The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA97-126 (� mends Ord 4498 l • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4696 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WA SHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 1997 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY' S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the CityCouncil 1 of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a "Comprehensive Plan" and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said "Comprehensive Plan" from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore duly recommended to the City Council, from time to time, •certain amendments to the City' s "Comprehensive Plan"; and • WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to review its "Comprehensive Plan"; and • WHEREAS, the City has held a public hearing on this matter; and • WHEREAS, ; the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the City Council, including implementing policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and modify •t City' s he City s "Comprehensive Plan"; and 1 • ORDINANCE NO. 4696 WHEREAS, such modification and elements for the "Comprehensive Plan" being ini the best interest and for the public benefit; NOW, ' THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II . The "Comprehensive Plan, " maps, data and reports in support Of the "Comprehensive Plan" are hereby modified, amended and adopted as said "Comprehensive Plan" consisting of the following elements: Introduction (Vision • Statement) , Land Use, Land Use Map, Transportation, Capital Facilities and Environment, as shown on the attached Exhibits A through F and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III . The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City' s "Comprehensive Plan" and the maps in conjunction therewith to evidence the aforementioned. 1997 amendments . . SECTION f`V. - The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law, and a complete copy of i. said document likewise being on file with the office of the City it Clerk of! the City of Renton. G SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, ; approval and five (5) days after publication. 2 i! • ORDINANCENO. 4696 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 8th day of December , 1997 . • Marilyn tt if-tersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 8th day of December , 1997'. c71•44,-10,4••"---" • Jess Tanner, Mayor Approv as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: December 12, 1997 ORD. 691 : 11/25/97 :as. • • II 3 . ATTACHMENT A INTRODUCTION.(VISION STATEMENT) Under "Renton in the Future: A Vision,"amend paragraph 3, fourth and fifth sentences, to read .I as follows: • I i Government would occupy a new and expanded municipal administrative and law and justice center to serve the growing needs of the City. The municipal center would be located in the vicinity of downtown for easy access by all city residents. • • II • it � Il • • • I • H:\DIVISION.S\PITS\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\CPAORD.DOC 1 ll' l ) • ATTACHMENT C LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the designation from Residential Single Family to Residential Rural for the properties shown as C and.D on the following map. • . • MAY VALLEY PREZONE PHASE .II Planning and Development Committee RecommendationF. 0 1 . • SE e5- M°y Valley Rd • o , • U r 0 26 �h t 1-= U 0 ,, dN t h C t ''11 I 11 0 Hill] . al r . _, ._, ,, f thl 1 6 t wi- rilUqtrp itrl I &I 1 i tr, 1; !NWrH . 1 .% r r I E 102nd I ( i1 I ri L f�// Ili T -I . , 4. U'`tx o,% Planning and Technical Services U R-1 Zoning + % + Planning/Building/public Works • ® R-5 Zoning O. Dennison, R. MacOnie �•t'Nr O 6 June 1997 O R-5 .Zoning with CPA* 0 600 1 ,200 QD R-1 Zoning with CPA* * Comprehensive Plan amendment from 1 :7,200 Residential Single Family •to Residential Fau!•a • The Concur 1ency Management System comprises policies,procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. II Details of the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the City of Renton's Concurrency .Management System have been developed as part of ongoing transportation work following adoption of• I, .the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, and can be found in the Renton • Transportation Concurrency Ordinance,and in administrative rules and procedures. • ' I i Y . • • H:IDMSION.SIP-TSIPLANNINGIAMENDS119971CPAORD.DOC 5 • ATTACHMENT E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT Amend paragraph 4. on page IV-5 to read as follows: • To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six year or even the 20-year • period. Recognizing this fact,the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this --way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth • - experienced, revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 1997 and determined that there'was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast,the level of service standards were being provided and the City was only two years into the six year period. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if the actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth. • Amend paragraph 5. on page IV-5 to read as follows: As stated in Policy CFP-1,this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget process,thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related Ito growth in Renton, and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully . implement this policy(CFP-1)in the 1998 annual budget process. Amend paragraphs 2 and 3 on page IV-17 to read as follows: - The city conducted a study of this issued and concluded that a new public safety building was needed if the current level of service was to be maintained. The cost of a public safety building to accommodate existing and additional police department personnel, expanded jail facilities, and additional municipal court facilities has been estimated at $14.8 million. A general obligation bond was submitted to the 'voters in 1994 and the majority of the voters did not support the bond. Subsequently the City purchased a building for a new and expanded municipal administrative and law and justice center. The new facility will accommodate existing and additional police department personnel, expanded jail facilities, and municipal court facilities. Table 12-1 below shows the costs and funding sources for the new Renton Municipal Building that includes police and court facilities. Amend Table 12-1 as shown below: Table 12-1 Municipal and Public Safety Capital Facilities • 1995-2000 • Public Safety Projects 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Municipal Building $3,200,000 8,000,000 3,600,000 Total • $3,200,000 $8,000,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 H:IDIVISION.SIP-TS\PLANNINGWMENDS119971CPAORD.DOC 6 • • • • • • ATTACHMENT F ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS Amend the following policies to read as follows: •EN-13.When development may impact wetlands, the following hierarchy should be followed in • deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, b. minimize impacts to the wetland, c. restore the wetland when impacted, •• d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will provide for its assured viability and success, e. enhance the functional values of an existing degraded wetland. y . EN-57. Regulate identified sensitive areas through the implementation of•regulations addressing uses, densities, clearing,grading,and/or vegetation removal. • • H:IDIVISION.SIP-TS\PLANNINGIAMENDS1199710PAORD.DOC 7 b PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON FEB 181997, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED RESOLUTION NO. 3247 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the requirements and authority of the Growth Management Act; and I WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and the City Code provide for an annual review cycle of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of •Renton' s annual review of the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to proceed after the March 31, 1997 deadline established by the City for acceptance of proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, RCW 36. 70 .A. 130 (b) provides that, when an emergency exists, the .. City may adopt amendments or revisions to... its Comprehensive . Plan as an exception to the required annual review cycle; and WHEREAS, Renton. City Code section 4-3-5 .B permits the City Council to consider emergency amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as an exception to the required annual review cycle; and WHEREAS— the City of Renton has been presented with a development proposal which will require substantial transportation improvements in the N. E . 44th Street/I-405 intersection; and WHEREAS, the adopted, TIP lists only general purpose traffic capacity improvements for that intersection; and • RESOLUTION NO. 3247 WHEREAS, the City of Renton is proposing to make application ;I for state and federal grants to help fund potential HOV pran improvements needed for the regional transportation system at the N.E. 44th Street/I-405 interchange; and WHEREAS, to be eligible for such state and federal funding, the potential HOV plan improvements must be included on the City' s list of potiential TIP projects which are included as an element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the application deadline for several of the grant funding programs is prior to April 1, 1997, the first scheduled day that tile City could consider amendments to its Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton needs to amend its Comprehensive � I• Plan with respect to the potential HOV plan improvements at the N.E. 44th ( Street/I-405 interchange prior to the application deadline of March 31, 1997 to be eligible for certain state and federal funding; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the N.E. 44th Street/I-405 HOV- intersection improvements without; state and federal funding would create a financial hardship for the City of Renton; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, iDO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :: SECTION I . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . I N 2 I l r • RESOLUTION NO. 3247 SECTION II: An emergency is hereby declared pursuant to state law and Renton City Code so that an immediate amendment -to the Comprehensive Plan can be considered to add the planned HOV improvements to the TIP project list . Furthermore, because of this emergency this issue is referred to the Planning and Development Committee for processing rather than the Planning Commission as is set forth in City Code section 4-3-5 .B. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL thisl7th day of February, 1997 . • Marilyn •�etersenr City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 17th day of February, 1997 . Jesse Tanner, Mayor App oj'• as to form: p Lawrence J. War n, City Attorney RES.569 : 2 05 97 . 3 • Amends: ORD 3758 Repeals: ORD 4695 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4716 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 4695 AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90 . 58 RCW, requires that counties and cities incur certain duties, obligations and responsibilities with regard to the implementation of said Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that certain revisions to the existing City Shoreline Master Program are necessary in furtherance of the provisions of Chapter 90 . 58 RCW, and that such revisions are in the best interest of the citizens of Renton; and WHEREAS, the Draft amendments were sent to the Department of Ecology for comment in accordance with WAC 173-26-100, and on May 23, August 19, and September 11, 1997, the Department of Ecology provided the City with comments; and WHEREAS, comments were solicited from federal, state, local, regional and tribal interests in accordance with WAC 173-26- 100 (3) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing soliciting comment on the proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments on July 30, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City notified the Department of Ecology and the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, and other agencies of the intent to adopt amendments at least sixty 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4716 days prior to approval in accordance with WAC 173-26-100 (5) and RCW 36.70A. 106; and WHEREAS, the City Council' s Planning and Development Committee reviewed the proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments and public comments including the Department of Ecology' s comments on November . 13, 1997; and I � I II WHEEAS, as a result ; of these' meetings, revisions recommended bythe public, commenting agencies and the Department of Ecology were considered and incorporated where appropriate ppropriate into the proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments; and WHEREAS, the revised Shoreline Master Program was formally considered by the City Council during a public hearing held on December: 1, 1997, as advertised in accordance with WAC 173-26- 100 (2) ; and WHEREAS, Section 4-19-2 of the Renton Municipal Code directs that amendments to the Shoreline Master Program be made by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4695 on December 8, 1997, approving the proposed Shoreline Master Program I, Amendments to become effective immediately upon formal State Department of Ecology adoption; and ,,..WHEREAS, the City transmitted Ordinance No. 4695 - along with other supporting documents , to the Department of Ecology consistent with„ , submittal requirements of . WAC 173-26-110 on , December 16, 1997; and •• j ' ORDINANCE NO. 4716 WHEREAS, on March 5, 1998, the Department of Ecology sent written approval of the City of Renton' s Shoreline Master Program Amendments, subject to making additional minor changes, and determined that with the changes, the amendments are consistent with Chapter 90. 58 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City Council' s Planning and Development Committee reviewed the Department of Ecology' s March 5, . 1998, letter, and determined that requested minor revisions are appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurred with the Planning and Development Committee' s report of March 23, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . Ordinance No. 4695, adopted " on December 8, 1997, is hereby repealed. SECTION III . The City Council approves the March 19, 1998 Shoreline Master Program amendments that are attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by reference . SECTION IV. The City Council directs the Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Director to prepare a final document incorporating the attachment amendments and send the adopted Shoreline Master Program amendments to the Department of Ecology. 3 1-. - ' ORDINANCE .NO. 4716 .., . SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 13th day of April , 1998 . A - , ( Manly . etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 13th day of April , 1998 . . - ... .11 ." . . , . lecite.4.14. c=7:44%... Jesse Tanner, Mayor - Appr)v as to form: 1° Lawrence J. Warr , , City Attorney 1 Date of Publication: April 17th, 1998 ORD. 690 : 3/25/98 . . ' • . . • .... . • • . . 4 1 _ Ink Washington State Northwest Region �1 Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North • P.O.Box 330310 Sid Morrison Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206)440-4000 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DATE: October 7, 1997 w_n'T^"i TO: Ms. Jana Huerter OCT 1 3 1997 Land Use Review Supervisor RECEIVED City of Renton Development Services Division • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Determination of Nonsignificance 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan. Amendments File#LUA-97-126, ECF, R, CPA FROM: Robert A. Josephs ,PE, Manager of Planning&Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Dear Ms. Huerter: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan will have no significant impact on the state highway system and we have no further comments. If you have any questions,please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Chad Hancock at 440-4914 of my Developer Services section: CH:ch c:\chad\renton\97amend.doc • • ::::.............................:::::.:: NIN1 IIO > > ><EM> <EMER ' >>` > > >> > <» •••••• ....--:>:»>:>:>:»:»::>:>:»:»:<:><:»>;:<::>:><>:>€::<:><<:>: •• RENT PILANN N D 1 1 N.. ....................... • 1C1±B VI 11L1N;:.:::` ` ``` »`` On the 2" day of _ °abbe - , 1997, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 12c dc�'ctr- L wait aviS documents. This information was sent to: • Name Representing Department of Ecology • Don Hurter WSDOT • KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Rita Perstac Puget Power. • (Signature of Sender) IC• �w STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS • COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ` 4A/b/`4 & a signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument: Dated: /b/P-f NotaryPub e n and for e State of Washin aton . • Notary (Print) fRGAR<=T My appointment expir 4;: Project Name: Rctn�btn Gnn P' �fVv► 1°19"1 f' �gtnevit Project Number: 411 _ 1Llo� CCr, R, C Pit • NOTARY.DOC CITX -OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • October 02, 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on September 30,1997: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS LUA-97-126,ECF,R,CPA This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map including:CPA-4 along Martin Luther King Way from EA-C to another designation;CPA-10,the May Valley Prezone that would amendthe Land Use Map from Single Family to Residential Rural;and CPA-11,which considers combining EA-C and EA-0,and would affect sites outside of the Valley. Other proposed amendments include CPA-1 which would amend the text of the Capital Facilities Element;CPA- 2 which would amend the Public Facilities Policies and Vision Statement to allow municipal facilties,including jails in or near the downtown;CPA-5,which would amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow wetland enhancement as a mitigation option and delete reference to the City's Greenbelt Map; CPA-7,which evaluated CA uses along both sides of Grady Way north of 1405 and south of SW 10th Street and between Powell Avenue SW and Seneca Avenue SW; CPA- 8,which proposes minor policy and development regulation amendments to Renton's SMP, and,CPA-9,which would amend annexation policies to allow annexations less than 10 acres in size Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. If you have questions,please call me at 425)277-6181. For the nvir menta view omm' Dona . rickson Project Manager cc: IGng County Water Pollution Control Division,Metro Shirley Lukhang,Seattle Public Utilities Larry Fisher,Department of Fisheries Duwamish Tribal Office David F.Dietzman,Department of Natural Resources Rod Malcom,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Don Hurter,Department of Transportation Rita Perstac,Puget Power AGNCYLTRDOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Asan:_ ._.__ __.___, ��,_-- CITY OF RENTON _ DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE I APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-97-126,ECF,R,CPA APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map,Single family designation in the May Valley Prezone,Phase II and associated rezones. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: CPA-10 applies to two specific site abutting SE 95th Way and the Renton City limits north of NE 23rd Street. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen(15)days. Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997(15 days from the date of publication). Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination: The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997(15 days from the date of publication). Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: October 6,1997 DATE OF DECISION: September 30,1997 SIGNATURES: q -2,C2/1 /9'7 regiman,Ai irnstrator DATE Department of g/Building/Public Works Ali !� �ff j:&,....::- 4)/ 6/7 ------ Sam Chastain,Admirnstr�tor DATE Community Service Department ff—c... Lee eler,Fire Chief DATE V Renton Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of ,ween Powell Avenue SW and.Seneca-, the , Avenue SW;CPA-8,which proposes minor policy and development regulation amend- ments to Renton's SMP,and,CPA-9,which ' SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL would amend annexation policies to.allow , annexations less than 10 acres in size. 600 S. Washington Avenue,Kent, Washington 98032 - The 1 day comment andappealperiod $t for this project will run concurrently ennddatt 5:00 PM on October 20, 1997. Following : . a dailynewspaper seventimes a week. Said newspaper is a le al NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL- — this, the City will finalize its Determination published (7) g unless comments received require a re- newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months - DETERMINATION evaluation. Written comments and , ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE requests for reconsideration shall be for prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language RENTON,WASHINGTON continuallyas a dailynewspaper In KingCounty, Washington. The South CountyThe Environmental Review Committee for- warded toL the UseeviewDevelopment pServisor. Kent, 9 Division Land Review Supervisor. '(ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- Information on theproject file is available Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Significance for the following proj ect under State of Washington for KingCounty. ,the authorityof the Renton Municipal at the Floor,Do Municipalument ServicesuidinDivision,e g y p Third Building, Renton, The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the South County Code. Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Appealprocedures rocedures are available in the City - Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers ,AMENDMENTS Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipl . during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a LUX97-126,ECF,R,CPA Building. . This proposal includes potential amend- Published in the South County Journal • 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments- LUA-97-126 ECF R a CPA -CPA , C tge aand Use Map incly October 6,1997.3708 44 a allong Martin Luther King Way f froo g:m ___ T - _ I EA-C to another designation; CPA-10, the as published on: 10/6/97 May Valley Prezone that would amend the Land Use Map from Single Family to Residential Rural;and CPA-11,which con- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$78.61 siders combining EA-C and EA-O, and Legal Number 3708 I would affect sites outside of the Valley. Other proposed amendments include CPA- 1 which would amend the text of the • Capital Facilities Element; CPA-2 which would amend the Public Facilities Policies -e#10 • and Vision Statement to allow municipal egal Clerk outh County Journal facilities, including jails in or near the ,i downtown; CPA-5, which would amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow wetland /��, / enhancement as a mitigation option and Subscribed and sworn before me on this D-LL/o' fay of ( 9( —, 19 7 delete reference to the City's Greenbelt I Map; CPA-7, which evaluated CA uses along both sides of Grady Way north of I- „ �/ 405 and south of SW 10th Street and bet- `�.0111111////4 - S `(L,1Siit _ - `` ‘f" ae ' Notary Public of the State of Washington __ _ ____� -__.__ ___ i :..) `Jo�� residing in Renton _®_ = King County, Washington p•ost.oc o;2 2 2p0p,�� :Po•. 6.., `v.: ,'il/i11F/I4/AS%11‘-0� NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS LUA-97-126, ECF, R, CPA This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map including: CPA-4 along Martin Luther King Way from EA-C to another designation; CPA-10, the May Valley Prezone that would amend the Land Use Map from Single Family to Residential Rural; and CPA-11, which considers combining EA-C and EA-O, and would affect sites outside of the Valley. Other proposed amendments include CPA-1 which would amend the text of the Capital Facilities Element; CPA-2 which would amend the Public Facilities Policies and Vision Statement to allow municipal facilities, including jails in or near the downtown; CPA-5, which would amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow wetland enhancement as a mitigation option and delete reference to the City's Greenbelt Map; CPA-7, which evaluated CA uses along both sides of Grady Way north of 1-405 and south of SW 10th Street and between Powell Avenue SW and Seneca Avenue SW; CPA-8,which proposes minor policy and development regulation amendments to Renton's SMP, and, CPA-9, which would amend annexation policies to allow annexations less than 10 acres in size. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently end at 5:00 PM on October 20, 1997. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Written comments and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file is available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publication Date: October 06, 1997 Account No. 51067 dnspub . ,, . , . No_ r Ir.., j...,:, ,. , e_a ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-97-126,CPA,R,ECF . THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP INCLUDING:CPA4 ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING WAY FROM EA-C TO ANOTHER DESIGNATION;CPA-10,THE MAY VALLEY PREZONE THAT WOULD AMEND THE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL'RURAL;AND CPA-11, WHICH CONSIDERS COMBINING EA-C AND EA-O,AND WOULD AFFECT SITES OUTSIDE OF THE VALLEY. OTHER PROPOSED _ F CILITIES ELEMENT; 2E INCLUDENTS PWHICHTHE CPA-2 WOULD AMENDTHE PUBLIC FACILITIES POUCIES AND VISION • STATEMENT TO ALLOW MUNICIPAL FACILITIES,INCLUDING JAILS IN OR NEAR THE DOWNTOWN;CPA-5, WHICH WOULD AMEND POLICIES EN-13 AND EN-57 TO ALLOW WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AS A MITIGATION OPTION AND DELETE REFERENCE TO THE CITY'S GREENBELT MAP;CPA-7,WHICH EVALUATED CA USES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF GRADY WAY NORTH OF 1405 AND SOUTH OF SW 10TH STREET AND BETWEEN. POWELL AVENUE SW AND SENECA AVENUE SW;CPA-B,WHICH PROPOSES MINOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS TO RENTON'S SNAP.AND.CPA-9,WHICH WOULD AMEND ANNEXATION POLICIES TO ALLOW ANNEXATIONS LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN SIZE. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVEE IMPACT ENVIRONMENTT.POSED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BEREQUIRED.ON THE Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 6:00 PM Ocotober • 20,1997.Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Commillee Is based an erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error In judgment,or the.discovery o1 new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the lime of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,It • Environmental Review Committee finds there Is not sufficient evidence to emend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to lake further action would need to file a formal • appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huener,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination Is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration end the appellant will be notified that the appeal Is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration requesL The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental • Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process wit then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner In writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 6:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997. • Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 375.00 application lee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 5. ls to the ner are verned by City of • 200 Mill Avenue Section 4-8-11B.SAdditional Information outh,Renton,WA 5regarding athe appeal proccess may be Renton obtained from theRen on City Clerk's 1 Office,(425)-235-2501. • • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEAS SE CONTACT ION ATHEE CITY 50.OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVIDO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION IPlease Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification._ ` "1 ' CERTIFICATION Ir ifferfl14/4iiT l , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in $ conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . ©r: . �//>9`7 Signed: : ,V�/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) _ -to . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A // j W/ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and Afattunt'a�y,act foc the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. : _ ;• �e1e/1.4 N . • 4 Dated: /0 G1 A,,,g,,,,,,t-- ,1 t r , tivn'', ' -- / Notary Ptic in ar. for the St l)e••p®f'Washington Notary (Print) MARGARET"J' PUS My appointment exp�MMISSION EXPIRES NO TAR Y,DOC ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-97-126,CPA,R,ECF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP INCLUDING: CPA-4 ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING WAY FROM EA-C.TO ANOTHER DESIGNATION;CPA-10,THE MAY VALLEY PREZONE THAT WOULD AMEND THE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL RURAL;AND CPA-11, WHICH CONSIDERS COMBINING EA-C AND EA-O,AND WOULD AFFECT SITES OUTSIDE OF THE VALLEY. OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE CPA-1 WHICH WOULD AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT; CPA-2 WHICH WOULD AMEND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICIES AND VISION STATEMENT TO ALLOW MUNICIPAL FACILITIES, INCLUDING JAILS IN OR NEAR THE DOWNTOWN; CPA-5, WHICH WOULD AMEND POLICIES EN-13 AND EN-57 TO ALLOW WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AS A MITIGATION. ' OPTION AND DELETE REFERENCE TO THE CITY'S GREENBELT MAP;CPA-7,WHICH EVALUATED CA USES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF GRADY WAY NORTH OF 1-405 AND SOUTH OF SW 10TH STREET AND BETWEEN POWELL AVENUE SW AND SENECA AVENUE SW; CPA-8, WHICH PROPOSES MINOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS TO RENTON'S SMP, AND, CPA-9, WHICH WOULD AMEND ANNEXATION POUCIES TO ALLOW ANNEXATIONS LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN SIZE. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20,1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if • Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055.. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on.hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. - Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM Ocotober 20, 1997. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ::::::::.:.::»::;::;>:::;Ple101400 0010 1).0 ro00.0t.MBER:.when;c. llin :ifOt.:r0 .eta::#ite,.i..de0.0.0Pgrt.<>.<,.<»<;v., F , STAFF City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE September 30, 1997 Project Name 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA-97-126,ECF,R, CPA Project Manager Don Erickson Project Description This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map including: CPA-4 along Martin Luther King Way from EA-C to another designation; CPA-10, the May Valley Prezone that would amend the Land Use Map from Single Family to Residential Rural; and CPA-11, which looked at combining the EA-C and the EA-0 designations as occurred in the Valley and would affect sites outside of the Valley with Commercial Office Zoning. Other proposed amendments include CPA-1 which would amend the text of the Capital Facilities Element; CPA-2 which would amend the Public Facilities policies and Vision Statement to allow municipal facilities, including jails in or near the downtown; CPA-5, which would amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow for wetland enhancement as a mitigation option and delete reference to the Greenbelt Map; CPA-7, which evaluated CA uses along both sides of Grady Way north of I-405 and south of SW 10th Street and between Powell Ave. SW and Seneca Ave. SW; CPA-8, which proposes minor policy and development regulation amendments to Renton's Shoreline Master Program, and, CPA-9, which would amend annexation policies to allow annexations less than 10 acres in size.. Project Location Some amendments apply City or area-wide. Specific Land Use Map amendments involve the following sites: 1. PA-4,Martin Luther King Way west of Powell Ave. SW(extended); 2. CPA-10,May Valley Prezone II, along Duvall Ave.NE,north of NE 23rd Street; 3. CPA-11, involving the possible rezoning of six EA-0 sites outside the Valley Planing Area to commercial if EA-0 and EA-C are combined 4. In addition, a policy change for CPA-7 could allow future rezones to Commercial Arterial along Grady Way in the Valley Planning Area north of I-405 and west of SR-167. N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area gsf N/A Site Area N/A Total Building Area gsf N/A Project Location Map 97CMPAMD.DOC City bfRenton P/B/PWDepartment I mmental Review Committee Report StaffRe P 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE Pr iv AMENDMENTS LUA-97-126 ECF,R,CPA REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 30.1997 Page 2 of RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-significance for this non-project legislative action. • B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. X Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures have been proposed for this non-project action. At the appropriate time if new development is proposed as a result of these amendments it would have to comply with SEPA and Renton's Environmental Ordinance, unless specifically exempt. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations: D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? An environmental checklist was prepared for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. No adverse impacts wrre identified from these legislative non-project actions. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable,these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant _X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. No comments were raised by reviewing departments/divisions for this non-project action. 97CMPAMD.DOC City ur rlenton Department of Planning/Building/F.:....::Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: NAts COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. SITE AREA: I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Ught/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet ' � -- B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS / ' e2 aAR__jaAr? /ei-C'CP-7172 VZO /47/se-- agea/) 4Orretri-fuL_MeetzzYsbc/6-TefiCiz/i/„Le____ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 2.- -2 /L . ,644: tie We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is nee•ed to properly assess this proposal. 'Signature3/9/7 of Director or Aut oozed Representative Datl DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City err<anton Department of Planning I Building/ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,tLE, COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master,Program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth ! Housing Air I Aesthetics Water I Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet I D GIyt,0G f 6J7 )J „dav cid) a-' /L/rze . B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS II C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to proper! assess this proposal. Signet a of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 REP��NIRBURAU utv t FIRCity or KKenton Department of Planning/Building/Puorrc Works A t 2 81997 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1 Ifc fveuvAlm COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 K I h V E D APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. SITE AREA: I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth -- Housing _ Air -- Aesthetics Water -- Light/Glare Plants --- Recreation Land/Shoreline Use --- Utilities Animals --- Transportation Environmental Health --- Public Services Energy/ --_ Preservation Natural Resources Airport ,10,000 00 Feet Environment /UQ GiC ( d fbfs 4)0 /t:6/ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /V4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS kir We have reviewed this applicatio ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where add,•nal information Is n,=,ed to properly assess this proposal. li!!!!' Gi✓'1A) .4 7/g-f)' `‘7 Sign o Director or Authorized Re, esentative Date DEVARev.10/93 City errttlnton Department of Planning/Building/ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: plate COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don(aineri RENTON PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts, WORK ORDER NO: 78271 LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. SEP 0 2 1997 SITE AREA: I BUILDING AREA(gross): .Y`� yu DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program.• A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)'COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary. Earth , Housing Air Aesthetics Water I LIghtGlare Plants 1 Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. P,OLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to property assess this proposal. Ai ' '1/4 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City.,.,.anton Department of Planning/Building/Pu Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: it°- ,, 0OMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Ericl® , PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 r�� Fj�.O LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. tr./G SITE AREA: I BUILDING AREA(grosstikji, 4997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposeuiri4Mpotential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive i*Md Shoreline Master Program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth , Housing Air Aesthetics Water light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS NO COwI d•Kbytt We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authoriz Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City ='enton Department of Planning/Building/Rd_ /Yorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:TV rutty\ COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 r/r•?c 'O LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. 400 ? •r) SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): 7 1997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposehbl amoltItential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive PraWdeS oreline Master Program. �//yy A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 100 (moo Ili 14'61/12 ' We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Aid WA- Ve A Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City w Renton Department of Planning/Building/IL..m Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C,py�g" Se$QCe COMMENTS DUE: 9/11/97 APPLICATION NO: LUA97-126,R,CPA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 8/28/997 APPLICANT: City of Renton Technical Services PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson ' PROJECT TITLE: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amdmts WORK ORDER NO: 78271 azo LOCATION: City-wide, although CPA-4, 10 and 11 apply to specific sites. y. 9' SITE AREA: 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): S/ON SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport.Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS NO . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1461V& We have viewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where 'onallnformation is needed to proper' assess this proposal. ignature of Direct r Authorized --presentative Dat DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 ♦ 4 I�'NfOe • NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS - DATE: August 29,1997 A Rezone,Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed end accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER1NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments • LUA-97-128,R,CPA,ECF • DESCRIPTION: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map end associated rezones,potential text amendments to the Comprehesive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. • GENERAL LOCATION: City-wide STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Issue papers for individual amendments 1995 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan PUBUC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezone • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Dickson,Project Manager,Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of mould and receive additional notification by mail,contact Dan • Erickson,the Project Manager,e1277-8181.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically became a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. ,I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION . I DATE OF APPLICATION: August 28,1997 • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: August 29,1997 • • • • • • • GENVALOT.00C CERTIFICATION ��/7 1�// • , hereby certify 11- copies of th: :.o e dor l ant Ir re ./ ,:.e on g7 d w re po le by m,w.a/4 7e in c pl uous p aces o � near.-• �e • :scrib'ed p a4, J I Igned: ,y� • , . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that be-71.iti-4r''r•y i •(_ V1✓'��^'�� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volt, u.a ( fJ the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 40 n.. ;•1,.,. -- ;,'.o.., .4 Dated: o2GJ / G . `'".. _ Notary Pu i in and f• he Slabe:o°Ir /gairiglori' Notary (Print) MARGARET J. PULLAR My appointment expirestamMllSSIQN EXPIRES 6/9/98 NOTARY.DOC / U`,SY 0 lV NOTICE OF APPLICATION 5 PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: August 29,1997 1 A Rezone,Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-II,Potential Land Use • Map and Texl Amendment LUA-97.128,R,CPA,ECF • DESCRIPTION: This proposal Includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. GENERAL LOCgTION: CPA-11 applies to six sites designated EA-0 on the Land Use Map which are localetl outside of the Valley planning area. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Issue papers for individual amendments. 1995 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. , PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Don Erickson,Project Manager,Development . Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Don Erickson,the Project Manager,at 277-8181.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of ' record end will be notified of any decision on this project. • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT-NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: August 28,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 • • a s • . . I 1. \ V r ii PveIIII` � Ka r�ii11 �I �� t-411- !illllldll� • /f or • • ' Ill MP oiee v11 GENRWLOT.DOC - i`eiv�� I .� 1 I • I l\ . , �' . • CERTIFICATION • I. -03140)__.e. . ev-/-0,4-6-40 , hereby c • a copie o t bove7d cument lac son or rb he de I ro arty o w epos e��f%�Z�conspicuous p • Signe : ______. • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) SS ' COUNTY OF KING )I . or have satisfactory evidence that J0XIj<ta�'/2 �i� certify that I know ry t�. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vcIltNe trit fir the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. �.40 ��•;•'„ vb;Kfir , �.i Dated: V21/9/ 4J/ 4/i Gsi,i y �" �' — Notary Pu• ' in and .'. the Stale bftivalii� ton Notary (' nt) , (;SET J. P MARGARET • My appointment expiraimiveleskiNagmEssagt- . NOTARy,DOc Uti�Y 0 ,ca. ♦. & NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . DATE: August 29,1997 A Rezone,Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBERINAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-10,Potential Land Use Map Amendment LUA-97-126,R,CPAECF • DESCRIPTION: This proposal Includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map,Single • family designation In the May Valley Preemie,Phase II and associated rezones. GENERAL LOCATION: CPA-10 applies to two specific sites abutting SE 95th Way and the Renton City ' limits north of NE 23rd St. STUDIES REUUIREDiOR Issue paper for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment along Duvall Ave NE(SE AVAILABLE: 95th Way)north of NE 23rd Street • PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone • ' Comments on the above ion must be submitted in writing to elopment Services Division,200 Mill Avenue Owen o 0 South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5 00 PM on October 5,1997.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Owen — Df record the w Protect nMand nage,anyt 77-2475. anyois ne whoject.submits written comments will automatically become a party I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: August 26,1997 ' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 • DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 'I a 1 � IIII� 1 1°w mar Ra !/ , _' • III ok., 'I I; sov"tbe'' �►�� . 11 1Yw r.�'LaU'menu' ti --T—Yt�i 11 4rM�� • . `,;eu a [ern�Innn nYlYelz7/pM �� PEI • .�I ..Ni 1v11Afn1 till.•ll\ll tom`` •r ..-."RUuly rt��g__n.....IOI.�lltL(!ball ii A.IIIAA/ iig♦ v1 !b l ■aft.lJ ii�•YrlYfl r Ti-�I. 1l1 _� Yiv ��♦1�'. rill 1.1M IIOI• . Zr1�e. •Fief u55tiiiiya . ,�1'rat • GENRALOT.000 L. CERTIFICATION I. „yc7q D' C� EA)/I) So ri , hereby certify that !'h' I copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on AUG.�S r �9 1 19c y Signed: 1,,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS • COUNTY OF KING ) •/Y��v` s�fr} ,. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that v �l • o _ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free an ;vo-t��t?�� ,`,,act'.o e uses • and purposes mentioned in the instrument. lli:r» , • na =0 � li /,. J `i '� Dated: 12� / 7 , -- Notary Pun and • the Slale)or 0 31,- glon Notary (Print) MARGARET J. PULLAR 5 E�� My appointment expi COMMISSION EXP NO TARY,OOC p �®�.4„N•SO� NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS DATE: August 29,1997 • A Rezone,Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with ' the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBERINAME: 1997a Amendment t Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-4,Potential Land Use LUA-97-126,R,CPA,ECF • DESCRIPTION: This proposal Includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones. GENERAL LOCATION: CPA-4 applies to a specific site. i STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Issue papers for evaluation of Commercial Arterial Zoning off of Martin Luther King Way South to approximately South 140th Street,if extended. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezone • Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Owen Dennison,Project Manager,Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997.If you have questions • about this proposal.or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall,contact Owen Dennison,the Project Manager,at 277-2475.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of recent and will be notified of any decision on this project. !PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION II DATE OF APPLICATION: August 28,1997 • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 • , 1997 COMPREHEl NSIVE oPL N AMENDMENTS S • s it I m.�it ur. ,e' , s ume st . .lest1+1 •rilililliamm\/I J l'3 Is�,111��II-_nb if14111,111111111111140P: . it------tpy sr •••‹�t • IF ' GEmAALOT.DO0 4. ---.,--7-6 III,/ .,,,- Po 1,4 iiii- CERTIFICATION I, 01,,/o 1 v. bovnl,So,L) • hereby certify that k copies of the above document were� posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the describ roperty on n Signed: ' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) 0 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that r - . : signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and veii' �,�y..a ,for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. �.' u c, Dated: l5 g//l �l ^ /* �� 'i /_ y,, _ ( ton Notary Public and for) St`�le•••• l ',g. Notary (Print) MARGARET J. PULLAR My appointment expiry 1 \ NOTARY,OOC A f NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: August 29, 1997 A Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-10, Potential Land Use Map Amendment LUA-97-126,R,CPA,ECF DESCRIPTION: This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map, Single family designation in the May Valley Prezone,Phase II and associated rezones. GENERAL!LOCATION: CPA-10 applies to two specific sites abutting SE 95th Way and the Renton City limits north of NE 23rd St. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR - AVAILABLE: Issue paper for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment along Duvall Ave NE(SE 95th Way)north of NE 23rd Street. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone. Comments'on the above application must be submitted in writing to Owen Dennison, Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Owen Dennison,the Project Manager,at 277-2475. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: August 26,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 ay 11 TIN19111 II'r I . PI:iptiriA4, uliti3vrnAi I uu!!■a��I' '> 113L'Lli�1G11�111/�•� ■ TM �rmuw Ife2l�1�fraiminskc1Jam i :: ari WILIVIGI matflnir• /11-1/0 �! ire-Ea 4� i MTh* imiimiti �i QIIIJ�C' ��- ii m:rrtlu73YCl ^‘V 011Efu 0�111 o aim."VP � 11�1 pupa N:NUM mb I►��5 1ti�Lii i'� m_Li yin l g G7mo:41MIIIIINII HMV *4 a•te/*ow • WO '^ �iln�IIh'if111■il■� � ,� � GENNWLOT.DOC IIIluO�■~ ;� ►!��; • C. 4. *4 + . �.,NTo� . NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: August 29, 1997 A Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-4, Potential Land Use Map Amendment 1 LUA-97-126,R,CPA,ECF DESCRIPTION: This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones. GENERAL LOCATION: CPA-4 applies to a specific site. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Issue papers for evaluation of Commercial Arterial Zoning off of Martin Luther I King Way South to approximately South 140th Street,if extended. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Owen Dennison, Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Owen Dennison,the Project Manager,at 277-2475. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: August 26,1997 . I NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 • DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Commercial Arterial on M.L.King, Jr. Way . r-lIiii iii .icet! ■1111i 122 I.I..... inF E�8 Y ,�[V , .�� • ma,„,��1`'1�1�.NI S 132nd St =� _!`�,��r.."1"M 111ii1' IIIII� I cl 1 111011 n °h King Wa IIII o gy, ��` / ,/' lllip,,,m. .s. . .I4‘4 41$4,1 , c fili". opiii7 , . 4.11. GENMALOT.DOC , i ____ TY Urn �,� . + AR + NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS. DATE: August 29, 1997 • A Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments,CPA-II, Potential Land Use Map and Text Amendment LUA-97-126,R,CPA,ECF DESCRIPTION: . This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and potential text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. GENERAL LOCATION: CPA-11 applies to six sites designated EA-0 on the Land Use Map which are located outside of the Valley planning area. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: . Issue papers for individual amendments. 1995 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson,the Project Manager,at 277-6181. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: August 26,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 N M 1 411 E � \ i N 11. I I I IIIIIII. �E 3ta s� I� e PLC tsd II TOE I G ,� : ># :..., III GENMALOT.DOC' ONO. t Nvivrcv NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: August 29, 1997 A Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments LUA-97-126,R,CPA,ECF DESCRIPTION: 1997 amendments to Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated rezones, potential text amendments to the Comprehesive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. GENERAL LOCATION: City-wide STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Issue papers for individual amendments 1995 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on October 15,1997. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson,the Project Manager,at 277-6181. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: August 26,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 28,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 29,1997 GENMALOT.DOC Vj >»»»»> 1111111111 > > `'DE' `ELOPMENT SERVICES.. :�SIO•Y............................ . ..... .. .... ::. :` ( ( I >:<:»:::;:>::>::>::>::>::>:>:::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>:::<:::::;:.<::<:>:<:::>:<::«<:>::>:>::<::<»:>:>:>::>:<::<:;::>';::::«<:;:>:<:<:;::.;:.::::'<:.;::<::>::>:.;:.;::<::::::;:<:::<::;::;;::;:;:::«:«:<:::::::»:<::<:::>•:;>:>:<:<:<:<:<:::>:<:>::::::>::>::>::»::>::>::>::>::>::;::>::;::::>::>::>::>::»:::�['EYE `FTNtai�'�'i'%1>> <:»:<>i>:<: ::: I ni PRO ECPINF :RIUTATI N ctnt'<'>`` >> ' ii::$iiiiiiii:vii'Jiiiiiiiii'>iii:'iiiiiijii''.%v:siiiii'iiiii':ii:i:yy:'>}}iiij: ..... ::::No ;:::::f there is more:then:wt:te owners::pleaseattac :aq addgnat:nutarized::::::::>: / EXISTING LAND USE(S): CPA-4-vacant; CPA-10-single family/yacant;CPA-11- NAME: office/warehouse/vacant 7 ADDRESS: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): City: ZIP: n/a-no specific development plans proposed TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: - ............... ............................................................................................. .. ................... ................ ......................................................................................................................... CPA-4-Employment - - Area Commercial; CPA-10 Residential Single e Family; CPA-11 -EmP1 Y en Area- NAME: Mike Kattermann/Don Erickson Office ADDRESS: 200 Mill Ave. S. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CPA-4-Employment Area-Commercial, or Rural City: Renton ZIP: 98055 Residential, Single Family Residential,or Convenience Commercial; CPA-10-Residential Rural; CPA-11 - TELEPHONE NUMBER: 277-6190/ 277-6181 Employment Area-Office/Employment Area-Commercial • EXISTING ZONING: CPA-4 -CommercialArterial; PA-10-Arte al C Outside City i ty PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Limits,but prezone'would be R-1 and R-5; CPA-11 - Commercial Office 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments PROPOSED ZONING: CPA-4-depends on Comprehensive Plan designation selected-Commercial Arterial,Resource PROPERTY/PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Conservation,R-8, or Convenience Commercial. Some amendments apply City or area-wide. Specific map CPA-7 could involve a policy change which would allow amendments involve the following sites: for some rezones to Commercial Arterial along Grady Way,west of SR 167 and north of I-405. • CPA-4-Martin Luther King Way west of Powell Ave. SW (extended) SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): • CPA-10-May Valley Prezone II,along Duvall Ave.NE, north of NE 23rd Street. • CPA-11 -Six EA-0 sites outside the Valley Planning Area: PROJECT VALUE: (see map attached to proposal summary). • A policy change for CPA-7 could allow future rezones to IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Commercial Arterial along Grady Way in the Valley Planning Area north of I-405 and west of SR-167. KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\MASTERAP.DOC\PC > LEGAL D SCR1r•.liQrk'l F.. .. . orxwr (Attac .se arate sheet.if.needed ><>>< >>omm ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. t ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................... _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION REZONE $ _SPECIAL PERMIT $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _SHORT PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _GRADE&FILL PERMIT $ _FINAL PLAT $ (No. Cu.Yds: ) VARIANCE $ (from Section: ) $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $ _WAIVER $ _PRELIMINARY ROUTINE VEGETATION _FINAL MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _BINDING SITE PLAN MOBILE HOME PARKS $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ _EXEMPTION $ NO CHARGE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ _ _REVISION ``:? F ;AVITO ,<O >•. E :.;:: »».• <'>:<< � `11111s> > 1111:':':':': < >` `<>< : I,(Print Name) ,declare that I am(please check one) _the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes ry, c-bJ /� I,, mentioned in the instrument. I( 1 a_e / f</- ��r �tl 11,Qm (Name of /Representative) —Notary Public in and for the State of Washington 2 Notary(Print) (Signature of /Representative) My appointment expires: • ..................................................................................... . ........:5?P.......�.��/`�'�UD:::::::::::::::::.�M........SME..........MF1P:::»>:B;;P::::.A.;:.:;.:::: .......:.:....:...:.:............................ P H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\MASTERAP.DOC\PC L. RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1997 PROPOSAL SUMMARY ' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHORELINE MASTER PROG AF RENTON AMENDMENTS The proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated re-zoning of properties, potential amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and amendments to Renton's Shoreline Master Program as described below. A matrix of staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations is provided as Attachment A. 1. Capital Facilities Plan. Proposes minor narrative text amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan which: 1) clarify that biennial review is recommended and describe efforts to monitor and update the Plan in 1997, and 2)update the document to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. 2. Land Use/Municipal Facilities. The Public Facilities policies of the Land Use Element currently state that people-intensive municipal government functions and major functions of the police should be located in the downtown district. Proposed policy amendments would allow these municipal functions to locate in the vicinity of the downtown. 3. Land Use/Residential Policies, Density Issues. This amendment evaluates text changes in the Vision Statement, Land Use Element Residential Policies, and Housing Element Policies guiding single family development, particularly infill development, and modifying policies guiding neighborhood level planning tools and programs. This item is proposed to be continued until the 1998 amendment cycle. 4. Commercial (CA)Zoning on Martin Luther King Highway. This amendment reviews Employment Area Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial (CA) Zoning designations along a portion of Martin Luther King Way(MLK Way) and evaluates whether Resource Conservation or other less intensive land use would be more appropriate. Refer to Attachment B which provides a map of the area. 5. Environment Element Policy Amendment. Comprehensive Plan policy amendments are proposed for two policies found in the Environmental Element: 1) Policy EN-13 would be amended to allow wetland enhancement as a possible mitigation option for a development which may impact a wetland. 2)Policy EN-57 would be amended to delete a reference to the Greenbelt Map since it is not a complete inventory of sensitive areas, and it is anticipated that sensitive area regulations will be amended to refer to specific definitions and criteria in order to designate sensitive areas, with maps being utilized as a resource. 6. Transportation Concurrency - Text Amendments. Transportation concurrency ensures that transportation facilities are in place at the time of development. To respond to Growth Management Act requirements, an interim concurrency management system is included in the Transportation Element. Minor Comprehensive Plan text amendments are needed to more fully recognize current and proposed concurrency management procedures. No policy amendments are proposed. 7. Allow CA in the Employment Area - Valley, North of I-405. This amendment evaluates whether Commercial Arterial uses should be allowed to occur on parcels on both sides of SW Grady Way in a"study area"between I-405 on the South, SW 10th street on the north,Powell Avenue SW on the west and Seneca Ave SW on the east. The study area is currently designated Employment Area 1 8/21/97 K i • Valley. Existing policies limit Commercial Arterial rezones in this area. Refer to Attachment C for a map of the subject area. 8. Shoreline Master Program Amendments. Pursuant to Washington Administrative Code Section 173-26-100, and Chapter 4-19 of the Renton Municipal Code, amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program(SMP)are proposed. Based upon recent State legislation, SMP goals and policies are now considered an element of local comprehensive plans, and other shoreline regulations are considered a part of local development regulations. The proposed SMP amendments include changes to shoreline policies and regulations which are intended to be minor. The proposed amendments clarify policies and procedures, remove conflicting provisions with other City codes and ordinances, and address recent State amendments to the Shoreline Management Act regarding permit procedures, exemptions, definitions, and other items. In summary, the proposed changes address: (a) Policy amendments to Economic Development, Public Access, Circulation, and Residential "Elements"of the Shoreline Master Program (b) Shoreline permit exemptions (c) Definitions(wetlands,shorelands,floodway,bulkhead,buffer, setback, etc.) (d) Permit process changes (e) Jurisdiction(terminology) (f) Permitting Roads in the Conservancy designation (g) Water related/water dependent developments and public access (h) Dredging and landfill (i) Docks and marinas (j) Public and private recreation (k) Residential setbacks (1) Map interpretations/footnotes 9. Land Use/Annexation Policies. Annexation Policy LU-403 currently requires annexations to encompass a minimum of ten acres except under specific circumstances. A proposed amendment would maintain the intent of encouraging larger annexations but would create greater latitude in allowing smaller areas to annex. 10. Residential Single Family(RS)to Rural Residential (RR) in May Valley Prezone. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change an area in Phase II of the May Valley Prezone from Residential Single Family to Residential Rural. The concurrent prezoning would assign R-1 and R-5 zoning to the subject properties. Zoning would not be implemented until the subject properties annex to the City. Refer to Attachment D for a map of the subject area. 11. Evaluate combining the EA-C and EA-0 Policies. Evaluate the feasibility of combining the residual Employment Area Commercial and Employment Area Office land use designations outside of the Valley Planning Area to create a new Employment Area - Commercial/Office designation that would include a blend of existing policies. Both office and commercial arterial zoning would be allowed in the new designation. This amendment also reviews policies allowing residential uses in the Employment Area-Valley designation. Refer to Attachment E for a map of the subject sites. h:\divisions\ -ls\planning\amends\1997\propsum.doc 2 8/21/97 CITY OF RENTON 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS July 30, 1997 FILE DATE APPLICANT REQUEST STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION P&DC COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL # NAME RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION #1 7/30/97 City of Renton Capital Facilities Plan Amend the text of the Capital Accept staff recommendation. Facilities Element to make minor narrative text amendments which 1)describe the 1997 monitoring and conclusions,and 2)update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. #2 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Municipal Amend the Land Use Element Public Recommend adopting revised policy Facilities Facilities Element and the Vision LU-240 to allow jails in or near the 1 Statement to allow municipal facilities downtown. Reject amending policy in or near the downtown. LU-235 to allow municipal government functions in or near the downtown,and reject changes to the vision statement. #3 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Residential Continue this issue. Continued Policies,Density Issues #4 7/30/97 City of Renton Commercial(CA) Continue the current Land Use and Recommendation to strongly urge Zoning on Martin Zoning designation. Process an the City Council to reconsider the Luther King Highway amendment to the Arterial spot rezone, remove the EAC/CA Commercial(CA)zone text to restrict designation,and redesignate the site multi-family residential use of the to a less intensive use. site. #5 7/30/97 City of Renton Environmental Element Amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to Accept staff's recommendation to Policy Amendment allow for wetland enhancement as a both policies, with minor word mitigation option and to delete changes to policy EN-57. specific references to the Greenbelt Map. MATRDLDOC\ Page I FILE DATE APPLICANT REQUEST STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION P&DC COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL NAME ^ " — — RECOMMENDATION- RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION #6 7/30/97 City of Renton Transportation Clarify that the annual testing needs Accept staff recommendation as Concurrency-Text to show that level of service meets written. Amendments City-wide before a concurrency test is conducted for an individual development proposal,and that the . Transportation Plan is based on land use assumptions which should be considered in project review. #7 7/30/97 City of Renton Allow CA in the Amend Policies LU 212.14 and LU Table this amendment. Request a Employment Area- 212.15b to allow rezoning to CA in remand to the Planning Valley North of I-405 Employment Area-Commercial Commission in the Fall of 1997 to north of I-405 and to require a 5 discuss the automall expansion acre threshold size for such rezones. issues. #8 7/30/97 City,of Renton Shoreline Master Amend policies,regulations and Accept staff recommendation,with Program Amendments permit procedures as stated in staff the modifications proposed by The report. Boeing Company to clarify permit processes, but disallow the requested high rise change. #9 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Annexation Amend annexation policies which Amend annexation policies to still Policies allow annexations less than 10 acres encourage annexations larger than in size. 10 acres, but allow for smaller ones when appropriate. #10 7/30/97 City of Renton RS to RR in May Amend the Land Use Map to change Accept staff recommendation as Valley Prezone the subject area from Residential written. Single Family to Residential rural. #11 7/30/97 City of Renton Evaluate combining the Recommends that the existing and Accept staff recommendation,with EA-C and EA-0 separate EA-C and EA-0 LU-146 amended to delete the last Policies designations be retained. sentence in subsection"a". MATRIXD(X1 Page 2 - a • 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Commercial Arterial on •M.L.King, Jr. Way mom 1 2 9 t h IliS ^ �� 10 'cl FArilW :i; ■ III ) 1 ill Mk , al Alithelki h 4, kb 1 1/l I I 1 _ 151 Vic` 419��, IIMiIh ■ III i l■■ MEM WE ___ Ill 1111 \ _ S 132nd St -40111111111 iIUIhiIIIuIh! Ii .4411, S 135t� ,' 1 . will a vsr,..lway 444 • ortin .d1.: eikrse. .='�Lut 1 �v ��hr nga Lk ' 1.................iiii �i iiy •��••i�%�• .•i iiiisiiiisiiiii. :❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:•i iii•�•iii•�•iii•�•iii i•�•iiiiiii•�•iiii• �1oil i i�•�•iiii iiigii•i•i�•i�•iii•i•i•i.ii•iiiiii•i•i•i•••iiiiiiii.ii i ❖.❖❖••❖:❖im•••i•••m•:::••❖:❖:••❖:••••❖•❖:❖::4 . 4 , h 7/ -- .--- n.-1 n 1 A! / 1 �Y R1 CEIVER Commercial Arterial Zone ti o Planning and Technical Services .. C!A Renton City Limits + + Planning/Building/Public Works AUG 26 1997 `�I O. Dennison, R. MacOnie 0 600 1 ,200 .rtIv't0' 17 March 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING : :: :. ::: :: ::::::::::::::;:::: :: .... I CITY OF R�NTON ` "'•` 1 .7,200 COMPREINSIVE PLAN AINDMENT EAV North of I-405 ........ ............... ................ .......... ........ ............... ............ ....... ............... • ............... .......... ....... ........ /e ....... . . . . .................. ......... ......... ...... ..................... ........ .... ... ................................. ............... ............... .............. . .... ......... ........... .. .. ........... .. .......... ......... ................................. .............. //L ........ .............. ................. ....... ................................... .... ....... . \ \ ..... . ................................. ....... ........... .:::.. ........ ................. ......... ............ ..... ........ .............. .... ................ ........ r ................. . . ........ ... ..... . :: ......:.:: /// , s Ar r/2 OPir ' Sb 000, & \ . I--405 FillIMIIII SW ' 16th S- r --\\\ > 0 SW 19th St `�' 1E 1 \----N cw 91 d- q+ $ ' Oft, Planning and Technical Services j//// Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone + + Planning/Building/Public Works • D. Erickson, O. Dennison, R. MacOnie Medium Industrial (IM) Zone ............... 0 ! 600 2 0 0 X Commercial OfREt rwr,Zone ...... . . ....... .. . . . . . —1 Zone P ..•1 :'7,2 0 0 ALB 2 6 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RLNTON MAY VATAPY PREZONE - CHASE II Planning and Development Committee Recommendations 1 \ I 0___, ___, ,_. a , S' � May Valle y Rd O A O 26H t o U I IMP : thC 1 is t �Lt. I I I I 1 hi ! 0 I _: 3E Lti 1 4 ut� r `�� a 1 ■�� , � � ✓' r � E10nd _1 � . . � -a is "AVV,suliTrirtiiA•.#A�IIIIIIII� � * ] ‘ --- ¶rllur ' :-=/e-z-tr z 1Planning and Technical Sery ♦ ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works ® R-5 Zoning AUG 2 6 1997 O. Dennison, R. MacOnie , 6 June 1997 © R-5 Zoning with CPA* OEVELurnntN7 PLANNING O GOO 1. ,2OO CITYOFR!NTON O R-1 Zoning with CPA* ``"'' ii. * Comprehensive Plan amendment from 1 :7,2 O O Residential Single Family to Residential Rural • i ' COMPREE NSIVE PLAN AIVONDMENTS # 11 EAC/EAO Policies ❖: V \ \ / , H 4 (If -----)1 (9 .. p.,., :,.,.,., .❖a :❖: ❖.o ....v.❖• ::Al: tn 15) KY I.❖.•. ..,.,.. LL 4 i d $t ,/, 0 3 L L 1 \ _ G 4 , __- _ .1:, _.\\,. „/ .,. . _ _ I—X___ iri, i, i _ , ::.o•.. ,•.. w a ❖. 1::°",::: 7--- GrEtdY ❖.❖.❖. .... ........ ..... ,....... . :111.11111.1111. :............. • . J co . 1111111.k �Y ''''"'��'•i Affected CO Zones Gti �,� Planning and Technical Services ,....;:�::::::::: ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works RECEIVED �'�NzO� 102� March 1Dennison997. MacOnie 0 1 ,500 3,000 AUG 2 6 1997 1 : 18,000 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED AT 2 6 197 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT F LANNING CITY OF REP TON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproiect Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs),the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. City of Renton Environmcuuil Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project,if applicable: 1997 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments Ten Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA's)are proposed which address the Land Use Element, Land Use Map(and associated rezones),Transportation Element,Environmental Element, Capital Facilities Plan Element, and the Shoreline Master Program. 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Michael D. Kattcrmann,Director;Planning&Technical Services; (206)277-6190; Staff Contact:Don Erickson, (206)277-6181 Address: 200 Mill Avenue S.;Renton,WA 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: August 21, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton,Planning/Building/Public Works Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable): A Planning Commission hearing was held on July 30, 1997, and recommendations made on August 6, 1997. The City Council is expected to act on the amendments in Fall 1997. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,explain. To implement some of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, some code amendments may be needed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Draft EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,January, 1992. Final EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,February, 1993. Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan,December, 1994. DNS for May Valley Prezone Phase II,LUA-97-004,ECF. DNS for Hotel and Jail Uses in the Commercial Office Zone,LUA-97- 039,ECF. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not specifically aware of any other pending governmental approvals for any of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments. It should be noted that these CPA's are non-project legislative actions (see Section D,below). 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments will require action by the City Council. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton EnvironmI....1 Checklist 8/21/97 Page 3 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Ten City-sponsored Comprehensive Plan Amendments are proposed which address the Land Use Element,Land Use Map(and associated rezones),Transportation Element,Environmental Element, Capital Facilities Plan Element,and the Shoreline Master Program. All proposed CPA's are considered to be non-project actions since they all are legislative acts. Refer to the attached proposal summary. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of.area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Many CPA's have city-wide implications as they will be amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan narrative,including policies and procedures. However, some of these proposed CPA's include amendments to the Plan's Land Use Map and/or apply to specific sites or areas of the City. These are listed below: File No. Description/Location File No. Description/Location CPA-1 Amends the text of the Capital Facilities CPA-2 The staff recommendation is to amends the Element to make minor narrative text Land Use Element Public Facilities policies amendments which 1)describe the 1997 and the Vision Statement to allow municipal monitoring and conclusions,and 2)update the facilities,including jails,in or near the Comprehensive Plan to reflect purchase of the downtown. The Planning Commission new municipal building. recommendation would be to amend policies to allow jails to be in or near the downtown. Amendments addressing municipal facilities or the Vision Statement would not be included in the Planning Commission recommendation. CPA-4 The staff recommendation would continue the CPA-5 Would amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to current Land Use and Zoning designation of allow for wetland enhancement as a mitigation Commercial Arterial(CA),and process text option and to delete specific reference to the amendments to the CA Zone to restrict multi- Greenbelt Map. family residential use of the site. The Planning Commission recommendation is to consider less intensive land use and zoning designations. Less intensive options could include Single Family, Convenience Commercial,or Resource Conservation designations. CPA-7 Evaluates whether Commercial Arterial uses CPA-8 Proposes minor policy and development should be allowed to occur on parcels on both regulation amendments to the Shoreline sides of Grady Way in an area bounded by 1- Master Program that would apply to 405 on the south, SW 10th street on the north, development within regulated shorelines such Powell Avenue SW on the west and Seneca as Lake Washington,May Creek,Cedar River, Avenue SW on the east. Springbrook Creek,and Black River. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 4 File No. Description/Location File No. / Description/Location CPA-9 Would amend annexation policies to allow CPA-10 Pertains to properties in May Valley in annexations less than 10 acres in size. unincorporated King County that would be amended on the Land Use Map from Single Family to Residential Rural. CPA-11 The CPA evaluates combining the EA-C and EA-0 designations and policies. The staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to amend Land Use Policy LU-146,and maintain separate EA-C and EA-0 land use designation outside of the Valley. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site(circle one • flat, rolling,hill steep,sloes mountainous, )> gr Y� slopes, other - The Land Use Map amendments pertain to sites that very from flat to gently sloping to sloping sites located throughout the City. b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope?) Not applicable for these legislative non-project actions. c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example,scaly,sand,gravel,peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. There are four generalized soil associations found in the Renton area: Alderwood, Oridia- Seattle-Woodinville,Beausite-Alderwood,and Everett. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative,non-project actions. Please see Section D below. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. In general,geological hazards in Renton include areas susceptible to damage from landslides, earthquakes,and coal mine collapses. There are also some areas with high erosion potential. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative,non-project actions. Please see Section D below. e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so,generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environma,l.l Checklist 8/21/97 Page 5 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. This is a non-project action.No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth,if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e., dust, automobile, odors,industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site(including year- round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. The major water bodies in the City include Lake Washington, Cedar River,Black River, Springbrook Creek,and May Creek. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative, non-project actions. Please see Section D below. 2) Will the project require any work over,in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmv.,il Checklist 8/21/97 Page 6 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan. In general,the Cedar River, Green River,Black River and May Creek corridors are primary flood hazard areas. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal,if any(include quantities,if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters,If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground, and runoff water impacts,if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 7 ' 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: N/A-not project specific. deciduous tree: alder,maple, aspen, other evergreen tree:fir, cedar,pine, other shrubs grass crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush, skunk cabbage,other water plants:water lily,eel grass,milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d.. Proposed-landscaping,use of native plants, or othermeasure to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: N/A-not project specific. Birds: hawk,heron,eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer,bear,elk,beaver, other Fish:bass,salmon,trout,herring, shellfish,other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed - as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmu...d1 Checklist 8/21/97 Page 8 6. ENERGY AM)NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas,wood,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the areas which may affect your project(for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC i - M City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 9 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed a5 a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D.below for further explanation. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The potential Land'Use Map amendment sites have different zoning designations: CPA-4-Martin Luther King Way, Commercial Arterial CPA-10-May Valley area,outside of City limits. Prezoning would allow for R 1 and R-5 zones if annexed. CPA-11 -Commercial Office While not a Land Use Map amendment,changes to land use policies with CPA-7 could allow for future rezones from Commercial Office and Industrial Medium to Commercial Arterial for the area designated Employment Area-Valley north of I-405 along portions of Grady Way. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? • The potential Land Use Map amendment sites have different designations: CPA-4-Martin Luther King Way,Employment Area-Commercial, CPA-10-May Valley area,Residential Single Family CPA-11 -Employment Area-Office Changes to land use policies with CPA-7 would not result in a map change to the Employment Area-Valley designation,but could allow for future rezones from Commercial Office and Industrial Medium to Commercial Arterial for the area.designated Employment Area-Valley north of I-405 along portions of Grady Way. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 ' Page 10 g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Renton's shoreline environment designations include Urban, Conservancy,and Natural. Urban designations are applied along Lake Washington,a majority of the Cedar River,a majority of Springbrook Creek,and along May Creek west of I-405. The Conservancy designation is applied along May Creek east of I-405,the southern bank of the Cedar River generally east of I-405,and portions of Springbrook Creek south of I-405. The Natural designation is applied to the Black River. CPA-8 involves minor Shoreline Master Program policy and development regulation amendments. No changes to the current shoreline environment designations are proposed. Please see Section D below for further explanation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The Renton Environmental Ordinance designates environmentally sensitive areas where certain categorical exemptions would not apply. The environmentally sensitive areas include: greenbelts identified on the Greenbelt Map, Conservancy and Natural environments of the Shoreline Master Program,the 100-year floodway,and lands covered by water. The Wetlands Ordinance identifies wetlands on the Critical Areas Inventory as being designated environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments are non- project actions. Site-specific development projects are not proposed. Please see Section D below for further explanation. i. . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: The compatibility between land uses and other plans has been analyzed with each CPA. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 11 b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: Notapplicable. The proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed subjectP PP P P as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not,including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed -as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. What existing off:site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any: Not applicable. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 12 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed non project action will not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?..If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any: None are necessary. The subject proposal is a legislative non-project action that is not anticipated to change any uses or development on any of six sites. Subsequent development,if any,will have to comply with SEPA,unless categorically exempt. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,if any. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or streets,not including driveways? If so,generally describe(indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC • City of Renton Environm 1 Checklist 8/21/97 Page 13 e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example: fire protection,police protection,health care, schools, other)? If so,generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. No anticipated increase in impacts on public services are anticipated as a result of these CPA's. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer,septic system, other. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack "f full disclosure on my part. Proponent: %'Uri`' t � Name Printed: /,/ /7- r) cyAtt, Date Submitted: ?' CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 14 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-1 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to Comprehensive Plan amendments updating the City's Capital Facilities Plan to reflect more accurately current conditions. CPA-1, does provide for some text modifications, but no code changes are required, nor is there a Land Use Map change associated with it. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of this proposed comprehensive plan text amendment. This CPA reports on monitoring achievements,and updates/revises growth projections needed to ensure concurrency for transportation, domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. It also provides a basis for updating the City's six-year Capital Facilities Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish, or marine life? Not applicable. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project reporting action is not likely to have any impacts on energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed since no action is being taken to deplete energy or natural resources. In fact,the Growth Management Act,which the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with,endeavors to conserve energy and natural resources by controlling and channeling growth so as to conserve natural resources including energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? The subject non-project CPA is not anticipated to adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Since no impacts are anticipated no mitigation measures are being proposed to address this issue. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 15 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan amendments addressed by this CPA should have no direct affect on land use and shoreline use. Where funding falls short GMA legislation does allow for a reassessment of the land use element, and,presumably growth projections could be modified to reflect capital facility funding capabilities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No impacts have been identified or are anticipated as a consequence of the text amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This CPA is unlikely to increase demands on transportation or public services. If funding expectations for capital facilities were not being met,it is likely that growth projections would be reduced to ensure concurrency of these facilities with actual growth. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures are indicated. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This non-project CPA proposal does not appear to be in conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment helps to reduce impacts to the environment by monitoring and revising growth projections to help ensure mitigating transportation and other capital facilities necessary to support such growth are adequately funded. Also, all current CPAs,including this one, are intended to be compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act,and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: / /,j�..1° 'n h/-er& a4t&Name Printed: A 1Pit aP,� \I ar i Date Submitted: g , S' ?" CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environm: 'I Checklist 8/21/97 Page 16 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-2 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on.this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to CPA-2, amendments to - Public Facility policies to allow municipal facilities in or near the downtown, and amendments to the Vision Statement to reflect the new municipal administrative and law and justice center in the vicinity of downtown. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The amendments are not anticipated to result in development that would impact these elements of the environment. The amendments will allow for consistency between policies,code requirements,and the City's purchase of a site to move municipal and jail facilities, Municipal and jail functions will be housed in an existing vacant building. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? Not applicable. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish,or marine life are: Not applicable. ' 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The amendments are not anticipated to result in development that would impact these elements of the environment. The amendments will allow for consistency between policies,code requirements,and the City's purchase of a site to move municipal and jail facilities. Municipal and jail functions will be housed in an existing vacant building. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed since no action is being taken to deplete energy or natural resources. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains,or prime farmlands? The subject non-project CPA is not anticipated to adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. In the future,municipal and jail functions will be housed in an existing vacant building. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Since no impacts are anticipated no mitigation measures are being proposed to address this issue. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 17 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The amendments are intended to result in greater consistency between Comprehensive Plan policies, the Vision Statement,code requirements, and the City's purchase of a site to move municipal and jail functions. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Non-applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This CPA is unlikely to increase demands on transportation or public.services. The municipal/jail facilities will move to an existing building located on a principal arterial where transit service and other public services are available. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures are indicated. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This non-project CPA proposal does not appear to be in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Also,all current CPAs,including this one,are intended to be compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- , significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: ge.:1-,3- Name Printed: maG+ .1 n kei'llka4AAA Date Submitted: — 5-- CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environm 1 Checklist 8/21/97 Page 18 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-4, CPA-10, CPA-11 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored land use map designation changes. Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-4, CPA-10 and CPA- 11 relate to these land use map changes. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? CPA-4: New development allowed as a result of the potential map amendments could include residential or commercial uses which could increase impervious surfaces and affect discharges to water,and allow for additional traffic trips affecting air quality and noise. Commercial uses could include businesses which utilize or produce hazardous substances. CPA-10:New development allowed as a result of the map amendments could include residential uses which could increase impervious surfaces and affect discharges to water, and allow for additional traffic trips affecting air,quality and noise. It should be noted that the proposal reduces the allowed residential densities for future development of the subject properties. The potential for the impacts listed above should be decreased as a result of the CPA. CPA-11: Allowing more intensive commercial uses in office zones could allow for additional traffic trips affecting air quality and noise. There would probably not be an appreciably different impact involving water or hazardous substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Since these changes would be site specific it is recommended that mitigation measures either be developed at the time of rezoning or, at the time specific development proposals are known and their impacts are measurable. Measures which could reduce impacts include implementation of Renton surface water control and erosion control requirements, aquifer protection regulations,noise level regulations and others. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? Residential Rural land use designations would typically help protect plants and animals since development in the Resource Conservation and Residential 1 DU/AC zones is restricted to lower density residential and agricultural/open space type uses. The other potential redesignations are not likely to have appreciably different effects on plants, animals or marine life than the current designations. On a site-specific basis,new development in these areas could result in impacts to these resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: It is recommended that mitigation measures either be developed at the time of rezoning or, at the time specific development proposals are known and their impacts are measurable. Measures which could reduce impacts include implementation of land clearing and tree cutting regulations,wetland CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 ' Page 19 regulations,greenbelt regulations (where applicable), and Shoreline Master Program requirements (where applicable). 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? These proposed CPA's are legislative non-project actions which should not affect energy resources. Subsequent development that may occur as a result of the amendments could have impacts on energy • resources but these are not believed to be substantial. Any subsequent project development that is not . exempt under SEPA will be required to prepare an environmental checklist, or an EIS,that will presumably disclose such impacts,if any. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural-resources are: None are proposed since no actions are being taken to deplete energy or natural resources at this time as a consequence of these non-project land,use map CPA's. In fact,the Comprehensive Plan endeavors to conserve energy and natural resources by controlling and channeling growth so as to conserve natural resources including energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or-eligible or under study) for.governmental protection;'such.as parks,•wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or- endangered species habitat,--historic or cultural sites, ..wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? - • . .. Residential Rural land use designations would typically help protect sensitive area since development in the Resource Conservation and Residential 1 DU/AC zones is restricted to lower density residential and agricultural/open space type uses. The other potential redesignations are not • - likely to have appreciably different effects on sensitive areas than the.current designations. -On a site- • specific basis,new development in these areas could result-in impacts to these resources. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. These proposed land use map change CPA's are considered to be a non-project actions. Since new development is not proposed now, specific project related impacts will need to be assessed at the time of development and appropriate mitigation measures drawn up as necessary. Measures to protect resources may include application of land clearing and tree cutting requirements, greenbelt requirements,wetland regulations, flood hazard regulations, Shoreline Master Program and others as applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? These map changes in and by themselves would not result in-new development. Rather they would pave the way for new zoning map designations that could result in development different than what is currently allowed in the areas affected. Two of these potential redesignations could reduce development potential and the other could potentially increase development potential. The table below lists these potential Land Use Map amendments. '::::::i::::i::it�.<::j:: ::''":::::E::':::i:: r:<:: S::::i:i:.:'::i:: : i::::i.,.::.:':::::::::::::'::.:'•::i:::::v:':::i::::r::.":::S:::i::i:: :3:::t::;:i'':::<:::::.:a::::.;:.,..:;:iiii:::i:::.>'.:iii:>:i:"S::ii:::<:i'':::i::i::?:i::: iiiimemimMindoS ....................:. .... ..... ............... CPA-4 Employment Area-Commercial • Residential Rural(RR) Residential Single Family, CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 20 ::::::: ::::::•:::::::.•: ;:: : :`:::::::i:"•`. :: : ::Y :: :>•:i :i:i::::iS::: : :::Si:::S::: : :::::::•:".::i::::5:...; i::i: : :isi:: :. en iIment€:€:€:€:€:>€:€:€:>:»»:>€:»>€:»<::>€:> »Use>Ma ::>� e r : .'ii ::>:>:»;:>:>::;>:> '>:Use: a ' : esi ' do ::»»:>:>:»>>::> Convenience Commercial, or continue Employment Area- Commercial CPA-10 Residential Single Family(RS) . Residential Rural(RR) CPA-11 Employment Area-Commercial Employment Area- and Employment Area-Office Comm' /Office Proposed changes in current land use designations could affect land use and shoreline development patterns. Regarding CPA-4,depending upon the degree and extent of landslide hazards on the site, development capacity has been estimated as: • Employment Area-Commercial designation, and Commercial Arterial zoning(current designations): 92-366 dwelling units, 80,000 -319,000 square feet of commercial space • • Convenience Commercial designation and zoning: 23 -91 dwelling units and 80,000- .319,000 square feet of commercial space(each commercial,use cannot be larger than 5,000 square feet) • Residential Single Family designation with R-8 zoning: 31 to 124 dwelling units • Residential Rural designation and Resource Conservation zoning: 2 dwelling units With CPA-10,the current capacity of the Residential Single Family designation on the subject sites would be approximately 47 dwelling units. The capacity with the proposed designation of Residential Rural would be 13 dwelling units. With CPA-11,allowing commercial uses in the Employment Area-Office sites outside of the Valley and north of I-405 may result in commercial and office uses competing for the same sites. Implementation of a merged EA-0/EA-C through the application of the Commercial Arterial Zone could allow for residential uses. With CPA-4 and-10,the application of the Residential Rural designation would help to preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas or areas identified as being part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within the City. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: CPA-10 is intended to ensure compatibility between the Comprehensive Plan and prezone ordinances for the May Valley area. With CPA-4 and 11, any redesignations on the Land Use Map would need to be followed by the appropriate matching zoning redesignation. On a site-specific basis, and new development would be reviewed for potential land use and shoreline impacts and mitigation measures applied. Where applicable,the Shoreline Master Program would govern development within 200 feet of regulated shorelines. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmcuuil Checklist 8/21/97 Page 21 Changes in map designations could potentially increase the demand for transportation services since lower density single-family dwellings generate,on average,approximately 40%more trips per dwelling unit than multi-family dwelling units. Likewise,lower density development patterns would tend to require more public services per dwelling unit than higher density multi-family development patterns. Commercial uses may generate more trips than office uses or dwellings. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities, should they arise,are met in a timely manner. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project land use map CPA's are not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to be compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: PLI Name Printed: /l c k 1 0 (P4'4n111/Wt1/1/1' Date Submitted: 5 —7 CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 22 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-5 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to CPA-5 which proposes amendments to Environmental Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to.allow wetland enhancement as a mitigation option, and to delete specific reference to the Greenbelt Map. 1. How would the proposal belikely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments. No new development is proposed. The amendments to policy EN-13 would allow another mitigation option for a development's impacts upon wetlands. Policy EN-13 still promotes wetland avoidance before consideration of mitigation options: The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. The substantive policy direction of EN-57 to protect sensitive areas would not change with the deletion of a specific reference to the Greenbelt Map. Consistent with other Environmental Element policies,it is intended that sensitive areas be identified through definitions and criteria,with maps being utilized as a reference. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. See above response. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. See question 1. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. See above response. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. See question 1. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Non-applicable. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 23 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains,or prime farmlands? The proposal would allow for another mitigation option for a development's impacts to wetlands. It would not change the policy direction that avoidance of wetlands is the primary objective. Deletion of the reference to the Greenbelt Map does not alter the primary objective of Policy EN-57 to protect sensitive areas. Code amendments to implement the change to policy EN-13 will need to recognize other policies that require no-net-loss of wetland acreage. The preparation of specific development regulations to implement both policy amendments will require additional environmental review in the future. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The amendments do not change the primary objectives of the policies to protect sensitive areas from impacts of land use development. See questions 1 and 4. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Non-applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services are anticipated. The amendments would not affect the development capacity of the Comprehensive Plan or require additional transportation or public facilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Non-applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-action proposal is not in conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Wetland enhancement is allowed in the State Model Wetland Ordinance,by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, and several other local jurisdictions. Utilization of definitions and criteria to identify sensitive areas, rather than solely relying on a map, is a common approach by other local jurisdictions. Renton currently utilizes this approach in its Wetlands Ordinance. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmenuil Checklist 8/21/97 Page 24 SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: gZe-s74-, Name Printed: 1 , Date Submitted: - 02 S -7 CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 25 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-6 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to CPA-6 which proposes minor text amendments to the City's Transportation Concurrency Management System. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The proposal is primarily procedural. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. See above response. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish, or marine life? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The proposal is primarily procedural. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. See above response. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This is a legislative non-project action which will not affect energy resources. The proposal is primarily procedural. Amendments to Transportation Element regarding concurrency should have little or no bearing on energy resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Non-applicable. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The proposal is primarily procedural. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed. The proposal is primarily procedural. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 26 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No impacts have been identified or are anticipated as a consequence of these non-project transportation related text amendments. Also,these changes will be consistent with other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The purpose of transportation concurrency is to ensure that facilities are in place at the time of development to meet demand.:No impacts to transportation or public services are anticipated. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Non-applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-action proposal is not in conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act,and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned,.state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. • Proponent: Name Printed: MI Gh,ce21 PIA ez14`.,L Date Submitted: ��a �' CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmr., l Checklist 8/21/97 Page 27 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-7 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to CPA-7 which evaluates proposed policy changes in the Employment Area-Valley which would allow Commercial Arterial Zoning. 1.- How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to-water;:emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan policy amendments since no new development is proposed. At the time new development does occur, whether in response to these amendments or existing land use policies,it will have to,unless exempt, comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. The change from industrial-or office uses to - commercial uses may result in impacts to water resources or in a greater potential for hazardous substances, although.these impacts are not anticipated to be greater than is possible under current land use allowances. Commercial uses may result in higher trip rates which may result in air emissions or noise. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable to the non-project action. On a site-specific basis the applicability of commute trip reduction regulations,transportation concurrency requirements,noise level regulations, aquifer protection requirements, surface water and erosion control requirements will be evaluated. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? The area is currently urban in character. The transition from industrial or office uses to commercial uses is not anticipated to result in impacts to these resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. See above response. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Subsequent development that may or may not occur as a result of these legislative changes could have impacts on energy resources but these are not believed to be substantial. Any subsequent project development that is not exempt under SEPA will be required to prepare an environmental checklist, or EIS,that will presumably disclose such impacts,if any. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed since no actions are being taken to deplete energy or natural resources at this time as a consequence of these legislative non-project CPA's. In fact,the Growth Management Act,which the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with, endeavors to conserve energy and natural resources by controlling and channeling growth so as to conserve natural resources including energy. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmc,.sl Checklist 8/21/97 Page 28 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? The subject CPA's are not anticipated to adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. The subject area is generally urban in character. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline.use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The current Comprehensive Plan designation would not change,but the zoning could change from Commercial Office and Medium Industrial to Commercial Arterial. With the CA zone,it is also possible to apply the Automall Overlay zoning. Instead of a pattern of industrial and office uses, uses could transition to commercial or auto uses. Some existing uses could be made nonconforming. With the proposed policy change, Commercial Arterial zoning would be compatible with the Employment Area Valley designation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: :.With the,proposed policy,change; Commercial Arterial zoning:would.be:compatible with the .. - ..Employment Area-Valley designation. Legal nonconforming uses could continue under the City -- zoning regulations,and possibly apply for a-conditional use permit for the nonconforming use for greater security to continue the operation. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan policy amendments since no new development is proposed. At the time new development does occur, whether in response to these amendments or existing land use policies,it will have to,unless exempt, comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. On a site specific basis, changes to commercial uses may result in higher trip generation than industrial or office uses. Currently,public services and utilities are available in the subject area. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: On a site-specific basis the applicability of commute trip reduction regulations,transportation and public service concurrency requirements will be evaluated. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA proposals are not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to be in with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environm.- Ll Checklist 8/21/97 Page 29 • SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: __P2G Name Printed: AA.;& ) - ) ,:zcPy-ep Date Submitted: 5 — C CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmr- .1:1 Checklist } 8/21/97 Page 30 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-8 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to CPA-8 which proposes minor policy and regulation amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The amendments are primarily procedural and/or intended to result in greater consistency between the SMP and State law, City zoning requirements,and other City regulations. No change in the SMP environment designations is proposed. A proposed amendment to the uses allowed in the Conservancy environment would be to allow necessary roads. New roads in the areas designated Conservancy could impact the subject resources by increasing'impervious surfaces and allowing for vehicular traffic that could impact air,noise,and non-point water pollution. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Non-applicable to the non-project action.. At the time new development does occur,it will have to, unless exempt,comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. Future development in the shoreline area,including roads will have to comply with City regulations addressing stonn water control and biofiltration.The existing SMP design requirements for roads include that roadways should be limited and designed in environmentally sensitive ways. Roads would require a shoreline substantial development permit, and environmental review. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish, or marine life? The amendments are primarily procedural and/or intended to result in greater consistency between the SMP and-State law, City zoning requirements,and other City regulations. No change in the SMP environment designations is proposed. A proposed amendment to the uses allowed in the Conservancy environment would be to allow necessary roads. New roads in the areas designated Conservancy could impact the subject resources by disturbing vegetation,increasing impervious surfaces and allowing for vehicular traffic that could impact air,noise,and non-point water pollution. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish,or marine life are: Non-applicable to the non-project action. At the time new development does occur,it will have to, unless exempt,comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. Future development in the shoreline area,including roads will have to comply with City regulations addressing storm water control and biofiltration. The existing SMP design requirements for roads include that roadways should be limited and designed in environmentally sensitive ways. Roads would require a shoreline substantial development permit, and environmental review. Other applicable regulations include the City's Land Clearing and Tree Cutting ordinance. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? These proposed CPA is a legislative non-project action which will not affect energy resources. Subsequent development that may or may not occur as a result of these legislative changes could have impacts on energy resources but these are not believed to be substantial. Any subsequent project CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environm , • 1 Checklist 8/21/97 Page 31 development that is not exempt under SEPA will be required to prepare an environmental checklist, or EIS,that will presumably disclose such impacts,if any. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: • Non-applicable. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? The amendments are primarily procedural and/or intended to result in greater consistency between the SMP and State law, City zoning requirements,and other City regulations. No change in the SMP environment designations is proposed. A proposed amendment to the uses allowed in the _ Conservancy environment would be to allow necessary roads. New roads in the areas designated Conservancy could impact the subject resources such as habitat,wetlands,and flood plains. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Non-applicable to the non-project action. At the time new development does occur, it will have to, unless exempt, comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. The existing SMP design requirements for roads include that roadways should be limited and designed in environmentally sensitive ways. Roads would require a shoreline substantial'development permit, and environmental review. Other applicable regulations include the City's Land Clearing and Tree Cutting ordinance, Wetlands Ordinance, Flood Hazard regulations, storm water, erosion control and biofiltration requirements, and others. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The amendments are primarily procedural and/or intended to result in greater consistency between the SMP and State law, City zoning requirements,and other City regulations. No change in the SMP environment designations is proposed. A proposed amendment to the uses allowed in the Conservancy environment would be to allow necessary roads. New roads will require site-specific environmental review and compliance with SMP policies and standards as well as other ordinances. No impacts to other Comprehensive Plan Elements are anticipated. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No impacts have been identified or are anticipated as a consequence of the proposed amendments. Proposed amendments will be consistent with other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendments would not change the environment designations of the SMP. Necessary roads would be a new use allowance in the Conservancy designation. The development of specific road and utility projects would need to be in compliance with the Transportation and Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as implementing regulations. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmraaaal Checklist 8/21/97 Page 32 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities are met in a timely manner for new development. New utilities and roads would require compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies, SMP policies and standards,and other City codes. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA proposal is not in conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to be compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: L-jV °4" Name Printed: A1aI Of !'lQ±4 ✓'dbrwv. Date Submitted: S � ? ]� CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environm - A Checklist — 8/21/97 Page 33 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA-9 (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. NOTE: ,The following responses on this Supplemental.Sheet are tailored to CPA-9 which would amend annexation policies to allow annexations less than 10 acres in size. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;.emissions to air;..production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There should be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan text amendments since no new development is proposed. At the time new development does occur, whether in response to these amendments or existing land use policies,it will have to,unless exempt, comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. The change in annexation policies would not affect the - land uses proposed for the Potential Annexation Area as designated on:the.Comprehensive'Plan Land Use Map. Proposed measures to,avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. See above response. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? There should-be no change in any of these areas as a result of these proposed comprehensive plan amendments since no new development is proposed.The change in annexation policies would not affect the land uses proposed for the Potential Annexation Area as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish, or marine life are: • Not applicable. See above response. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This proposed CPA is a legislative non-project action which will not affect energy resources.The change in annexation policies would not affect the land uses proposed for the Potential Annexation Area as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Subsequent development that may or may not occur as a result of these legislative changes could have impacts on energy resources but these are not believed to be substantial. Any subsequent project development that is not exempt under SEPA will be required to prepare an environmental checklist,or EIS,that will presumably disclose such impacts,if any. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Proposed policy amendments,pertaining to the minimum size for annexations, should not impact energy and natural resources in a negative way. In fact,the Growth Management Act,which the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with,endeavors to conserve energy and natural resources by controlling and channeling growth so as to conserve natural resources including energy. CPASEPA.DOC • City of Renton Environmc.nel Checklist 8/21/97 Page 34 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? The subject CPA,is not anticipated to adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. The change in annexation policies would not affect the land uses proposed for the Potential Annexation Area as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. These proposed CPA is considered to be a non-project action. Since new - development is not proposed now, specific project related impacts will need to be assessed,at the time of development and appropriate mitigation measures drawn up as necessary. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed changes in annexation policy are not anticipated to substantially alter existing land use and shoreline development patterns. The policy amendment would not the proposed land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for Potential Annexation Areas. Possible changes to annexation policy will not necessarily increase the amount of land annexed,to the.City but rather the size of future annexations. The annexation process provides sufficient opportunity to expand or reject annexation proposals.that are clearly inappropriate in terms of:size.or:the city boundaries that would be created. Additionally, other Comprehensive Plan policies provide criteria for the review of annexations to ensure that boundaries are logical and that annexations further the City's interests. Annexation proposals must also be sufficiently:consistent with the objectives of the Boundary Review Board. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No impacts have been identified or are anticipated as a consequence of the proposed policy amendments. Proposed amendments will be consistent with other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Changes to annexation policies would not affect the City's concurrency requirements or development standards that future development in annexed areas would need to comply with. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities are met in a timely manner. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA proposal is not in conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to be compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 35 SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in, reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: C Name Printed: MV G)i Ce/ f Date Submitted: o�,.5 ` 7 CPASEPA.DOC RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF ReNTON CITY OF RENTON Comment Letters For: Proposed Shoreline Master Program Amendments Received by August 6, 1997 • ST=` PLANNING DIVISION <. =p CITY OF PFWON 4' r' MAY 2 71997 STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. •• Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000 May 23, 1997 • Lisa Grueter - City of Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms. Grueter: Re: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Responses in italics below • • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your shoreline master program(SMP) amendment. In part because a comprehensive rewrite is planned in the near future,I have tried to review the document in a limited context. However,I am compelled to make some suggestions that may be outside the intended scope of this amendment. Some of • these suggestions may be easily incorporated,others you may wish to postpone. The • comments here,or the lack of,do not in any way limit future comments or imply approval of any portion of the existing or proposed master program language. . Reviewed context of wor RCW 90.58.030 has specific definitions for the terms"shorelines","shorelands", and tried to char "shorelines of the state",and"shorelines of state-wide significance". In general appropriately. Chang throughout the document,you have chosen to use"shorelands"to replace the old phrased "shorelines of jurisdiction term"wetlands". The proper term to use in order to include all of the City's City" to "shorelines of i jurisdictional authority would be"shorelines of the state". Less precise terms that are State." sometimes used to convey the same meaning are"shoreline jurisdiction","the state's shorelines",or"the city's shorelines". Obviously,depending on where it is used,the importance of applying the proper term can be critical. Changed to OIIITAI References should be made from the OHWM instead of "water's edge" throughout the ..— measurement of setbacks. document. Part of Sensitive Ar Setbacks & buffers are critical in protecting habitat and preserving aesthetic qualities of Ordinance discussion. 1 the state's shorelines. The Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Ecology can be addressed in jar (department) have suggested guidelines which are based on "best available science" in update of SMP. protecting wetlands,streams,rivers,and lakes. • Lisa Grueter • May 23, 1997 Page 2 RCW 36.70A.172 Critical areas—Designation and protection--Best available science to be used. (1)In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter,counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition,counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. (2)If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision,a growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas. In general,at a minimum,anything less than fifty feet is of no value in this regard. Language'should be include in your SMP,consistent with your Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)and Comprehensive Plan,that meet state guidelines. Setbacks need to be established for all new development consistent with these buffers. When possible, existing development should be encouraged to create buffers where they do not exist. Permitted1uses by environment should be should be established. This can easily be done in a matrix format. Along with the allowed use,the type of permit required can be Wait for larger S update. indicated. • Suggested changes by page number or section are: Sentence clanfie Pg.2,last paragraph-Appeals can be made by anyone,not just the Development • Services Division. 2.01 -Here and elsewhere in the SMP,"substantial development"should be Reviewed context I and ma: replaced by"shoreline"in order to include all three types of permits. appropriate changes. 2.09.02-RCW 90.58.180 clarifies that the appeal period is 21 days from"the date of filing". Appeals are made to the shorelands hearings board. Within seven days Changes made. of the appeal,the department and attorney general must get copies of the appeal._ 2.10.01 -WAC 173-27-080(3)sets the daily penalty at up to one thousand dollar] Changes made. a day. 3.02-This section is in reference to"shorelines of state-wide significance". J Changes made. 3.04-This section should include the jurisdiction chosen by the City as being two Changes made to definition feet from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)or floodway.... as Propose adding StE definition of floodway, win in most cases would be 1, restrictive than FEi\. definition because ni, • regulated water bodies hc. Lisa Grueter . well-defined channels. May 23, 1997 determine what area is utu Page 3 the jurisdiction of the SA, the measurement will be 2 feet from the OHWM opposed to the entire floodplain. It should be made clear which floodway floodwcry, whichever definition is being used,the department's or FEMA's. greater. 4.07.02 B.-Although defined loosely in Section 9,Definitions,"unique and Address in Sensitive Are fragile areas"need to be clearly defined and delineated. Their connection to Ordinance, and waitj critical areas needs to be explained. Ideally,the term should be replaced by larger SMP Update. "critical areas"and the CAO should be adopted by reference or incorporated directly into the SMP. Residential development,if allowed,should be required to • mitigate in critical areas. Wait for larger SMP Updc to address boat launching. 7.03 -Boat-launching ramps should be discouraged(better yet prohibited)from single family residences. Need for variance clarifnE Address other critical at 7.0.05.02- It should be made clear that a reduction of the setback is through a issues in Sensitive Are shoreline variance. The setback distance of 50 feet should be changed to reflect Ordinance and larger SA the rating of the stream or wetland. For commercial uses that are not water- update. related,public access or habitat restoration should be greater than water-related uses. 7.07.01 A.- The same idea for public access/restoration as above should be Wait for larger SMP update incorporated. Wait for larger SMP update 7.07.02-This sentence should be replaced with language consistent with a commercial structure setback. Wait for larger SMP update 7.11.01 -Public parking needs setbacks from the OHWM. .J. Wait for !anger SAfP upd, 7.12.02 B. -How many people"need"a dock or pier? The criteria for need to address need for docks. should be established or the sentence removed. Wait for larger'SUP itpd, 7.12.08 A. -Although it is probably too late in the case of Lake Washington, to clarify preference of doc ideally floats and buoys should be"encouraged and preferred"over"may be versus floats and buoys. allowed". The"need"for a dock then would be applied and make sense. 11 Need for variance clarified. 7.12.05 - Should be made clear if a shoreline variance is needed. Changes made to 7.14.02-In order to not imply"not normally allowed",the sentence should say prohibited. that floating residences are prohibited. • L Address in Sensitive Ar 7.16.03 - Stronger language needs to be included that protects habitat. Ordinance, and ,Moir larger SMP Update. , • • JL ., -Lisa Grueter_ � . . . . , .. -..,. ,. _, ., ... _ l . ... � �, ,.. _ .. .a. .. ... .., . _. _;.,. ... May 23, 1997 _. _ % . _ ' :; ;•. .Page 4 . ; . . .. . .. . . WAC cited. 8.02-This section should site WAC 173-27-170 for the criteria in satisfying a variance. WAC cited. 8.03 -This section should site WAC.173 27-160 for the criteria in satisfying a conditional use. I 1• WAC cited. 8.04 A. -WAC 173-27-130 needs to be incorporated here. Definition of"should"add: Section 9,first paragraph-Include"should". J ' • Definition of"baler"adde Include"BUFFER: A parcel or strip of and that is designed and designated to permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic or wetland site from upland impacts,to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access." Definition of "setbac Include"SETBACK: A required open space,specified in shoreline master added. programs,measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark." _ 9.07-Change to: "BULKHEAD: A vertical wall constructed of rock,concrete, "Definition of "bulkhea timber,sheet steel,gabions,or patent system materials. Rock bulkheads are often . changed. termed"vertical rock walls." Seawalls are similar to bulkheads but more robustly constructed." Definition chan I ed. 9.35 -Do not limit this to the City of Renton so as not to conflict with the RCW 90.58 definition. Changed to Shorelines of. Include the definition for"Shorelands of the state"and"shorelands". State. Have shorelands de, 9.40-See RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). Modified definition substantial development. 9.34-This needs to be limited to the City's choice of jurisdiction. .1 See comment at top of Page Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment on the document. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, -74)- Robert J. Fritze Shorelands and Water Resources RF:rf a J •I • 1 QUESTIONS REGARDING SMP PERMIT PROCESS FORWARDED TO STATE DOE • - 1. Section 2.02.06. Based upon the intent of Regulatory Reform legislation to not allow more than one open record.public hearing for 'a project, we are showing no appeal opportunity for shoreline substantial development permits before the City. Appeals would go to the Shorelines Hearing • Board. Can we offer administrative recourse before a permit is appealed to the Shorelines Hearing Board because each potential hearing would occur with a different governmental agency? 2. Section 2.05.02. The two year permit life requirement based upon construction commencement reflects State law. Has there been an interpretation as to what "construction commencement" means? Is it more than preliminary site work such as staking foundations? 3. Section 2.05.04 and 2.05.05. These sections are also based upon State law. Is the effective date of a permit only defined to establish the life of a shoreline permit? Is the effective date supposed to be related to the date of filing which determines when we can issue permits? DOE responses: 1. Bob Fritzen felt this was a local decision, and was not sure about whether a single hearing is the limit where two different governmental agencies are involved. He suggested we stick with our Attorney's approach (which is to not have appeals of substantial development permits at the City before appeals travel to the Shorelines Hearing Board). 2.. Old WAC language (no longer in effect) used to define substantial progress which is similar to commencement of construction. Substantial progress included clearing, grading, and laying of major utilities. Bob thought we could add the old language. Laureen Nicolay would rather we say that construction commencements means that foundation inspections should be completed within two years of issuing a shoreline permit. 3. The date of filing determines the beginning of the 21-day appeal period. The effective date is defined only to establish the life of the permit, and was intended to provide flexibility. If the City issues its shoreline permit first, and it takes the applicant two years to get the other Federal or State permits needed, the five year time clock would begin when all permits from all agencies are received. The applicant has to inform the City of the other Federal or State permits before we issue the shoreline permit. Otherwise the effective date begins after the close of the 21-day appeal period. THREQUST.DOC\ r , • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1997 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Rebecca Lind%tn� STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(ext. 5578) SUBJECT: Boeing Comments Regarding Amendment#8- Shoreline Master Program Amendments Attached is a copy of The Boeing Company's formal letter providing comments regarding the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Amendments. The first five comments were summarized in a memo to you provided on July 30, 1997. The sixth comment is new regarding a policy in the Public Access section of the `SMP. Staff has proposed minor changes in Section 2 Procedures in response to the comments. The newly revised sections are attached. Responses to the comments are provided below: Response to Comment 1 The City received preliminary comments from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) in May 1997 that in Section 2.01 and elsewhere that the term "substantial development" should be replaced by "shoreline" in order to include all three types of permits (shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline variance permits, and shoreline conditional use permits). Based on this the SMP amendment package presented to the Planning Commission changes the references as needed. Based upon comments from The Boeing Company, a review of terminology was made to determine if the appropriate terms are used. The title of Section 2.02 is now changed to say "Shoreline Permits" instead of "Substantial Development Permits" since the provisions include procedures for applications,notices, bonds and other items that apply to all three types of shoreline permits. Response to Comment 2 The comment is noted. Section 2.05.O1B has been clarified to indicate that if standard permit expiration dates are not used, the City shall establish other appropriate expiration dates. The section references in subsection C have also been corrected. Response to Comment 3 The comment is noted. Section 2.05.04 has been clarified regarding the effective date of permits. Amendments to the State Shoreline Management Act, clarifying the effective date of a permit, recently were enacted and became effective on July 27, 1997. The new language from RCW 90.58.143(4) has been incorporated. t I II August 5, 1997 Page 2 Response to Comment 4 • - The comment is noted. Section 2.05.05 has been modified with a new paragraph B to reference _:..language.from.the,State Shoreline Management regarding construction.authorization after,review of .•.. :' an appeal by:the Shoreline Hearings Board..:'. - ::<<_ . • Response to Comment 5 The intent of Section 2.08 is provide guidance regarding recision of permits. Section 2.08.04 has been modified to strike the words "or modified"in the first sentence. Response to Comment 6 To change the policy or definition of high-rise is a major policy decision which would be better addressed at the time the City prepares its Shoreline Master Program Update which will be required when th'e State DOE prepares new Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. New guidelines are expected in 1998. It should be noted that the policy restricting high-rise construction (defined as structures greater than 75 feet in height) in the shoreline was in place at the time of the Boeing Plant Production Expansion 1989-19'90 EIS. Other portions of the Boeing planned expansion have been completed,but as noted in f The Boeing Company letter, plans for the high bay assembly building are on hold. Based upon information in the Draft EIS, a small portion of the proposed building would lie within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction near Lake Washington. If construction plans are submitted, the applicability of City regulations will be determined as well as the suitability of any existing environmental documentation. BNGRES.DOC FROr1 c 206 234 2255 206 234 22SS 1597.09-0S 09: 10 41716 r.v..;-c• Thn Booing Compony Fax' Leader No.of Pages �yyyToo�day':Date Oran. Nn To / / 1� [ I roe From ; J ]/ `JI \ Madstop Cc mpLarry �1 p1 t Company " `Vl� Location Tt-• W.—/ 1K 3 Location ciao run Fan No. _ Telep hone No `Fax No. !Telephone No. O%S_// - Comments- - Original Disooahon' Destroy' ❑Re7urn ❑Call for pickup • Tlx:L3ocin9 Compony P.O.Box 3707 Seattle.WA 98124-2207 August 5, 1997 Ms. Lisa Greeter Planning Department . _ City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 • ® &ZdV Subject: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Dear Ms- Grueter: • The Boeing Company would like to thank you for the opportunity to • review your proposed Shoreline Master Program Amendment. It was • gracious of you to allow.us to comment before the document is released for public review and comment. Upon review of the document, we support the content and direction of this document. The following are some sections that may need clarification. 1- Throughout the document reference is made to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit but it is referred to as a "shoreline permit" and a "substantial development permit". The actual name of this permit should be used consistently throughout the document. 2. Section 2.05.0] B. Applicability and Modification at Time of Approval. The paragraph states "The Development Services may adopt time limits " . WAC 36.70E states that specific time limits must be adopted. I understand that you were referring to less restrictive time limits. Perhaps this paragraph could be restructured to clearly state that intent. 3. Section 2.05.06 Effective Date. The last sentence refers to "the expiration of a permit shall be based on the shoreline permit". State and Federal peiulits are separate from local jurisdictional permits with the expiration date set by the issuing agency. I understand the intent of this paragraph is to remind the applicant to coordinate with, the city concerning other permit time limits. Perhaps the section could be reworded to clarify this intent FROM :206 234 2255 206 234 22SS 1997,08-05 09: 11 f716 Page 2 4. Section 2.065.0305 Review Period - Construction Authorization. This section's language could give the impression that construction could not begin until all `ireview proceedings" are completed:Currently, r_. .,:. ., s:- .... . t.. ,..construction can.now:;be in if the..>ShorelmesrHear ngs.Bo,ard.bas rgied; -favorably towards a project. Perhaps this section could-b.e-reworded:to. reflect this intent. • 5. Section 2.098.04 Public Hearing. In this section it is stated that a AlsrigE7iW hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required if a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is "modified", even if a hearing was not necessary to obtain the permit. If a project is modified substantially, it should go back through environmental review. Why is the Hearing Examiner involved ? The term "modified" should be dropped or a specific definition of"modified" should be included. If a definition of "modified" is included.wording should reflect a specific threshold that would require a further Environmental Review or a hearing. • 6. Section 4.04.02 Public Access Element paragraph I. "High - rise structures on the shoreline shall be prohibited". This paragraph should address existing industrial development. The Boeing Company, in our 1989-1990 Expansion E.I.S. proposed to build a high bay assembly building within 200.feet of the shoreline. Boeing paid mitigation to the city to do so. Plans are still on hold to construct this building. Would this paragraph prevent Boeing, or any other company in a similar situation, from building in an industrial zone. Perhaps a separate paragraph on industrially zoned areas should be included. Thank you for your consideration and attention in reviewing our comments. If you have any questions as to the content of these comments please call me at 965-1170. Paul B. rant Senior Environmental Planner Facilities Central Region The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 N.S. 63-01 Seattle, Washington 08124-2207 . SECTION 2. PROCEDURES 2.01 INFORMATION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING APPLICATION Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from a shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with the building and Zoning Department ::.,;> Development:Services Division::This,will;enable the applicant tG become familiar with-the • requirements of this Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement procedures. I2.02 SUBSTANTIAL DEVE OPMENT SHORELINE PERMITS 2.02.01 Application Forms and Fees No substantial development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a " shoreline permit" from the Department Development Services Division. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms, and in-a-reviewed according to procedures prescribed by the Building—and Zoning Department Development Services Division. Application forms may be revised from time-to-time by the Development Services Division without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to obtain provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified. Applications shall be made by the property owner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property and, except for applications filed by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agencies, shall be accompanied by a receipt issued by the Finance Department showing payment of the applicable fees which are established by the fee schedule ordinance. 2.02.02 Publishing Notice and Posting consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where said pplicant in a newspaper of affect the environment of suchapplicant shall bear the cost of publication. Three (3) copies of the a notice of development application shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred (300) feet thereof. The notice of development application shall also be mailed to property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the subject property. The required contents of the notice of development application are detailed in Section 4-36- 1 8(B) of the Renton Municipal Code. Each such notice of development application shall include a statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Development Services Division with regard to said application may do so in writing to that Department Division, and persons interested in the Building and Zoning Department' Development Services Division's action on an application for a permit may submit their views in writing 8/5/97 � I 2.04.02 Additional Information The Development Services Division may require an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the City's Environmental Review Committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to ...,,,::. :.-granting,a permit,.when the:.State..Environmental,Poli,cy:Act,of 1971,.would,require such a....: Statement. 2.04.03 Procedural Amendments In addition to the criteria herein labove set forth in this Section, the Planning/Building/Public Works Department may from time-to-time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology• 2.05 APPLICATION TO THE PERMIT SYSTEM O DEVE r1DMENT i INDERTAKEN PRIO7 TO JUNE 1, 1971 2.05.01 Permit Required ,1 of the City, prior to June 1, 1971, A. Whoro tho activity was unlawful prior to June 1, 1971. B. Whoro there has been an unreasonable period of dormancy in the project between its inccption and June 1, 1971. C. Where the development is i not completed prior to June 1, 1973. D. Where development occurred prior to June 1, 1971, on a shoreline and continued onto a different lake, river or tributary after June 1, 1971, a permit shall be 2.05.02 Phasinq � I d 2.065 TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE PERMITS 2.05.01 Applicability and Modification at Time of Approval A. The time requirements of Section 2.05 shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized under this Program. B. If it is determined that standard time requirements of Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 should not be applied, the Development Services Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a substantial development permit upon a finding 8/5/97 I l- of good .cause, based on the requirements and circumstances. of..the project • • proposed and consistent'with the policy and provisions of this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143. If it is determined that standard time requirements of Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a conditional use or variance permit. :..,. .: "Good cause" means that the time limits established.are reasonably related to_the : :;; ;; r. , :>::.:,.:.;;. time actually. necessary to perform the developmenton..the:_ground,and,complete the project that is being permitted. C. Where specific provisions are not included to establish time limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology, the time limits in Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 apply. D. Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 below. 2.065.0402 Construction Commencement A. Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and section 2.05.01 above, Gconstruction activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years by the City of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate. If such progress has not been made, and a new permit shall be necessary. 14 060(4)3 However, the Development Services Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. B. Construction activities or commencement of construction referenced in subsection A means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two vear period. 2.065.0203 Construction Completion A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years; after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and Section 2.05.01 above. provided, however, that a If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit has been grante has not been completed within fire (5) years after the—approval ^ beperm;t, the Building and Zoning Department Development Services Division shall, upon such expiration, review the permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one (1) year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate e4 however, that no permit shall—bc extended unless the applicant has requested &Geh 2)4 Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant's 8/5/97 • responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. .: 2.05.04' Effective Date . For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit,l or shoreline variance permit -shall be the date of "filing-as provided in ROW _',ras'.__. ..1;'•.77i.1. .. i:�-'.e S; -, _ •! w-t.ro3 Y; c- xt. ......, -. ._ .. `290.58.140(6). rThe permittime periodS in Sections 2.05.02and 2.05.0. doGdot include the time during which a use-or-activity'was not actually pursued due-to the-pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions,- or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the devel"opment to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. B. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Development Services Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit - or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline permit or the provisions of this section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the effective date of the shoreline permit. C. The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits specified in the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance, Chapter 4-36 of the Renton Municipal Code. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11)(b), or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty-one (21) days of the last day of the comment period specified in Section 2.02.02. 2.065.03051 Review Period - Construction;Authorization A. No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until thirty-(30) twenty-one (21) days from the date ` and granting of the permit was filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as wgre initiated within the thirty (30) twenty-one (21) days of the date of final approival filing by the City of Renton. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. B. If the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is appealed to the Shorelines Hearing Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved the granting of the permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shorelines Hearings Board decision is filed, construction authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods, and other provisions of RCW 90.58.140(5)(b). 2.065.0406 Transferability of Permit If a parcel which has a valid substantial development shoreline permit is sold to anoti er person or firm, such permit may be transferred to the new owner ; 8/5/97 I-= • y . 2.076 RULINGS TO STATE • - Any ruling on an application for a-substantial development permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to.the: applicant,.be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General b the ��Trling and Zoning Department y - - - Development Services Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW'90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. 2.087 ENFORCEMENT All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the DepartmentDevelopment Services Division. For such purposes, the Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer. 2.098 RESCISSION OF PERMITS 2.098.01 Non-compliance with Permit Any 'shoreline permit issued by the City under the terms of this Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the B,gilding and Zoning Department Development Services Division of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit.—l-f-the holder--of-theme m ooses e hali-be entitled-to-a-hearing-before-the-Land-Use-Flearing-Examiner,- 2.098.02 Notice of Non-compliance Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall be initiated by serving written notice of non-compliance on the permittee, which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law. 2.098.03 Posting In addition to such notice, the Building and Zoning Department Development Services Division shall cause to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one (1) posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit. - 2.098.04 Public Hearing Before any such permit can be rescinded or modified, a public hearing may shall be held at the ttee's written request by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. Such written of notice upon permittee. Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance with Section 4-36-8(D) of the Renton Municipal Code. 18/5/97 2.098.05 Final Decision The decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision of the City on all rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Dep.artme9t of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City. 2.4809 'APPEALS .. ._. 2.09.01 Shorelines Hearing Board 'Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit, a conditional use permit and/or la variance on shorelines of the City State which are regulated by the City, or by the rescinding of a. permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the State of Washington Shorelines Hearing Board. the Shorelines Hearings Board 2.09.02 I Filing Appeals are made by filing a raquest with the Shorelines Hearings Board for the same within thirty (30) twenty one (21) days of receipt of the final order and the date the shoreline permit was filed. Within seven (7) days of filing a petition for review withlI the 'Board, the petitioner shall setae copies of such request with F the Department of Ecology and the;Attorney General's office as provided in the Shorelines Management Act of 1971 RCW 90.58.180. A copy of any such ap p eal notice shall likewise be filed with the ent Development Services Division and the City Clerk of the City of Renton. 2.09.03 'Limited Utility Extensions and Priotective Bulkheads - Appeals Appeals of substantial development permits, for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to prote"ct a single family residence and its;appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion, shalt be finally determined by the legislative authority within thirty days. 2.1410 PENALTIES 2.11-0.01 Prosecution ;Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the Shor line ;Management Act of 1971, shall,be punishable under conviction by a fine not exceeding ,fivo hundred ($500) one thousand ($1,000) dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day's violation hall constitute a separate punishable offense. 2.140.02 'Injunction 'The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as are neces ary Ito insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State withinunder the dty's jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program Ior the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of 'Ithis 'Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 8/5/97 l; RECEIVED A'Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA ,L AUG 2 6 _997 AI#: fl • k• DEVFLnap�ENT PL fJNING CITY OF ReiurOA Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of Dept./Div/Board.. Planning and Technical Services March 24, 1997 Staff Contact Rebecca Lind(ext. 6188) Agenda Status Consent. X Subject: Public Hearing... City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 1997 Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business (! ' Issue Paper Study Sessions Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Simultaneous referral of the 1997 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Legal Dept. X Amendments to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Finance Dept. Development Committee. Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... NA Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted NA Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. Summary of Action: The 1997 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments include 11 Text Amendments and 2 Map Amendments. • . Capital Facilities Element Updates • 1)Amendments to match the Element to the current CIP and updated information. • Transportation Element Updates 1)Implementation for Concurrency ordinance. 2)Amendments to match the Element to the current TIP and updated information. 3)Implementation of parking/access study. 4) Update the Airport Master Plan sections • Land Use Element Updates 1)Residential Land Use Policies modifications in response to density workshops. 2) Municipal Facilities Policies updates'to modify policies locating facilities in the downtown. 3) Annexation Policies modification to review policy direction for compliance with City Council objectives, including the limitation on annexation size to a 10 acre minimum area. 4)Re-evaluation of Employment Area Valley north of I-405 for the appropriateness of CA designations especially Automall expansion in this area. 5)Re-evaluation of the Employment Area- Office and Commercial Designation for possible combination (referred from 1996)and for designation of hotel development in Employment Area Office. 6)Implementation of parking/access study. • Environmental Element Updates 1) Environmental Policies updates to coordinate with amendments to the sensitive areas ordinances • Map Amendments 1)Evaluation of Commercial Arterial off of Martin Luther King Way(Council referred in 1996) 2)Amendments to the Single Family Designation in the May Valley Prezone Phase II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer the applications to the Planning Commission Refer the applications to the Planning and Development Committee pending Planning Commission review and recommendation. amendsagendbV CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 1997 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,President City Council Members VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator 6- 2 Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Mike Kattermann(ext 6190) SUBJECT: 1997 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUE: Both the text and map amendments are proposed for review during the 1997 Comprehensive Plan Review cycle. Text amendments are proposed in the Capital Facilities, Transportation, Environmental, and Land Use Elements of the Plan. Two map amendments are proposed. The Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-5 requires amendments to be submitted by the Mayor, Planning Commission, City Council or private parties during the first quarter of each year. This action only addresses City initiated amendments. Private amendments will be initiated individually by application and will proceed directly to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: • Capital Facilities Element updates to the CIP (1) This amendment will update the existing Element by monitoring the achievements of the first two years of the plan and providing any modifications that need to be made to correlate the Element with the adopted Capital Improvement Plan. • Transportation Element Updates (4) This amendment will make minor text modifications needed to implement Renton's Concurrency ordinance and make needed modifications to reflect the current Transportation Improvement Plan. It will also look at policy modifications needed to implement changes to parking and access standards. Updates to the portions of the Element addressing the Airport Master Plan will also be included. • Land Use Element Updates (6) A group of amendments will be processed in 1997 to address the following seven issues: 1. Modifications will be made to the Residential Land Use Policies in response to density issues. 2. New text will be developed for the Municipal Facilities Policies to modify the existing policy stating that facilities should be located in the downtown. This amendment is needed for the eventual re-location of the Municipal Building in the Employment Area-Office designation. 3. Annexation policy amendments will review the current policy direction for compliance with City March 17, 1997 Page2 Council objectives. The existing policy limiting annexations to a 10 acre minimum area will be reviewed. 4. The Employment Area Valley designation north of I-405 will be evaluated for the appropriateness of CA designations. This amendment will evaluate policy language in the Employment Area Valley Designation which limits the designation of Commercial Arterial zoning north of I-405 along Grady Way. As part of this review the possibility of Automall expansions in this area will be considered. 5. The possible combination of the Employment Area- Office and Commercial Designation s will be evaluated. This amendment was filed in 1996 and continued at the request of the Planning Commission. An additional issue focuses on designation of hotel development in Employment Area • Office. 6. Policy amendments may be needed to the Land Use Element as well as the Transportation Element to implement changes indicated through review of parking and access standards. Land Use policies governing parking and design will be reviewed to determine if the policies reflect current objectives. • Environmental Element Updates (1) 1. The Environmental Policies will be reviewed to coordinate policy language with the sensitive areas ordinance modifications. • Map Amendments 1. Evaluation of Commercial Arterial off of Martin Luther King Way. At the time of the Black River Quarry Pre-zone, the City Council heard a request to re-designate a Commercial Arterial area along Martin Luther King Blvd. within the City's Potential Annexation Area to Single Family Residential. The Council referred the request to the 1997 Comp Plan review cycle. 2. Amendments to the Single Family Designation in the May Valley Prezone Phase II. The City is reviewing land use and density in this Pre-zone area. A portion of the Pre-zone may be redesignated from Single Family to Rural Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Refer these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. CONCLUSION: This referral initiates the City's review of several Comprehensive Plan amendments. Simultaneous referral of these amendments to both the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee will facilitate the review process for these applications. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the amendments will be scheduled for the Council committee without having to come back on the Council agenda. issuagen/ 1'997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Commercial Arterial on M.L.King, Jr. Way pl - mi - ii =it ------ 'S129t — .• a �� _ E,A & [4IIiIIlt 1111 Ilik' I >1 > —_ Al MIMI 1, Qmq Eh ■1I► III I -_, lb Ira IM �� _� II S 132nd St � — 11 I I 1 L Ilimilttgaillifik4111111 II 1 ti• 41,Z;<,* • ‘ a ill actin I .i .► A Luther King Wa ,� liewg ��-:i:K:i:Miqi:ii:K:::t.,...... %0'4/ktigir m ................................... .,::::: ! ;;;; ; ; I : i i K : i ::$ iwi,,,Iiiiii4411ii -:-::Tiiii-T-iiii:-::::wryirii:ii::-::,:rin:.:.„ ly Lit ' , Iiiii:::.:.:.::!...........-v----•--__.§.....:4,:,..,:::::,...„:„::„:„:„ 4 ,,,,„/ I thst e rillY11" a n,i CIA/ ------ I /1 Commercial Arterial Zone &I II Planning and Technical Services • _ Renton City Limits tiR ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works • O. Dennison, R. MacOnie 0 600 1 ,200 \ F •'r 17 March 1997 ::. >:::>::.:>: .:::.::.>;::;.;..: . . ........ 1 :7,200 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS • 1 May Valley Prezone Phase II RS to RR 1; - I i ' I No Y _ - �E May I/a I ley Rd >>/\-\.H 9 6\ 1! , U • NE 26 c . ...,..:::::::::::,:::.:. .............. ti :„: ; :::;:, :. ::.. :: :;:•: .......... . .. i■ama :. .:.... SE Cot 1 PI I 111111111111 MillP111111 .:K:K:E:Malli Pr 41' II P pitang lmr �i . 4 $, 4EE si al iii ■p sir l��l��!vggirovii!� `��**ieritkiwpw. is••••• •il IN .t. .., db .p Ai __ ,- mimio. 044. ..ihrot„, I, ii- ik di al .= r,, a o 11omil w ,isms 111 i Iv ` /- 'ti vs Ili .::._ Fillited di I > WrIP,4111110 IIIIII -4.4.# itinaliallma "c a IF (7 %I 0 .- 0 4:41*4\141 'T-1' - 1610 0 • " .4. ri I iI mg - - . Y :: ::: :!: Residential Single Family to G~ o Planning andTechnical :Services .. ..