Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105.pdfDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC Meeting Date: November 5, 2018 Project File Number: PR18-000002 Project Name: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Land Use File Number: LUA18-000636 Project Manager: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner Owner: N/A Applicant: City of Renton Contact: Paul Hintz, Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Project Location: Citywide within shoreline jurisdiction. Project Summary: This proposal is a non-project action to amend Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). It is part of a mandatory periodic review of Shoreline Master Program regulations and is required by RCW 90.58.080. The proposed amendments include the following changes: updates to RMC Title IV to ensure consistency and compliance with state law, as outlined in the Ecology Periodic Review Checklist; a change to the Shoreline Environment Designation, from High Intensity to Single- Family Residential, at the Barbee Mill site where such uses already exist; the adoption by reference of updates to the Critical Areas regulations (which were already reviewed in a prior public review process and approved by Council); and amendments to Title IV to improve the clarity, consistency, and administration of the SMP which includes amendments to text and tables in sections specifically identified as part of the SMP (RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-9-190 Shoreline Permits, RMC 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites) as well as amendments to sections of the code that are cross-referenced by the SMP (RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, 4- 9-070 Environmental Review Procedures, 4-9-195 Routine Vegetation Management Permits, and 4-11 Definitions). Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A N/A Site Area: N/A Total Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA18-000636 Report of November 5, 2018 Page 2 of 6 SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The City of Renton is proposing to amend Title IV in four ways. Additional details about these proposed changes can be found in the attached Department of Ecology Periodic Review Checklist. Amendments for Consistency with State Regulations Since the adoption of the SMP, the state continued to refine and update the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), the shoreline guidelines (WAC 173-26), shoreline permitting rules (WAC 173-27) and made a few changes in other state laws that affect shoreline management. The list below summarizes the proposed changes to the Renton SMP to ensure consistency with state policies and regulations:  Adjust the cost threshold for a substantial development permit to $7,047.  Amend the definition of development to clarify that it does not include dismantling structures.  Include a section to clarify exceptions to local review for shoreline permitting.  Allow a shoreline exemption for projects that retrofit structures for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility.  Add a 90-day review timeline for review of Washington State Department of Transportation projects.  Adjust the cost threshold for a substantial development permit for replacement docks to $20,000.  Adopt by reference the federal wetland delineation manual.  Allow existing residential structures within the shoreline to be classified as conforming.  Allow wetland mitigation banks as an impact mitigation option. Redesignation of the Barbee Mill Site One of the proposed changes to the SMP includes an environment redesignation at the Barbee Mill site from High e- Intensity to Single-family Residential. In 2011, Renton City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan change (Ordinance 5624) resdesignating the site from COR (Commercial Office Residential) land use to HD (Residential High Density). They also approved a rezone for the site from COR to R-10 (Residential 10) zoning (Ordinance 5626) and approved a development agreement that would keep this site in residential use. The change in shoreline environment designation reflects both the current and future residential use on the site. The graphic below shows the current shoreline environment designation on the left and the proposed shoreline environment designation on the right. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA18-000636 Report of November 5, 2018 Page 3 of 6 SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 Adoption of the Critical Areas Regulations within Shoreline Jurisdiction At the time the SMP was developed, the City of Renton had not updated it critical areas regulations or best available science report. After review of the rules in effect at the time, Ecology became concerned that the critical areas requirements may not result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions if applied within shoreline jurisdiction. As a result, Ecology required that Renton either update its critical areas regulations or adopt the model ordinance for critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Since SMP adoption in 2011 Renton has had two different standards for critical areas: one standard applicable only within shoreline jurisdiction and one applicable in the rest of the City. Renton updated its best available science and adopted updated critical areas regulations in 2015. These standards are consistent with the no net loss standard and are suitable for application within shoreline jurisdiction. They are proposed to be adopted by reference into the SMP