. Mapping LOS with park access,
transit, population density, and racial and social equity created
a platform for dynamic and ongoing analysis of our system that
responds to the evolving needs of Kent residents. Proper staffing
is needed to realize continued benefit from this mapping effort to
ensure the department can use the data for real time decision making
between park plan updates. GIS will be a core business function
within our department into the future.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Park Need
Current Recreational Value
Park Need
Potential Recreational Value
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
06124
The Athletic Field Capacity study outlines the limitations of our
current inventory of athletic facilities, system improvements that
can add capacity in key areas, and the need for partnership with the
Kent School District to meet the growing demand. This multifaceted
approach will ensure that athletic programming continues the trend
of excellence and that operational efficiency for both entities is
maximized.
Each of these efforts is rolled into a detailed prioritization of projects
based on four goals and nine project outcomes:
These projects are geographically comprehensive and delicately
balance the need for capital reinvestment, acquisition, and new
development. Funding and completing these capital projects is only
half of the narrative, as we must also adequately fund operations
and maintenance (O&M) to prevent system failure. The maintenance
backlog needs to be cleared and proportional O&M funding must be
allocated as needed reinvestment adds Recreational Value, LOS gaps are
filled, and user demand grows as Kent’s population continues to grow.
The recommendations described above and the strategic project list
become integrated into other city planning efforts including but not
limited to the City Comprehensive Plan and the bi-annual budget
process. This will not be a plan that sits on a shelf; rather, staff will use
this plan routinely to implement work and will be a reference for other
departments to better understand park-related work.
TRANSPARENCY &
COMMUNICATION
OUTCOMESGOALSPHYSICAL ACCESS
FOR ALL
DIVERSITY OF HIGH-
QUALITY AMENITY
SYSTEM
RESILIENCY
Trails
Athletics Operations &
MaintenanceAccess
Equity PartnershipsStrategic
Amenities
Programming Natural
Resources
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
06 125
The real work begins after adoption of this plan. In addition to the list
of strategic projects, some logical next steps have surfaced from our
engagement and analysis:
[Asset Management Software
With a comprehensive inventory of GIS data related to park assets,
Kent Parks will proceed with acquisition and implementation of
an asset management software to create better data around O&M
needs and articulate those funding needs more clearly in future
budget cycles.
[Additional Funding for Operating and Capital Budgets
To keep pace with the needs for capital reinvestment/
development and ongoing maintenance, Kent Parks needs a
boost to both capital and operating budgets. Sustainable funding
will require a combination of funding strategies.
[Nature Score Methodology
The public survey showed access to nature as one of the most
highly sought-after park amenities in our system. Equipped with
GIS layers, next steps involve a more sophisticated inventory of
our natural assets and an analysis of equitable distribution.
[Goals and Policies Update
We acknowledge that the goals and policies published in this plan
need updating. To avoid redundant work, Kent Parks is planning
a holistic update to all goals, policies, and procedures across all
divisions of the department in the next 2-3 years, using this and
other departmental planning efforts to inform the process.
[Hire Full-Time GIS Position
The GIS data gathered through this plan has proven its worth.
Without dedicated resources to manage and update this data,
we risk the loss of this important work and will be forced to defer
some of the initiatives started here. A full-time GIS position is a
critical need.
[Kent School District Partnership
Kent Parks will pursue an updated partnership agreement with
Kent School District. This agreement may initially focus on athletic
field use and O&M efficiency, but hopefully extend to ideas like
school parks, public-use hours, and more.
[Parks Strategic Framework
As referenced in the planning section, Kent Parks will conduct
a planning effort to roll-up each of our divisional planning
documents into an overall strategic framework for parks to
achieve the plans we set.
[CAPRA Accreditation
For the first time in its history, Kent Parks will seek accreditation
through the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation
Agencies under the National Recreation and Park Association. The
goal is to achieve this by 2025.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of next steps but lays out
the major milestones we hope to achieve before the next P&OS Plan
update in 2028.
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
06126
In closing, Kent Parks offers our sincere thanks to all residents
who offered their time and perspective on how to improve the
park system. This plan is for you; without your input, it would lose
significance. This plan sets us up with the tools to achieve the vision
for parks that all Kent residents deserve. Over the next six years, Kent
Parks will work with the community to put these tools to use to help
make Kent a healthier, happier, and safer place to live, work, and play.
