Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPre-App Meeting SummaryDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division | 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 | 425-430-7200 |www.rentonwa.gov PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) 2901 & 3201 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, WA 98058 PRE 26-000130 May 14, 2026 Contact Information: Planner: Jill Ding, 425-430-6598, jding@rentonwa.gov Public Works Plan Reviewer: Michael Sippo, 425-430-7298, msippo@rentonwa.gov Fire Prevention Reviewer: Hugo Sotelo, 425.276.9587, hsotelo@RentonRFA.org Building Department Reviewer: Rob Shuey, 206.550.8523, rshuey@rentonwa.gov Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies to engineers, architects, and contractors who will work on the project. You will need to submit an PDF copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. When the project application is ready for submittal, you may email the project planner to start the prescreen process. Similarly, you may contact the assigned planner if there are any questions regarding submittal requirements. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the pr oposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Development Engineering Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 14, 2026 TO: Pre-Application File No. PRE26-000130 FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) – 2901 & 3201 Maple Valley Hwy,, Renton, WA 98058 APNs 1623059033, 1623059051, and 162305HYDR General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Development Engineering Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton. Project Proposal: The Tabor-Crowall and Brodell revetments are located to the south of State Route 169 (SR 169) and are along the right (north) bank of the Cedar River. The proposed work would occur within Riverview Park (APNs 1623059033 & 1623059051), within the Cedar River (162305HYDR), and within the SR 169 right-of-way. The Project includes repair to the Tabor-Crowall and Brodell revetments, which were damaged during the 2020 flood season. The Tabor-Crowall revetment was damaged at three locations along its 503-foot length, and the Brodell revetment was damaged at two locations along its 936-foot length. The facilities are adjacent to SR 169/Maple Valley Highway, and protective measures and repairs of both revetments are warranted to protect a buried fiber optic line; buried sewer and water utilities, including a regional water supply line; the Cedar River Trail; and SR 169. Additional bank erosion will result in increased risk to these utilities and may threaten roadway and other infrastructure. The applicant, King County, proposes a long-term solution to protect infrastructure, reduce maintenance, and enhance aquatic and riparian habitat. Because of their proximity, repair of the two revetments have been incorporated into one project. Goals of the Project include the following: 1. Reduce overall flood-related risk to people, property, and infrastructure; 2. Ensure new flood protection infrastructure (levee and revetment) meets current engineering standards to minimize maintenance costs and protect against seismic risk; 3. Improve natural river processes, function, and habitat, where feasible; and Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 2 of 9 May 14, 2026 4. Meet FEMA requirements to design and implement repairs to the Tabor-Crowall revetment. The revetment repairs have been designed to incorporate large woody material (LWM) anchored with dolosse into the toe of the revetment, providing in -channel habitat complexity. A single alcove, approximately 550 feet long and 100 feet wide on the Tabor - Crowall left bank would be constructed, with tapers at each end to match existing topography. This allows for removal of known angular rock within the project limits the left bank, the creation of additional edge habitat, and the potential for side channel formation depending on natural processes as the alcove matures. The design provides significant aquatic edge habitat with several engineered log jams and multiple pieces of partially buried large wood within the excavated area and on the newly constructed bank. According to the City’s COR Mapping system, the site is mapped with moderate coal mine hazard areas, high erosion hazard areas, sensitive and protected slopes, high seismic hazard areas, wellhead protection areas (zone 1, zone 1 modified, and zone 2), a Type S stream (Cedar River), wetlands, 100 year floodplain and floodway, and moderate and severe channel migration zones. The Cedar River is a shoreline of the state. The site is mapped within the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity designations of reach C of the Cedar River (CR-C). Current Use: The property is currently developed as a City park, Riverview Park, and a state highway (SR 169). 1. Shoreline Master Program: The project site includes the Cedar River and would be subject to the requirements of the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Shoreline Environment Designations. Shoreline Stabilization – The City’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090F.4) includes criteria for new or expanded shoreline stabilization as well as repairs to existing shoreline stabilization structures. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization i s unlikely to be necessary during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to approve new water - dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent uses that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, nonstructural methods such as vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering have been determined infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of preference: (a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and relocate structures. Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 3 of 9 May 14, 2026 (b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization. (c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line. (d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexible defense works, as described above. (e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. iv. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of the following situations: (a) To protect existing primary structures: (1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves within three (3) years, or where waiting until the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shorelin e erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause of shoreline instability at the site in question. (2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone (CMZ) require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington-licensed geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments. Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting in natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream. Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 4 of 9 May 14, 2026 (b) New Development: In support of new development when all six (6) of the conditions listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. (2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as currents and waves. (4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (6) The proposed new development is not located in a channel migration zone (CMZ). (c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW when both of the conditions below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor area when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a geotechnical report: (1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 5 of 9 May 14, 2026 v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this Section that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the need and effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential damage to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction. vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on streams should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural stream processes. The Administrator shall review the proposed design for consistency with State guidelines for stream bank protection as it relates to local physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master Program, subject to the following: (a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or valuable shoreline resources. (b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration. (c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such