Loading...
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)