Russell Road, credit: Tom Gray
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
1.6.B
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: City of Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022 (3166 : Parks)
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
DATE: May 23, 2022
TO: Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Economic & Community Development
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests 2021/2022 –
Public Hearing
MOTION: Recommend City Council approve 2021 docketed comprehensive plan
amendments CPA-2021-7 as proposed by the applicant.
SUMMARY: The City received one application submitted by private property
owners for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map during the 2021
docket submission process. Applicant requests redesignation from SF-6 to MU.
Proposal
Name
Addresses Parcel
Numbers
Existing
Designation
Requested
Designation
Dulay 26026 116th Ave SE
26034 116th Ave SE
6756700030
6756700040
SF-6 (Single
Family 6
Units/Acre)
MU (Mixed Use)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City - Creating safe neighborhoods, healthy people, vibrant commercial districts, and
inviting parks and recreation.
Sustainable Services - Providing quality services through responsible financial management,
economic growth, and partnerships.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (PDF)
2. Exhibit B (PDF)
3. 2021_2022 CPAs - Ordinance - 5.18.2022 LAW REVIEW (PDF)
1.7
Packet Pg. 369
Exhibit A
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION AMENDMENT
2021 DOCKET #CPA-2021-7/ RPP6-2213169
Introduction:
The City received one application submitted by a private property owner for
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map during the 2021 docket
process. This staff report includes background information, an analysis of public
benefits, and maps. The analysis is based upon the standards of review listed in the
Kent City Code.
Proposal
Name
Addresses Parcel
Numbers
Existing
Designation
Requested
Designation
Dulay 26026 116th Ave SE
26034 116th Ave SE
6756700030
6756700040
SF-6 (Single
Family 6
Units/Acre)
MU (Mixed Use)
Proposal:
Applicant requests redesignation from SF-6 to MU. See attachment for applicants’
submittal material.
Background:
The site consists of 2 tax parcels, which combined comprise 1.27 acres. The site is in
East Hill, North of the new Sonic and Starbucks development at 116th Ave SE and SE
Kent Kangley. The current land use designation is Single Family 6 Units/Acre, SF-6.
Parcels east of the site are designated Medium Density Multifamily, MDMF, and Mixed
Use, MU. The adjacent properties to the south are designated Mixed Use, MU. The
parcels to the North and East are also designated Single Family 6 Units/Acre, SF-6.
Existing improvements on the site include single-story residences on each parcel. The
soil on the east of the site is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, and the west half is
comprised of Arents and Alderwood Material, according to the USDA web soil survey.
King County Metro routes 159 and 164 serve the site along nearby Kent Kangley
Road, and Dial-A-Ride (DART) routes 914 and 916.
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit A
The intent of the redesignation is unknown, but if re-designated, the applicant could
pursue a rezone and develop the property as a mixed-use development. Uses allowed
in this zone include Mixed-use commercial and residential and commercial only.
Commercial uses permitted in the MU designation are gas stations, drive-through
restaurants, and miscellaneous retail and services.
Existing access to the site is provided by 116th Ave SE, which is classified as a Minor
Arterial. Kent Kangley Road/SE 256th Street is classified as a Principal Arterial known
as State Route 516. These roads can handle the added capacity of the proposed
higher intensity land use and subsequent future site redevelopment. The 2009 Kent
Construction Standards may limit future access to the site. The southernmost
driveway is estimated at 260 feet from the intersection of 116th and SE Kent Kangley.
Driveways within 300 ft of a signalized intersection may be denied or required to
mitigate for impacts.
Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the comprehensive plan as option
one and analyzed alternative options for the site, including a redesignation to Medium
Density Multifamily (MDMF) as option two.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
Figure 1- Subject Property
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit A
Policy LU-3.1: Encourage mixed-use development that combines retail, office, or
residential uses to provide a diverse and economically vibrant Urban Center and
designated Activity Centers.
Option One: For the site to be designated as mixed-use would fulfill the intent of
encouraging mixed-use development, although it does not guarantee it.
Option Two: For the site to be designated as MDMF would not fulfill the intent of
encouraging mixed-use development.
Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with various densities within proximity
to employment, shopping, transit, and human and community services.
Option One: The site is close to transit, restaurants, businesses, religious institutions,
some shopping, and medical services. Additional density in this location would fulfill
the intent of this policy. However, if the site were to develop as a stand-alone
commercial development, which is allowed in certain zones, the purpose of this policy
would not be met.