features would not adversely affect ecological functions. (d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and existing structures. (e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank protection guidelines. (f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-water structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological functions that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the following design criteria shall apply: Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 6 of 9 May 14, 2026 i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed by a qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to ensure that installation meets all design parameters. ii. General Requirements: The size of stabilization measures shall be limited to the minimum necessary. Use measures shall be designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions. iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures shall be ensured to not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4). Where feasible, ecological restoration and public access improvements shall be incorporated into the project. iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with other appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or private recreation and Indian treaty rights. v. Aesthetic Qualities to Be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. vi. Public Access to Be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access should be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization structures for public or quasi-public developments whenever safely compatible with the primary purpose. Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to decrease long-term public use of the shoreline. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline stabilization structures not in compliance with this Code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the applicable criteria below: i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be repaired as long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization function for a legally established land use, but shall be subject to the provisions below if the land use for which the shoreline stabilization structure was constructed is abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, or changed to a new use. ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, discontinued, or changed to a new use may be retained or replaced with a similar structure if: Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 7 of 9 May 14, 2026 (a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves; and (b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation to the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in subsection F4aiii of this Section shows that a more preferred level of shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing shoreline stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives (a) through (c) of the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section would be infeasible then the existing shoreline stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a similar structure. iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting Residences: Replacement walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Replenishment of substrate materials to maintain the specifications of the permitted design may be allowed as maintenance. vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical habitats would occur by leaving an existing structure that is being replaced, the structure shall be removed as part of the replacement measure. The proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the above shoreline stabilization criteria at the time of formal land use application. 2. Critical Areas: According to the City’s COR Mapping system, the site is mapped with moderate coal mine hazard areas, high erosion hazard areas, sensitive and protected slopes, high seismic hazard areas, wellhead protection areas (zone 1, zone 1 modified, and zone 2), a Type S stream (Cedar River), wetlands, 100 year floodplain and floodway, and moderate and severe channel migration zones. The Cedar River is a shoreline of the state. The site is mapped within the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity designations of reach C of the Cedar River (CR-C). A stream study would be required to be submitted with the project application, the stream study must make a finding that the proposed revetment repair work would result in no net loss of ecological functions. The applicant would be required to submit a wetland assessment with the land use application. The wetland assessment would include a map and a wetland report/delineation prepared by a qualified professional. If any alteration to wetland s or wetland buffers are proposed, a wetland mitigation plan would also be required for land use submittal. The wetland categorization would determine the size of the wetland buffer. The critical area buffer widths and structure setbacks beyond the buffer for wetlands located within shoreline jurisdiction are subject to the standards identified in Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 8 of 9 May 14, 2026 the adopted Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090D). Wetland buffers range from 40 feet to 225 feet. 3. Environmental Review: The proposal would require Environmental (SEPA) Review, in accordance with WAC 197-11, as the proposal is undertaken on lands covered by water. 4. Shoreline Permit Requirements: Shoreline Substantial Development Permits ensure proposed shoreline development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program. The proposal would be subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in accordance with WAC 173-27. 5. Permit Requirements: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review would be reviewed within an estimated time frame of 8 weeks. The 2026 permit fees would total $5,391.75 ($3,221 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit + $1,914 SEPA + $256.75 Technology Fee = $5,391.75). A 5% technology fee would also be assessed at the time of land use application. All fees are subject to change. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal can be found on the City’s Permit Center website (www.Rentonwa.gov). The City now requires electronic plan submittal for all applications. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction and building permits may be required. 6. Waivers of Submittal Requirements: The submittal checklist is not an exhaustive list of submittal requirements and may be modified in cases where additional information is required to complete the review of an application. In addition, non-applicable submittal requirements may be waived. The applicant should contact the assigned Project Manager if there are any questions regarding submittal requirements. 7. Public Information Sign: Public Information Signs are required for all Type II and Type III Land Use Permits as classified by RMC 4-8-080. Public Information Signs are intended to inform the public of potential land development, specific permits/actions being considered by the City, and to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. The applicant must follow the specifications provided in the public information sign handout. The applicant is solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance, removal, and any costs associated with the sign. 8. Impact Fees: There are no impact fees associated with the proposed revetment repair project. The city’s 2025-2026 fee schedule is available for your review on the City’s website. 9. Next Steps: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant shall have the materials pre-screened prior to submitting the complete application package. Please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at 425-430-6598 or jding@rentonwa.gov to submit prescreen materials and subsequent land use application. 10. Expiration: 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 subsection RMC 4-9-190J.2 or J.3. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit the Planning Division shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may Tabor-Crowall/Brodell (KC000270 Cedar River Right Bank Revetment Repair between RM 2.7 and RM 3.4) Page 9 of 9 May 14, 2026 authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. It is the applicant’s responsibility to monitor the expiration dates.