•o.•.o Residential Rural eafePlanning/Building/Public Works - Renton City Limits O. Dennison, R. MacOnie 14Nze3 17 March 1997 0 600 1 ,200 1 1 :7,200 RECEIVED (Alf OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA AI#: g.d. AUG 26 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Submitting Date: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: CITY OF RENTON DepvDiviBoard.. Planning and Technical Services April 28, 1997 staff contact- Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... Correspondence.. Shoreline Master Program Amendments/Comprehensive Plan Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Issue Paper Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Simultaneous referral of the Shoreline Master Program Legal Dept X amendments to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Finance Dept Development Committee. Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... n/a Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted n/a Revenue Generated Total Project Budget n/a City Share Total Project.. Summary of Action: The, City has initiated review of necessary Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments in response to recent State legislation, has participated as a case study with the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and has submitted a grant application to begin a larger update of the SMP. Amendments proposed at this time are more minor in nature; the larger SMP update would be addressed in a separate work program. Unlike amendments of other Comprehensive Plan elements, there is an exception in the Growth Management Act to allow amendment of SMP's more than once a year [RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(ii)]. However, due to timing, the SMP amelndments can be reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for continuity. Amendments would be made to policies, development regulations, and permit procedures. This referral would include the SMP amendments on the list of 1997 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments reviewed by the 1City Council on March 24, 1997. Simultaneous referral of these amendments to both the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee will facilitate the review process for this item. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the amendments will be scheduled for the.Council committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer the amendment request to the Planning Commission, and refer the amendment request to the Planning and Development Committee pending Planning Commission review and recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate. H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHORELIN\RFRAGN.DOC ' I CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 16, 1997 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President City Council Members, VIA: ;` Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator 6 g Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190) ' SUBJECT: Referral of Shoreline Master Program Amendments I ISSUE: • Revise the City's Shoreline Master Program to include amendments to policies, development regulations, and permit procedures addressing State and local changes. RECOMMENDATION: • Refer Shoreline Master Program amendments simultaneously to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. • Adopt Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: New State Legislation/Status of Work Efforts Since May 1996, City staff have been considering amending and updating the Renton Shoreline. Master Program (SMP) due to State legislative amendments to the Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act. In ESHB 1724, due to a desire for regulatory reform and integration of the Growth Management Act with the Shoreline Management Act, legislative amendments included: • Streamlining shoreline permit procedures. • Making wetland terminology consistent between the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act. • Clarifying that local SMP goals and policies are an element of local comprehensive plans. April 16, 1997 Page 2 • Clarifying that other shoreline regulations included in an SMP are considered a part of local development regulations. • Requiring new guidelines for updating local SMP's. In 1996, other Shoreline Management Act amendments were passed which affect shoreline permit expiration, permit exemptions, and residential docks. In response to the State legislation, City staff initiated the preparation of minor amendments to the Renton SMP addressing permit procedures, exemptions, definitions, and other similar issues. Regarding amendments that will need to be made to fully integrate the SMP with the Comprehensive • Plan and other development regulations,. in December 1996, Renton was selected by the State Department of Ecology (DOE) as a case study participant to "test" proposed new Master Program Guidelines. Additionally, the City applied for a grant this year to begin the larger update and integration of Renton's SMP which will need to be completed within two years after final adoption of the DOE Master Program Guidelines. Grants will be awarded after the State budget is finalized, and grant funding appears hopeful. On April 4, 1997, the City received a letter from Larry Martin of Foster Pepper &Shefelman, the firm representing the Paul Allen Group. The letter requests proposed amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP). A majority of the requested amendments address conformance with the recent State legislation in terms of permit process, definitions, etc. which staff initiated several months ago. Other suggested amendments would clarify policies and regulations regarding building arrangement, public access, dredging, docks, recreation, and inconsistencies between the SMP and zoning regulations. Many of these issues have already been discussed by staff and DOE during the case study process and during preparation of the grant application. On the whole, the proposed amendments could be included for consideration with the staff work initiated to date addressing minor amendments to the Renton SMP. Summary of Proposed SMP Amendments Based upon the staff work conducted to date, a list of recommended amendments is provided below. As additional review is conducted by staff, elected officials, agencies, and interested citizens, other amendments may be added. 1. Policy Amendments Economic Element - clarifies policy language applicable to individual development sites, that water related development should be located along the shoreline, and all facilities not requiring a water's edge location should be placed inland. This clarification would also be made to associated development regulations. Public Access Element - maintains restrictions on high rises on the shoreline, but removes language addressing high rise structures adjacent to the shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program applies to shorelines. Land adjacent to shorelines would be subject to the height restrictions of the Zoning Code. Circulation Element - maintains language encouraging shoreline roadways to be scenic boulevards, but deletes language that shoreline roadways be restricted to existing rights-of-way. This clarification would also be made to associated development regulations. 5 April 16, 1997 Page 3 Residential Element - deletes specific setback requirements from the policies as this is more appropriately addressed in development standards elsewhere in the SMP and Zoning Code. Also, language encouraging the location of low density development along the shoreline would be removed since the location of various residential districts is determined by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 2. Shoreline Permit Exemptions The Renton Shoreline Master Program has not been kept up-to-date with a growing list of exemptions found in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC). • These include broadening of residential dock exemptions, construction of irrigation systems, watershed restoration projects, projects improving fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, and hazardous substance remedial actions as well as others. 3. Definitions of"Shorelands" and "Wetlands" In 1995, the State Legislature required that shoreline jurisdiction rules be modified to make wetlands terminology consistent between the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, and the Clean Water Act. What used to be termed "wetlands" in the Shoreline Management Act is now called "shorelands," and the definition of"wetland" refers to biological wetlands. 4. Permit Process Changes The procedure for Shoreline Master Program amendments has been revised to reflect the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance which amended various permit processes according to State Regulatory Reform legislation, as well as recent amendments to the Shoreline Management Act regarding permit life, permit extension, construction permit issuance, and appeal periods. 5. Jurisdiction Amendments would clarify throughout that the Shoreline Master Program addresses Shorelines of Statewide Significance (e.g.. Lake Washington) in addition to other regulated shorelines as mandated by the Shoreline Management Act. As another related issue, amendments may address shoreline environment designations on shorelines not yet classified by Renton. 6. Water Related/Water Dependent Developments and Public Access Amendments address the consistency of policies and regulations that encourage water dependent developments, water related developments, or provision of public access by developments in the shoreline. 7. Dredging and Landfill Amendments address dredging and landfilling activities which are performed in accordance with a remedial action plan approved.by State or Federal agencies. April 16, 1997 Page 4 • 8. Docks and Marinas Revisions are proposed to the design criteria,for recreational, commercial, and industrial docks, and address the length of docks and breakwaters associated with marinas. 9. Public and Private Recreation Amendments to public recreation development regulations indicate that accessibility to the water's edge should be provided, with consideration to public safety and natural features. The amendment provides greater consistency with Public Access policies. Private recreation standards allow private recreation open to the public. Amendments would indicate that access would not be contingent upon the development having water dependent or water oriented facilities. Other criteria, regarding minimizing effects on adjacent properties and adequate parking with landscaping, remain. 10. Residential Setbacks Residential setbacks are made consistent with the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance buffer requirements, and the Zoning Code. 11. Springbrook Creek Map Footnote As a condition of acceptance of 1993 SMP amendments, DOE required the preparation of a more detailed environment map of the Springbrook Creek Map. The City prepared the map which was accepted by DOE and is part of the official Renton SMP in DOE headquarters. The map will be included in an appendix. A footnote would be added about the approximate nature of identified wetlands and the use of site-specific analysis to determine applicability of the SMP. Amendment Cycle In compliance with the Growth Management Act, Chapter 4-3 of the Renton Municipal. Code indicates that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be considered no more than once a year. Proposed amendments are to be submitted the first quarter of each year, and the application submittal period closed March 31, 1997. City-initiated amendments were referred to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee and the Planning Commission simultaneously on March 24, 1997. Per 1995 amendments to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480), the goals and policies of the Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are now considered an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Unlike other Comprehensive Plan elements, there is an exception in the Growth Management Act to allow amendment of SMP's more than once a year (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(ii)). Given the status of efforts to prepare limited SMP revisions at this time, the SMP amendments can be reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for continuity. It should be noted that there are some differences in terms of State coordination, review and approval of SMP amendments as the State has the authority for final approval of SMP's and their amendment. However, for the most part, SMP amendments can be considered by the City along with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments. April 16, 1997 Page 5 CONCLUSION: The City has initiated review of necessary SMP amendments in response to recent State legislation, has participated as a case study with DOE, and has submitted a grant application to begin a larger update of the SMP. There is an exception in the Growth Management Act to allow amendment of SMP's more than once a year (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(ii)). Given the status of current work efforts, the SMP amendments can be reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for continuity. This referral would include the SMP amendments on the list of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments reviewed by the City Council on March 24, 1997. Simultaneous referral of these amendments to both the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee will facilitate the review process for this item. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the amendments will be scheduled for the Council committee without having to come back on the Council agenda. Staff recommends adoption of Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate. SLREFER.DOC • - •.: RECEIVED . 0 • AUG 2 6 -1997 utVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1997 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS August 21, 1997 • . 1997 RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS INTRODUCTION The proposal includes potential amendments to the Land Use Map and associated re-zoning of properties, potential amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and amendments to Renton's Shoreline Master Program as described below. A matrix of staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations follows this summary. In addition, issue papers are provided for each item. 1. Capital Facilities Plan. Proposes minor narrative text amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan which: 1) clarify that biennial review is recommended and describe efforts to monitor and update the Plan in 1997, and 2) update the document to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. 2. Land Use/Municipal Facilities. The Public Facilities policies of the Land Use Element currently state that people-intensive municipal government functions and major functions of the police should be located in the downtown district. Proposed policy amendments would allow these municipal functions to locate in the vicinity of the downtown. 3. Land Use/Residential Policies, Density Issues. This amendment evaluates text changes in the Vision Statement, Land Use Element Residential Policies, and Housing Element Policies guiding single family development, particularly infill development, and modifying policies guiding neighborhood level planning tools and programs. This item is proposed to be continued until the 1998 amendment cycle. 4. Commercial(CA)Zoning on Martin Luther King Highway. This amendment reviews Employment Area Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial (CA) Zoning designations along a portion of Martin Luther King Way (MLK Way) and evaluates whether Resource Conservation or other less intensive land use would be more appropriate. 5. Environment Element Policy Amendment. Comprehensive Plan policy amendments are proposed for two policies found in the Environmental Element: 1) Policy EN-13 would be amended to allow wetland enhancement as a possible mitigation option for a development which may impact a wetland. 2)Policy EN-57 would be amended to delete a reference to the Greenbelt Map since it is not a complete inventory of sensitive areas, and it is anticipated that sensitive area regulations will be amended to refer to specific definitions and criteria in order to designate sensitive areas, with maps being utilized as a resource. 6. Transportation Concurrency - Text Amendments. Transportation concurrency ensures that transportation facilities are in place at the time of development. To respond to Growth Management Act requirements, an interim concurrency management system is included in the Transportation Element. Minor Comprehensive Plan text amendments are needed to more fully recognize current and proposed concurrency management procedures. No policy amendments are proposed. 7. Allow CA in the Employment Area - Valley,North of I-405. This amendment evaluates whether Commercial Arterial uses should be allowed to occur on parcels on both sides of SW Grady Way in a"study area"between I-405 on the South, SW 10th street on the north,Powell Avenue SW on the h:ldivision.sip-ts\planninglamends11997\intro97.doc 1 8/21/97 .. • •.. west and Seneca Ave SW on the east. The study area is currently designated Employment Area Valley. Existing policies limit Commercial Arterial rezones in this area. 8. Shoreline Master Program Amendments. Pursuant to Washington Administrative Code Section 173-26-100, and Chapter 4-19 of the Renton Municipal Code, amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program(SMP)are proposed. Based upon recent State legislation, SMP goals and policies are now considered an element of local comprehensive plans, and other shoreline regulations are considered a part of local development regulations. The proposed SMP amendments include changes to shoreline policies and regulations which are intended to be minor. The proposed amendments clarify policies and procedures, remove conflicting provisions with other City codes and ordinances, and address recent State amendments to the Shoreline Management Act regarding permit procedures, exemptions, definitions, and other items. In summary, the proposed changes address: (a) Policy amendments to Economic Development, Public Access, Circulation, and Residential "Elements"of the Shoreline Master Program (b) Shoreline permit exemptions (c) Definitions(wetlands,shorelands,floodway,bulkhead,buffer, setback,etc.) (d) Permit process changes (e) Jurisdiction(terminology) (f) Permitting Roads in the Conservancy designation (g) Water related/water dependent developments and public access (h) Dredging and landfill (i) Docks and marinas (j) Public and private recreation (k) Residential setbacks (1) Map interpretations/footnotes 9. Land Use/Annexation Policies. Annexation Policy LU-403 currently requires annexations to encompass a minimum of ten acres except under specific circumstances. A proposed amendment would maintain the intent of encouraging larger annexations but would create greater latitude in allowing smaller areas to annex. 10. Residential Single Family (RS)to Rural Residential (RR) in May Valley Prezone. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change an area in Phase II of the May Valley Prezone from Residential Single Family to Residential Rural. The concurrent prezoning would assign R-1 and R-5 zoning to the subject properties. Zoning would not be implemented until the subject properties annex to the City. 11. Evaluate combining the EA-C and EA-0 Policies. Evaluate the feasibility of combining the residual Employment Area Commercial and Employment Area Office land use designations outside of the Valley Planning Area to create a new Employment Area - Commercial/Office designation that would include a blend of existing policies. Both office and commercial arterial zoning would be allowed in the new designation. This amendment also reviews policies allowing residential uses in the Employment Area-Valley designation. h\division44s\p1anninglamends\1997\intro97.doc 2 8/21/97 CITY OF RENTON 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS • July 30, 1997 FILE DATE APPLICANT REQUEST STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION P&DC COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL # NAME RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION #1 7/30/97 City of Renton Capital Facilities Plan Amend the text of the Capital Accept staff recommendation. Facilities Element to make minor narrative text amendments which 1)describe the 1997 monitoring and conclusions,and 2)update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. #2 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Municipal Amend the Land Use Element Public Recommend adopting revised policy Facilities Facilities Element and the Vision LU-240 to allow jails in or near the Statement to allow municipal facilities downtown. Reject amending policy in or near the downtown. LU-235 to allow municipal government functions in or near the downtown, and reject changes to the vision statement. #3 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Residential Continue this issue. Continued Policies,Density Issues #4 7/30/97 City of Renton Commercial(CA) Continue the current Land Use and Recommendation to strongly urge Zoning on Martin Zoning designation. Process an the City Council to reconsider the Luther King Highway amendment to the Arterial spot rezone, remove the EAC/CA Commercial(CA)zone text to restrict designation, and redesignate the site multi-family residential use of the to a less intensive use. site. #5 7/30/97 City of Renton Environmental Element Amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to Accept staffs recommendation to Policy Amendment allow for wetland enhancement as a both policies, with minor word mitigation option and to delete changes to policy EN-57. specific references to the Greenbelt Map. MATRIX_DOC1 Page 1 FILE DATE APPLICANT REQUEST STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION P&DC COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL # NAME RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION #6 7/30/97 City of Renton Transportation Clarify that the annual testing needs Accept staff recommendation as Concurrency-Text to show that level of service meets written. Amendments City-wide before a concurrency test is conducted for an individual development proposal,and that the Transportation Plan is based on land use assumptions which should be considered in project review. 111110 #7 7/30/97 City of Renton Allow CA in the Amend Policies LU 212.14 and LU Table this amendment. Request a Employment Area- 212.15b to allow rezoning to CA in remand to the Planning Valley North of I-405 Employment Area-Commercial Commission in the Fall of 1997 to north of I-405 and to require a 5 discuss the automall expansion acre threshold size for such rezones. issues. #8 7/30/97 City of Renton Shoreline Master Amend policies,regulations and Accept staff recommendation, with Program Amendments permit procedures as stated in staff the modifications proposed by The report. Boeing Company to clarify permit processes, but disallow the requested high rise change. #9 7/30/97 City of Renton Land Use/Annexation Amend annexation policies which Amend annexation policies to still Policies allow annexations less than 10 acres encourage annexations larger than 1111 in size. 10 acres, but allow for smaller ones when appropriate. #10 7/30/97 City of Renton RS to RR in May Amend the Land Use Map to change Accept staff recommendation as Valley Prezone the subject area from Residential written. Single Family to Residential rural. #11 7/30/97 City of Renton Evaluate combining the Recommends that the existing and Accept staff recommendation, with EA-C and EA-0 separate EA-C and EA-0 LU-146 amended to delete the last Policies designations be retained. sentence in subsection"a". MATRIX.DOC\ Page 2 • v RECEIVED AMENDMENT 1 - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT AUG 2 1997 DEVELOPMENTCITY OF RENTON NING N DESCRIPTION: This amendment proposes minor narrative text amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan which: 1) clarify that biennial review is recommended and describe efforts to monitor and update the Plan in 1997, and 2) update the document to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. ISSUE SUMMARY: . 1. Was growth predicted in the 6 year Capital Facilities Element realized in the first two years of the Plan? 2. Were infrastructure improvements necessary to maintain citywide concurrency made on schedule? 3. Are policy or text amendments necessary to adjust the Capital Facilities Element after two years of growth? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation Amend the text of the Capital Facilities Element to make minor narrative text amendments which 1) describe the 1997 monitoring and conclusions, and 2) update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect purchase of the new municipal building. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation. ANALYSIS: In order to evaluate whether changes were needed in the Capital Facilities Element, the City contracted with Stalzer and Associates, for a monitoring report for 1995 and 1996. This report (executive summary attached) looks at growth in this two year period and provides an analysis of how the City is doing relative to its 6 year growth targets. The report concludes that single family and jobs growth are well above targets while multi-family growth is occurring more slowly than projected. The report also looks at actual versus planned expenditures and evaluates whether the provision of infrastructure to serve growth is still concurrent citywide. The report concludes that despite higher rates of growth in some areas, and changes in the priority of some projects, the city is still on course for meeting its concurrency requirements over the six year forecast period. The report also concluded that modifications to the project lists and policies in the Capital Facilities Element are not needed at this time. Actual single family growth was 295 households while the projected growth was 160 households. Actual multi-family growth was 184 households compared with 632 projected households. Three quarters of forecast growth was expected to occur within 6 geographic areas and the capital facilities project list anticipated this growth by scheduling infrastructure projects serving these areas. Although a PLANNINGAMENDSCFP 1 8/21/97 slightly larger percentage of growth has occurred outside the designated areas (one third compared with one fourth) the provision of infrastructure has kept up with growth so that city wide concurrency was maintained for transportation,water,wastewater, surface water and parks. Two areas of the City were forecast to receive more multi-family growth that has not yet been realized: Downtown and the Talbot Road area. Transportation surface water and water facilities implemented over the two year period were consistent with the level anticipated in the 6 year Plan. Wastewater implementation got off to a slower start with projects built in the Sunset and East Kennydale areas where growth has occurred. The Talbot Road Interceptor projects and SW 34th Street Interceptor Replacement projects have not yet started. The level of parks service in 1997 exceeds the level of service established in 1995. Actual job growth was twice the projected with 5, 507 actual jobs compared with 2, 726 projected. The majority of jobs growth is occurring in the Valley. Major transportation improvements undertaken in 1995 and 1996 supported the Boeing/Paccar Employment Center and the Valley. As a result of this analysis it was concluded that only minor text amendments are needed to update the Capital Facilities Element. These proposed amendments occur in the narrative sections of the Plan. The first on page IV-5 of Growth Projection modifies a section requiring biennial review with language making the review advisory. Additional language describing the 1997 amendment process and referencing the 1998 budget process is also proposed in order to keep the Plan current. A second amendment is proposed on page IV-47 of the Public Safety Public Facilities Plan. The existing Table 12-1 is modified to reference Municipal and Public Safety Capital Facilities rather than "Police" and the text is modified to reflect the purchase of the new municipal building and the failure of the 1994 proposal for a general obligation bond to provide a new public safety building. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Capacity is not effected by the proposed modifications to the text narrative. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The Capital Facilities Element is in compliance with the growth forecast in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan as analyzed in the 1997 Monitoring Report by Stalzer and Associates. The Capital Facilities Plan policies are still valid and require no modification at this time. Policy CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years,to level of service standards,to the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. Policy CFP-2. Level of service standards should be established at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton. Policy CFP-3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development. Concurrent with development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies or services when development occurs or the existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when development occurs. PLANNINGAMENDSCFP 2 8/21/97 Policy CFP-4. No deterioration of existing levels of service should occur due to growth,consistent with Policy CFP-3. Policy CFP-5. Funding for new,improved or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use, need, and adopted goals and policies. Policy CFP-6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services upon the request of the district if a compelling need is established through means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth.. ZONING CONCURRENCY: None required. CONCLUSION: The Capital Facilities Element is being implemented through the activities of the Planning/ Building and Public Works Department in a manner which is consistent with forecasts and continues to provide citywide concurrency between growth and needed services. The information and analysis in the 1997 - Monitoring Report by Stalzer and Associates provides documentation for the first two years of the Plan's six year forecast period that substantiates this conclusion. Only minor text amendments are needed to update the Capital Facilities Element at this time. • PLANNINGAMENDSCFP 3 8/21/97 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan Element Update Executive Summary As part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, Stalzer and Associates was retained by the City of Renton to conduct.a review of the existing Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) including identifying any needed adjustments to growth projections, level of service standards, and needed facilities or anticipated funding sources. The work by Stalzer and Associates resulted in a monitoring report and revised text and tables for the adopted CFP. Summary of City's Growth Based on an evaluation of the building permit data for 1995 and 1996 and the approved but not yet built projects, the residential growth for the 1995-2000 period will be slightly lower than the projection contained in the Six Year Capital Facilities Plan Element of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. However, if the current growth trend continues the residential growth rate could exceed the projection contained in the 1995 CFP. Based on an evaluation of the building permit data for 1995 and 1996 and the approved but not yet built projects, the employment growth for the 1995-2000 period could exceed the projections contained in the Six Year Capital Facilities Plan.Element of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. New Residential Households • For the 1995-1997 period the total number of new residential households will be 1,173 or virtually the same as the 1,188 new households projected for the same period. • For the 1995-2000 period the total number of new residential households will be 2,157 which is slightly below the projection of 2,377 new households. • Based on an evaluation of the building permit data for 1995 and 1996 and the approved but not yet built projects, the mix between new single family and new multi-family residential households will be quite different than projected: New Single Family Households: The number of new single family residential households by the end of 2000 will be 1,227, which is well above the projection of 480 new single family households contained in the 1995 CFP; New Multi-family Households: The number of new multi-family residential households by the end of the year 2000 will be 930. If new multi-family growth does not begin to occur in downtown, multi-family residential growth could fall below the projection of 1,897 new households contained in the 1995 CFP. New Jobs • A total of 5,507 new jobs were created in 1995 and 1996 compared to 2,726 jobs projected for the same period in the 1995 CFP. Job growth related to tenant improvements and employee increases at Boeing and Paccar was not documented. It is likely that the new job growth is even higher than this review indicates due to the current strength of the local economy." Page 1 7/8/97 • • If current trends continue, the actual number of new jobs could reach 10,959 by the year 2000 compared to the 8,180 new jobs projected for the same six year period in the 1995 CFP. Summary of Level of Service Based on the rate and pattern of residential and employment growth and the growth-related capital facility projects initiated in 1995 and 1996, all of the city's services are in compliance with Policy CFP-4 which states that no deterioration of existing levels of service should occur due to growth consistent with the city's concurrency policy. Summary of Concurrency • Based upon the residential and employment growth experienced during 1995 and 1996 and the growth-related capital facility projects and strategies initiated during that same period, the city is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy CFP-3 which states that adequate facilities, strategies or services should be in place within six years of when development occurs. Recommendations Because both the number of single family households and jobs have increased.at a much greater rate.than-projected.in:.the.1995 CFP, the following..recommendations have beenidentified: . • Adopt a review strategy which includes annual monitoring of the City's growth and level of service performance. •.. Conduct a complete CFP review in 1998 that includes updated six year growth projections, and an analysis of the status of capital projects and funding sources. • Integrate the 1998 CFP review with the city's capital budgeting process to reduce duplicative efforts and ensure that facilities are being funded in relationship to capital facility needs. • During the 1998 CFP review effort, analyze and consider amendments to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the mix of single family and multi-family households is consistent with actual and forecast growth and the GMA. • Approve the recommended technical amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 7/8/97 AMENDMENT -1 Amended 8/12/96 - CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT In the administrative regulations,the state recommends that in addition to transportation, concurrency should be sought for domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. (WAC 365-195-060(3)) Additionally,the regulations state that the planning for all elements, including the Capital Facilities Plan, should be undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind even though the Act does not mandate an economic development element for the plan.(WAC 365-195-060(2)) GROWTH PROJECTIONS According to the growth projections which form the basis of the Land Use Element of the.Comprehensive Plan, the City of Renton will experience an increase of 1,601 single family households, 6,324 multi-family households, and 27,267 jobs over the next twenty years. For the purpose of developing a six year capital facilities plan for the period from 1995 through 2000, an estimate had to be made as to the amount of the projected 20-year growth that would occur during the initial six years of the Comprehensive Plan. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning purposes,the most prudent course was to assume a uniform allocation of the projected growth over the 20-year period rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles. Consequently, for the purposes of this six year Capital Facilities Plan,the forecast for.the 1995-2000 period is that Renton will see an increase of 480 single family households, 1,897.multi-family households, and 8,180 jobs. The city's population in the year 2000 is anticipated to be 48,456. To be sure,growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or even the 20-year period. Recognizing this fact,the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced, revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 1997 and determined that there was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast,the level of service standards were being provided and the City was only two years into the six year period. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if the actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth. As stated in Policy CFP-1,this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly ally as part of the city's budget process,thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton, and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy (CFP-1) in the 1998 annual budget process. IV-5 AMENDMENT 2 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT As pointed out above, if the city is to maintain its current level of public safety services, additional police,jail, and municipal court personnel must be hired as the city's population grows between 1995 and 2000. With more personnel will come the need for more facility space. Consequently, the present overcrowding situation will only worsen over the next six years, thereby further jeopardizing the level of service being provided. This-yeaf4The city conducted a study of this issue and concluded that a new public safety building was needed if the current level of service was to be maintained. The cost of a public safety building to accommodate existing and additional police department personnel, expanded jail facilities, and additional municipal court facilities has been estimated at$14.8 million. A general obligation bond even-was ill-be submitted to the voters in 1994 and the majority of the voters did not support the bond.if it~ e t e~ -.f,idies. uld be-completed Subsequently the City purchased a building for a new and expanded municipal administrative and law and justice center. The new facility will accommodate existing and additional police department personnel, expanded jail facilities, and municipal court facilities. Table 12-1 below shows the costs and funding sources for the new Renton Municipal Building that includes police and court facilities. gene.a obligati..; bonds i 199 Table 12-1 PelieeMunicipal and Public Safety Capital Facilities 1995-2000 Public SafetyPelice Projects 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Public-SofetyMunicipalBuilding $3,200,000 8,000,000 3,600,000 Total $3,200,000 $8,000,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 - Sources of Funds: Utility Fund Capital Fund Bonds 3,200,000 8,000,000 3,600,000 Grants Private Total $3,200,000 $8,000,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 IV-47 n�r.—wrrOrss w sir AUG 2 6 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF R!NTON AMENDMENT 2 - LAND USE/MUNICIPAL FACILITIES DESCRIPTION: The Public Facilities policies of the Land Use Element currently state that people-intensive municipal government functions and major functions of the police should be located in the downtown district. Proposed policy amendments would allow these municipal functions to locate in the vicinity of the downtown. - ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. The new Renton Municipal Building is outside of, but adjacent to,the Center Downtown land use designation. The site is designated Employment Area-Office. 2. Siting of the new Municipal Building should be consistent with the Public Facilities policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Municipal Facilities policies are based on the Comprehensive Plan Vision statement which is predicated on the continued occupation of the current municipal campus. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation: Amend Land Use Element Public Facilities policies to allow municipal facilities in or near the downtown: Amend the Vision statement of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the new municipal administrative and law and justice center in the vicinity of downtown. Planning Commission Recommendation: Amend Land Use Element Public Facilities policies to allow major police functions to locate in or near the downtown. No change with regard to other municipal functions and facilities. Do not amend Vision statement. ANALYSIS: The proposed policy changes will serve to reconcile the Comprehensive Plan with the prior decision by the City Council to move City functions from the existing municipal campus to the newly acquired Municipal Building at S. Grady Way and Main Avenue S. Implementation of the policy amendments is not anticipated to have impacts apart from those associated with the relocation of municipal facilities. As an alternative to amending the policies, staff analyzed the possibility of amending the Land Use Map to include the site in the Center Downtown (CD) designation. The Centers policies state that adopted Center boundaries should be amended only under specific circumstances. A change to the boundary H:\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\PUBFAC.DOC 1 8/21/97 • could be supported if: a)the original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use which would make implementation of the boundary illogical; or,b)the amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. (Policy LU-94) Neither of these criteria appears to justify a revision to the Center Downtown boundary. Additionally, following the existing zoning pattern, if the CD designation were expanded, the likely zoning of the site would be Residential Multi-Family-Urban Center. The various office and jail uses appear to be incompatible with the intent of Residential Multi-Family zoning. The Planning Commission believes that the policies should allow greater latitude in the siting of police facilities, including the jail. However, the Commission also believes that the original vision of the municipal campus anchoring the west end of downtown in its current location should be maintained both in the Vision statement and in the policies. The Commission's intent is for the primary municipal functions to return to the current site at some point in the future. The Commission harbors concerns regarding the affect of the relocation of municipal functions on the direction of land uses in the vicinity of the new site. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The proposed policy amendments should not affect capacity. Additionally, assuming that amended policies would be implemented only on the site of the new Municipal Building, no change to the employment figures for Renton's Urban Center would result. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Neither the Center Downtown nor the Employment Area-Office policies address municipal facilities. The policy changes would be consistent with the Vision statement in only a general way. 'Government would occupy a new and expanded City Hall campus anchoring the east end of town. The campus would contain a public safety complex, administration building, public parking garage, open space and amenities."(Vision statement) While expanded City facilities are planned,the new location for City Hall will not function as an anchor for future development of the downtown to the same extent as it would at the current site. However,the Vision statement and existing policy language were based on an assumption that the current site of the Municipal Building would be expanded or redeveloped to accommodate the growing needs of the City. The commitment by the City to buy the Main and Grady building constituted a de facto change of vision and policy. The proposed policy language only documents the new direction. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: The proposed policy and Vision statement amendments are appropriate because they establish consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Council's policy intent. As noted, the Council's action with regard to the new municipal facilities represents a change in the vision for the future of the City as well as a change in policy. Therefore,the Vision statement should be updated to reflect the new H:\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\PUBFAC.DOC 2 8/21/97 direction. Since the decision to relocate municipal facilities has already occurred,the potential impacts of changing the policies are assumed to be negligible. An amendment to the Commercial Office Zone to allow jails as an Administrative Conditional use is progressing in a parallel process. The CO Zone amendment is necessary to allow development of the jail in the new facilities. Amendment of the Public Facilities policies will create consistency with the proposed Code revision. • H:\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\PUBFAC.DOC 3 8/21/97 • ATTACHMENT A Staff recommendation: Policy amendments: (Proposed) Policy LU-235. Municipal government functions which are people-intensive should be centrally located in or near the downtown. (Proposed) Policy LU-240. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the downtown. Vision statement amendment: (Proposed) 'Government would occupy a new and expanded municipal administrative and law and justice center to serve the growing needs of the City. The municipal center would be located in the vicinity of downtown for easy access by all city residents." Planning Commission recommendation: Policy amendments: No amendment to Policy LU-235. (Proposed) Policy LU-240. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the downtown. Vision statement amendment: No amendment to Vision. H:\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\PUBFAC.DOC 4 8/21/97 -AMENDMENT 3 = LAND USE/RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, DENSITY ,_.. ISSUES (CONTINUED) RECEIVED AUG2 6 -1997 L)EVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENT 4 - COMMERCIAL ZONING ON MARTIN LUTHER KING WAY DESCRIPTION: The City Council has requested review of the Employment Area Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial(CA)Zoning designations along a portion of Martin Luther King Way(MLK Way). The site is comprised of two parcels approximately 18.3 acres in size of which 1.1 acres are inside the city, and 17.2 acres are just west of the city limits along MLK Way. The portion of the site outside the city limits is pre-zoned Commercial Arterial(CA). Adopted zoning for this area will become effective upon annexation. The parcels are surrounded by single family uses to the north,multi-family uses to the west and east, and undeveloped land to the south, with Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC)zoning. The site has a fairly uniform slope of 21%from north to south, and is heavily covered by existing deciduous vegetation. Potential access to the site will be off of MLK Way to the north. There are potential views to the south through the existing deciduous forest to Mount Rainier and the Renton Valley. Uses allowed on the site under existing CA zoning include various retail establishments (i.e. restaurants, food/groceries), services(i.e. hotel, auto repair) and secondary uses such as multi-family residential and professionaVbusinesses subject to site plan approval. ISSUE SUMMARY: The site was originally designated Residential Single Family (RS) in the Interim Land Use Element. The designation was changed to Employment Area Commercial in 1995 at the request of the property owner,AnMarco. The following four issues are analyzed to determined whether the EAC Land Use and CA Zoning designations should be retained. 1. Will the environmental constraints hinder potential development of the site,and if so,how much? 2. What restrictions or limitations are placed upon the site to mitigate potential environmental damage? 3. Will a lower intensity Zoning designation be more appropriate for this site? 4. What is the multi-family capacity for the site? 5. Would split-zoning of the site provide benefits over single zoning? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the existing EAC designation on the site, with the stipulation than an amendment to the CA zone be reviewed to restrict multi-family residential use of the site. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Council is strongly urged to reconsider this spot zone, remove the EAC/CA designation and zoning, and redesignate the site to a less intensive use. No alternative land use designation is suggested. RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1997 L EVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RCNTON H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 1 8/21/97 ANALYSIS: The site is consistent with the policy intent of the Employment Area - Commericial designation due to the location on MLK Way. EAC uses are intended to be those that require high visibility and access to high volumes of traffic. Due to the topography and access issues, development of the site will be difficult. ISSUES 1 and 2: The two parcels are entirely within the identified Greenbelt Overlay Designation and is mapped for landslide hazards. The regulations require the applicant to provide detailed technical reports determining the degree of hazard and whether development can be safely accommodated. If the presence of high landslide hazards is determined by a geo-technical analysis, at least 75% of the site must be maintained in open space or in landscaping compatible with the physical hazards. If landslide hazards are confirmed, the open space requirement would limit development of the site to 4.6 acres (25%). In addition to potential landslide hazards, the two parcels have an average and fairly uniform slope of about 21%. This is below the 25%threshold for regulatory constraints,but still steep enough to hinder development on large pads without major site work. A brief topographic analysis shows that a retaining wall of significant height - perhaps as much as 20 feet would be necessary to create a level surface approximately 200 feet wide. This would increase the need for environmental mitigation to reduce the impacts caused by vegetation removal and land grading. ISSUE 3: Lowering the zoning designation was also considered by staff. The following zones, with appropriate land use designations were analyzed: R-8 Zoning: As stated previously RS Land Use designation was originally applied to the site. In the 1995 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, Council determined that the Single Family designation is inappropriate for this site, due to several factors including,it's location adjacent to a major arterial, and potential conflicts with adjacent higher intensity land uses. These conditions still exist on this site. If the site is again designated RS and landslide hazards are not shown to be significant, R-8 zoning would allow about 124 units. If high landslide hazards exist, the maximum number of units would be about 31. Convenience Commercial Zoning(CC): Downzoning to CC Zoning would limit the development potential of the site in several ways. Individual uses would be restricted to 5,000 square feet. Multi-family uses would be limited to a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The character of development would be different from what is allowed in a strip commercial area because the CC zone is intended to have a neighborhood orientation. The site in question is not physically connected to an established neighborhood. The site is fairly isolated from the single family uses to the north as well as the multi-family uses to the west and east. This isolation would make it difficult to create a neighborhood orientation. H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 2 8/21/97 Resource Conservation(RC)Zoning: The purpose of the RC zone specifically states that the zone shall be used to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Extension of the RC zone,existing to the south of the site,is logical for several reasons. First, it would protect the identified Greenbelt Area from intensive commercial development activity, yet allow low density residential uses at 1 du/10 acres. Only two dwelling units would be permitted on the site, at one per existing parcel. Second, restricting development to low intensity residential uses would provide some additional wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the Black River Riparian Forest Project with its blue heron rookery. The potential of the site to serve as a buffer for the Black River wildlife area is limited due to the existence of CO zoning that separates the majority of the site from the publicly-owned lands to the south. The site is only contiguous to the habitat area on a small length of its southern boundary. If CA zoning were to remain on the site and if environmental hazards restrict development to 25%of the site,as noted above,open space benefits may still be provided while allowing limited development of the site for the property owner. ISSUE 4: Multi-family use of the site was also reviewed. This use could occur under existing zoning or under Multi-family Infill. Arguments could be presented stating that the site could represent a logical extension of the designation that continues the RM-I zoning between the two multi-family developments on the west and east side of the site. Potential multi-family use raises city wide issues of multi-family capacity and location of multi-family growth. According to the residential Vision in the Comprehensive Plan and general residential policies, multi-family growth shall only occur in currently designated centers and multi-family infill sites (LU-11, 12, 17). In addition to these policies, other policies discourage expansion of the boundaries for both Centers and Multi-Family Infill designations (LU-69, 94. EAC policies LU-171, 172, 178, and CA text language currently allow multi-family developments up to 20 du/acre. The original policy direction was to limit residential in CA to mixed-use structures. This restriction was removed in a 1995 amendment but the city-wide impact on properties was never analyzed. This presents a direct conflict with the residential vision and polices concerning multi-family location and growth. To address this conflict the City needs to address the question of whether to allow multi-family outside of the designated Centers and multi-family districts. In addition, the issue of CA capacity city-wide for multi-family units was not considered in the City's original capacity analysis because the capacity analysis pre-dates the 1995 amendments to the CA zone. The potential for multi- family growth in the CA zone may cause unanticipated growth to occur in areas not capable of handling the intensive land use development typically found with multi-family communities. This could have direct implications for city-wide CIP and TIP programs. ISSUE 5: The Planning Commission requested an analysis of the potential for split zoning on the site that would include an area of lower density zoning along the southern portion of the site. Split-zoning does not appear to provide any appreciable advantage. The relatively continuous slope on the site offers no logical zone division. Further, no issues would be resolved through split zoning. Clearly, the intent of the policies is for EAC parcels to abut an arterial. Therefore, unless the zoning H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 3 8/21/97 and land use designation are changed for the entire site,the portion along SR 900 should be maintained as EAC. A segment of the site is continuous with the City and County owned Black River Riparian Forest Project area. However, as noted above, the parcel adjacent to the majority of the subject property's southern boundary is currently zoned Commercial Office. Any buffering function created by RC zoning would primarily benefit future office development on the site to the south rather than to the riparian habitat area. Resource Conservation would maintain the existing habitat. However,this would be true of any undeveloped parcel in the City. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Multi-Family Capacity(CA Zoning): Developable site area is between 4.6 acres with landslide hazard related development restrictions and 18.3 acres, assuming no high landslide hazards. The current CA zoning allows multi-family developments up to 20 acres per acre. Therefore the residential capacity of the developable portion of the site would be between 92 and 366 units. Commercial Capacity(CA Zoning): Potential buildout with 25% of the site available for development and an estimated floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.4, 80,000 square feet of space could be constructed. This translates to about 180 retail jobs, or 270 office related jobs. Given the topographic and access constraints, development of the entire site for commercial uses is not likely. However, this would result in 319,000 square feet of floor space, assuming the same .4 FAR. This would create about 710 retail jobs or 1,060 office related jobs. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: In general the existing land use designation is consistent with the Employment Area Commercial(EAC) policies. It does not comply with policies concerning multi-family development outside the Centers, as identified by Centers and Residential Multi-Family Infill Policies. (see addendum) This conflict needs to be clarified in the Comprehensive Plan by addressing multi-family location and growth. ZONING CONCURRENCY: To implement changes in the multi-family regulations in the CA zone, Zoning text amendments are needed to address the direction the City wants to take concerning multi-family growth outside the Centers and existing multi-family designations. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, no alternative to the existing EAC would be more compatible with the arterial location, site constraints, surrounding uses and the City's land use policies, with the possible exception of Residential Rural and Resource Conservation zoning. However, available evidence does not suggest that the environmental sensitivity of the site is sufficient to require the protection of the RC Zone. Development restrictions in the Greenbelt Ordinance may limit the extent of development of the site. However,this will be determined by geo-technical analysis accompanying project application. H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 4 8/21/97 The Planning Commission expressed concerns that potential development under CA zoning would establish land uses on the site that may impact the residential development to the north. However, the Commission was unable to offer a specific alternative. Additionally, the Commission noted that the majority of the site is outside the current city limits and zoned for office development by King County. If the City applies zoning that is significantly more restrictive than what would be allowed by the County,development will occur prior to annexation. H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 5 8/21/97 ADDENDUM: LAND USE POLICIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AREA COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. Policy LU-168. Employment Area - Commercial designations should only be located on, and have access to, streets classified as major arterials or above. Policy LU-169. Individual parcels should be encouraged to consolidate to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development,and f. provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour population and a source of affordable housing by promoting residential and commercial development in the Employment Area-Commercial designation. Policy LU-173. Single family development should not be allowed in this designation. Objective LU-BB: Ensure quality development in Employment Areas -Commercial. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways,to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-176. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification of Employment Area - Commercial designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-177. Special design considerations (e.g. landscape, streetscape, signage, building design) should be encouraged for areas which are designated as gateways for the city. Policy LU-178. The primary uses (retail, residential or service) should account for a minimum of fifty percent(50%)of the total building area within Employment Area-Commercial designations. H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 6 8/21/97 Policy LU-179. A unified style of commercial or residential development should be encouraged through site standards,including: a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, b. maximum height of 4-6 stories, c. parking to the side or rear of the building, d. maximum setbacks which will allow incorporating a landscape buffer,and e. common signage and lighting requirements. Policy LU-180. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged as part of every development. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g.lighting,fences,landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. Policy LU-182. Employment areas located between East Valley Highway and SR 167 should buffer their uses from SR 167 through a sight obscuring 15'wide native vegetation strip along SR 167. Residential, Centers, and Multi-Family Infill Policies Policy LU-11.Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a. development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; b. development of vacant lots in Renton's established neighborhoods; c. development of single family/multi-family mix neighborhoods in appropriate locations; d. new larger.scale multi-family development located in Renton's downtown, as infill in existing multi-family areas,in designated Centers,and e. mixed use commercial/residential projects in employment areas. Policy LU-12. Residential development should be limited in community separator areas, and environmentally sensitive areas such as 100 year floodways, high risk coal mine areas and hazardous landslides and erosion areas. Policy LU-17. Large multi-family development projects or large concentrations of multi-family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except in Centers and the Multi-family Residential Infill designations. Policy LU-69. Residential Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded. Land within the districts should be used efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. H:/PLANNING/AMENDS/1997\\MLKCPA2.DOC 7 8/21/97 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Commerci• al Arterial on M.IJ:King, Jr. Way mina Nomil III YI �,S 129t tMill I s h NI 10�1. ■Li st, cFrillop, om , imill _, > LII1J"4IIiIIIi! •��► Illir z S 'I IIiiIi \ , , i I , III _ S 132 n d St 111111111 0I-- ill," ,4 /441 1.=:� 1 ©©1 ■ 1 1 ,farIJ$Iuil ?01P Al I .I •Gal, *Ili uth �� - �r �CingWa t I fi-• � ............ .... P:❖i•�•ii•Oii•�•�•�•iiiiii•�•i0•iii❖i \� ♦..........4.......................♦ 41 ❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.•.❖1❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.♦ � '• . iiiiiii:•aganiiiiiiiiigiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiigimk, ❖.•..❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.•..•..❖.�.❖.❖.❖.•1❖.�• ' .❖❖ .❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.•.♦ ,'i ' •. g w : . .. i i i i.�•�.�.��i i i 441/ S 2 It ril, 11PP':- , , I n cirri / / / / 1 Y1 ?.... Commercial Arterial Zone srt O Planning and Technical Services """ o I ............... G �'�' Renton City Limits .� ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works O. Dennison, R. MacOnie 0 60 0 1 ,2 0 0 ft-Nrcr 17 March 1997 1 :7,200 h'• RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1997 AMENDMENT 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION: During research towards consolidating the various sensitive area regulations (including Wetlands, Greenbelt, Flooding and Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinances) review of Comprehensive Plan policies have been made. While the detailed code amendments are anticipated later in 1997, two Environmental Element policy amendments are proposed for consideration at this time which would be implemented by the future code amendments. Specifically, amendments are proposed for two policies found in the Environmental Element. First, Policy EN-13 would be amended to allow wetland enhancement as a possible mitigation option for a development which may impact a wetland. Second, Policy EN-57 would be amended to delete a reference to the Greenbelt Map since it is not a complete inventory of sensitive areas, and it is anticipated that sensitive area regulations will be amended to refer to specific definitions and criteria in order to designate sensitive areas,with maps being utilized as a resource. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Most local jurisdiction wetland regulations offer restoration or creation as mitigation options. Many also offer enhancement. The City of Renton Ordinance does not offer enhancement as an option as the Ordinance states that this conflicts with the goal of"no-net-loss" of wetland acreage. Should wetland enhancement be recognized in Environmental Element policies as an option to mitigate a development's impact to a wetland? 2. Does the Greenbelt Map adequately inventory sensitive areas? Should regulations rely instead upon definitions and criteria to designate sensitive areas? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation Amend Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow for wetland enhancement as a mitigation option and to delete specific references to the Greenbelt Map. Planning Commission Recommendation A motion was passed recommending that both Policies EN-13 and EN-57 be amended as proposed by staff, but with minor word differences in Policy EN-57 for clarity, as described below and shown in Attachment A. ANALYSIS: Wetland Enhancement ' A primary feature of most wetland ordinances is to avoid wetland impacts all together. Where that is not possible in order to provide a reasonable economic use, wetland alteration may be allowed. There are three types of compensatory mitigation which may be required to replace project-induced wetland H:\PLN\AMENDS\CMPISS5.DOC 8/21/97 1 losses: restoration, creation, or enhancement. The State Model Ordinance defines these options as follows: RESTORATION means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. CREATION means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. ENHANCEMENT means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Replacement ratios vary by wetland type and by mitigation effort based upon the relative difficulty in recreating wetlands with the same or improved functions and values. Table 1 shows that most ordinances offer at least restoration or creation as mitigation options. Many also offer enhancement. The City of Renton Ordinance does not offer enhancement as an option as the Ordinance states that this conflicts with the goal of"no-net-loss"of wetland acreage. Other ordinances offering enhancement require higher replacement ratios such as the State Model Ordinance which requires double the standard replacement ratios. Kent offers enhancement in combination with creation. Richard Chase with the City of Kent indicates that in general the City discourages enhancement in favor of other options as it is difficult to "translate" functions into a degraded wetland by merely planting more wetland vegetation,which most applicants think is sufficient. The Renton Comprehensive Plan and Wetlands Ordinance strongly indicate a stance of"no-net-loss"of wetland acreage. Enhancement which improves an existing wetland but does not add acreage is not seen as an appropriate mitigation option to replace wetlands lost though alteration by a development activity. However, it should be noted again that the State Model Ordinance allows enhancement as an option at double the replacement ratios. According to Dick Gersib and Tom Ruby of the State Department of Ecology (pers. corn. August 4, 1997), wetland enhancement may allow for a greater possibility of success in mitigating impacts. They note that enhancement of one or more of a wetlands' functions may be at the expense of other functions. Tom Ruby also indicated that what is needed for any mitigation project, whether creation, restoration, or enhancement, is strong performance standards to help define what a successful outcome will be. Currently, the State DOE is managing a Wetland Function Assessment Project. This project will help jurisdictions evaluate wetland impacts, determine what 1 functions need to be replaced, determine whether wetland creation projects are successfully providing the functions for which they were designed, and assess functions before and after restoration, as well examine other wetland performance characteristics. In addition, according to Ron Straka of the Renton Surface Water Engineering Section (pers. com. August 5, 1997), the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, through the Clean Water Act, authorizes enhancement as a mitigation option. Ron Straka has indicated that enhancement can have a better chance of succeeding,but as noted previously,there needs to be a balance regarding what functions will be enhanced. H:\PLN\AMENDS\CMPISS5.DOC 8/21/97 2 The City of Kent provides an intermediate solution which allows enhancement in combination with creation. That is,replacement ratios for wetland creation are reduced if combined with enhancement, in order to still maintain a no-net-loss of wetland acreage. To provide specific policy support for enhancement, it is recommended that Comprehensive Plan Policy EN-13 be amended as follows: Policy EN-13. When development may impact wetlands, the following hierarchy should be followed in deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, b. minimize impacts to the wetland, c. restore the wetland when impacted, d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will provide for its assured viability and success.-, e. enhance the functional values of an existing degraded wetland. In order to maintain compliance with other Comprehensive Plan policies regarding no-net-loss, it is anticipated that the Renton Wetlands Ordinance would be amended to allow for enhancement, but only in combination with restoration or creation. Restoration and creation ratios could be reduced if enhancement is also provided. Enhancement mitigation guidelines should be prepared to help ensure successful outcomes. Greenbelt Map The Greenbelt Ordinance was the City's first ordinance addressing a variety of environmental hazards and resources including steep slopes, landslides, coal mine hazards, seismic hazards, major utility easements, wetlands, streams, and flood control works. Although it addresses all of these issues, its primary focus is steep slope hazards. Figure 1 provides a copy of the Greenbelt Map. There are several points of potential conflict between the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Greenbelt Regulations: 1. The Comprehensive Plan no longer contains a Greenbelt Map. It is generally referenced in Comprehensive Plan policy EN-57, and it is also referenced in the Renton Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance. Do the Greenbelt regulations apply to all Greenbelt-designated property if a proposed activity is exempt from SEPA review? 2. Do the Greenbelt regulations apply only to areas mapped as Greenbelt, or do they apply to any land having the physical criteria listed? In response to the first question, the Greenbelt Map has been enforced since it is referenced in the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance; as a designated environmentally sensitive area in the City's SEPA regulations,few development activities would be exempt from environmental review. In response to the second question, it appears that the Greenbelt regulations apply only to lands which are mapped Greenbelt. In order to apply the regulations, the areas mapped Greenbelt are further H:\PLN\AMENDS\CMPISS5.DOC 8/21/97 3 distinguished by the hazard areas contained within, and development standards or report requirements are applied based upon the specific hazards. This has implications towards the accuracy of the Greenbelt Map -if some areas with steep slopes or other hazards do not appear on the Greenbelt map, would the density reductions or other development standards be applied? Policies and regulations should not rely on the Greenbelt Map to identify regulated lands. Policy EN-57 of the Environment Element should be amended to delete references to the Greenbelt Map: Original staff recommendation: Policy EN-57. Regulate identified sensitive areas through the implementation of , regulations en-addressing uses,densities,clearing,grading,and/or vegetation removal. Based upon comments made by the Commission and the public,the Planning Commission recommended that Policy EN-57 be slightly reworded as follows: Policy EN-57. Regulate-Protect sensitive areas through the implementation of , regulations en-addressing uses, densities, clearing,grading, and/or vegetation removal. Similar to the Wetlands Ordinance, future amendments to sensitive area regulations should reference sensitive area maps as guides, but the definitions of critical areas should be the basis for regulations. Several inventories of sensitive areas were prepared during the Comprehensive Plan update including erosion hazards, landslide hazards, coal mine hazards, seismic hazards, etc. Definitions and criteria were utilized during the preparation of the maps. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The proposed policy amendments do not alter land use designations or other policies which could affect the development capacity of the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: No impacts to other Comprehensive Plan Elements are anticipated. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Amendments to consolidate sensitive area regulations into a single chapter are anticipated later this year, and would mean that certain chapters of the Zoning Code (Greenbelt and Flood Hazard regulations)would be moved,consolidated, and amended as needed. CONCLUSION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the amendment of Policies EN-13 and EN-57 to allow for wetland enhancement as a mitigation option, and to delete specific reference to the Greenbelt Map. The proposed policy amendments are shown above and in Attachment A. H:\PLN\AMENDS\CMPISS5.DOC 8/21/97 4 ATTACHMENT A Original Staff Recommendation: Policy EN-13. When development may impact wetlands, the following hierarchy should be followed in deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, b. minimize impacts to the wetland, • c. restore the wetland when impacted, d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will provide for its assured viability and success.-, e. enhance the functional values of an existing degraded wetland. • Policy EN-57. Regulate identified sensitive areas through the implementation of , regulations on-addressing uses,densities,clearing,grading,and/or vegetation removal. Planning Commission recommendation: Amend Policy EN-13 as shown above. Based upon comments made by the Commission and the public, Policy EN-57 would be slightly reworded as follows: Policy EN-57. —Regulate—Protect sensitive areas through the implementation of , regulations en-addressing uses,densities,clearing,grading, and/or vegetation removal. H:\PLN\AMENDS\CMPISS5.DOC 8/21/97 5 TABLE 1:WETLAND MITIGATION OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT STATE MODEL BELLEVUE KENT KING COUNTY REDMOND RENTON SEATTLE TUKWILA ORDINANCE Mitigation options 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 1. Restoration 2. Creation 2. Creation 2. Creation 2. Replacement 2. Creation 2. Creation 2. Creation 2. Creation 3. Enhancement 3. Enhancement 3. Enhancement 3. Enhancement Enhancement is 3. Enhancement of existing Category-I wetlands Enhanced wetlands- specifically excluded Goal of no net loss significantly cannot be enhanced. values and functions because it does not of wetland functions degraded wetlands contribute to the at twice the transferred shall be "no-net-loss" of and acreage. replacement ratios of equal or greater wetland acreage. quality to assure no (cannot enhance net loss of wetland Category I wetlands). values and functions. - Overall goal: "no net loss of wetland function or value." Replacement ratios Category I 6:1 Type A 2:1 Category 1: Class 1 or 2 2:1 Type I Category I Restoration or Type 1, 2, or 3: (Acreage requiring Creation 3:1,or Forested 6:1 creation in place of 1.5:1 Creation 6:1 restoration/creation Category IU III Type B 1.5:1 Creation at 1:1 and Class 3 1:1 Scrub-shrub 3:1 a degraded wetland, Enhancement 2:1 compared to the Forested 3:1 enhancement of 3:1* Emergent 2:1 required ratio is: acreage of wetlands Scrub-shrub 2:1 with equivalent or 2:1 Category II/III: Type II/III Category II altered.) Emergent 1.5:1 greater biologic Creation 1.5:1 functions Creation 2:1 Forested 3:1 Cat.IV 1.25:1 Creation at 1:1 and Enhancement 1:1 Scrub-shrub 2:1 enhancement of 1:1* Emergent 1.5:1 (Enhancement *or combination of Cat.III allowed at double creation/enhance- Forested 1.5:1 the replacement ment within range of Scrub-shrub 1.5:1 ratios.) ratios. Emergent 1.5:1 POLISCHT.DOC 7/30/97 Note:Ordinance requirements have been paraphrased throughout this chart. __--= _`- ' BELLEVUE alli _ = =- •-__- = =-_ ISSA UAH Q _=_ = MERCER ISLAND -=_ _ magmak .1 7 RXN _ _ � GREEN BELTS • Lakesf_ CS EA TTLE - _- _ -=:::r t suu x. o'' Green Belts �s` _-_-_-_ C ° �— Streams ':'''' fil -\. N.a a: r ry' 1414115296.0L Rivers illit ,3 li �`' Highways CG> 1 \'vy' Main Roads \fa- xa',,FlilliO4,1III CEMETERY RD #.\ ' 11 K�jh Municipal Boundaries .. .. ENV „ z I raTRzaRx *NIFF';', 41, -k--.z..... • 4h: A%< J Sphere of Influence Boundary TUKWILA pi � ;.x; n� •N. n',,,,-, „,_.,-.. .....irr -,1\' 4,,,. ',--It. • ,---....:„..' -, _ �� F Y4 *.:- wx % Fy MAPLE VKIEY RD I v4.„�� a� .- Y,4 ,. . Q O 6000 12000 s e "°"YsrY *\s‘,.:16 a ra rR aas'Ra 1:7 2,0 0 0 G�6�j � :S Q O SPRING LAIP F S q k _ _ 4 �`S'Y O KENT ' trrarR LAO , -__- 8 ) -----1 _ LONG RANGE PUNNING ---'{'--�--ldRr YOUNCS P/B/PW Technical Services �/ 5 May 1993 �l/g/ Robert T. Mac flnie, Jr. Source: City of Renton 1983 Comprehensive Land Use Plan FIGURE 1 r RECEIVED AU3 2 6 1997 AMENDMENT 6 - TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION: The purpose of transportation concurrency is to ensure that transportation facilities are in place at the time of development. Establishing a concurrency management system is supported at all legislative ' levels, State, regional, and local. The City of Renton has prepared and implemented several related components of a concurrency system in relation to development impacts; however, it has not been fully established. An ordinance and administrative rules are under preparation to implement the Transportation Element's Interim Concurrency Management System. Minor Comprehensive Plan text amendments are needed to more fully recognize current and proposed concurrency management procedures. No policy amendments are proposed. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Should the concurrency system be modified to recognize that the annual test of the city-wide Transportation Plan will need to indicate that the city-wide Level of Service has been achieved before finding an individual development project"concurrent"? 2. Should the concurrency system be modified to recognize that the Transportation Plan is based upon land use assumptions regarding future growth which should be considered in project level concurrency review? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation • The existing Interim Concurrency Management System supports annual testing of the City-wide transportation level of service index. Proposed amendments would clarify that the annual testing needs to show that level of service is met City-wide before a concurrency test is conducted for an individual development proposal. • As the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that transportation improvements need to support land use plans in policies T-1 and T-2, proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments would indicate that consideration of growth levels should be made during individual concurrency review of development proposals. Planning Commission Recommendation A motion was passed which concurred with the proposed staff recommendations to amend the Transportation Element text regarding concurrency procedures. ANALYSIS: State Legislation The Growth Management Act, at RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e) requires that subsequent to comprehensive plan adoption, each jurisdiction "...must adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the H:/PLN/AMENDS/CMPISS6.doc 1 8/21/97 • standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless the transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of the development are made concurrent with the development." With regard to transportation, concurrent means that the "...improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvement or strategy in six years." Improvements refer to capital improvements,while strategies can include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, transportation demand management, and system management strategies. Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies for King County address transportation concurrency and financing mechanisms. Level of Service (LOS) standards are to be used as a tool to evaluate concurrency for development review (T-9). If transportation concurrency and adequacy cannot be met, among other items, a jurisdiction is to make full use of all feasible transportation revenues authorized but not yet implemented (T-15). The use of interlocal agreements addressing the collection of impact fees is encouraged to recognize multi jurisdictional transportation impacts(T-17). Renton Concurrence Documentation The Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan promotes transportation planning being phased with growth (T-3), and adequate transportation facilities and services in place at time of development occupancy(T-4). Similar concurrency policies are found in the Capital Facilities Element (CFP-3 and CFP-4). An interim concurrency management system has been included in the Transportation Element. Key components include establishment of a funding strategy, a part of which includes payment of mitigation fees as a condition of land use development along with any site-specific mitigation. With the payment of the mitigation fee and implementation of site-specific mitigation, a development"... will have met the City of Renton concurrency requirements." The mitigation document for each development establishes the "... fee and facilities to be funded in the Six-Year TIP necessary to establish concurrency." Developer funds may be allocated to "...any improvement element of the city-wide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met." The City establishes concurrency by "... annually testing the city-wide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard." The Renton Level of Service (LOS) is based upon distance traveled in 30 minutes in all directions within the City of Renton. The LOS standard is 49 miles traveled in total by three modes, single occupancy vehicle,high occupancy vehicle,and transit. In 2010,the number of miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles is expected to decrease and the number of miles traveled by transit is expected to increase in comparison with 1990 distances. Measuring level of service by distance traveled is unique in the region and the State. Proposed Amendments The concurrency ordinance and administrative rules under preparation substantially recognize and implement the Interim Concurrency Management System as described in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. To ensure the system is reflective of other City policies and City monitoring practices, minor Comprehensive Plan text amendments will be needed, as shown in the attached pages, and described below: H:/PLN/AMENDS/CMPISS6.doc 2 8/21/97 • Remove the word "interim". With the Ordinance and supplementary Guidelines and Procedures, concurrency review will be fully established. • Recognize that the annual test of the City-wide Transportation Plan will need to indicate that the City-wide Level of Service has been achieved before finding an individual development project "concurrent." Annual testing is already promoted in the Interim Concurrency Management System. This amendment emphasizes its importance for individual concurrency review. • Recognize that the Transportation Plan is based upon land use assumptions regarding future growth which should be considered in project level concurrency review. Land use assumptions are a key component of the Transportation Plan as discussed in the Transportation Element Summary and in policies T-1 and T-2. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The proposed text amendments are procedural and will not affect land use designations or the development capacity expected in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed text amendments involve minor procedural changes to the City's concurrency management system. No impacts to other Comprehensive Plan Elements are anticipated. • ZONING CONCURRENCY: The proposed amendments will not impact the Zoning Ordinance districts or development standards. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments make minor adjustments to the Interim Concurrency Management System. The system will be more fully implemented with the proposed ordinance and administrative rules under preparation. • • • H:/PLN/AMENDS/CMPISS6.doc 3 8/21/97 ATTACHMENT: PROPOSED CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT TEXT AMENDMENTS Pages II-89 and II-90 of the Transportation Element InterimConcurrency Management System The Growth Management Act (GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation,the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies which support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, an-intefim concurrency policy has been developed for the City of Renton which is based on the following process: • The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which will be consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan have been defined previously. • The City.of Renton new Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies, that differs from the traditional LOS for arterials,will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • each—development-will--estab ish the c ties--te-be-€kunded—in +ter-Six=ea a • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the city-wide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by annually testing the city-wide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service.standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the annual test of the city-wide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and H:/PLN/AMENDS/CMPISS6.doc 4 8/21/97 application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. The Concurrency Management System comprises policies,procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. Details of the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the City of Renton's IntefimConcurrency Management System Abe have been developed as part of ongoing transportation work-following adoption of the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, and can be found in the Renton Transportation Concurrency Ordinance,and in administrative rules and procedures. H:/PLN/AMENDS/CMPISS6.doc 5 8/21/97 RECEIVED AUG261997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AMENDMENT 7 - EMPLOYMENT AREA-VALLEY NORTH OF I- CITY OF R!NT©N 405. CONSIDERATION OF TEXT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL ZONING DESCRIPTION: This proposed amendment evaluates whether Commercial Arterial uses should be allowed to occur on parcels on both sides of SW Grady Way in a "study area"between I-405 on the South, SW 10th street on the north,Powell Avenue SW on the west and Seneca Ave SW on the east. The analysis also looks at whether the Automall should be expanded into the area. The study area is currently designated Employment Area Valley. Existing policies limit Commercial Arterial rezones in this area. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. What type of uses does the City envision for the area along Grady Way north of I-405? Currently the Medium Industrial Zone allows manufacturing and warehousing uses in addition to vehicular sales and services. Given the success of Renton's new"auto row" along Grady Way to the east, should the City consider allowing CA zoning in the study area as a means of fostering the further expansion of these vehicle sales and service uses to the west? 2. Should the City consider expansion of the automall overlay designation in this study area? The automall designation would restrict the uses to automobile related activities, facilitate land aggregation into larger parcels which could be redeveloped, and require street front landscaping that exceeds the requirements of the CA Zone but is less restrictive than the requirements of the IM Zone. 3. Should the City encourage aggregation of parcels to facilitate larger scale redevelopment rather than small strip commercial businesses by facilitating street and alley rights-of-way vacations and require a larger minimum lot area? 4. Given that SW Grady Way is a gateway arterial into the City from the west and given the high visibility of much of the study area from I-405 to the south, should the City take steps to enhance the visual character of this area? Existing street front landscaping requirements vary in the area from 20' in the IM Zone, 15' with 30" berms in the Automall, to 10' in the CA Zone. If the City wants to encourage commercial uses but also pursue gateway treatment of this area should some type of landscape standard or gateway treatment be required for any rezones in this area? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation Amend Comprehensive Plan Policies LU 212.14, LU 212.15b to 1) Allow rezoning to CA in Employment Area-Valley designation north of I-405, and 2) Require a minimum 5 acre threshold size for aggregation of parcels for rezones to CA. Additional policy changes implementing additional issues are presented for review and discussion,but without a recommendation of approval. Planning Commission Recommendation The Commission was concerned about allowing Commercial Arterial zoning without restrictions, and was interested in reviewing the automall overlay zoning expansion issue at the same time as the policy amendments. Property owners were not notified because the staff proposed amendment is a text H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 1 8/21/97 amendment and not a map amendment; if the automall overlay zoning were to be expanded there would need to be property owner notification. The Commission recommends tabling the amendment, and remanding it back to the Planning Commission in the Fall of 1997 to discuss the automall expansion issue. ANALYSIS: Issue 1. -Land Use Current Employment Area-Valley Policy LU-212.14 limits Commercial Arterial rezones to the area south of I-405 with access to SW 43rd St. and to sites along East Valley Road south of SW 27th St. In the area north of I-405, the existing policy is interpreted to discourage enlargement of the CA zone within the Employment Area Valley designation. A policy text amendment would be necessary to establish CA zoning. - There are indications that a market for additional vehicular sales and other service type uses still exists in this area. The relocation of auto dealerships to Grady Way over the last few years has met expectations and virtually all of the available frontage east of Rainier Avenue S has been developed leaving only a few remaining vacant parcels primarily to the west of Lind Avenue SE. The available vacant land includes a 1.2 acre parcel along the north side of SW Grady and a.75 acre site west of the Renton West building. However, there are smaller sites in the IM Zone between Raymond Avenue S and Seneca Avenue S that would lend themselves to future development if assembled into larger parcels. If City policies are in place,this area could conceivably be rezoned to CA. Since auto related uses and dealerships can occur in either the CA or IM zones the question needs to be asked "what difference does it make whether the area is rezoned to CA or left as it is in IM"? The primary argument favoring rezoning to CA is that with IM zoning, future development could include manufacturing plants and warehouses. Such uses could end the existing auto row character and continuity, making it less likely that additional dealerships would want to develop in the area in the future. The table below indicates the different uses allowed in the IM Zone, the CA Zone and the Automall. Figure 1. -Permitted Primary Uses Table(partial listing). .v\•:,v,?iiiiiiiiii::�iiiii:4iiii}i}iiiiiiiiii:v}i:t:.�:::.�:::::v.�:::::::v ..�...�.....4:::�::::::•i;:::4}iii}}i}}i}i}:::i::oy>t:::tt:^:^:•::^:ii}i}};4i}:�::.•.::'v:::::::::::::::.�:.:::�:::::v:::::::.�:r^:^:^}i}}}i::�}}i::.:;•>::............ • IL Zone uses including: • Retail,including: Retail sales including: • Auto and truck sales, • Apparel,auto supplies, • Auto, motorcycle and rentals and repair auto,boat,motorcycle, passenger truck sales. establishments. and recreational vehicle and equipment; • Car washes,commercial • Department and variety laundries; stores; • Kennels and • Eating and drinking lumberyards; establishments; • Mobile home,trailer • Group homes I,food and recreational vehicle and groceries,mini- sales,rental and repair marts; establishments; • Recycling collection • Office and business stations; supplies; H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 2 8/21/97 :::.::.::.::t:.:::.:: ..:.>:. :;:i':>::i:.::;2;:;;`t:;4:;;;:;;22::'<'t:>:';t•;;•::;•>;:>:;::;x;::;;:;:;.+:<.:::�::::'.:';•::'::.:;•:;•::;•;•:•:5::::::t•::<:.:::. .>•'.:::;:r:;•>:.'titt;:';ti:•;:•;:•:: • Rental services, • Pharmacies and drug warehousing; stores; • Bulk retail and • Sporting goods,used wholesale;etc. goods',antiques; Theaters,Adult Entertainment; Services including: Gasoline service stations; Auto repair and service; • Retail uses incidental to a permitted Computer services,printing,copying; primary use(<33%) Manufacturing,processing,assembling Car washes, Laundromats, drive-in and warehousing; theaters; Wholesale greenhouse/nurseries Hotels and motels; Business and professional schools; • Taverns and theaters Issue 2-Expansion of the Automall If the City wants to encourage the redevelopment of the study area for automobile related uses rather than either general industrial or commercial uses further expansion of the Automall might be another viable land use option. Expansion of the Automall into the study area would potentially achieve a number of things. These include: 1) restricting uses to vehicle sales including autos, motorcycles, and passenger trucks; 2) facilitating land assembly by providing procedures_for rights-of-ways vacations; and 3)enhancing the visual character of the area with special landscaping provisions that focus on street frontages. Expansion of the Automall would need to be accomplished through amendments to the zoning code by expanding the existing overlay designation to the west. However,text amendments to the Employment Area Valley policies would be needed to allow the underlying Commercial Arterial zoning to be established in the study area. Issue 3 -Land aggregation with Commercial Arterial land use A disadvantage of commercial arterial zoning is that it can attract a variety of smaller users developing in linear "strips" along major arterials. This is because the CA Zone has no minimum lot area. To discourage this type of strip commercial development the City could encourage consolidation of existing smaller parcels by increasing minimum lot sizes in this area. Such land aggregation would facilitate larger uses such as car dealers and larger retail stores resulting in a more visually cohesive entry into the City than occurs with either industrial or small scale commercial development. Existing Comp Plan policies suggest that favorable consideration should be given to rezones "where there is an opportunity to create improved efficiencies of use through the.joint use/sharing of on site facilities such as parking, open space and supporting services." One way of doing this would be to impose a minimum lot size comparable to that of the IM Zone when considering a rezone to the CA Zone. Another is to establish a minimum land area that could be considered for a rezone to CA. A 5 acre threhold size is suggested as a minimum area to consider for CA uses. This size limit would discourage strip commercial development and encourage larger scale redevelopment proposals. Since these changes would only ' apply to rezones in the EA-V,a policy text amendment is proposed(Attachment A). H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 3 8/21/97 Issue 4-Gateway Boulevard Treatment An additional disadvantage of Commercial Arterial zoning along the Grady Way corridor is that the actual development standards for commercial uses are typically less than for industrial uses in the-IM zone. Whereas the IM Zone requires a minimum landscaping strip of 10%of the lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less, along arterials and 10% of the lot depth or 15 feet, whichever is less along non- arterial streets, the CA Zone only requires a 10 foot landscape strip along all streets regardless of their type. With more than 20,000 vehicles a day passing along SW Grady Way between Rainier Avenue S on the east and Oaksdale Avenue SW on the west this street is clearly a major community arterial as well as a gateway into the City. Greater street front landscaping continuity could enhance the image of the City along this corridor. If the City is interested in allowing a wider array of uses but wants to keep higher landscape standards, gateway arterial landscape standards could be pursued as an option. A number of policies support the notion of creating gateway streets with identifying design treatments. The implementation of a gateway/boulevard landscape program which could be in place prior to redevelopment occurring in this area would be timely. Amendments of this type could also be accomplished through the zoning ordinance since polices LU-212.19,LU-212.22,LU-274 and LU-375 already provide a framework. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Employment Area-Valley Policy LU-212.11 Changes in zoning from one commercial, office or industrial zone to another should be considered to achieve a balance of uses that substantially improves the City's economic base and employment base. Factors such as increasing the City's tax base, improving efficiency in the use of land, and the ability of a proposed land use to mitigate potential adverse land use impacts may be taken into account. Policy LU-212.12 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. Policy LU-212.13 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones where there is an opportunity to create improved efficiencies of use through the joint use/sharing of on site facilities such as parking, open space and supporting services. Policy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. Policy LU-212.22 Create a logical and harmonious working environment in mixed-use developments through the application of appropriate development standards, emphasizing landscaping, setbacks and sidewalk treatment for all uses. Community Design-Gateways Policy LU-273 Identify primary and secondary gateways to the City. Policy LU-274 City gateways should have identifying design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street furniture,paving and street width. Discussion: Community identity can be effectively communicated at City and district/neighborhood entries through the use of gateways. Gateways are one means to call attention to the entrance of the area and bid welcome. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 4 8/21/97 • Secondary Open Space-Public and Private Rights-of-Way Policy LU-374 A city-wide boulevard plan should be developed. Policy LU-375 A boulevard designation should be considered for roadways which are major transportation corridors in the City and also have the potential to function as open spaces. Boulevard status would indicate a higher priority for landscape, sidewalk and trail improvements which would increase the amenity value of the street. CONCLUSION: An opportunity exists to enhance the character of the study area either through rezoning it to CA with provisions for minimum lot size and possible Automall Overlay provisions or by leaving it Industrial - Medium. More extensive streetfront landscaping could also be required. Such landscaping requirements could possibly be based upon those of the Automall which require a minimum 15 foot wide streetfront landscape strip with a 30 inch high berm and specified street streets every 25 feet. This might be seen as a compromise between the IM Zone's minimum 10%or 20 foot wide landscape strip, whichever is the least and the CA Zone's minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip. • • • HiPLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 5 8/21/97 ATTACHMENT"A" Potential Policy Amendments LU-212.12.a. Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. Issue 3. LU-212.12.b. Favorable consideration should be given to rezones from industrial to Commercial Arterial(CA)when rezone sites are sufficiently large so as to be in keeping with the development character of the surrounding area. Discussion: Since rezones could occur on a lot by lot basis the intent is to require a minimum lot size comparable to that of underlying zone. In the case of the IMZone this is 35,000 square feet. Issues 1 &3. Policy LU-212.14 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones to Commercial Arterial(CA)only when the proposed commercial use has access to SW 43rd Street,and/or East Valley Road south of SW 27th Street or is located north of I-405 and south of 10th Avenue SW and the area under consideration is part of a designation totaling over 5 acres(acreage may be in separate ownerships). Issue 4. Policy LU-212.15.a. Favorable consideration should be given to rezones to Commercial Arterial(CA)abutting SW Grady Way after overlay streetscape development guidelines have -- been adopted either for the full area between Oaksdale Avenue SW on the west and Seneca Avenue S, or, as a minimum,the area affected by the proposed rezone. Issue 3.Policy LU-212.15.b. Favorable consideration should be given to rezones for large scale commercial uses or use ancillary to large scale uses provided that the ancillary uses are built at the same time as or after the large scale use and the rezone is sufficiently large so as to create improved efficiencies of use. Issue 4. Policy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for all new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape,but particularly in areas subjected to a transition of land uses and/or abutting major arterials. Issue 4.Policy LU-212.25 The use of common streetscape thematic elements such as similar street trees, street frontage landscaping,public street lighting, street signage, and other elements such as decorative banners,should be considered along gateway arterials and/or arterials fronting special character areas such as Renton's new automall. Issue 3.Policy LU-212.26 A minimum lot size should be developed in the CA Zone in order to create improved efficiencies of use and avoid linear"strip"type commercial development characterized by multiple curb cuts and street frontage signage. • H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997AMD7.DOC 6 8/21/97 AG261997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY AMENDMENT 8 - SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICY AND OF ReNTON REGULATION AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: The proposed Shoreline Master Program Amendments address a variety of policy subjects including economic development, circulation, residential development, and public access. As the SMP goals and policies are considered an Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan,the policy amendments constitute Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Other development regulation amendments are discussed as they relate to several of the policy changes, and because both the SMP goals and policies and development regulations constitute the whole Renton's Shoreline Master Program mandated by the State Shoreline Management Act. Key development regulation amendments relate to permit procedures, definitions, exemptions, shoreline jurisdiction, building/activity location, dredging, landfill, marinas and docks, recreation,map interpretation,and setbacks. ISSUE SUMMARY: In ESHB 1724, due to a desire for regulatory reform and integration of the Growth Management Act with the Shoreline Management Act,legislative amendments included: • Streamlining shoreline permit procedures. • Making wetland terminology consistent between the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act. • Clarifying that local SMP goals and policies are an element of local comprehensive plans. • Clarifyingthat other shoreline regulations included in an SMP are considered a part of local � development regulations. • Requiring new guidelines for updating local SMP's and requiring jurisdictions to meet those guidelines within two years of final rule adoption. In 1996, other Shoreline Management Act amendments were passed which affect shoreline permit expiration,permit exemptions, and residential docks. In response to the State legislation, City staff initiated the preparation of minor amendments to the Renton SMP addressing permit procedures, exemptions, definitions, and other similar issues. Regarding amendments that will need to be made to fully integrate the SMP with the Comprehensive Plan and other development regulations, in December 1996, Renton was selected by the State Department of Ecology (DOE) as a case study participant to "test" proposed new Master Program Guidelines. Additionally, the City applied for a grant this year to begin the larger update and integration of Renton's SMP which will need to be completed within two years after final adoption of the DOE Master Program Guidelines. Due to State budget cuts, the grant proposal has been made "pending"and will be considered in the 1998 cycle. On April 4, 1997,the City received a letter from Larry Martin of Foster Pepper& Shefelman,the firm representing the Paul Allen Group. The letter requests proposed amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program(SMP). A majority of the requested amendments address conformance with the recent State legislation in terms of permit process, definitions, etc. which staff initiated several months ago. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 1 8/21/97 Other suggested amendments would clarify policies and regulations regarding building arrangement, public access,dredging,docks,recreation,and inconsistencies between the SMP and zoning regulations. Many of these issues have already been discussed by staff and DOE during the case study process and during preparation of the grant application. The requested amendments have been folded into the City staff work and are considered together. Based upon the State Department of Ecology's preference for early consultation regarding amendments (WAC 173-26-100), a preliminary draft of the amendments was sent in May 1997. Where appropriate to the scope of the minor amendments, DOE comments have been incorporated. Comments which raised larger issues will be considered during preparation of the larger SMP update required by the State. A copy of the letter and responses are provided under separate cover. In the context of the proposed minor policy and regulation amendments the following issues are discussed in this report: • Policy amendments to Economic Development, Public Access, Circulation, and Residential "Elements"of the Shoreline Master Program • Shoreline permit exemptions • Definitions (wetlands, shorelands,floodway,bulkhead,buffer, setback, etc.) • Permit process changes • Jurisdiction • Permitting Roads in the Conservancy designation • Water related/water dependent developments and public access • Dredging and landfill • Docks and marinas • Public and private recreation • Residential setbacks • Map interpretations/footnotes RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation The staff recommendation is to adopt amendments to the SMP policies as presented in Attachment A and amendments to the narrative and development regulations of the SMP as outlined below and provided in detail under separate cover. In comparison to the original staff recommendation presented July 30, 1997, some minor changes were drafted by staff for review by the Planning Commission. The ' changes clarify some permit process sections in response to comments from The Boeing Company. A copy of the comments and responses is provided under separate cover. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended that the staff proposed amendments be made, including proposed permit process amendments in response to comments made by The Boeing Company. In agreement with staff;the amendments would exclude any change, at this time,to the policy or definition addressing high rise construction within the shoreline which was requested by The Boeing Company. The issue of high rise development in the shoreline could be reviewed comprehensively in a future update. If it becomes an issue for a specific project,a variance application could be made. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISSS.DOC 2 8/21/97 it ANALYSIS: Analysis of policy and regulation amendments is provided below. Proposed policy amendments appear following this report. As the remaining amendments are scattered throughout the SMP,the full package of proposed amendments is provided under separate cover. 1. Policy Amendments As described previously,to integrate the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act, all SMP goals and policies are considered to be an Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Based upon Shoreline Management Act requirements, the Renton's Shoreline Master Program contains policies in six "elements": conservation, economic, public access, recreation, circulation, and residential. The SMP use of the term "element" should not be confused with the use of the word "element"in the Growth Management Act. In the SMP, "element"is used in the sense as topic areas or sections. The word section is used in place of element below. Economic Section. - clarifies policy language applicable to individual development sites, that water related development should be located along the shoreline, and all facilities not requiring a water's edge location should be placed inland. This clarification would also be made to associated development regulations. Public Access Section. The amendments maintain restrictions on high rise location on the shoreline,but removes language addressing high rise structures adjacent to the shoreline. The SMP defines high rise __. as structures exceeding seventy-five feet in height. The amendment is proposed because the Shoreline Master Program applies to shorelines (i.e.water plus 200 feet landward,in general), while land adjacent to shorelines is subject to the height restrictions of the Zoning Code. Circulation Section. The amendments maintain language encouraging shoreline roadways to be scenic boulevards, but deletes language that shoreline roadways be restricted to existing rights-of-way. This clarification would also be made to associated development regulations. As Renton's waterfront locations redevelop, additional roads may be needed. Road development would require shoreline permits and be subject to review criteria. Residential Section. Amendments delete specific setback requirements from the policies as this is more appropriately addressed in development standards elsewhere in the SMP and Zoning Code. Also, language encouraging the location of low density development along the shoreline would be removed since the location of various residential districts is determined by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 2. Shoreline Permit Exemptions The Renton Shoreline Master Program has not been kept up-to-date with a growing list of exemptions found in Chapter 98.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These include residential dock exemptions, irrigation systems, watershed restoration projects, projects improving fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, and hazardous substance remedial actions as well as others. In addition, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) shoreline rules have been updated and provide further refinements of the exemptions which are useful for permit review. Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program text amendments update to the extent feasible the list of exemptions based on the RCW and WAC shoreline rules. Some of the exemptions have subsections defining terms. These definitions are H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISSS.DOC 3 8/21/97 included with the list of exemptions to make permit review easier, rather than including the terms in the definitions section of the SMP. 3. Definitions In 1995, the State Legislature required that shoreline jurisdiction rules be modified to make wetlands terminology consistent between the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, and the Clean Water Act. What used to be termed`wetlands" in the Shoreline Management Act is now called "shorelands,"and the definition of"wetland" refers to biological wetlands. These definitional changes have been incorporated into the SMP amendments. Along with the definitional changes, an attempt was made to review the use of the word "wetland" in the Renton Shoreline Master Program to see which words needed tole changed to"shoreland"and which should remain.as"wetland." Also;based upon suggestions from the State DOE, the use of the"terms shoreline, shorelines of the State, and Shorelines of Statewide Significance have been reviewed throughout for proper use. "Water's edge" was replaced with "ordinary high water mark" to better indicate how setbacks are measured, and a definition of ordinary high water mark was added, consistent with definitions found in State laws and rules. Likewise, based upon DOE comments, definitions of floodway, buffer, and setback were added, and the definition of bulkhead modified. The definition with a potential to affect the permit process is "floodway." DOE.comments indicated that because the jurisdiction of.the.Shoreline Master Program is based either upon a.200.foot distance from the ordinary high water mark or floodway,that a definition of floodway should be added, either the FEMA definition of floodway or the definition found in the Shoreline Management Act. Based upon conversations with DOE and the City's Surface Water Engineering staff, the State's definition of floodway would probably result in a relatively smaller area being regulated than if based upon the FEMA definition. This is because for--.the.most part, the.regulated shorelines have well defined channels. 4. Permit Process Changes The procedure for Shoreline Master Program amendments has been revised to reflect Renton's Regulatory Reform Ordinance which amended various permit processes according to State Regulatory Reform legislation, as well as recent amendments to the Shoreline Management Act regarding permit life,permit extension,and construction permit issuance. To match changes in the SMP permit process, some changes will need to be made to the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance: • A notice of application for a shoreline permit includes a 30-day comment period, longer than the standard 14 day comment period for most permit applications. [RCW 90.58.140/ WAC 173-27-110(2)(e)]. Notice would be posted and mailed to owners within 300 feet consistent with Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance,and with allowances of the Shoreline Management Act. In a change to previous rules, the WAC would not require consecutive publication of the notice for two weeks in a newspaper. • The appeal procedure for a shoreline substantial development permit on Table 4 of the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance should be corrected to replace "DOE" with "SHB" as the body that would have an open record appeal, and to delete "CC" since the review of a Shoreline Hearing Board appeal would not be heard by the City Council subsequently. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 4 8/21/97 Prior to the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance, appeals of staff decisions on shoreline substantial development permits were heard by the Hearing Examiner. The City is not required to have an administrative appeal procedure; to send appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board appears acceptable under regulatory reform legislation, and is common in many jurisdictions. • When a shoreline exemption letter is issued for a watershed restoration project,the decision must be issued within 45 days of receiving a complete exemption application [WAC 173- 27-040(o)]. The decision time frame for this type of exemption is different than for Type I permits,Table 6,of the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance. • According to RCW 90.58.140(11) applications for shoreline substantial development permits for a limited utility extension or construction,of a bulkhead for a single family residence (or other protective measures) are subject to a shorter notice of application comment period (20 days), a shorter decision time-frame (21 days from the last date of the notice of application comment period),and a shortened appeal process. • Under RCW 90.58.140(8),permits may be rescinded after a public hearing by the "issuing authority." Tom Marks of DOE has indicated that he would interpret the section to mean the City could rescind shoreline variance and conditional use permits in addition to substantial development permits. In the Renton Shoreline Master Program, the Hearing Examiner would hold the rescission hearing. The procedure for rescission should be included in the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance. 5. Jurisdiction Amendments would clarify throughout that the Shoreline Master Program addresses Shorelines of Statewide Significance(e.g. Lake Washington)in addition to other regulated shorelines as mandated by the Shoreline Management Act. 6. Roads in the Conservancy Environment Necessary roads subject to design requirements of the SMP are proposed as permitted uses in the Conservancy Environment. The existing design requirements for roads include that roadways should be limited and designed in environmentally sensitive ways. Roads would require a shoreline substantial development permit, and environmental review. The Conservancy environment designation applies to May Creek east of I-405, and along some portions of Springbrook Creek and the Cedar River. 7. Water Related/Water Dependent Developments and Public Access Because shorelines are a limited resource, the SMP promotes the location of water dependent or water related activities along the shoreline. If this cannot be achieved, significant public access is to be provided. The preferred uses of water dependent/water related activities or provision of public access has policy support in Policy 4.01.02.A.2,and 4.03.02.A: 4.01.02.A.2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural amenities of the shorelines and which depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 5 8/21/97 • • 4.03.02.A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted, reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. Amendments provide consistency between policies and regulations that encourage water dependent developments, water related developments, or provision of public access. Allowances for development to occur on the basis of significant public access is found in some parts of the SMP such as for industrial development. The amendments would allow the same public access linkage in commercial developments: Commercial developments would have to be water dependent, water related,or provide significant public.access. Without the ability to promote public-access as an alternative to water dependent-or water related developments, the Comprehensive Plan land use strategies for mixed use development along some parts of Lake Washington(e.g. Pt. Quendall) and the Cedar River(e.g. Urban Center)could be more difficult to achieve. 8. Dredging and Landfill The SMP allows dredging for flood control, navigation, and park maintenance purposes. Amendments allow dredging and landfilling activities which are performed in accordance with a remedial action plan approved by State or Federal agencies. Other amendments clarify that dredging is prohibited in natural or unique areas unless dredging is performed for the allowed purposes;:.has received..appropriate Federal:or State:authorization,.and has been subject to environmental review. 9. Docks and Marinas - 'Revisions-are proposed to:the design criteria for recreational,' commercial, and.industrial docks, and address the length of docks and breakwaters associated with marinas. Docks associated with marinas would have to meet current length restrictions, or extend to the inner harbor line, or beyond the inner harbor line if approved by the Washington Department of Natural Resources or other agency with jurisdiction. 10.Public and Private Recreation Amendments to public recreation development regulations indicate that accessibility to the water's edge should be provided, with consideration to public safety and natural features. The amendment provides greater consistency with Public Access policies. Currently,the SMP allows private recreation if it is open to the public, if the proposed development has water dependent and water related uses, if the recreation would have no impacts on adjacent properties, and if parking is screened and separate from pedestrian paths. Amendments would delete the criteria that private recreation be allowed if the development has water dependent and water oriented components. These amendments relate to other policy and regulation amendments indicating that economic uses may be water dependent or water related, or provide significant public access. Other criteria, regarding minimizing effects on adjacent properties and adequate parking with landscaping, would remain. 11.Residential Setbacks Residential setbacks are made consistent with the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance buffer requirements, and the Zoning Code. The current SMP residential setback is a minimum of twenty feet H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISSS.DOC 6 8/21/97 while the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance require a 25 foot undisturbed buffer. In addition some zones of the City such as the Resource Conservation Zone could require greater setbacks than twenty five feet depending on what is considered the front, rear, or side yard of a lot and with respect to an adjacent shoreline. The amendments indicate a minimum shoreline setback of twenty five feet or a setback consistent with the Renton Municipal Code,whichever provides the greater setback. 12.Map Interpretations/Footnote As a condition of acceptance of 1993 S .amendments, DOE required the preparation of a more :. detailed environment map of the Springbrook Creek Map. The City prepared the map which was accepted by DOE and is part of the official Renton SMP in DOE headquarters. The map will be - . included in an.appendix. A footnote would be added about the approximate nature of identified . .wetlands and the use of site-specific analysis to determine applicability of the SMP. Another clarification is made in the text in policies and regulations that the Conservancy designation with its lower intensity uses begins "east of FAI-405 right-of-way." The highway right-of-way maybe larger than existing improvements. This amendment clarifies the generalized nature of the shoreline maps. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The amendments-do not.result in changes to the Comprehensive Plan,Land.Use.Map or the.Zoning Map._No-changes to development capacity are.anticipated. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The,proposed amendments to the SMP goals.and policies are specific to shoreline activities and do not appear to conflict with the other elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Review of the Land Use, Transportation, and Environment Elements was made in particular. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Changes to policies affecting building height and to residential setbacks would result in greater conformity between the SMP and Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION: The staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to adopt amendments to the SMP policies, regulations, and permit procedures, as more fully described in this report, attachments, and documents under separate cover. H:\DIVISION.SAP&TS\PLANNINGILGRUETER\SHORELINICMPISS.DOC H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISSS.DOC 7 8/21/97 • ATTACHMENT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES 4.01 SHORELINE USES AND ACTIVITIES ELEMENT 4.01.01 Goals_: • A. Shorelines of the City State regulated by the City are to be planned and coordinated to afford best use of the limited water resource. B. Shorelines of the City State regulated by the City are to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. 4.01.02 Policies: A. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned for: 1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. 2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural amenities of the shorelines and which depend on a shorelines location or provide-public access to the shorelines. 3. Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards should not increase the density ef--or intensity of shoreline uses or activities except on a demonstrated need considering the shorelines and then only in accordance with the policies contained herein. 4. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for water-dependent uses or activities. 5. Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. 6. Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. 7. Shoreline uses and activities should be discouraged if they are objectionable due to noise or odor or if they create offensive or unsafe conditions in relation to reasonable and appropriate uses and activities. B. Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water related should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. C. All shoreline developments shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 1 8/21/97 4.02 CONSERVATION ELEMENT 4.02.01 Goal: • The resources and amenities of all shorelines situated in the City of Renton are to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. 4.02.02 Policies: A. Existing natural resources should be conserved. 1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs. 2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased. 3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased. 4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation. Access and use should be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas. B. Existing and future activities on all shorelines of the State and wetlands shorelands within-regulated by the City of Renton should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the environment. C. The City of Renton should take aggressive action with responsible governmental agencies to assure that discharges from all drainage basins are considered an integral part of shoreline planning. 1. Soil erosion and sedimentation which adversely affect any shoreline within the City of Renton will be prevented or controlled. 2. The contamination of existing water courses will be prevented or controlled. D. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational or scientific value should be identified and protected. 1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site preservation and protection. 2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. E. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantially or permanently impairing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be permitted per Chapter 5-21 of the Renton Municipal Code. F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 2 8/21/97 City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. 2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. 4.03 ECONOMIC ELEMENT 4.03.01 Goal: Existing economic uses and activities,on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged. 4.03.02 Policies: A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted, reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. B. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. 1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-related portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge location. 2. The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. 3. Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. C. Multiple use of economic developments on the shoreline should be encouraged to provide public recreational opportunities wherever feasible. D. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible. 1. Commercial dockings and marinas shall meet all health standards. 2. Marinas and other economic activities shall be required to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 3 8/21/97 • E. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. F. Containment or mitigation of pollutants shall be required of all economic activities on the shoreline by property owner and/or operator. 4.04 PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT 4.04.01 Goal: Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural amenities. 4.04.02 Policies: A. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. B. Just compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. C. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/conservation of the.natural.amenities. D. Public access .to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. E. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property or by easement. F. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments shall be encouraged to provide public access along the water's edge. G. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. H. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures, multi-family, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and industrial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water's edge if physically feasible. 1. High-rise structures on the shoreline shall be prohibitedbu-seuld—be served. Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the water's edge. H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 4 8/21/97 J. Both passive and active public areas shall be designed and provided. K. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking shall be provided at frequent locations. L. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including the trail system. M. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. 4.05 RECREATION ELEMENT 4.05.01 Goal: Water-related recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged. 4.05.02 Policies: A. Water-related recreational activities should be encouraged. 1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved. 2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. 3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed. 4. Both passive and active recreational areas shall be provided. B. Recreational fishing should be supported, maintained and increased. C. Public agencies should be encouraged to buy shoreland, as it becomes available for sale, based upon an established plan declaring public intent. D. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development, and maintenance of waterfront areas. E. Subject to state and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. 4.06 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 4.06.01 Goal: Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines. 4.06.02 Policies: A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible-and H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISSS.DOC 5 8/21/97 B. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. C. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. 1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. 3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed transportation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. D. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. 4.07 RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT 4.07.01 Goal: Existing residential uses are to be recognized, but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines consistent with legal property rights of the owner. 4.07.02 Policies: A. Residential uses over water shall not be permitted. B. Residential development should not be constructed in unique and fragile areas. C. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. D D id tip t t near the shot shall be set banlr from the ��tes men Ra-s Ord s�d Fes-T,�-R,��elir�es�, €D. Future shoreline subdivision and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's edge. GE. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. 14F. All further development on the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31 st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of H:/PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 6 8/21/97 the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. 2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped state as much as possible. H1PLN/AMENDS/1997/CMPISS8.DOC 7 8/21/97 . ..•.. . . ---;'.:i.rt. I. • * I . - , / /. - • . ) ' • __1__________ ,.'---:i'._.-I. ___ 1=1_2_ 1) ' jz_ --- (-1---- ----------- I -7-__ 1_11 ..,,-,=?.--) • 1 - -1k"---1 c •. i . . I / 1 • 17 I • I. ... I _I I J . . --:,-- ....q.,. ... C _ . . .. _.:_-___ _,_ _-...i_i_ii- _ -_c_.?__ - 11--- • ' --, . . .... . _ - H II . ,,-, - .. 1 ....... I ---.-' • . I `--__1:-) .?".'2.1,- . :_. -).g.,.. -_ : .- -•j------. -,.-,..-• r — _.,.. ,=::•'-i:3 "•;;----1-- 11 1_,....... LI; —. :5 ;±. ; . -)1 __:.. :-.:141 '';1•: -_— e . .a---2_,-.1r.)1( ..- J.tod.• 1 ' 4 11,111-------- )- c 21_1 .k- _ e. ,,..,... :.. .. iti ' 111 • ._ 1 .: • _•-• -- -J.. , I.• — 1 :/ .----\-e-_, -:.. a a-r__ .-- • ... - -1 .• i--. •>.-u.i .1 l. ‘‘11:-17(- 1 .ujc)c-Z .• .*:i."-.:4 .. 011:! = :' 57 :-_,_' _. i.--=-:_ - -., • .. ' _-z---a•f,-L •. . -,--_. q LcIrl. I_ . , E._.:))" - ,i• - --.„--•---- . .----(1_77. - -.t'liCori.j .... _ ... _ • .• I ."--10 ! 4 I 1 A•.C..- ......4-'C')• j \..t. 7 ;: . • ...-.-.-..-•. ........ ... 4 . ..- i 13 7 ._..._. ','• • ... —in___L_ .. 01P .... 7. it,i,,,,,„ . :__Ij ... . 7_1 " ". -7-1- . ------ I, . • • -- —- - I" r • _ i __ _ ,_„....... ,..1 . 2 • rs, • . . , . • .. _ , • ___ :0 i • : .0 —... .t I -11 Ill a) . • _ › --- :.==. 7.--- ,,,,,, E• r 0 • . .- _ . i _ r n 11.1 1 • C9 2 .•;-.. — - .': • • • i .:. ' r 7 — - - • cl. 1 - ---71:- ; 77:: ___(----- c- L 171: - . . v) . • -----1 . . ,..... 11,1 . ..... v) , ,/.1.i _.. . .._, - / 17- . , S j, 0 IL . § i rli :--- - -----, - i• i. .• . . _ 17 —Noir "1— JrC•••1 :: VOIll___. ! I W ..••-'••.'..-"••-•I.•'. 1.I Er: • 1111 rr < 0 ( fie 7L."s r: 4 I: u —) Zil -*c .,. ).(Th 6 ---2-frs— ' -------.1.1i w CC f ....":";:. -,;,1 ...._. :›f.1 . I 1 •••7 , ?(" I • L 1 l--'--- 11 -f.--.-1 • =1-__• • -t14:11 vp." .. , . /.417-._ f=\.• . bill . . •_.• . . • a:rim-rill zz/ ,t, f 1-1]-_ Oh-- . ---_______-- • --ii1 .._ , r----- ---:- N, '-----------.._ • I '''''- ...- ''':- .. " I FIGURE 5-L _.• 1 • 1 n� . I�- I 4J i I i • ,,,,,•.,.... . .,_4 ,'.,,•1. •,%•""•' " . '• , ". Q(s\ f• I — I ffl kA"'\I. .. "''''' ' — 4".. . '. ' "' l . • .�VIRD�METS1IA/ ._-I i Y !`t ( IL_ /47• c/ I . of -J I \ x I ---- >�BNSERVAIVC�I�' - •I MAY. — i ' - - .• •: NATURAL, i i CREEK. , .• . --T-91\ - --T. ! 1—.) • IN . LAKE — . \ , WASHINGTON • ,.-•� I I' I 1-r I�• .: • : ., i i r. l . 1 r-' �I �� E. ; d F -r i ' ' 'i % f � 1 _ i r I II 1 � Ir"-� V r-, n ��1 Ill•^+ I - I II — , I I tJ 1111 t--• . i I I ` `I' = 1.-. ' Imo.. ' i I I I I..<w � � I I I I ;\. t., ; _ 13 r: I �iII I1iph 1 (; BLACK. ; I i 1 , A bl y CEDAR ,�� d I 1. 1 L I -� r ; RIVER i iIII ill �+ • • •RIVER, I C I I i I L Imo~\ I tills SPRINGBROOK,'i 1 I • Of.. I < I i-I I I �f 1 .. , I I I N CREEK i I ICI I :,: t' + lr I ) _ li I i ......„,,,aL . ; \ ____;3,. 6 . 419.4\ir 1 . ---c\_____.j. di 1 I AVi 1 1 I } � , ' • 1, _,_1(--T. . - ). - ! q,,,,. .... .. , ! , , ,,, ,,,G.-ift-N "...,.. . ,...,,...)._J. ,. I '/ _ 1 II LI r II I\VIII1, r1• IL i `� - •i 1r� I .y � � r I I liV.,..,. III I �I �� r-- _1)1: L. 1 i II 1 � I l ' _� 1I GRE=N L �.. RIVER J - � 1(c1 ii - 1 \ 1 / 1 L! L) 0 I 1 LI 1 - . , \ • CITY RENTON• SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM . "SPRIN-GBR'OOK CREEK .. , - -•,• - SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP _ y1 :. _ alp....,„,-41a In ; ' o gy ! 4Rlon Vi • r/ tt/� —�V1rt° I-yam i�011. j) 1.111 �I '�Il�r��, sw lzm st :'icy __wrongs' \ii , agillilliktrts h MN El (19 too��/ Aim ! t,11 Ini: Iwo'it 1 n`:IjG!jt;:'Igl ` y'-lit r_� �� \'tr �rm, - Rolm% r;,--,, iiii, ,, Ip1YJ SW 1 lh St �� ii. �.. ; y '. SI19th �� ..:� Si x „i. n4......,_ 1'' ,,,, _ / InI... . . _ _c s L= `d , s., I • .:'S1YyjyrW'19:t tk;4.1 ii S 2Jra �? f. "@dr W'.tig�i'1r'et!'�511 4'141 " 1 itki .t ':�F'_ -fib k=fi�T .�� • '"li q. ;, W jl i' ' 'llµ i 41' •W 27th St `h i I II p '!A j r.♦� R.: SW Sig; 3" ).4,11NA II .10727 i :;;art• �I� ��n 'j.il:r - It'ir L]iliit;t I[ i A,A7T_ •.,f t- • kF;nr �R . „�:"'1":'rii r ... l�F�fl_II'Ii,1.,�1.,*11 i J'Y3.. 4,.. S, . ` - •. '`i ;::p!.;,ij tlilhla Ct;ii !j,a ltif't i'!!�h SN 2`lh SMI5 r= *'•',< ;.i;F: • —I :-:.. :,:. a;..: `I :.�:.pN.. ;:aura, ••.. I;JP?..�i�n.h;:�t;y;y!iq;�,m.�`,,��., '•jm^;I_pi, jiw�rul4ily�l :,,f;� I„u,,!Lfi� • rk�m:.�7 ;;;v� � /4,1;�� v s. - :Fir 7.::r:'P !1' `t f r e ,F' ! i *'•' ' i l': ., '`.j i ;. f . `r?'X;?.1"qIl ..,. $W: Hilt y!f� ''i !;..;...::� rl;,�°F,:,i ^is;;` I n:q;'�I`iJ'�T -.rl;:. .�i_ r�. 1 r.''r0-. :, d S 'Fry._' .—.r - G!€'��li�'�'T� 0 &•1 try': SW 34th S • A It' MJ �,� ylliffil — = )11 i',g ttflir MIN SW 39l 4... �� .I. r h StIllr ! t.--�i f j;;;r MI.I• i;,I,.Jil• • ' IRS'/5W 41st SI.a,j.- f SW 41st s�i 2 �I,I • •/ • 9 I?st.I ( mini -�• '• i.4111 I% 43rd SL SW 43rd SI. / MITIW A ,��14/4 ,4 . ..: r .,.. S 182nd ( ! TT7rLi/ 4, 1., _- ti rnelr “ i 45l • I 1 u • . I f U Urban Environment • 0 2, PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 0 1000 2000 C Conservancy Environment z .-:..,-na,., , o RJ11ao0n1e,D.YUaukl,U.Dotson .,,::;" Wetlands rn January1994 �'. :�� L 41:a o — Shoreline Boundary i, 1:12000 --- - — City Limits n Note: This map depicts the approximate location of the Sprinabrook Creek shoreline boundary and associated wetlands governed by the Renton Shoreline Master Program Application of the Renton Shoreline Master Program to a property is determined on a site-specific basis by the Development Services Division utilizing the regulations and definitions in the Program and any site-specific environmental analysis ,. RECEIVED AMENDMENT 9 - LAND USE/ANNEXATION POLICIES Ally 2 6 1997 DESCRIPTION' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF ReNTON Annexation Policy LU-403 currently requires annexations to encompass a minimum of ten acres except under specific circumstances. A proposed amendment would maintain the intent of encouraging larger annexations but would create greater latitude in allowing smaller areas to annex. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Larger annexations are a more efficient use of City resources. The marginal per acre cost to the City to process annexations generally drops with increasing size. 2. Allowing smaller annexations limits the number of participants,increasing the likelihood of success. 3. City Council policy has been to extend City utility service to properties outside the city limits under very limited circumstances. Allowing small annexations would respond to very localized utility needs. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation: Amend Annexation Policy LU-403 to allow annexations less than 10 acres in size. Planning Commission Recommendation: Concur with staff recommendation but maintain reference to 10 acre size. ANALYSIS: Annexation has been identified as one of the City Council's highest priorities. Annexations occur only when property owners perceive an enticement sufficient to accept a higher tax levy rate than the County and to overcome resistance to change. Perceptions of benefit are based on property owners individual circumstances. Area-wide unanimity is rare and divisiveness tends to be the norm. Allowing smaller annexations provides opportunities for more tightly focused annexations that don't require the accession of a large number of participants. Access to City utility services is the primary driver of most annexations. The City Council's policy has been to severely limit extension of utility services outside the city limits. Owners of developed properties are less likely to require new utility services. Since developed properties tend to have the higher assessed values, owners of these properties can heavily influence the outcome of annexation efforts and hence the development of unincorporated properties that require utility service. Allowing small annexations may facilitate the extension of utility services by providing a means for more selective annexations. The potential risk of the proposed policy amendment would be the duplication of effort that will occur if the City must process an increased number of small annexations. However, as part of the annexation process,the City Council has the discretion to expand annexation proposals and to deny proposals that are not logical. The issue is whether the City of Renton will expand faster and less efficiently in smaller increments,or slower and at a lower marginal cost in larger increments. H:\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\10ACANNRDOC 1 8/21/97 The Planning Commission acknowledges the benefits of removing the minimum size stipulation. However, the Commission also believes that the Policy should include a target size threshold for annexations. This would provide a reference standard for decision-makers evaluating annexation proposals. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The proposal will not directly affect capacity except by potentially increasing the City's land area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposal is consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: The practical affect of the proposed amendment will be that smaller annexations are proposed. However, the annexation process provides sufficient opportunity to expand or reject annexation proposals that are clearly inappropriate in terms of size or the city boundaries that would be created. Additionally, other Comprehensive Plan policies provide criteria for the review of annexations to ensure that boundaries are logical and that annexations further the City's interests. Annexation proposals must also be sufficiently consistent with the objectives of the Boundary Review Board that the City is confident of favorable review by the Board. H:\PLANNING\AMENDS11997\10ACANNX.DOC 2 8/21/97 ATTACHMENT A Staff recommendation: Amend Annexation Policy LU-403 as follows: (Proposed) Policy LU-403. Larger annexations should be encouraged, when appropriate, in order to realize efficiencies in the use of City resources. Planning Commission recommendation: Amend Annexation Policy LU-403 as follows: • • • (Proposed) Policy LU-403. Annexations greater than 10 acres should be encouraged, when appropriate,in order to realize efficiencies in the use of City resources. H:1 PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\10ACANNX.DOC 3 8/21/97 FIEOFIVED MO 2 6 1997 AMENDMENT 10 - RS TO RR IN MAY VALLEY PREZONE �EVELOPciYv o��AhENT PLANNING>V�Ta . DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change an area in Phase II of the May Valley Prezone from Residential Single Family to Residential Rural. The concurrent prezoning would assign R-1 and R-5 zoning to the subject properties. Zoning would not be implemented until the subject properties annex to the City. (see attached map) ISSUE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has considered the issues surrounding the proposed amendment during the prezoning process for Phase II. The following list is a summary of those issues: 1. Consistency with recommendation of the draft May Creek Basin Action Plan to maintain, at a maximum,the existing zoned densities in areas that drain to May Valley. Existing King County zoning for the subject area is R-4. 2. Existing erosion,flooding and water quality problems in May Creek and its uplands. 3. Owners of a portion of the subject properties have requested R-8 zoning, consistent with the existing RS designation. 4. Limitations on the number of new sanitary sewer connections in the area that could be accommodated with existing infrastructure. 5. Planning Commission's prior recommendation of R-1 zoning for the subject properties. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation: Amend the Land Use Map to change the subject area from Residential Single Family to Residential Rural. Planning Commission Recommendation: Concur with proposed Land Use Map amendment. ANALYSIS: The proposed Land Use Map amendment would lower the potential density of future development on the subject properties. Currently, implementing zoning would allow detached single family development at eight units per net acre or manufactured home park development at ten units per net acre. Although R-5 is an implementing zone of the Residential Single Family designation,its use is restricted to areas within one-half mile of the Urban Growth Boundary. This area would not qualify for R-5 zoning: With a change to Residential Rural,potential zones would include R-5,R-1 and Resource Conservation. The R-5 was not originally intended for application to Residential Rural areas in the vicinity of May Creek. The purpose of the exclusion was to avoid up-zoning. While R-5 zoning has been proposed for H:/PLANNING/RS TO RR.DOC 1 8/21/97 a portion of the subject area, the amendment would accomplish the same intent, since it would allow continuation of King County's zoned density. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the draft May Creek Basin Action Plan to maintain existing zoned density in areas that drain to May Valley. The maximum density allowed under the RR designation would be five units per net acre. Existing King County zoning allows four units per gross acre. Due to the difference in calculating density,the number of units allowed under both zoning regulations would be similar. The Commission's zoning recommendation for this area was R 1. The Planning and Development Committee's recommendation,accepted by the full Council,was R-1 for the easternmost parcel and R-5 for the remainder. Both Commission and Council direction for zoning would require the proposed amendment for consistency between the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Since the area is outside the city limits, it would not affect previous capacity analyses which demonstrate that growth forecasts could be accommodated within the existing corporate boundary. However,the capacity of the subject area would change. Under the existing RS designation, the area has a capacity of 47 new units. The amendment and proposed zoning would lower capacity to 13 new units. Since this analysis is parcel specific, no factor has been applied for market availability, public facilities or environmentally sensitive areas. However,slopes of 40%or greater have been removed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the prezoning proposal are supported by the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Residential Rural Policy LU-26 Maximum development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood plains and wetlands where density should not exceed 1 home per acre. General Residential Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development providing a more rural lifestyle in environmentally sensitive, habitat-valuable, or agriculturally resource laden areas. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Residential Rural Policy LU-32. Residential Rural areas may be incorporated into community separators. Community Design Policy LU-271. The function of community separators should be to: a. reinforce the character of the City's neighborhoods; b. establish boundaries between the City's urban growth area and other areas; c. separate high density urban land uses from areas of low density, semi-rural and conservation uses;and, d. protect environmentally sensitive or critical areas. Community Design Policy LU-272. Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for inclusion in community separators: a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas,public and private open space and water features; H:/PLANNING/RS TO RR.DOC 2 8/21/97 b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, boulevards, utility easements, and other rights-of-way, and agricultural areas. c. Areas which provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban uses. ZONING CONCURRENCY: The amendment would be implemented by R-1 and R-5 zoning, previously approved by the City Council and based on recommendations from the Commission. CONCLUSION: The Land Use Map amendment and concurrent prezone proposal is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission have approved zoning that would require this amendment for consistency. H:/PLANNING/RS TO RR.DOC 3 S/21/97 • r MAY VAI EY PREZONE = ?HASE II Planning and Development Committee Recommendations I \ L_ 0 — - �E May Valle y Rd U \ 1 NMN V ., F 0 ; x Q U F nisi Allt&-th Ct 1 0 . IIIN ; 41IF �:,� ipor41, , �Ii br., ri_lim„ ,ir..- � ►E 102n d � ►ram■. ] �� io i • •jam 1111T1 mitt its;AMEIPPli 6 *Avtdowvimvp 4140* U.) As AIN ii - Fill altbalegem 111" _ mi uniumun Al° " 4/6 1 j tilll ' ...- 1111111 kir%) r!ii!Aii lt th L. ye i 01 Y 0,6 Planning and Technical Services ® R-1 Zoning ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works ® R-5 Zoning O. Dennison, R. MacOnie to rt 6 June 1997 O R-5 Zoning with CPA* 0 600 1 ,200 0 R-1 Zoning with CPA* imes`.`"`:.`:.:.`'.:.:. * Comprehensive Plan amendment from 1 :7,2 0 0 Residential Single Family to Residential Rural MO 2 6 1997 L VELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF.R!NTON AMENDMENT 11 -EMPLOYMENT AREA- COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOY- MENT AREA- OFFICE POLICIES DESCRIPTION: This amendment evaluates the feasibility of combining the residual Employment Area - Commercial and Employment Area - Office land use designations outside of the Valley Planning Area to create a new Employment Area - Commercial/Office designation that would include a blend of existing policies. Both office and commercial arterial zoning would be allowed in the new designation. Rezones would occur more easily to either Commercial Arterial or Commercial Office. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Should the City combine the Employment Area Office and Employment Area Commercial Designations, particularly in light of the Green River Valley having been given a combined office/commercial land use map designation in last year's Comprehensive Plan amendments? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff Recommendation • Retain the existing and separate EA-C and EA-0 designations. • Make only minor modifications to policies to reflect changes in the amount of industrial, commercial,and office land in the city. Planning Commission Recommendation Accept staff recommendations, except amend policy LU-146 by deleting the last sentence of subsection "a" regarding expanding a larger share of the commercial market. The updated figures indicate that Renton has achieved a larger share,and the main part of the policy indicates that the City should provide for local and regional shopping needs. The City will monitor these needs and determine the appropriate course of action. ANALYSIS: A combination of Employment Area - Commercial and Employment Area - Office land use designations and policies would only be applicable to sites currently having either one or the other of these two Employment Area designations. Existing sites with Commercial Office zoning or Commercial Arterial zoning in areas with other land use designations such as Employment Area - Valley or Center Institution would not be affected by a change in these policies. The following discussion focuses on why it is not necessary to merge the EA-C and EA-0 policies at this time. 1. Retention of Potential Office Development Sites. The issue of preserving sufficient office space to meet growth projections in this area is important because market demand for additional office space in Renton, although still weak, is beginning to change as the vacancy rate drops from a high of 29% in 1995 to about 21% in the last quarter of 1996. Indications are that it will continue to drop in the South Seattle area,which includes Renton. PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\EACEA097 1 8/21/97 The office sites with Commercial Office zoning that would be affected by this Comp Plan Amendment are outside of the Valley area. There are basically six EA-0 sites that would be affected by these amendments. • This first site is located west of SR-167 and north of I-405 at Renton Village. This site includes the Renton 1,2, and 3 office buildings. • The second site is north of I-405 and east of SR 167. This site is actually two smaller parcels pushed up against I-405 that would not appear to hold great potential for new office development. • The third site includes the Main & Grady office building which the City recently acquired for a new city hall as well as a 4.65 acre site across the street that support some minor office space but could be redeveloped to more intense office at some time in the future. • The fourth site is located in North Renton near the intersection of N. 6th Street and Park Avenue North. Most of this site is currently developed with Boeing related office buildings and ancillary parking structures. The former Mother's Park site north of N. 6th Street and west of Park Avenue N. is underdeveloped and presumably could accommodate another Boeing related office building and ancillary parking at some time in the future. • The fifth site is the Group Health Co-op site north of NE 3rd Street and west of Monterey Drive NE. This site is currently developed and occupied by the Group Health Clinic at that location. • The sixth and final site is located along the west side of Rainier Avenue S. west of the Renton Airport between S/. 117th Street (if extended), and S. 118th Street (if extended). This rather small,+ 12,000 sq. ft. site is currently developed with a low intensity office/warehouse use. The subject sites would appear to have limited potential for new commercial arterial uses and should be retained for office uses due to the limited land available for office development in the City. This is at a time when vacancy rates are falling in South King County, including Renton. Whereas it might be argued that allowing office development to go into Commercial Arterial zoned areas would potentially increase growth capacity for office use, there is no assurance that there is a market for office uses in these predominantly strip retail areas or, that office uses could economically compete with retail uses when sites of sufficient size become available. 2. Uses Allowed. Uses other than convenience retail sales and services are allowed in the Commercial Arterial Zone, and could, with rezoning, locate on Employment Area- Office properties. For example, the CA Zone allows auto sales and related auto-oriented land uses. The Commercial Arterial Zone also allows stand alone multi-family residential uses subject to the development standards of the RM-C Zone at densities up to 20 DU/AC. By merging the Employment Area - Commercial/Office designations CA uses, including multi-family residential, could be developed in areas zoned Commercial Office under a new combined land use designation. This could be controversial in areas such as North Renton or, undesirable in other areas such as on the south side of SW Grady Way, which lacks traditional community services. PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\EACEAO97 2 8/21/97 1I� 3.Miscellaneous Minor Text Amendments. The Employment Areas policies include language addressing land use utilization figures for the City. These sections are updated since the earlier version used data collected a number of years ago. Minor amendments updating factual information and clarifying language are recommended. Policy LU-163 is clarified to state that required recreation facilities are for "employees in new development". In addition specific standards regulating height are recommended for deletion as these regulations are more appropriately included in the development regulations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies include the following. Objective LU-D:Designation of land uses on the Land Use Map should match capacity of the growth targets. Policy LU-9. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the 50/50 residential mix and supporting commercial and industrial uses,including or excluding the Urban Center. Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial, light industrial, office and commercial uses should be available for present and future development. Using the growth assumptions, criteria for determining "adequate amounts of land: for the employment area should be based on the following: a. Commercial: Provide for local and regional shopping needs of the residential and employment sectors of the community. In the recent past, Renton has provided 6.7% of its land base for commercial uses. This percentage should be expanded to capture a larger share of the commercial market. c. Office: Provide for stand alone office uses, and offices that support industrial uses in order to reach future employment levels. CONCLUSION: The need for combining Employment Area - CommerciaVOffce policies is not well established, particularly in light of the recent amendments creating the combined commercial, office, industrial employment policies in the Valley under the new Employment Area - Valley designation. Whereas, the Valley is more of a stand alone area, Employment Area - Office and Employment Area - Commercial areas occur in several locations often adjacent to residential areas. The existing EA-0 sites with Commercial Office zoning are quite small providing only marginal capacity for future office development. It is recommended that this capacity be protected. There is a further concern that the amount of stand alone multi-family residential in the CA Zone significantly effects the City's multi-family capacity. This situation could be made worse by allowing Commercial Office sites to rezone to Commercial Arterial under a combined designation. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application to combine the EA-C and EA-0 designations. It is however,recommended that several minor amendments to existing EA-C and EA-0 policies be approved and that the residential in the CA Zone issue be reviewed as part of next year's work program. PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\EACEA097 3 8/21/97 EMPLOYMENT AREA I Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land suitable providesd 2014.6%of its land base for industrial for all types of industrial, light industrial, office and uses, a higher percentage than many other of the commercial uses should be available for present and area's cities. This percentage is expected to future development. Using the growth assumptions, decline as Renton grows in land area. criteria for determining "adequate amounts of land" c. Office: Provide for stand alone office uses, and for the employment area should be based on the offices that support industrial uses in order to following. reach future employment levels. Renton a. Commercial: Provide for local and regional currently provides 6.0%of its land base for office shopping needs of the residential and employment uses. sectors of the community. In the recent past d. Light industrial: ,Sustain the amount of existing Currently, Renton has provided 6.7% provides uses.and provide for a modest future expansion 8.7% of its land base for commercial retail uses. of light industrial development. Because of Renton's unique location as the interstice of a number of state transportation e. Residential: Locate .residential uses only in routes and a regional freeway, Tthis percentage Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit should be expanded to capture a larger share of residential development to multi-family uses the commercial market. which support Commercial Employment Areas b. Industrial: Sustain the land use base for existing and are clearly secondary to commercial uses. industrial users. Traditionally, Renton has • Discussion:The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive.A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Renton's commercial retail land base has increased from 6.7%to 8.7% over the last few years whereas its industrial land base has declined from around 20% in the early 1990's to around 14.6%in 1996. Site Design Policy LU-163. .,..e design of developments should Policy LU-160. Developments should provide be encouraged to maximize public access to and use a ro riate treatment e. landsca m im roved of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations pp p g' p g' p contiguous to a river, lake wetland or stream, where building facade) along major arterials to mitigate adverse visual impacts. such access will not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. Policy LU-161. RESERVED Policy LU-164. Employment areas located between Policy LU-162. On-site open space and recreational East Valley Highway and SR 167 should buffer facilities for employees in new developments should their uses from SR 167 through a sight obscurring I be required. 15' wide native vegetation strip along SR 167. (formerly Policy LU-182) Employment Area- Commercial xM SroREE YucltiY4 0h,� f V - ,'�� N `4-•!�/�, .`•`'w„ fra..Ftoy .. itp • . .• „,:,„„,.............,. ,-,,,,ot gi, ... 3:.ts.,:. ,,,:„Nelf ..,:-Ar„ •• , --cw:.*:).>32 , c,,,,,"',le, ..