to create a single standard for the regulation of critical areas, which improves clarity and ease of administration of these rules. To ensure consistency with between state shoreline laws and the critical areas codes, amendments to RMC 4-3-050 are also proposed to ensure that uses and activities allowed within the shoreline under state law are properly exempted from critical areas regulations. WAC 173-27-040(2) exempts a list of uses from the requirements of a substantial development permit. That means these uses are allowed in the shoreline, subject to the standards of the SMP and no net loss. As a result, the proposed amendments include critical areas regulations updates that allow these uses in critical areas and/or critical area buffers. However, the amendment makes clear that the uses are subject both to the standards of the SMP and the use is only allowed as described by the WAC. The amendment includes the following:  Uses and activities already exempt within critical areas are amended to defer to the SMP and WAC: conservation, restoration, and enhancement projects; site investigative work; existing and on-going City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA18-000636 Report of November 5, 2018 Page 4 of 6 SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 agricultural activities; existing and improved utilities and infrastructure facilities; normal maintenance and repair of existing structures; and emergency activities.  Additional uses and activities that may be allowed in critical areas and buffers within shoreline jurisdiction include: bulkheads for single-family residential development, navigational aids, residential docks, the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems, control of noxious aquatic weeds, and retrofitting to improve ADA compliance.  Single-family residential homes are allowed in critical area buffers, subject to SMP rules and requirements for buffer averaging. Clarity, Consistency, and Administration Amendments A variety of amendment to Title IV are intended to improve the clarity, consistency, and administration of the SMP. Many of these changes are isolated and minor. However, additional reasoning is provided for a few changes in the following paragraphs. The proposed regulatory amendments specifically clarify the application of rules for existing single-family development, including when modified setbacks and buffers are applied and when rules regarding non-conforming sites and structures are activated. This intends to clarify which rules are applied under different circumstances and allows required vegetation conservation rules to be applied consistently. Presently, the SMP includes alternative standards for single-family buffers and setbacks given the existing developed condition of many shoreline reaches with homes, but the rules are unclear and could benefit from a finer range based on lot depth. Accordingly, in the proposal, single-family developments with lots over 130 feet are required to have larger buffers with the proposed changes, but they are still part of a sliding-scale approach that allows a buffer less than 100 ft. from the OHWM. By adding language regarding common-line setbacks, the proposal attempts to hold the line of existing development and prevent it from moving closer to the OHWM. It is expected that more single-family residential properties will conform with the setback and buffer standards as amended and fewer single-family residential properties will require application of the standards for non-conforming structures and sites. Proposed changes address the administration of regulations for tree protection and vegetation conservation. Amendments also clarify that city tree retention standards apply within shoreline jurisdiction. This closes a potential loop hole and ensures that properties within shoreline jurisdiction are subject to the same standard as all properties. However, SMP rules still apply within the vegetation conservation buffer. Additionally, the City’s routine vegetation management regulations would apply with the proposed text changes to help maintain no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function for single-family activities proposed outside of the buffer or setback but within shoreline jurisdiction. This supports the 2010 cumulative effects analysis results indicating, the low level of expected change and redevelopment but the “Relative importance of change in vegetation cover and curtailed discharge of herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals from maintenance of lawns and landscaping adjacent to the lake may have a much greater effect since populations of Chinook salmon at a critical lifecycle stage are higher in Renton Shorelines as a function of distance from the Cedar River.1” Several changes are proposed to the development standards table in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a. With the exception of some amendments for existing single-family uses (outlined above), the changes do not change the standards applied. In the rest of the RMC setbacks are measured from the edge of buffer, whereas the current SMP measures both setbacks and 1 Parametrix, 2010. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA18-000636 Report of November 5, 2018 Page 5 of 6 SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 buffers from the OHWM. For clarity and consistency this method of measurement is adjusted to match the citywide system. In addition, the language of several notes to this table was changed to be more specific, clear, and avoid potential conflicts. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a Determination of Non-Significance with a 30-day comment period. A 30-day comment period for this application is required in WAC 173-26-104. Since this determination is being processed under the standard SEPA determination process in WAC 197-11-340, the determination is issued with a comment period and then becomes final at the end of the comment period unless the City decides to revise or revoke the determination. Point of clarification on the appeal process: there will be no standard appeal period for this non-project action. This determination is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board and not the City of Renton Hearings Examiner (HE). SEPA review is processed jointly with the application according to RMC 4-8- 080 and amendments to Title IV is a type 6 application. RMC 4-9-070R states that appeals only go the HE only if the final decision on the action is made by a non-elected official. Since the SMP updates are acted upon by Council, this would mean the SEPA appeal would go with a whole project appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. This is also consistent with your Type VI process. B. Mitigation Measures 1. N/A. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Exhibit 2: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 3: Periodic Review Checklist D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal is a non-project action and no significant adverse impacts have been identified in a review of the checklist. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not revised or revoked by the City of Renton at the end of the 30-day comment period (WAC 197-11-340), which has been extended to December 7, 2018. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing within 60 days of the adoption of the proposed amendments by the Renton City Council and the Department of Ecology. Appeals must be filed as a Petition for Review to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. Additional information on filing a petition can be found at: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/. SR_ERC Report_SMP Update_181105 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE EXHIBITS Project Name: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Land Use File Number: LUA18-000636 Date of Meeting November 5, 2018 Staff Contact Paul Hintz Senior Planner Project Contact/Applicant Paul Hintz Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 90857 Project Location Citywide within shoreline jurisdiction The following exhibits are included with the ERC Report: Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Exhibit 2: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 3: Periodic Review Checklist DEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCITYOF—‘Renton:PlanningDivision1055SouthGradyWay-Renton,WA98057Phone:425-430-7200Iwww.rentonwa.RovPURPOSEOFCHECKLIST:TheStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA),Chapter43.21CRCW,requiresallgovernmentalagenciestoconsidertheenvironmentalimpactsofaproposalbeforemakingdecisions.AnEnvironmentalImpactStatement(ElS)mustbepreparedforallproposalswithprobablesignificantadverseimpactsonthequalityoftheenvironment.Thepurposeofthischecklististoprovideinformationtohelpyouandtheagencyidentifyimpactsfromyourproposal(andtoreduceoravoidimpactsfromtheproposal,ifitcanbedone)andtohelptheagencydecidewhetheranEISisrequired.INSTRUCTIONSFORAPPLICANTS:Thisenvironmentalchecklistasksyoutodescribesomebasicinformationaboutyourproposal.Governmentalagenciesusethischecklisttodeterminewhethertheenvironmentalimpactsofyourproposalaresignificant,requiringpreparationofanElS.Answerthequestionsbriefly,withthemostpreciseinformationknown,orgivethebestdescriptionyoucan.Youmustanswereachquestionaccuratelyandcarefully,tothebestofyourknowledge.Inmostcases,youshouldbeabletoanswerthequestionsfromyourownobservationsorprojectplanswithouttheneedtohireexperts.Ifyoureallydonotknowtheanswer,orifaquestiondoesnotapplytoyourproposal,write“donotknow”or“doesnotapply”.Completeanswerstothequestionsnowmayavoidunnecessarydelayslater.Somequestionsaskaboutgovernmentalregulations,suchaszoning,shoreline,andlandmarkdesignations.Answerthesequestionsifyoucan.Ifyouhaveproblems,thegovernmentalagenciescanassistyou.Thechecklistquestionsapplytoallpartsofyourproposal,evenifyouplantodothemoveraperiodoftimeorondifferentparcelsofland.Attachanyadditionalinformationthatwillhelpdescribeyourproposaloritsenvironmentaleffects.Theagencytowhichyousubmitthischecklistmayaskyoutoexplainyouranswersorprovideadditionalinformationreasonablyrelatedtodeterminingiftheremaybesignificantadverseimpact.ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST1 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 1 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Periodic Review Checklist Introduction This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns conducting the “periodic review” of their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology’s rule outlining procedures for conducting these reviews is at WAC 173-26-090. This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews. How to use this checklist See Section 2 of Ecology’s Periodic Review Checklist Guidance document for a description of each item, relevant links, review considerations, and example language. At the beginning: Use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i). At the end: Use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26- 090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b). Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.