Option Two: The site is close to transit, restaurants, businesses, religious institutions,
some shopping, and medical services. Additional multifamily housing in this location
would fulfill the intent of this policy.
Goal LU-7: Kent will provide opportunities for various housing types, options, and
densities throughout the City to meet the community’s changing demographics.
Option One: Most of Kent’s residential areas are single-family, so for this site to
become designated and eventually rezoned and redeveloped as mixed-use with
multifamily would provide more housing types, options, and density than currently
exists. However, if the site were to develop as a stand-alone commercial
development, the intent of this policy would not be met.
Option Two: These parcels are currently zoned single-family, similar to most Kent’s
residential areas. So, for this site to become designated and eventually rezoned and
redeveloped as multifamily would provide more housing types, options, and density
than currently exists, meeting the intent of this goal.
Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types.
Option One: Most of Kent’s residential areas are single-family, so for this site to
become designated and eventually rezoned and redeveloped as mixed-use with
multifamily would provide more housing types, options, and density than currently
exists. However, if the site were to develop as a stand-alone commercial
development, the intent of this goal would not be met.
Option Two: These parcels are currently zoned single-family, similar to most Kent’s
residential areas. So, for this site to become designated and eventually rezoned and
redeveloped as multifamily would provide more housing types, options, and density
than currently exists, meeting the intent of this goal.
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit A
Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate
residential sites.
Option One: Designating the site as mixed-use with eventual development, including
multifamily residential, would encourage infill development. However, if the site were
to develop as commercial, the intent of this policy would not be met.
Option Two: Designating the site as multifamily with eventual development would
encourage infill residential development, meeting the intent of this policy.
Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that
generate high traffic levels in designated activity centers around intersections of
principal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges.
Option One: The site is just off a principal/minor arterial. Multifamily residential and
commercial development as part of a mixed-use project on the site would be
compatible with the intent of this policy.
Option Two: The site is just off a principal/minor arterial. A multifamily residential
development on the site would be compatible with the intent of this policy.
Goal E-3: Create connections between people and places.
Option One: Given the site’s visibility from a major roadway, a mixed-use
development on the site would create more connections than the existing single-story
residences. The links could include people walking from nearby areas to visit the
commercial or office component.
Option Two: Given the site’s visibility from a major roadway, a multifamily
development on the site would create more connections than the existing single-story
residences. However, the primary connections would be people coming or leaving
their homes to visit nearby commercial establishments. Unlike a mixed-use
development, multi-family would not create a destination.
Applying the Standards of Review:
1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect public
health, safety, and general welfare.
Option One and Two: The amendment would change the underlying land use
designation and what is allowed on the property. A subsequent rezone and project
proposals would need to be completed to develop the property as anything other than
permitted in the current single-family zone. Kent City code review for subsequent
development projects that may occur because of mixed-use redesigning of the site
will be reviewed against development standards that protect public health, safety,
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit A
and general welfare. This land use designation will not adversely affect public health,
safety, or general welfare.
2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time
of adoption of the comprehensive plan or that circumstances have changed since the
plan’s adoption that warrants an amendment to the plan.
Option One and Two: In June of 2021, the City of Kent adopted the Kent Housing
Options Plan (KHOP). Data gathering for KHOP and subsequent growth targets shows
that Kent needs more housing units, housing variety, and options due to population
and job growth. Additionally, market preferences change, increasing demand for
multifamily and option one, mixed-use living.
3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and
is in the best interest of the community.
Option one: The community will benefit from having increased commercial or office
singly or as part of a mixed-use development in this location. This area is a desirable
destination for residents to visit existing commercial/offices. It is in the best interest
of the community for parcels with the highest visibility to have a mixture of uses,
including commercial or office, and mixing services within the site is in the best
interest of the community due to the lower demands placed on city infrastructure
when residences are placed in proximity to other uses.
Option Two: KHOP demonstrated an increased need for more diverse housing types
within the City, including a need for more varied multifamily options. The community
will benefit from having additional housing units on this site.
4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. The amendment will maintain concurrency between the project's land use,
transportation, and capital facilities elements.
Option One and Two: Both options one and two meet several goals and policies in
the comprehensive plan and maintain concurrency.
Staff Recommendation
Option 1: Approve applicant request as proposed (staff recommendation)
The proposal meets all the criteria if the subsequent project contains multifamily.
Adjacent parcels are currently designated the same land-use type (MU). As such,
staff recommends approval of the proposal as requested.