›,,,...,z..tevi.,,,. ... ... i. ,., •.:.4.,.°/.:.-1t'..:--c.--....c.:.t"•, -:0•!4,,-.0:•,•:i.%,,,",• .t.:„•,:': /Xx. ' ....''• �'Ja Akt :'.Y?'�igyf;,2 i,.Yl4A,n e,,:•A,.,.4,:t,.:x1 r r i"i.•'W.A,•,,3'2., 9 '" / ;x.'.4.,,,,:‘, �1 ♦ �� :g',,•S•...: :. tt 3 i f L „, •,] fSp 4 , ,:,..:...::::, ,..„...- N.,k r- \\IP,. ,;--- -----F--.4410 :' •�.�',. 1L� .,d"e+i.y�. •. ♦ a""C � ZI:LStc:it'ii• `��p3.'� S ...:-.4.4: .s.,.•‘'''' „.)()9, .4.k..1,x,:\ ."#. .tfosr; . 2kW49,f .: '.e:t.-cep -,,, ,/:::Ii.,....,.: ,‹ -1,....,)::::.:.: .,?. . :.: .:. : r : , ° i/:r' r "7S�a ` 'Ssf 'd•`3�3r1•'jt: hi1"�; , ; 1, �j f^ ,.,�i(ii/ 1�) ter' /' /' 4�¢. � k•,,,,. `��Nt Efit•.. .:.c�7. •J' .� g.y !_ '^h\yC"• • a. 4, ..c} .),r�,4f........•16.....er MTvroW . . . • '.::i5icti$ TTistliE:,RAIllruft °1 ch\ ? t h 1 , . . :(S ing mai6 at}aiaio F'c,.)� .� \ '� •. �fak•• 1 .. :1lga,tttppti•:x �[� { 'C 1 // e ?�ta�F Y'zri;rgao:idrInkitget?ShtizAeTwat. �`•••`re,) `;a S1 �'f, ,:i:: :;,#i•;Yd ici:F001- :' • ,,,, : r ?ss,:isr ooeie�p .Hi t;.� ioi;;i;?fii3iS5x:SE)•.'+'''.'...i S:' E>4i Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. Policy LU-168. Employment Area - Commercial Policy LU-170. Individual development projects designations should only be located on, and-or have should be encouraged to: access to, streets classified as major arterials or a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, above. b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, Policy LU-169. Individual parcels should be c. share parking facilities, encouraged to consolidate to maximize flexibility of d. centralize signing, site design and reduce access points. e. create a unified style of development, and f. provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Employment Area- Ow Objective LU-CC: Promote intensive office activity including a wide range of business, financial and professional services to local, regional, national, and global markets, supported by service and commercial activities. • Policy LU-183. Low, medium and high intensity Policy LU-186. High-rise office development the Employment Area-Office designation.office should be limited to up to 25 stories in height. t.N:::. :4Y'?.t}}yta.. ,...:::.,•,-.-,v:{.,-.,-:::.},.:.,.:::.}..,,.. .:.,..,,-,..,v:.t}t}.:.,,,,,,- :.,,..+::.t:... __ ...t:v:.`h:::...;; t\,\.\\ ��;,`tt,\\.:\vaa`E:q±•\�.faE:\\\\.\\u\\ `±\ ::4;:4. a f f a. �r?\*�;t:^\ C:..Y:f:}`\4 J,`\,\t``kf;`��:},a.\�\t v\`ti.\\}\.•:ti:}::w•.,;�..,t Y�w`,\•'4\.\.`.'\�?2 ,?>., M a ,�r,r# `�• t \\t, / 2:'. x•`.>.t;:4tik\:ta• �:�•>ti�;\�:,`•n \v'a \\\ �vt \•\`�\ti\\: :./.y F'° °k' 'yri 9Y Ytr..;�h :•t' .?�/.':<' £ ,::.a\\:: \@�.\\�\?\\v�•\.�`,..v-.v,- \\\:v:;\a\�\\�``.�\;\�i\2iv E±s', f a 4 at .,;�?...� 'x..f-..a :.o-:Yf•,•:.`.:'?''':$cY :ti ;a•\\\\:,.1.:v�at.�`\'` .nE}.:.a;}•tta•.�`u.•.:\ ..±',•�: �8'ixY'•:x' -° Y �� ^ f .>.+•Yl.� :x}\�{04:??��:\\:\vh�.a4\�h\\{v}.\f?;:j:.f.4.�\�\\:��4.,.E�E.}:4i:�,?ivv:.}v { IY�` ?� -�x<. w [ 1 1YyW fa'. Y;Y :•'--K• ?`• iiti}•?4t?av'4\} .\4\\\ \ vv:\YkYY.�\\,� P' y? :! <::n• 'l`4:•::r: r' .:£Y :f:2,ffYtt t..\...t: ..ttit\tt t ra�•na,{:�. \t t.\•, :i'�:. .:.� if:%?.:..v. ...{.H n � f-i;)4: .}+:• •av\: h t 4�4it-.• .y\}��a4\�\•4� \.�v ?4\ Y yr 4 Yh $ •`�. n.u:.. ..:i:. :`•tt/?•,t .:\< ' n 4Y y:4::\ { ::a\{.\` �+ r .` •.S .v. .+•:,fij:r:Y�fi'•: . . . ..� •%.:n • .'ili:Y...:...r � •:v.v{};Y}••:.?:. i}n\t:}t. 444:•.}. }�i 6. 5} .Yv:. .;•. ;:i::: .Y:?,?S }^:::!•::{i:Y:}'Y x4itv::4.:.S:t.v' y a \ Y • t ,.. :: .::yF^ a ?::::..,..•:.:•.++t•t:,:vs ' � ':}�:x`:::i::}}}::•,vY:r:Y`v:`.:4:: ::? flNS YK•:$. :.. • ..."4�" 'C.i a}Y:•}YY}Y:•: \ \..Y:•.v.:''S� 'Y `4 • %N?.,f/.� 4i f{R�+S. �(•.: YiC >. .\.;.h::..: -. rf S'.: v:+ry:v':)i�.r.r Ja.:f h f: :C ./. $ l .: Sv \ a y4. { }�+ { ".:..4}++C.,. fH it➢' ?.: fsl p 4• 1W.4 4a� f qy`i a a r L ,yyo S h'3"R / .4 O.y,A y 4 1 y x9 . • Y •. -+?aA• $ SbY y>.f$Ff rfr iIso agazg,n` ; h� � .::::::.YY:.yY:::.:::.>;:;:;>:::f::f•:f• f:Nc. �3; �d :,"•• c / „.. irnYCdaw.:y!%✓.•SC... f l / }^' • �➢ `"' •t•v• ty.y4 f :l++ + + a yam, SSk`drf •:b4{.\...?.`}{{''i?tiiti\\\4�`•4t E�:S�:`ii}}±:i?':C:???::{'?:t::C:\?:fii:�':'i'}•:i�i :�:X::i}•v,�C:%:C:?<'}ii •:•{y}:•?�2,\.5::::::::av v.\•4\\.aw.avvty,vv::.:::.v::vv:.v.v..�...v v:i4:•a.Ca.:::+::::.:a: ..�t }.. .:4.4••}}+y:::;:;•±??:?•} +:}v{.tt..•,•.vt•.vU;?a;4:i-?}:a}:�':;`.:::f::i::f::j::}:i:i:•{:Ct:f::t!':2::, ::::::::::::::::::::::•iiY:4:4:a:•YYY}};{{{{C:.....' ...4ti,............................... ....r.v:::.v:::::::::::::.v•Y}...,t.£•v.:.::::::.vvw:::v.':{+.•.'{l....v...v.,,.v.:.,t n. v:.vnvY:.a. • :.............:.................:.:.:....:..:.v::.:v::::::::::::::• ..:K v...•,•v, x}.vv\ 4.:nv:::::;:......v..::n. n.v.::nv:.v±::•: x ,,xt,.....,...... ,t,.. vvna..........:::::n•;:.::::.J S;Ci•±:.v:..............vn 1:v•±}.v.....$arr. atv.\'{•v.4::Cv.,v::x•v••.vv•.v:n::•.:v::;;;}{.•• ..................................................... ,.Yjh,{.�:;�?ti?:{:;T�i:ff::•::•:}.v; •.vi4l�i'�:'v:w v.vx,.+.,.:nv.:+t n '.S:•Y:•i:!C4iiiS:•i:C•ii:•}}Y}i:?•Y:4:a:???C?4:?iyw:y;-••.. .::\ n•.v\::v?:.v4:::nv4::::-n•:YS.;a...ay..... ...`vva..•.va:vv v-.v:nvtw:::.vC::•.v..... .\..a.t.. ..aCv\\v•. \-Y}::,.:n\, vx�,'!i:-.v:ii. ..:1,v:::::.v::::::.v:. v:\\•:.t,v\::hfik•'.:ff:?:f::i:;:f$:4:4.v:::::::::.ai "4{vh.4.v.... ,,v4.�•ntv',:..ri{?:VYY}:?t+•:4�:{•}:?•Y}}•Y:•5±...L..n.....?2:4i}Yr ..\\w....4..\.. ..Y:4;+ny±:4S::•::.}'t'ti+4Y±:•:{:?,t\. r... .. x... ...v•::•v:±.v:w:v. :..tv.v.... • {.. n\,.i4; ,.{:,,, .:ti•\v. .v..l..a .n\v. {{v\:t. .:\•.t a{C:: ' • .. 'ti'ix .�Cffff:ti: 'vti':. :iQ^' \`ti•. - ::}\�'vff} :.{\'}4 'i'� \}?'t� iii4}:•.vv�':::"' :LitY}:f:Y:fiiS:%il':�$:aiiii::i`''vv::Y}�}i;:Cti?:?:: • .Y...t \ .\tt. \\:tti:t:t`\\t t.f}:.f'{f{Y>:•}••YY:\:}:`:C.•::f::$::pw}<:c}.>:f•:t:::}:•}}:a}»Y}:•YY:•Y:vYw •:.:^.".?voo•: Y.h.....ty,�•::.\.,+t,.. ...�\vr.. ..�t..v�.Y.l....'k., ..1.........v. ...ti •\.... Y..v \.. titi:k`•iY??•'•.v.•{U.{�}Yf.Y:Y:Li:vif\i:::::i::iijyl:�::~:}ti�v Y.::i. :\ti;i..•;v p\v?}.y..n\bnY•Y.f:�:•:fRn :titi:: ffj:i'f:ivf{':iC:iiif:`Y.v.:.t..n.vh\,\\w:}y?::}nx.S..rv•.. .. \tY::?.tnY4 .i\tiv.::i,\: .\t.v.n..t........:::Y.ii:$ffft'} ..\... ...{tf$a^}}Y}SY}:•}Y$f}Y?-ff Y:::;:+f:....... ..,4v.,. �••n4v}.4::.v....\..........................YY:ff:NY•i}YY:r.{f::%+{v,v. xavav:::w::::::}::.......i:::nw.a:w::.v:v.. v.n v. w::;:•:::::.v::::.v::•:::::::}::na•:.v-:...v..:n;±}}; .........n..... .............w:;v1v;,.;\.:•::•%?{.±:::::+vti:YY?�:n;::::{:..:•nv+•:Lx:x+•....... +' : ' M1.. •44.}}.:}.::tt:•:•`:v:.v:x:tfi:}Y;:•n::?{::+ i:itiY:4;f`fy:f}}:::. v \4 \..}` .............. t.:. ::::.......}::.v::n•:nv:xY:n:t::•.v.:,w::::.:vv.:v..4Y.., ...;:}:.:............:::.t.a. .,..,..t.:,.,.,.:.....vt........:•....::::.:4:.::::.�.t.:.:�.,•:..:::::::::::•::.a..tt..:ta..t:..a.:.k:..:t..ttt......att::..t....:a:`.:t:. ..ta.:.:.:.:..::.::.:.::.:::...; ..\w.v::::a.• v:.\:::.v::::.v:::::.:.:v...�vt }•.\:?::>.:?iY::�t 4.lv.'\�•:. .. :...... ......v.n...........v N::ry?•Y:rrY:•i:•Y:4:•YY:4'y;y±Y}Y:4:4:t4Y;4;•i:{t•}}}'^}Y•}?:.±:YY:i:t•:v}:, .:::YY::?:{{•„•Y............. 'ink .� ..M n.J.•.:.n.. ..\'\....t..:..v,....:....... v:\-:::t'L::Ltiti%i:•:f:{:�;:f:?::i1{':i{�\.. v:\.t\ •.t��•.t{...r.:.....:............ .v.......:........... „•.-...,.a...;.;.. :.}:Y}Yy::::::a..:.t:..ta•. tbht k.�...w...v... `•L�v..vv..t..a.v...v.v.t...v.?, ..:.:.:..::........t:n.:::::-?.±Y:?•Yn.-;•;•::a.•;.•;:..•;:•Y:;•YYY:t•Y:•:t•Y:++••}:•}•,>.....w. 'v.:...:.. v:n•4Y±. ♦. ..?.Y:4Y k:jiiii:`ii±iYi}YYiiY:C•�::y:; v::aYY.if}i:?:Yf;Y:4:?i:f.:::?:?.YY'w:::::.y:k•YY:•::n..u• \•.v:+•1^:{ti?•`.•S4`a4?i\..,:?•:?t?.YECC?'v4\:•::::..... ....... ... � .•\..\tv\Ott.v.rh•:t�\Y.\�...............a...v....v:v.'?iv.::::.v4Y:4 v:::v. .:::::vY a•v:::•:Y....... ......t.t ti.: .....n..............�:Y::::::?'{':4Ya�• Y...r ::.v::....n.;....::::n•......:..:.:..•.v:.,tivv•.yY.?Y±•.,Y:4••+.+.:`:v},,}}:•+:,.......... v........, ;.;......-vv-.v.::::::::v:. ..{>t:t.... \� \ 4q:v:?t:v.v\4:....:}YYY}:+.y;.}.:::'+:.::.. 'ti\4:v` • \•Y.4Y:•:4:y:i±Y'•YYY:???4:{?':n' t:�•. .. .............v....:::r... t,.v..vvw::.4}±}±:4:•Y±::C .....v:.v.....:..::±5}:{•Y::• ::::::.:....n......., v....... x•vv.vtx•.v\:xt•.v\ `A ?'titit :•:krihi`:{?:Y}:ti;:f'•?::iiC•:"':i4'4: Y:•YY:4:.'v.vvvvvivx n\ •\ 44•�in\.:::::::n:aw.v\w:::•.vvv�'viiit{> > v\vv� - w:Y:v, tt-n\•\ ti. •v�•. t :vv��\\��. .. :.a 4v t�• 4 �•.::a :::::.i'nY:4YYY'?•:y v •:::.................r..........:.:x..:.x....:..:.:YYY„v ��•.v.� �� \4v:\Y:•:,`4ti�•:L:f?itiv{iiti:tip?:<L? :n\�\\\h1,i(ri�:ii�ivx+»-.v.,v.,,,....,.t t,a....t...v:.C�f:tif{�u.....4�.t�\�\tt ��x 'tiff$:{:h't;..'wr.tt t \\tt •.\-::. 2, •\„•: ..\....} \•. .:\ 4YY:G$Civf ,>.::;`.::ifffi;}�:ri::•-:::i� :::\.}}... ^}.\`}YY±Y:, \taY.vY}}:n.`••f}}}};a:4}'.YY}YY Y}±:•\`•....::??x.}}.}'•:v ..� .n4{•f�fitii:ff::'4fffffY:::::::::w::::w:...:..:.,:tii?....:.vv:}.?.} \::..v...,;.. .?:titi... t.\ .v.�\kv �x iti:1:v�:4Y}:{..t:.::t:• n\.:,x v\:••?}v.:�Y{4}}.•:.t.'aY::i:,\v.,at .�a n{S:ti tf?f;::n'+..... {Y:�w•. :4..;;.. ttY:4+:t\:i•T?Y}•.. `4..�i vt2... \(ii?4:?:4'4:>.4:•Y:?4:•YYY:4:C?4:?;YYY•}}:4•{? ?i a{ ..\•i'•:x:.v: x1 n\vvv vv, 4 kA'i.:?. vv\::-\•.i4}t.:i..v:::::.v;Y:y:..v:v:.v.v:.v.:v:ir.:y}::.,{:?i�>.iii•.ii{:v. l..n .v `•'' .ti•\•444 ti.4.\\..vv.vv \.vv}.v,vtvv`tiv+v?� ..t.�v\...... w:::.a:v:x-::a::'LtiKt4}:}•... v:n•.v •tY.•.v:4.vx••.w:::::v;;:::}•: ,\,x.v ±t.�....v. ..tom..Av. :•S.•v:v.v::.v tvw.v 4}}r.... •.}.\\..v:.}v;.};.Y}}::.:•Y:•t:.\t,... ..tin•.}Y::+:4::?;:{:4::Y�ffff:'.}.......\,:. �'•...\\:i.;?:{.:v}}}.4'.Y .}.\ ..} .t\aw:}:::::.v;Y::•:n•�..{J•'�.v ,..tiv. v4.....n....v ..\.....n.....•. .a\:::tv.a:.Y.•w... .}..4Y\:\.::::.vt:.v.......::.Y... ••:Y.v:\v:}4Yaw:AOvn?±±}}:v}.:.:... .... ...... ..wnva•.::::;•-'' xhv.,v Y. .v...... v::...tw::;?y:}i•S±:^:{}4•.--:::::t;••;:•:v:�'iC`.-.t....:....t..v....v..:x............::::.v.:vvt:x:t ...........:.::..:. x.tr.:}..vY:::::::::::::•. h •v.....w:::::::.w:::::n:.nt...............n v....+..,. .,.,.....r............... ..5.. ..........•.w:::::n;••::.:::::?v't tivv:.,v,:•a4'•.��\kt.,.v,........ ......v....n..v.n....,.i..\....., t...\.,...,.............n.v.:?:::::.v::w....,:::::::::.w.h•. .......... a..t:. n...t......• ttt.t..:.v...t.. ...v:::.\w:::;n•::.•.t:..vt `1.4`:4Y n\•\::Y}vf:nv •}\4.vt•:{•'..±±Y:,yw::?{C:f:4f is}i}±:rAi: :::. v.}..:.:vv::: ....::::....................... f`4. \, v �:v\�•n•.vv v\4\ -YY} YY:?a.'t\••}•• :•::\'{vf:+iliMi'YYitiff'3 ffia::Iiff::f•:?:i:;•f ..li.•.(v t{•:. }� .......w:::::..............:•:•. .vvyv:n•vS••+i+. .v:::::.::v+v.'4}.vt::.. :•'•:dY?:t\ .:\\•4•:?+?•;:•ti{.:.\a. a 1. Y\\,tt::.;•, .\.:.tr\•.a. ..\t. \v\•.t•?t??.x.:??-•::t:s::�{. �� ...�,\v?:`:.v}?Y:.v::?::.•.•.w::v:\.Y}.t:::tiik'{4 Y•k.\�K.. t.\v\\.t:4\ t �v t .4 tr.\....\x........i:t:' :•1:v vtv\v \�x��4::Y::.a::::.............v ...\4....n...............�.n •:.�.vv.�..v1. v.\.: .x�v •::\...�.�::::::::::w:::x:::::::::::" v+t4'•}' vn:{•}Y:4:4i::.:nv ::wx::'+aYY:i}YY':vSY••Y:{•:{?±?}'•:::. v.\.}.•.x:v ixwnfa f':f '?{•.v: Y:.�i\•}:•\%{+-?±:{4x „^: Y........ +•:\•+Yv};•:4'+4:vY\••w:v:•??:4YYY:�:t .......vv...;•.:':r:t.....:n.......:....::.. w::::;n•:n•.aa:v: ..w:n.Y '/?4:•:?vv:nt:. auE?•X`:4}Y:C?•±±5::• r..\v.vv.\v. t i�.�vniCi•}�Y:.t...Y?ti::...... ... t.. tv .. ..•. ?�{\\:r t.. v$; .v.:v:nv .-::}.4.{n v;•vv:':?:::.•::iv::>.+:'::;::i•�nw$:;%?} C,..'...::::::•`.'f•...• ..a�':a a x.a a w a.as a ...r:+ v : v a:n , ,a as .. •.:C.:., a..-....:.}vv...;v{.?:..a.v.:.:vr.:vr:::r.vvYY..v:..C:•:'::::_ti..:::x:.::.:x'S Imo........ ..:.:.:..........:. .....::.. .... .... . .. ...:.::. .: a.:.....::....::::..::.:..:::•i::"?>'+4`:ititi`ii::(:y:.`:::{iY;.`,: av:i''} should be encouraged as the primary use in Thirty stories may be obtained through a height Policy LU-184. Secondary uses in areas with the bonus system. office designations may include Policy LU-187. Height bonuses may be allowed in a mix of commercial and light industrial activities. designated areas under appropriate conditions where sites provide• additional public benefits such as Policy LU-185. Retail and services should support plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping and/or public the primary office designation in this category and art. should be encouraged to locate on the ground floor Policy LU-188. Intensive office uses should be of office and parking structures. located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Objective LU-DD: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Office areas. Policy LU-189. Intensive office sites and structures Policy LU-192. Vehicular access to the site should should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, be from the major street•with the access points bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-193. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, Policy LU-190. Parking should be provided on-site, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for in parking structures where feasible, and buffered the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, visually and acoustically from less intense adjacent should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or uses. similar means)as part of every development. Policy LU-191. Internal site circulation should be Policy LU-194. Site and building design should be Primarily pedestrian oriented. transit and pedestrian/people oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian oriented. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR POLICY LU-146 Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land uses, a higher percentage than many suitable for all types of industrial, light other of the area's cities. This industrial, office and commercial uses should percentage is expected to decline as be available for present and future Renton grows in land area. development. Using the growth assumptions, criteria for determining "adequate amounts of c. Office: Provide for stand alone office land" for the employment area should be based uses, and offices that support industrial on the following. uses in order to reach future employment levels. Renton currently a. Commercial: Provide for local and provides 6.0% of its land base for regional shopping needs of the office uses. residential and employment sectors of the community. In the recent past d. Light industrial: Sustain the amount of Currently , Renton has-pro ided-6.7% existing uses and provide for a modest provides 8.7% of its land base for future expansion of light industrial commercial retail uses. This development. capture a larger share of the e. Residential: Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit residential b. Industrial: Sustain the land use base development to multi-family uses for existing industrial users. which support Commercial TraditienallyT--Renton has—providesd Employment Areas and are clearly 2014.6% of its land base for industrial secondary to commercial uses. CPA11PC.DOC\ RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3758 December 5, 1983 Revised July 22, 1985 (Minutes), March 12, 1990 (Resolution 2787), July 16, 1990 (Resolution 2805)-and,September 13, 1993 (Minutes), and , 1997 (Ordinance ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Procedures 5 2.01 Information Prior to Submitting Application 5 2.02 Shoreline Permits 5 2.03 Exemptions 7 2.04 Review of Application 11 2.05 Time Requirements: Shoreline Permits 12 2.06 Rulings to State 14 2.07 Enforcement 14 2.08 Rescission of Permits 15 2.09 Appeals,, .1 15 2.10 Penalties 16 2.11 Amendments 17 3 Regulated Shorelines-of-the-City 4318 4 Goals and Policies 4419 4.01 Shoreline Uses and Activities Element 19 4.02 Conservation Element 19 4.03 Economic Element 21 4.04 Public Access Element 21 4.05 Recreation Element 22 4.06 Circulation Element . 23 4.07 Residential Element 23 5 Environments 2025 5.01 Three Environments 25 5.02 Natural Environment 25 5.03 Conservancy Environment 25 5.04 Urban Environment 27 6 General Use Regulations 2328 6.01 Applicability 28 6.02 Environmental Effects 28 6.03 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects 28 ' 6.04 Public Access 29 6.05 Facility Arrangement- Shoreline Orientation 29 6.06 Landscaping 29 8/21/97 2 6.07 Unique and Fragile Areas 29 7 Specific Use Regulations 2530 7.01 Airport- Seaplane Bases 2530 7.02 Aquaculture 2630 7.03 Boat-launching Ramps 2631 7.04 Bulkheads 2732 7.05 Commercial Development 2833 7.06 Dredging 2833 7.07 Industrial Development 3035 7.08 Landfill 3435 7.09 Marinas 3436 7.10 Mining 3237 7.11 Parking 3237 7.12 Piers and Docks 3337 7.13 Recreation 3641 7.14 Residential Development 3742 7.15 Roads and Railroads 3842 7.16 Stream Alteration 3843 7.17 Trails 3944 7.18 Utilities 4044 8 Variances and Conditional Uses 4348 8.01 Variances and Conditional Use Permits 48 8.02 Variances 48 8.03 Conditional Use 48 8.04 Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals 49 9 Definitions 4550 LIST OF FIGURES (MAPS) 3-1 Map of Shorelines 4318-A 5-1 Map of Environments • 2227-A Appendix A Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map A-1 8/21/97 3 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 BACKGROUND For several years there has been growing concern among citizens, local government and State government about the increasing pressures affecting the utilization of the shorelines within the State. In general, shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for such traditional uses as ports, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as new demands for recreational subdivisions, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. More people, higher incomes, more leisure time, and general business growth have combined to create a heavy use of the shorelines. In the fall of 1970, the Washington Environmental Council circulated an initiative petition known as the Shorelines Protection Act, or Initiative 43, and gathered enough signatures to certify it to the legislature meeting in 1971. Initiative 43, placed the primary responsibility for the planning and implementation of the Act with State government. The legislature then had the choice of accepting Initiative 43, passing a substitute measure, or •taking no action whatsoever. They chose the second option and enacted engrossed Substitute House Bill#584, which was called the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and subsequently became Initiative 43B. Initiative 43B, called for local control of planning and implementation of the Act. In November of 1972, both measures were placed on the ballot, and the State's voters selected the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.48). This Act is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our State are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our State's shorelines. 1.02 REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory requirements of the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a supportive and review capacity. As set forth in the provisions of the Act, local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements: 1. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development on shorelines of the State regulated by Renton. 2. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which includes a survey of natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership. 3. Development of a Master Program to provide an objective guide for regulating the use of shorelines. 8/21/97 1 1.0,3 COMPLIANCE IN RENTON The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, directs all local governments to develop a Master Program for the management of all shorelines of the State and associated wetlands shorelands which are under the local governments' jurisdictions. This Master Program has been prepared to comply with the requirements of that Act and to formulate guidelines which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shorelines leg-within the City of Renton's jurisdiction. Specifically, this Master Program affects the shorelines of Lake Washington, Cedar River, Green River, Black River, S rin brook Creek, and MayCreek, 9P 9 Cre and any other shoreline later coming under the jurisdiction of the Act. In compliance with the first requirement of the State Act, and as part of this Master Program, the City of Renton is establishing a permit system, under which a permit would have to be obtained for any substantial development proposed within aforementioned shorelines, within he city ',-Limits Renton's jurisdiction. Substantial development, according to the law, means any development on which the fair market value exceeds $47000.00 $2,500.00, or any development which would materially interferes with the normal public uses of the water or shorelines of the state. As part of that permit system, general exceptions to the permit requirement are allowed and listed in section 2.03 of this document.:* 2. Constructio n--ofthe—normal--prates ive bulkh ad—common te-mingle—family residences: 3. Emergency constructioT—ne essary to—pro ect prope y from damage bey the elements: use-of the owner of a single-fam fesidence, the cost of i°ihich does not exceed $2,500. (Applications for Exceptions must still be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division.) However, any development which occurs within the-city's-shorelines, as defined by the Act, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the State law. Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative responsibility for issuing substantial development permits lies with the Development Services Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department_, but the permits are reviewed in the tThe Land Use Hearing Examinero has the authority to approve er-deny-- grant shoreline variance or conditional use permit applications, which are then approved or denied by the Department of Ecology. Liberal provisions are provided for appeal of permit decisions made by the Development Services Division to the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals of the decisions of the Land Use Hearing Examiner for conditional use 8/21/97 2 • permits and for variances are also heard by the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings Board. In compliance with the second requirement of the Act, the Renton Planning Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline. The inventory was completed in October, 1972, and provided a substantial basis for the development of this Master Program. The environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are documented in that inventory: In compliance with the third requirement of the Act, the City of Renton, with the help of its local citizens, .has developed a Shoreline Master Program to serve as a guide for regulating use of the City's shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction. Included therein is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and provisions for variances and conditional uses, that were enacted as part of an overall plan which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction. 1.04 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER PROGRAM The Shoreline Management Act requires that Renton's Shoreline Management Program serve as an objective guide for regulating use of the-City's shorelines of the State under the City's jurisdiction. As defined by the Act, the Master Program is to be general, comprehensive, and long-range (20-30 years) in order to be applicable to all of Renton's shorelines. "General" means that the policies, proposals, and guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites. "Comprehensive" means that the Program is directed toward all land and water uses, their impact on the environment and logical estimates of future growth, and it also means that the Program shall recognize the plans and programs of other governmental units, and adjacent jurisdictions. "Long range" means that the Program is to be directed at least twenty (20) to thirty (30) years into the future, look beyond immediate uses, and follow creative objectives rather than a simple projection of current trends and conditions. The basic intent of this Master Program is to provide for the management of our City's shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote and enhance the best interests of the general public. This Master Program has further been formulated to protect the public interest and general welfare in the-City's shorelines regulated by Renton and, at the same time, to recognize and protect owners' legal property rights consistent with the public interest. The goals and policies of this Master Program are formulated so as to enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with, and does not impair, legal private property rights. It is recognized that the shorelines of the sit-State ef-found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area,. and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has, therefore, been made to present a planned, rational, and concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the shorelines of the city-of State under Renton's jurisdiction. Additionally, this Master Program has also been formulated so as to provide for uses of our shorelines in the following order of preference: 8/2'1/97 3 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines. 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary. It should also be noted that the Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning. The Lake Washington Regional Shoreline goals and. Policies adopted by the Regional Citizens Advisory.Committee on October 31, 1973, have been considered in the formulation of this Master Program. This Master Program should be read in its entirety and be considered as a whole. The goals and policies and specific uses of this Master Program were developed in an attempt to provide long-range planning which would govern the future utilization and development of our shorelines. Although it is anticipated that this Master Program will need to be revised from time-to-time as additional shorelines are annexed and become subject to'the provisions of this Act, as planned unit_developments are established, and as additional experience is gained working with this Act during its initial implementation period, it is felt that the general goals and policies of this Master Program provide the general guidelines under which future utilization and development might occur. We feel confident that these final guidelines are expressive of the concerns of the citizens of the City of Renton for the management of.their shorelines. This master Program has been written with the spirit of optimism, with the hope that our legacy of natural grandeur in the City of Renton will be more wisely used in the brief period of time it is: entrusted to us, so that succeeding generations might have it to enjoy. . • In 1982, the Renton Planning Commission recommended revisions to the Master Program in accordance with the provisions requiring periodic review. The Renton City Council adopted revisions to this Master Program in late 1983. • • 8/21/97 4 I\ SECTION 2. PROCEDURES 2.01 INFORMATION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING APPLICATION Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from a shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with the Development Services Division. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of this Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement procedures. 2.02 SUBSTANTIAL-DEVELOPMENT-SHORELINE PERMITS 2.02.01 Application Forms and Fees No substantial development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial-development-shoreline permit" from the Department Development Services Division. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms, and in-a-reviewed according to procedures prescribed by the Building--and Development.Services Division. Application forms may be revised from time-to-time by the Development Services Division without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to obtain provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified. Applications shall be made by the property owner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property and; except for applications filed by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agencies, shall be accompanied by a receipt issued by the Finance Department showing payment of the applicable fees which are established,by the fee schedule ordinance. 2.02.02 Publishing Notice and Posting of publication. Three (3) copies of the a notice of development application shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred (300) feet thereof. The notice of development application shall also be mailed to property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the subiect property. The required contents of the notice of development application are detailed in Section 4-36- 8(B) of the Renton Municipal Code. Each such of development application shall include a statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Development Services Division with regard to said application may do so in writing to that Department Division and persons interested in the Development Services Division's action on an application for a permit may submit their views in writing 8/21/97 5 or notify the Development Services Division in writing of their interest within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication-issuance of such notice. Notice of development application for a substantial development permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11)(b), or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall include a twenty (20) day comment period. Such notification or submission of views to the Development Services Division shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on the application. 2.02.03 Review Guidelines Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional use permit provisions of this Master Program, no substantial development permit and no other permit shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology thereunder. 2.02.04 Burden of Proof on Applicant The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant. 2.02.05 Conditional Approval Should the Development Services ,Division and/or-the Director or his/her designee find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he may deny such application or attach any terms or condition which he deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and objective of this Master Program. 2.02.06 Administrative Substantial Development Permit Appeals The Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall have the final authority to interpret this Master Program for the City of Renton. Where an application is denied or changed, per 2.02.05, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a "substantial development permit" to theShorelines,Hearings Board for an open record appeal in accordance with Chapter 4-36 of the Renton Municipal Code. See Section 2.10 for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board. 2.02.07 Notification of City Departments It shall be the duty of th Development Services Division to timely furnish copies of all applications and actions taken by said department-Division unto such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed development. 8/21/97 6 2.02.08 Bonds The Building andZoning Department and the Policy D pmen+ partment Development Services Division may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on shoreline permit. Said bond shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated. 2.03 EXEMPTIONS 2.03.01 Exemptions from Permit System The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program: A. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. B. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $ 000-$2,500, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State. C. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. 1. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. "Normal repair' means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. D. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if it is constructed for the purpose of creating additional dry land. Additional construction requirements are found in WAC 173-27- 040(2)(c). E. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 8/21/97 7 1. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full compliance with this Program. 2. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation, the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 17-27 WAC or this Shoreline Program shall be obtained. 3. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and this Program. 4. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur, but that are not imminent are not an emergency. F. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures, including, but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling, other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations. G. - Construction on wetlands-shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the State agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. 1. "Single family" residence means a'detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. 2. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-commercial use of the owner 1 lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple family residencesGsst-the 1. This exception applies if either: a. In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500. b. In fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $10,000; however, if subsequent construction having a 8/21/97 8 fair market value exceeding $2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development permit. 2. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. April 9 and Pregr am; and and J. ' Construction or-modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. K. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water for the irrigation of lands. L. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands when such marking does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface of the water. M. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. N. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisites to preparation of an application for development authorization under this program, if: 1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters. 2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values. 3. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity: 4. A private entity seeking development authorization under this program first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial 8/21/97 9 responsibility to the Development Services Division to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions. 5. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550. O. The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed as defined in RCW 17.28.020, through the use of a herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW. P. Watershed restoration projects as defined below: 1. "Watershed restoration proiecV' means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: a. A project that involves less than ten miles of streamreach, in which less than twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed-.exceptas.minimally-necessary to facilitate additional plantings. b. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on'using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water. c. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. 2. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by a State department, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a conservation district, for which agency,and public review has been conducted pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan generally contains a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed. Q. A public or private project. the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: 1. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as 'necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose. 2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW. 8/2111/97 10 3. The Development Services Division has determined that the protect is consistent with this Master Program. R. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(3). 2.03.02 Exemption Certificate Procedures A. Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section, shall make application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Department—Development Services Division in the manner prescribed by that department-division. B. Any development which occurs within the-regulated shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction, whether it requires a permit or not, must be-consistent with the intent of the State law. C. The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this Program. D. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, .then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project. 2.04 REVIEW OF APPLICATION 2.04.01 Review Criteria The Development Services Division shall review an application for a permit based on the following: A. The application. B. The environmental impact statement, if one is required. C. Written comments from interested persons. D. Information and comments from other City departments affected. E. Independent study by the Development Services Division. F. €vide a prese ted at a p blic hearing' sho ld the B gilding and Zon g the PolicyDevelopment D rtment •shall have powers to prescribe n ides and 8/21/97 11 2.04.02 Additional Information The Development Services Division may require an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the City's Environmental Review Committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, would require such a statement. 2.04.03 Procedural Amendments In addition to the criteria herein above set forth in this Section, the Planning/Building/Public Works Department may from time-to-time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology. 2.05 ARPL-ECA N—T.O-THE PERMITS rEM TO DEV- OPMENT UNDERTe KEN Pho TO JUNE 1, 1971 2.05.01 Permit Required , r . 2705.02—Phaeing 2.065 TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE PERMITS 2.05.01 Applicability and Modification at Time of Approval A. The time requirements of Section 2.05 shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized under this Program. B. If it is determined that standard time requirements of Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 should not be applied, the Development Services Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a substantial development permit upon a finding 8/21/97 12 • of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the protect proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143. If it is determined that standard time requirements of Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a conditional use or variance permit. "Good cause" means that the time limits established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted. C. Where specific provisions are not included to establish time limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology, the time limits in Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 apply. D. Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 below. 2.065.0402 Construction Commencement A. Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and section 2.05.01 above, Gconstruction era-prefect activities. or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years by the City of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminat , and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Development Services Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. B. Construction activities or commencement of construction referenced in subsection A means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two year period. 2.065.0203 Construction Completion A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years; , after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and Section 2.05.01 above. , If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit the Development Services Division shall, , review the permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend-tie authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one (1) year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate provided, Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant's 8/21/97 13 responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. 2.05.04 Effective Date A. For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in Sections 2.05.02 and 2.05.03 do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions, or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. B. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Development Services Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline permit or the provisions of this section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the effective date of the shoreline permit. C. The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits specified in the Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance, Chapter 4-36 of the Renton Municipal Code. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11)(b), or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty-one (21) days of the last day of the comment period specified in Section 2.02.02. 2.065.0305 Review Period - Construction Authorization A. No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until th�30) twenty-one (21) days from the date of-final-approval and-granting-of the permit was filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the hirty (30) twenty-one (21) days of the date of final-approval filing . Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. B. If the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is appealed to the Shorelines Hearing Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved the granting of the permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shorelines Hearings Board decision is filed, construction authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods, and other provisions of RCW 90.58.140(5)(b). 2.065.0406 Transferability of Permit If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may be transferred to the new owner 8/21/97 14 2.076 RULINGS TO STATE Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the Development Services Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. 2.087 ENFORCEMENT All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the DepadmentDevelopment Services Division. For such purposes, the Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer. 2.098 RESCISSION OF PERMITS 2.098.01 Non-compliance with Permit Any shoreline permit issued by-the-City-under the terms of this Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Development Services Division of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit. , 2.008.02 Notice of Non-compliance Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall be initiated by serving written notice of non-compliance on the permittee, which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law. 2.098.03 Posting In addition to such notice, the Development Services Division shall cause to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one (1) posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit. 2.098.04 Public Hearing Before any such permit can be rescindedified, a public hearing mays-shall be held by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. Such wcitten Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance with Section 4-36-8(D) of the Renton Municipal Code. 8/21/97 15 2.098.05 Final Decision The decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision of the City on all rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City. 2.1-009 APPEALS 2.09.01 Shorelines Hearing Board Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit, a conditional use permit and/or a variance on shorelines of the City State which are regulated by the City, or by the rescinding of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the State of Washington Shorelines Hearing Board. 2.09.02 Filing Appeals are made by filing a request with the Shorelines Hearings Board for the same within 30)—twenty-one (21) days of the date the shoreline permit was filed. Within seven (7) days of filing a petition for review with the Board, the petitioner shall serve copies of such request with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office as provided in Section 18(1) of RCW 90.58.180. A copy of any such appeal notice shall likewise be filed with the Development Services Division and the City Clerk of the City of Renton. 2.09.03 Limited Utility Extensions and Protective Bulkheads-Appeals Appeals of substantial development permits, for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion, shall be finally determined by the legislative authority within thirty days. 2.41-10 PENALTIES 2.140.01 Prosecution Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shall be punishable under conviction by a fine not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day's violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense. 2.140.02 Injunction The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State withinunder the City jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 8/21/97 16 2.140.03 Public and Private Redress Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation, the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attomey's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. 2.121 AMENDMENTS The City shall review this Master Program every four (4) years hereafter, or sooner if necessary. Any amendments to this Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning Commission, which shall conduct at toast one (1) public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning.Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which may hold at toast one (1) public hearing before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with Section of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 8/21/97 17 SECTION 3 - REGULATED SHORELINES-OF-THE-CI-Pt 3.01 Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By State standards, the Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State-wide Significance, and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. In addition, the shorelines of the Cedar River,' Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines within the City. These 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the City of Renton, but also to the State Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part. 3.02 Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which makes it valuable, particularly Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake Washington and the Green River. and pEreference is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority (as established by Chapter 90.58.020 RCW) for Shorelines of Statewide Significance: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest for shorelines of state-wide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. 3.03 In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act: 1. Cedar River. 2. Green River. 3. Lake Washington. 4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington. 5. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south. 6. Black River. The above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1. 3.04 The Jurisdiction of this Master Program includes shorelines of the State which includes shorelines, Shorelines of Statewide Significance and wetlands-shorelands as defined in Section 9. 8/2i/97 18 I _ FIGURE 3-1 1 ry N, , • • rfi�} `�' I . Uj • 3HpR'ELIN ? �- C► • 11-_----' '� AGEIVIENT I . k.CT 0 r- 1i �- �' �. .!.: �, , �,)Ir_i I . I MAY • . ; i I • • I I CRE=.• . i LAKE y;/ASNINC-TO,U I ~ 141 r - ----i — rr r .1 � II , _ \ I . r- —� II• i 1 I \___ 4 ,�;2 yl ; 1:i 7 t1 ten, MITI II - \r 1► L` III ► I 3 � '4'-i t •` I n • ,I ► :----\\- 1,-- : -;t-, 1-1.. Lit- .. ':\ .. runurs7441pr'. .-.• • . -1_.,______.11, ii • • I L__41. ., .1 • �\ • - I-1 uI 1A � •ckbAR . I I I . qv� I III-n-7m RI I` J- I I I 1.-\ • I O � -I SPRINGBROIC° I� �I ,II I 31 i LW,,_„4/L1_11,7 .1 i 1\....: [ 1 cREE.K1 ( .7. . .....,•,-.: "A-1 ---. •-•./. r.. ._ •.. .‹_______71 I ___.:1.: L.-1 I 1-': • •--- - ., e,-,,, A- 0 _-,-,,. , ,t 7---C------",---- -• ---. , 1--\-\11 ‘n. • 1 , .... ow... .. , i .. .\,/,c \IL.,j• • � 7 1 � • . -T• 1 :-7,-rT C I I. f l . I � I �n� I � I • , 1 1 i.-1 i i L.. .174\___. 1111.,..,,_---_--=: i ___4.. _. 1__ ri. ___ •. • -1 III _iz---./N . --). (- 1 _ 7 I y I _ I i 1 , i _ � �' �...7 , 1 1 W 1. -•••, !. K . .-. -.. 1T 1, 1I /EL:RN ) .. i . . ._2_ .-1 t '-.-.-.1= -. ..1 ,'-...I i / I� T I • it - _ . L 1 ', _ t:r.: : . 1 I r ___Li ' I , , \ . . . . . • I ' i 1 I II I r.,.,(,.. � d —_ (_ ; •_,cz I IU �� , IIII = : r_l II / - \.. I � � I c . ' j I , i - • - -. SECTION 4. GOALS AND POLICIES 4.01 SHORELINE USES AND ACTIVITIES ELEMENT 4.01.01 Goals: A. Shorelines of the Cites-State regulated by the City are to be planned and coordinated to afford best use of the limited water resource. B. Shorelines of the City-State regulated by the City are to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. 4.01.02 Policies: A. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned for: 1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. 2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural amenities of the shorelines and which depend.on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. 3. Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards should not increase the density ef-or intensity of shoreline uses or activities except on a demonstrated need considering the shorelines and then only in accordance with the policies contained herein. 4. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for water- dependent uses or activities. 5. Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. 6. Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. 7. Shoreline uses and activities should be discouraged if they are objectionable due to noise or odor or if they create offensive or unsafe conditions in relation to reasonable and appropriate uses and activities. B. Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water related should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. C. All shoreline developments shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. 4.02 CONSERVATION ELEMENT 4.02.01 Goal: The resources and amenities of all shorelines situated in the City of Renton are to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. 8/21/97 19 4.02.02 Policies: A. Existing natural resources should be conserved. 1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs. 2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased. 3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased. 4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation. Access and use should be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas. B. Existing and future activities on all shorelines of the State and wetlands shorelands within-regulated by the City of Renton should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the environment. C. The City of Renton should take aggressive action with responsible governmental agencies to assure that discharges from all drainage basins are considered an integral part of shoreline planning. 1. Soil erosion and sedimentation which adversely affect any shoreline within the City of Renton will be prevented or controlled. 2. The contamination of existing water courses will be prevented or controlled. D. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational or scientific value should be identified and protected. 1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site preservation and protection. 2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from intrusions for • a reasonable time until their value is determined. E. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantially or permanently impairing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be permitted per Chapter 5-21 of the Renton Municipal Code. F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of- way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. 2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. 8/21/97 20 • 4.03 ECONOMIC ELEMENT 4.03.01 Goal: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged. 4.03.02 Policies: A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted, reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. B. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. 1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-related portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge location. 2. The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. 3. Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. C. Multiple use of economic developments on the shoreline should be encouraged to provide public recreational opportunities wherever feasible. D. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible. 1. Commercial dockings and marinas shall meet all health standards. 2. Marinas and other economic activities shall be required to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. • E. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. F. Containment or mitigation of pollutants shall be required of all economic activities on the shoreline by property owner and/or operator. 4.04 PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT 4.04.01 Goal: • Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural amenities. • 4.04.02 Policies: A. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. B. Just compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. 8/21/97 21 C. Public access to and along the waters edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/conservation of the natural amenities. D. Public access to and along the waters edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. E. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property or by easement. • F. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments shall be encouraged to provide public access along the waters edge. G. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. H. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures, multi- family, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and industrial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the waters edge if physically feasible. I. High-rise structures on the shoreline shall be prohibited, adjacent to the shoreline if• dews--of—the shoel�would nee--substantially obstructed—dues Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the waters edge. J. Both passive and active public areas shall be designed and provided. K. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking shall be provided at frequent locations. L. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including the trail system. M. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. 4.05 RECREATION ELEMENT. 4.05.01 Goal: Water-related recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged. 4.05.02 Policies: A. Water-related recreational activities should be encouraged. 1. Accessibility to the waters edge should be improved. 2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. 8/21/97 22 3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed. 4. Both passive and active recreational areas shall be provided. B. Recreational fishing should be supported, maintained and increased. C. Public agencies should be encouraged to buy shoreland, as it becomes available for sale, based upon an established plan declaring public intent. D. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development, and maintenance of waterfront areas. E. Subject to state and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. • 4.06 CIRCULATION ELEMENT • 4.0,6.01 Goal: Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines. 4.06.02 Policies: A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible-and-should-be B. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. C. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. 1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. 3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed transportation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. D. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. 4.07 RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT 4.07.01 Goal: Existing residential uses are to be recognized, but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines consistent with legal property rights of the owner. 8/21/97 23 4.07.02 Policies: A. Residential uses over water shall not be permitted. B. Residential development should not be constructed in unique and fragile areas. C. New residential.developments along or impinging upon'the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. ED. Future shoreline subdivision and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's edge. C I w d ity development shou d be enc raged future rec idential � c8�� e�rq--vc��vpmv�rn�� v—v�, crrv�rvyc�FA�cri G . New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. MF. All further development on the'shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of- way and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31 st Street on the.south, abutting City-owned wetlands ,in this area, and for that portion of the west side of.the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38thi Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be_encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. 2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped state as much as possible. • 8/21/97 • 24 SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTS 5.01 THREE ENVIRONMENTS Three environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, shall be designated to provide a - j uniform basis to apply policies and use:regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. The environmental designation to be given any specific area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have been categorized according to the natural characteristics and use regulations have been designated herein. 5.02 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 5.02.01 Designation of the Natural Environment: A. . Obiective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. B. Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment: 1. Areas that are unique or fragile. 2. Floodways areas. C. . . Acceptable Activities and Uses: The only human activity that is acceptable is for -- floodway-drainage or storage. :All other human activities including recreation are considered inappropriate. 5.02.02 Designation of the Natural Areas: The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural shoreline areas can only be assured through public acquisition. Therefore, where private development is proposed in areas so designated, the City shall require dedication as necessary for flood storage. 5.02.03 Jurisdiction: That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek, shall be designated Natural (see figure 5-1). 5.03 CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT 5.03.01 Designation of the Conservancy Environment: A. Obiective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton. B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment: 8/21/97 25 • • • 1. Areas of high scenic value. 2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. 3. Hazardous slope areas. 4. Flood-prone areas. 5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. 6. Areas with unique or fragile features. C. - Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment-are.low density residential, .passive agricultural. uses such'as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. 5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment: A. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations, which shall be contained wholly within the dwelling unit. B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall be allowed only by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. C. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited• in a Conservancy environment. • D.---~ .Recreation Use: In•the Conservancy environment, recreation uses shall be limited to passive recreation. 1. Permitted Uses: (a) Public hiking and bicycle trails. (b) Non-motorized public fishing. (c) Public wading and swimming spots. (d) Public areas for nature study. (e) Public picnic areas. 2. Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner: (a) Public overnight camping areas. E. Residential Uses: 1. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family residences. 2. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two (2) units or more. • F. Utilities: 1. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be permitted for approved activities and uses within the Conservancy environment and shall be underground per City code requirements. 2. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route. G. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subiect to the standards of Section 7.15 of this Program: 8/21/97 26 5.03.03 Jurisdiction That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of the south bank of the Cedar River, 2,500 feet east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th .Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be designated conservancy (see figure 5-1, and Appendix A - Springbrook Creek). 5.04 URBAN ENVIRONMENT 5.04.01 Designation of the Urban Environment: A. Obiective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently,subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines 'planned for future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site. C. Water-dependents and Water Related Uses Providing Public Access: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas,.and-particularly-te water- dependent industrial and commercial uses requiring frontage on shorelines, and water-related uses which significantly increase public access to the shoreline. D. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall be accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be linked to non- motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths. 5.04.02 Use Regulations in the Urban Environment: All uses shall be allowed as indicated by Section 7 of the Master Program. 5.04.03 Jurisdiction • All shorelines of the City State regulated by the City which are not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban (see figure 5-1). • 8/21/97 27 SECTION 6. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS 6.01 APPLICABILITY This section shall apply to all Shoreline uses whenever applicable. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in Section 7, Specific Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all permits. 6.02 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 6.02.01 Pollution and Ecological Disruption The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life and other wild life (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which may have detrimental effects on the environment. 6.02.02 Burden on Applicant Applicants for permits must explain the methods that will be used to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects. 6.02.03 Erosion Erosion is to be controlled through the use of vegetation rather than structural means where feasible. 6.02.04 Geology Important geological factors- such as possible slide areas - on a site must be considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the development permit must be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing. 6.03 USE COMPATIBILITY AND AESTHETIC EFFECTS 6.03.01 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects: A. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. B. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other structures and activities. • C. Design Theme: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a uniform or coordinated design, planned for the purpose of visual enhancement as well as for serving a useful purpose. 8/21/97 28 • D. Visually Unpleasant Areas: Landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public view any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a site, for example, disposal bins, storage yards, and outdoor work areas. E. Outdoor Activities Work areas, storage, and other activities on a site in a residential area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible, to reduce distractions and other effects on surrounding areas. Outdoor activities of commercial and industrial operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor areas shall not be used for storage of more than minimal amounts of equipment, parts, materials, products, or other objects. 6.04 PUBLIC ACCESS 6.04.01 Where possible, space and right-of-way shall be left available on the immediate shoreline so that trails, non-motorized bike paths, and/or other means of public use may be developed providing greater shoreline utilization. 6.04.02 Any trail system shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential property rights. 6.04.03 No property shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the owner. 6.05 FACILITY ARRANGEMENT- SHORELINE ORIENTATION 6.05.01 Where feasible, .shoreline developments shall locate the water- dependent and water related portions of their developments along the shoreline and place inland-all other facilities inland. 6.06 LANDSCAPING 6.06.01 General The natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and shall be compatible with the.Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. • 6.07 UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment. • • • 8/21/97 29 1 . I. L11 FIGURE 5 ILIA I-N, , 1 nr I� I �:. I ff.} C.a. i .I 1 " 1 - - 4 , ii . . . „ :NIVIRONI1�IEtVTS, . ,--1• • --. ( mom !URBAN _II .I --J ■ MI 'CONSERVANICY ' I MAY. ` ' ) I I ATURAL, 11Ilk CREEK - LAKE �`•� SIP**j1 �/' — ' �~`'= ------- - - -- WASHINGTON \ Jii I I' I I-I= L:-. 1�\ I . \ : • • ' I III \� , L \. . , I ; , - dH -F . ,tier I L -- \ I - --1. 141 ti-7- . Iff,-:-- If —��l^ r �, n 1 1 ill�I - �1 - � ' I I I I I L w--, I IIII I.�w\--\:ttl!P.1 LITN . 1 1 1 . 77, ... 1 I I - -4-!' 'T‘d -----'- e- 1.: 7: - l H , ; _ lJ �. ,, 1 `1 kIIII.7— `r" ► I I 1 IL HI • \ - 1 v 1, l— ' IIII , � I ` ' 1 i I Jl CEDAR r L— -3 II. 1! ACK. 1TL . , I RIVER N • i 11 1 1 �t 4.11116 RIVER I \ I I i I '• L �! _ •.: III ' \'r, � ,, . �� C 1 I� _ \�--• " SPRINGBROOK• I ♦� ,• _4 (� . r i I I I ` CREEK �7 I I ► ,,,; +-._,_ ,4- I I J- I , ...... 1 41r..., 1 . r \ _J. 6 ._ - k .. • \ , --,, • ,,•7 I • -71H-L. I . it, „i i , F-1 • -fp t . ,, , \ i T 1_ IIIII 6.1. I� � r.\ —_II L I - _.. _ _ .. L: I . • 'I IT ' r.I. 1014?/' .......... • R i • I / ._ .I • L�� Iii I � I ! ?\., ♦ • , � _p \-.____I_u__:,% 1 ---'— 1 rit, /5,__L, 1J11 L12\-L,....., -/ GRE=N1)1: I 11 RIVER I 1 �' .. • \_-_,-::---- ` I II . • - I �� I -- ( ): I J � I -II I II L { I III I (- T et..-• — - I ^, • j 1_;11 SECTION 7. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS 7.01 AIRPORT- SEAPLANE BASES 7.01.01 Location A. Airports: A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline. However, an airport already located within a shoreline shall be permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities provided such upgrading and expansion would not have a detrimental effect on the shoreline. B. Seaplane Bases: 1. Private: A single private seaplane is permitted per residence. 2. Commercial: New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous to residential areas. 7.01.02 Facilities A. Airports 1. Future hangars should be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the water-s-midge—ordinary high water mark of the shoreline and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the water's edge. 2. Tie-down areas should be no closer than twenty (20) feet from the waters edge-ordinary high water mark of the shoreline for aircraft. B. Seaplane Bases (Commercial) 1. Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted. Seaplanes may be stored on the dock or ramps. 2. Tie down areas may be provided on seaplane ramps. 7.01.03 Landscaping • A. Landscaping shall be required around parking areas in accordance with City ordinances. B. The landscaping shall be compatible with the activities and characteristics of aircraft in that it should be wind resistant, low profile, and able to survive under adverse conditions. 7.01.04 Services Services or aircraft shall conform to FAA standards, which include fuel, oil spill clean-up, safety and fire fighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian separation. 7.02 AQUACULTURE 7.02.01 Location A. Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers, EXCEPT in Natural and Conservancy environments , and along urban areas developed with residential uses. . 8/21/97 30 7.02.02 Time Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only. 7.02.03 Design and Construction A. All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions: 1. • They shall be securely fastened to the shore. 2. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the natural systems of the waterway including, for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life. 3. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming and/or boating. 4. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if potential conflicts exist. 7.03 BOAT-LAUNCHING RAMPS 7.03.01 Site Appropriateness and Characteristics A. Water and Shore Characteristics 1. Water depth should be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats. 2. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp activity. B. Topographv: The proposed area should not present major geological or topographical obstacles to.construction or operation of the ramp. Site adaptation such as dredging shall be minimized. 7.03.02 Dimensions and Location The ramp should be designed so as to allow for ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface. 7.03.03 Surface and Construction A. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used. The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions: • 1. Soil characteristics 2. Erosion 3. Water currents 4. Waterfront conditions 5. Usage of the ramp B. The material shall be permanent and non-contaminating to the water. 8/21/97 31 7.03.04 Review Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate City department. 7.04 BULKHEADS - 7.04.01 General All bulkheads are subject to the regulations set forth in this Master Program, except that bulkheads common to a single family residence are exempted from the permit system set forth in this Master Program and building code. 7.04.02 Bulkhead Permitted A bulkhead may be permitted only when: A. Required to protect upland areas or facilities. B. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection. C. The bulkhead design has been engineered by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer, and the design has been approved by the Renton Department of Public Works. 7.04.03 Bulkhead and Fill A bulkhead for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead shall be permitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a bulkhead shall be included in the application for the landfill in this case. (See Section 7.08.01, Landfills) 7.04.04 General Design Requirements A. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific type of bulkhead design which has been engineered by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer. B. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize damage to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the application for a proposed bulkhead, the Department Development Services Division are to shall consider the effect of the bulkheads on public access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible, bulkheads are to be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. C. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize alterations of the natural shoreline and to minimize adverse effects on nearby beaches. D. In cases where bulkheading is permitted, scientific information suggests a rock riprap design is preferred. The cracks and openings in such a structure afford suitable habitats for certain forms of aquatic life. If there is determined to be a severe rate population, consideration must be given to construction of a solid bulkhead to eliminate cracks and openings typical to a riprap structure. 8/21/97 32 7.05 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.05.01 Location of Developments A. New commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those areas where current commercial uses exist. B. New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water dependent,, nor water related, nor which do not provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline. C. Commercial developments should incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public. D. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with :the.scenic.view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. 7.05.02 Setback A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to the water's edge :.ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance'process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the water's edge. 7.06 DREDGING 7.06.01 Definition The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 7.06.02 Permitted Dredging • Dredging is to be permitted only when: • A. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes, if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted. B. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas. C. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type of dredging may only be allowed if the following conditions are met: 1. The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted. 2. The water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic life. 8/21/97 33 • D. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided and/or where there is anticipated to be a significant improvement to fish or wildlife habitat, provided there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake. E. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability. F. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan approved under authority of the Model Toxics Control Act, or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction. 7.06.03 Prohibited Dredging A. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas (see Section 9.330j, except for the purposes identified in Subparagraph .02 where appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received, and any required environmental review and mitigation is conducted. B. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material, which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in Subparagraph .02 above, is prohibited. 7.06.04 Regulations on Permitted Dredging A. All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by an appropriate State licensed professional engineer. An approved engineering report shall be submitted to the Renton Development Services Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredging operation. C. The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on recreational areas. D. The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal impact or interference with fish migration. • E. Adjacent bank protection: 1. . When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. 2. If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of restoration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation. F. Adjacent properties: 1. The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method of eliminating or preventing conditions that may: 8/21/97 34 a. Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity. b. Damage property in or near the area. c. Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the area. d. Endanger public safety in or near the area. G. The applicant shall demonstrate a method to control contamination and pollution to water, air, and ground. H. Disposal of dredged material: 1. The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged material. 2. Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake or stream, except if the material is approved as part of a contamination •remediation proiect approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. 3. In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a wetland-shoreland area. 4. If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall propose and carry out a .method of disposal that does not contaminate or pollute water, air, or ground. 7.07 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7.07.01 Industrial developments are to be permitted only when: A. They are water related or they provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge; and, B. They minimize and cluster those water-related portions of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water dependent; and, C. Any over-water portion is water dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Land Use Hearing Examiner; and, D. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and, E. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial development. 7.07.02 Industrial structures should be permitted where they set back 25 feet from the-waters edge ordinary high water mark. 7.08 LANDFILL 7.08.01 Landfills shall be permitted in the following cases: A. For detached single family residential uses, when the property is located between two (2) existing bulkheads, the property may be filled to the line of conformity provided the fill does not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet in length along the wate edge ordinary high water mark and thirty-five (35) feet into the water, and provided the provisions of Section 8.02.02 through 8.02.05 are satisfactorily met; or, 8/21/97 35 B. When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill shall be approved to bring the contour up to the desired grade; or, C. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general public; or, D. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and fills; or, E. When landfill is required for flood control purposes; or, F. When landfill is part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, or otherwise authorized by the Department of Ecology, •U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with iurisdiction. FG. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in subsections A through €-F above will be allowed only with prior approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. 7.09 MARINAS 7.09.01 Marinas shall be permitted only when: A. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the moorage facilities provided. (See 7.09.02(F) below) B. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities provided. C. The location of the moorage facilities is convenient to public roads. 7.09.02 Design Requirements A. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that will minimize adverse effects on fish and shell fish resources and be aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas. B. Marinas utilized to overnight and long-term moorage are not to be located in shallow-water embayments with poor flushing action. C. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be evaluated for compliance with standards promulgated by federal, state, and local agencies. D. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be equipped with receptacles to receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste, rubbish, and litter from patrons' boats. E. Applications for development permits for the construction of marinas must affirmatively indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain and clean up any spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. F. 1. Parking should be provided in accordance with the following ratio: private and public marinas: 2 per 3 slips; private marina associated with residential complex: 1 per 3 slips. 8/21/97 36 2. Special designated loading areas should be provided near piers in the amount of one (1) parking space per twenty-five (25) slips; all other parking areas are to be located one hundred (100) feet from the waters edge ordinary high water mark. 7.09.03 Location of Marinas A. Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington. Marinas must provide adequate access, parking, and surface water area in relation to the number of moorage spaces provided. 7.10 MINING 7.10.01 All mining, including surface mining, shall be prohibited. 7.10.02 Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction of minerals by removing the overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits thereby exposed, including open pit mining of minerals naturally exposed at the surface of the earth, mining by the auger method, and production of surface mining refuse. The surface mining shall not include reasonable excavation or grading,conducted for farming, on-site road construction, or on-site building construction. 7.11 PARKING 7.11.01 Public Parking A. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be provided at frequent locations. B. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's edge. C. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view. 7.11.02 Private Parking A. Private parking facilities are to be located away from the water's edge where possible. 7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. 8/21/97 37 D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Community piers and docks for multi-family residences including apartments, condominiums or similar developments. 5,6. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit. 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage. B. The dock or pier does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water nor create a hazard to navigation. C. The dock or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers; and D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. 7.12.04 Design Criteria - General A. Pier Type 1. All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. 8/21/97 38 D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single-Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. B. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock of less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight(8) feet. c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single- family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. d. One extension of a dock parallel to,the shoreline or one (1) float may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer that five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks 1. A Joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. 8/21/97 39 D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted as specified below under Section 7.12.09 once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spbces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be one (1) berth for every two (2) dwelling units. C. Length of Multiple-Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers and docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under Section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction-hereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet; and in the case of a marina adiacent to a designated harbor area, docks and associated breakwaters may extend to the greater of (a) the distance determined pursuant to the foregoing criteria, (b) the inner harbor line, or (c) such point beyond the inner harbor line as is allowed by the terms of a lease, license or other formal authorization approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or other agency with jurisdiction. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this Section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. 8/21/97 40 • • B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty square feet per residence. 3. A single-family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high water mark, except public recreation floats. 7.12.059 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted as variance applications to the City's Land Use Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request compiles with: A. The criteria listed in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests; and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program. 7.13 RECREATION 7.13.01 Definition: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive, such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 7.13.02 Public Recreation Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the following criteria are considered: A. Accessibility to the waters edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in consideration of natural features; and B. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the local community; and C. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the public use; and D. It is designed to avoid conflicts with owner's legal property rights and create minimum detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and E. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use, and it will be designed to have a minimum impact on the environment. 8/21/97 41 • 7.13.03 Private Recreation Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the following standards are met: A. There is reasonable public access to and-the recreational uses. including access along the waters edgewhere appropriate; and ; DB. The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent parcels; and €C. Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from pedestrian paths are provided. 7.14 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 7.14.01 Residential developments shall be allowed only when: A. Adequate public utilities are available; and B. Residential structures are set back inland from the wateredge-ordinary high water mark a minimum of twenty five (20 25) feet, or consistent with setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, whichever provides the greater setback; and C. Density shall not increase beyond the zoning density outlined in the Renton Urban Area-Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 7.14.02 No-#Floating residences are-to-be-allowed prohibited. 7.15 ROADS AND RAILROADS 7.15.01 Location 7.15.02 Design Requirements A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards and to be restricted to where possible. B. Roadways located in wetland-shoreland areas should be limited and designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural movement of ground water. 8/21/97 42 • C. All debris and other waste materials from construction are to be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body. D. Road locations are to be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in order that minimum,alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary. 7.16 STREAM ALTERATION 7.16.01 Definition: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or creek. A river, stream or creek is surface water runoff flowing in.a natural or modified channel. 7.16.02 Permitted Stream Alteration A. Unless otherwise prohibited by subsection 7.16.03, stream alteration may be allowed subiect to the regulations in subsection 7.16.04. B. Stream alteration may be permitted if it is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement proiect approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. 7.16.0203 Prohibited Stream Alteration A. . Stream_alteration is prohibited in unique and fragile areas, except if the stream alteration is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement proiect approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. B. Stream alteration•solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land is prohibited. C. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels. 7.16.0304 Regulations on Stream Alteration A. All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted to the Building-and Development Services Division as part of the application. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposal. C. The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life. D. Pollution is to be minimized during and after construction. E. The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained and the escapement of fish at low water is possible. 8/21/97 43 F. No permanent over-water cover or structure shall be allowed unless it is in the public interest. 7.17 TRAILS 7.17.01 Definition: For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, trails are a non-motorized transportation route designed primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists. 7.17.02 Permitted Uses Trail uses shall be permitted within the shoreline, when the following standards are met: A. Provisions for maintenance operation and emergency access have been provided. B. They link water access points along the shoreline, or they link water access points along the shoreline with upland community facilities. C. They are designed to avoid conflict with private property rights and to create the minimum objectionable impact on adjacent property owners. D. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property to be acquired by the public. E. They insure the rights and privacy of the adjoining property owners. F. Over-water structures required by the trails are determined to be in the public interest. G. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user loads and will have a minimum impact on the environment. 7.18 UTILITIES 7.18.01 Landscaping A. Native Vegetation 1. The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible. 2. When utility projects are completed in the water or wetland-shoreland, the disturbed area shall be restored and landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined to be more desirable. B. All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs. C. Site Screening of Public Utilities: When a public utility building, telephone exchange, sewage pumping operation or a public utility is built in the shoreline area, the requirements of this Master Program shall be met and the following screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements of Section 7.198.01A, Native Vegetation, and the requirements 8/21/97 44 • of this section are in disagreement, the requirements of this section shall take precedence. 1. If the installation is housed in a building, the building shall conform architecturally with the surrounding buildings and area or with the type of building that will develop due to the zoning district. 2. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform with 1. above, shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years. 3. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight (8) foot high open wire fence. Such installations shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (5) . years. 7.18.02 Special Considerations for Pipelines Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of adjacent water courses and shorelines. A. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor shall water quality standards be violated. B. Native soils shall be protected from erosion and natural conditions restored. Water course banks and bottoms shall be protected, where necessary, with suitable surface treatment. C. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff valves at each side of the water crossing. D. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transportation Commission and subject to review by the City Public Works Department. 7.18.03 Major Utilities- Specifications A. Electrical Installations 1. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark 'or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Structure of overhead power lines should be single-pole type or other aesthetically compatible design. 2. Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall be at a wetland-shoreland location only when the applicant proves there exists no other site out of the wetland—shoreland area and when the screening requirements of Section 7.198.01C are met. B. Communications: This section applies to telephone exchanges including radar transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, and any other facility for the transmission of communication systems. 8/21/97 45 Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area and when the screening requirements of Section 7.198.01C are met. In an aesthetic interest, such installations shall be located as far as possible from residential, recreational, and commercial activities. C. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall.be underground. When underground projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in the wetland shoreland or a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration. Underground utility installations shall be permitted only when the finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such areas. D. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights-of-way are located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies shall be encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use areas for the adjacent public use area. E. All-inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than one (1) major utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a single utility right- of-way is strongly encouraged. It would be desirable to include railroad lines within this right-of-way also. 7.18.04 Local Service Utilities, Specifications A. Waterlines: Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the'Public Works Department in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines. B. Sanitary Sewer: The existence or use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic tanks or other on-site sewage disposal systems. Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system. During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed. All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton Public Works Department and METRO. C. Storm Sewers: A storm sewer drainage system shall be required. Pre-treatment of storm run-off or diversion to sanitary sewers may be required to keep deleterious substances out of neighboring water courses. Storm sewer sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with A.P.W.A. guidelines. D. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum Products 1. Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge. 2. Oil Separations: These units shall be required at sites that have oil waste disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be built to . Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) or State of Washington Department of Public Health specifications. 8/21/97 46 3. Petroleum Bulk Storage and Distribution: Petroleum facilities shall hereafter not be allowed. 7.18.05 All-inclusive Utility Tunnels For the distribution of local utilities, utility tunnels under the street right-of-way are recommended to carry all local utility services. For new development, the tunnel could be built at the time of road construction. The tunnel would include all utility services, both public and private, necessary for use in the public right-of-way, such as wiring for street lighting and water lines for fire hydrants and all utility services necessary for the private uses of the area. • • • 8/21/97 47 SECTION 8. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 8.01 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program. The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable manner. It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit. Both variances and conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of: Ecology and the Attorney General's Office for approval or denial. 8.02 VARIANCES Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: 8.02.01 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.02 The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.03 The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.04 The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. 8.02.05 The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. 8.02.06 The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. 8.03 CONDITIONAL USE Upon proper application, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the 8/21/97 48 scope of uses can•be expanded to include many uses. Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit will be granted subject to each of the following conditions: 8.03.01 The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. • 8.03.02 The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. 8.03.03 Design ofthe site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master Program. 8.03.04 The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Master Program. 8.03.05 The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160. 8.04 TIME LIMIT, PERMIT VALIDITY, AND APPEALS A. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with the State in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. Conditional permits and variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty (30).calendar days-from the date of receipt by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office unless written communication is received by the . applicant and the. ,City indicating otherwise. B. Permit validity requirements of`Section 2.06 shall apply to conditional use and variance permits. C. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in accordance with Section 2.09 of this Program. 8/21/97 49 SECTION 9. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be construed as specified in this section. Words in the singular include the plural and the plural, the singular. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. The word "should" is advisory. 9.01 ACT: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW. 9.02 ACTIVITY: A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fishing, swimming, boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities necessarily require a shoreline location. 9.03 AQUACULTURE: The culture or farming of aquatic animals and plants. 9.04 BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP: A facility with an inclined surface extending into the water which allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers. 9.05 BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose of protecting the shoreline or harbor areas from wave action. 9.06 BUFFER: A parcel or strip of land that is designed and designated to permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adiacent aquatic or wetland site from upland impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. 9.067 BUILDING: Any structure having a roof intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, plants, animals or property. 9.078 BULKHEAD: A vertical wall constructed of rock, concrete, timber, sheet steel, qabions, or patent system materials. Rock bulkheads are often termed "vertical rock walls." Seawalls are similar to bulkheads, but more robustly constructed. 9.089 BUOY: A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc., to warn of rocks, shoals, etc., or used for boat moorage. 9.0910 CIRCULATION: Those means of transportation which carry passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a corridor. 9.4-011 CORRIDOR: A strip of land forming a passageway between two otherwise separate parts. 9.4412 DEVELOPMENT: A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading, driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other projects of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any state of water level. 9.4213 DOCK: A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.4314 DREDGING: The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 8/21/97 50 9.4415 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A development which provides a service, produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in any other use or activity for the purpose of making financial gain. 9.4516 FLOOD CONTROL: Any undertaking for the conveyance, control, and dispersal of flood waters. 9.17 FLOODWAY: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of this Master Program in conjunction with the definition of "shoreland" below, "floodway" means those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable - regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the Federal Government, the State, or a political subdivision of the State. 9.4618 FLOODPLAIN: The area subject to a 100-year flood. 9.4719 HEARINGS BOARD: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by the Act. 9.4820 HIGH RISE: A structure exceeding seventy-five (75) feet in height. 9. 21 LANDFILL: Creation or maintenance of beach or creation of dry upland area by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel or other materials into shoreline areas. 9.2022 LICENSED ENGINEER: A professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Washington. 9.2423 LOCAL SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities normally servicing a neighborhood, i.e. telephone exchanges; sewer, both storm and sanitary; distribution lines, electrical less than 55 KV, telephone, cable TV; etc. 9.2224 MAJOR SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities which provide services beyond the City's boundaries, i.e. pipelines, natural gas, water, sewer, petroleum; electrical transmission lines 55 KV or greater; and regional sewer or water treatment plants; etc. 9.2325 MARINA: A use providing moorage's for pleasure craft, which also may include boat launching facilities, storage, sales, and other related services. 9.2426 MASTER PROGRAM: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, and a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in Section 2 of the Act. 9.2527 MOORAGE: Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks or buoys. 9.2628 MULTIPLE-USE: The combining of compatible uses within one development, of which the major use or activity is water dependent. All uses or activities other than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or activity. 8/21/97 51 9.2 29 ONE-HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD: The maximum flood expected to occur during a one- hundred (100) year period. 9.2830 OPEN SPACE: A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings, paved areas, or other man-made structures. 9.31 ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: On lakes and streams, that mark found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change in accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following criteria clarify this mark on lakes and streams: A. Lakes. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. B. Streams. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark is found on the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. 9.2932 PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.3033 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Special contractual agreement between the developer and a governmental body governing development of land. 9.3434 PUBLIC ACCESS: A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general public. This may also include visual approach. 9.3235 RECREATION: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 9.3336 RESIDENTIAL USES: Developments where persons reside including but not limited to single-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. 9.37 SETBACK: A required open space, specified in the Shoreline Master Program, measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark. 9.3439 SHORELINES: All of the water areas of the State regulated by the City of Renton, including reservoirs, and their associated wetiandsshorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except: A. Shorelines of state-wide significance. B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments. C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. 8/21/97 52 9.3540 SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE: Those shorelines described in-Section 3-of-the Act RCW 90.58.030(2)(e). 9.3641 SHORELINES OF THE CITY STATE: The total of all shorelines and "shorelines of state- wide significance"within-the-regulated by the City of Renton. 9.3742 STRUCTURE: A combination of materials constructed or erected on the ground or water or attached to something having a location on the ground or water. 9.3843 SUBDIVISION: A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels. 9.3944 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) dollars, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shoreline of the State. Exemptions in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and in Section 2.03 of this Master Program are not considered substantial developments. 9.4045 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, (RCW 90.58.140). 9.4446 UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS: Those portions of the shoreline which (1) contain or substantially contribute to the maintenance of endangered or valuable forms of life and (2) have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes). 9.4247 WATER-DEPENDENT: Referring to uses to activities which necessarily require a shoreline location as a major and integral part of that use or activity. 9.4348 WATER-ORIENTED OR WATER-RELATED: Referring to uses, activities or facilities which are not necessarily water-dependent but still incorporate in their design some kind of advantageous use of the water, for example, walkways or view windows. 9.449.38 WETLANDS OR WETLAND AREAS SHORELAND OR SHORELAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State Shorelines Management Act. For purposes of determining jurisdictional area, the boundary will be either two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high water mark, or two hundred (200) feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. 9.49 WETLANDS. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or around water 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, bogs, 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, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. 8/21/97 53 • • APPENDIX A SPRINGBROOK CREEK SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP • H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHORELIN\SHOREAMD.DOC 8/21/97 54 • • CITY 0 RENTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SPRINGBROOK CREEK SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP pro F] a a ' 4 7 ,.,: r ''itilor �� iilirlonIuiPl �l7filir/ __'_____-- IININI i CI SIA Niliks I IAP%MIMI 1 riknVi Ng I t .1 r i W �ijf; Oyu SW win St 519th St CI II II I Ii 62 . / a Y i5� ish!!.j�iSk!"t -0;.i;l rnkiiii C \ :r SWyjr IR6 :'ilj I jj s 23ry • A 111 ,:.. fir,'` ., a ij dt �1 .1 SW 27l St ::::1.''il F' r tir'; u' ^IT:'.iiL'.�:' i,'j1'!'jl!.'! Ii,j:r. ,..1.:! R' ''''!�i!"t '''j !!.iiii� i, r' ;i;— .r11rLco::::;; „lr ]''j SW 2`. . ?ts hill 5 ::::r, I':::.: .::,- .,,: .. i..t., :!IITiP' :;.jiipi4i'lli a!'i:!!!::!..! ....!1 '`''•.I;,:,,i;!: :`;tM'; r!il_ r.!::a 1 !. �ijMI [Ldli Tjriri;„ .... . L4.e,'"''„ If,I I,. 7,1 ..,12r;` !: �T 441h'.l r i'i f a:!w eMM I 7ci7.-.'s liii'li/ - a 'Cr ,' .'"1:1iiiq Ilia 01 � � !', SW391hSl ,':I'Mk ::. • IF: /SW 41at SI. ( `► 1111 SW 41st S� n� II��' %IA... Nei :!„...,:,. r1�� 1T�1111 _ .„:„.,., ii ..... � 43rd St. SW 43rd St. -�...,.\\ � 1-, ' ?r-- it�� Aji rIsl I .,...(.. $ 182nd al ( • '—J 111 1 1 9 T—no r [ i 451h M t u • . VI I • f U Urban Environment • X ID C Conservancy Environment O PLANNINO/BUILDINO/PUBLIC WORKS 0 1000 .2000On7994Vbnuki,IA.Dotson • Co11��i�iNnk; i.iWetlands 1.12000 ---- Shoreline Boundary - - City Limits Note; This map depicts the approximate location of the Sprinabrook Creek shoreline boundary and associated wetlands governed by the Renton Shoreline Master Program Application of the Renton Shoreline Master Program to a property is determined on a site-specific basis by the Development Services Division utilizing the regulations and definitions in the Program and any site-specific environmental analysis • D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. . 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single-Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. B. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock of less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight(8) feet. c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single- family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. d. One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline or'one (1) float may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer that five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks 1. A Joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. 8/21/97 39 D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted as specified below under Section 7.12.09 once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Splices 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be one (1) berth for every two (2) dwelling units. C. Length of Multiple-Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers and docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under Section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless: otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction-thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet; and in the case of a marina adiacent to a designated harbor area, docks and associated breakwaters may extend to the greater of (a) the distance determined pursuant to the foregoing criteria, (b) the inner harbor line, or (c) such point beyond the inner harbor line as is allowed by the terms of a lease, license or other formal authorization approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or other agency with jurisdiction. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this Section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. 8/21/97 40