Option 2: Approve an alternate land use designation of MDMF (not recommended)
While it is possible that a multifamily project would meet the criteria as well, there
is no specific proposal required for approval at this stage. The applicant has
expressed interest in housing units as part of the development, which is possible
within the requested MU designation.
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit A
At this time, there are many updates to the land use map and zoning code map
anticipated in the coming years. With the periodic Comprehensive Plan update
scheduled for 2024, staff will look at citywide land-use designations. Other code
amendments on the horizon may analyze mixed-use or multifamily development
regulations; it may not be sensible to recommend an alternative to the applicant’s
proposal before those regulations are updated and the renewed vision for those
zones is clearer.
Option 3: Deny request (not recommended)
The two subject parcels are located directly off a busy street near an intersection
with a major thoroughfare and are bordered to the south by commercial properties.
At this time, there is not a project to review that would demonstrate a lack of
compliance with city development standards. Future projects will need to comply
with applicable development standards for the property lines adjoining the existing
single-family neighborhood, including buffering, setbacks, noise and glare
regulations, and applicable environmental reviews. The current designation of
Single-Family is unlikely to spur reinvestment.
1.7.A
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 2021 Comp Plan Amendments Report_Final (3165 : CPA)
Exhibit B
CPA-2021-7
SF6 to MU
1.7.B
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Exhibit B (3165 : CPA)
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Land Use Plan Map Designations
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map
designations for parcel numbers 6756700030 and
6756700040, located at 26026 116th Ave SE and
26034 116th Ave SE, in compliance with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act (CPA-
2021-7)
RECITALS
A. To assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up
to date, the Washington State Growth Management Act (“GMA”) requires
each jurisdiction to establish procedures whereby amendments to the plan
are considered by the city council and limits these amendments to once
each year unless certain circumstances exist.
B. The City of Kent has established a procedure for amending
the Comprehensive Plan in chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code, which sets
a deadline of September 1st of each year for the submittal of requests for
comprehensive plan amendments.
C. The City received one timely application to amend the
comprehensive plan’s land use designation map. The application involves
the parcels located at 26026 116th Ave SE and 26034 116th Ave SE.
D. The two properties at 26026 and 26034 116th Ave SE, parcel
numbers 6756700030 and 6756700040, are currently designated Single
1.7.C
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 2021_2022 CPAs - Ordinance - 5.18.2022 LAW REVIEW (3165 : CPA)
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Land Use Plan Map Designations
Family 6 units per Acre (SF-6), and the applicant is requesting a plan
designation of Mixed Use (MU).
E. The City’s SEPA responsible official issued a SEPA Addendum
for the proposed amendments on xx,xxxx.
F. On April 20, 2022, the Washington State Department of
Commerce was notified of the proposed amendments. No comments were
received.
G. The Land Use and Planning Board considered this amendment
request at a regularly scheduled workshop on April 25, 2022, and at a
public hearing held on May 23, 2022.
H. The City Council’s Economic and Community Development
Committee also considered this amendment at a regularly scheduled
meeting on June 13, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Incorporation of Staff Report and Recitals. A Staff
Report is attached and incorporated as Exhibit “A.” The Staff Report’s
background information, analysis of public benefit, maps, and staff
recommendations for each proposal, as well as the preceding recitals, are
incorporated herein by this reference and constitute the city council’s
findings on this matter.
SECTION 2. – Approval and Amendment. The application involving
parcels located at 26026 and 26034 116th Ave SE, parcel numbers
6756700030 and 6756700040, is approved. The Kent Comprehensive
1.7.C
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 2021_2022 CPAs - Ordinance - 5.18.2022 LAW REVIEW (3165 : CPA)
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Land Use Plan Map Designations
Plan is hereby amended to establish new land-use plan map designations
as follows:
1) The two properties at 26026 and 26034 116th Ave SE, parcel
numbers 6756700030 and 6756700040, currently designated
Single Family 6 units per Acre (SF-6), are redesignated to Mixed
Use (MU) as depicted in the map attached and incorporated as
Exhibit “B” (CPA-2021-7).
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 5. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
1.7.C
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 2021_2022 CPAs - Ordinance - 5.18.2022 LAW REVIEW (3165 : CPA)
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Land Use Plan Map Designations
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TAMMY WHITE, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
1.7.C
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 2021_2022 CPAs - Ordinance - 5.18.2022 LAW REVIEW (3165 : CPA)