Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCritical Area Protection (3/21/2005) April 25,2005 Sew Renton City Council Minutes ."1" Page 151 Councilman Law favored the minority report, saying that the park is used less during the off-season months and it is worthwhile putting the proposed rule modifications to the test. He stated that people should not be punished for those who violate the rules and do not clean up after their dogs. Councilman Persson stressed that people must understand that the proposed off- leash dog area at Fire Station#15 is temporary and that the site will eventually be used as a fire station. Councilwoman Nelson pointed out that the proposed off-leash dog site is experimental, and if it does work out, the Parks Department will look into putting similar small off-leash dog parks elsewhere. Councilman Corman suggested that the proposed off-leash dog park be referred to as temporary, and that signage be installed identifying the site as a temporary dog park and a future fire station. Councilwoman Palmer noted that both Committee reports propose the off-leash dog park at Fire Station#15, and she agreed with the signage suggestion. *MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT THE MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT. (Mayor Keolker-Wheeler voted "aye" to break the tie vote.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and ORDINANCES adoption: Ordinance#5135 An ordinance was read adopting the shoreline and critical areas policy Planning: Critical Areas &`�� amendments to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in Shoreline, Comprehensive conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, Plan Amendments COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5136 An ordinance was read amending Section 1-3-2.C.1.e(2)of Chapter 3, Planning: Critical Areas, Remedies and Penalties, of Title I(Administrative); and Chapter 3, Shoreline Management Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 8, Permits - General Program Regulations and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits -Specific; Chapter 10, Legal Non-Conforming Structures, Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11, Definitions; of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend Shoreline Master Program regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5137 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Planning: Critical Areas Overlay Districts; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Regulations Chapter 8,Permits -General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11, Definitions;of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend critical areas regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Corman suggested the placement of the City of Renton logo on a Community Services: Henry water slide at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. He explained that when Moses Aquatic Center, City photographs of the water slides appear in advertisements, they then can be Logo on Water Slide identified as belonging to the City of Renton. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the Administration will investigate the matter. April 18,2005 Nor Renton City Council Minutes Page 140 Planning: Critical Ar s & An ordinance was read adopting the shoreline and critical areas policy Shoreline, omprehensive amendments to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan,maps, and data in Plan Amendments conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas, An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3,Remedies &Penalties, of Title I Shoreline Master Program (Administrative); and Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Regulations Districts, Chapter 8, Permits -General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11,Definitions; of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Shoreline Master Program regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Regulations Special Districts; Chapter 4,Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 8,Permits -General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City Code to include critical areas regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5134 An ordinance was read amending Ordinance 5110 relating to the annual City of Transportation: Fund 317 2005 Renton 2005 Budget by appropriating funds from the Transportation Capital Increase and Reallocation Improvement Fund balance, increasing the 2005 Budget, and reallocating the expenditures in specific transportation improvement projects. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:17 p.m. NO"ti�s-t t.L Wat to-,tip Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 18,2005 Noe April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 127 important for the public to know that Council will consider everyone who applies. Mr. Clawson explained that as Renton grows, the number of applicants may also grow, and it is difficult to conduct quality interviews with such a large number of people. He pointed out that if someone has the interest and the background to merit an interview,Council will take a good look at them whether they are known to the Council or not. Mr. Clawson concluded by expressing his support for the revised policy. Councilman Corman stated that if there were a vacancy on the Council, a person who is interested in the position can always address Council during the audience comment portion of the Council meeting. He noted that the policy change does not shut off the ability of citizens to express their interest to Council. Councilman Clawson added that interested citizens can also contact Council via mail,e-mail, and telephone. *MOTION CARRIED. Planning &Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding compensation for the McLendon Hardware street vacation(VAC-04- Vacation: Alley,Burnett Ave 004), located east of Burnett Ave. S. and north of S. 2nd St. The Committee S &S 2nd St,McLendon recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal Hardware,VAC-04-004 for the portion of the City alley, accept the appraisal for the 20-foot right-of- way dedication, set compensation at$25,500 for the alley vacation, and accept the dedication in lieu of a part of the cash compensation that would be paid for the alley vacation. Since City Code calls for the difference between the appraised values of$25,500 to be paid to the petitioner,the monies due the City from the petitioner would be zero. Accordingly, the monies due the petitioner from the City would also be zero. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Ordinance .. regarding the critical areas regulations. The Committee has studied the documents prepared by City staff and the consultants, including but not limited to, best available science reviews,proposed policy,map, and regulation amendments, and public comments and responses. The Committee concurred with the staff recommended approach,and in particular finds that: The City's program for "Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA (Growth Management Act) Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations" focuses primarily on new stream and lake, and shoreline buffers, which are designed to develop standard stream and lake and shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and values. Further, to provide incentives to restore degraded buffer conditions,the City's proposed critical areas update allows for both standard and flexible review processes, so that applications proposing to substantially improve functions and values may be allowed to reduce buffer widths with added site-specific studies and mitigation. Regarding wetlands, in most cases,the City expects that the standard wetland buffers will be sufficient to protect the functions and values of wetlands. However, the proposal also recognizes: 1) Renton's proposed code would widen buffers as needed to preserve all functions and values (including wildlife); 2)Renton has performed reconnaissance of its wetlands (and streams) and does understand to a greater degree the functions and values and categories of streams and wetlands in its jurisdiction, increasing confidence in its code structure to protect functions and values by lowering April 11,2005 s.r Renton City Council Minutes Page 128 risk; 3)Renton's areas of linked wildlife habitat are limited to those areas where the City has been active in its purchases of wetlands and wetland banks and property along Springbrook Creek, May Creek, and the Black River. The City continues to be active in habitat protection and restoration as evidenced in its Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2010;4) Recognizing another concentration of higher value wetlands is found in the Soos Creek vicinity outside of the City limits,Renton has added a policy to do cooperative basin planning for the Soos Creek watershed should annexation be imminent. The Committee recommended that the City Attorney's office prepare ordinances, and that the City Council take action as follows: • Approve the recommended Shoreline Master Program amendments including policies, maps, and regulations dated 1/26/2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through 3/31/2005. • Approve the critical areas regulations amendments and related City Code Title IV amendments dated 1/26/2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through 3/31/2005. Lastly,the Committee recommended that approval of Comprehensive Plan policy amendments not associated with the Shoreline Master Program policy integration be deferred to be considered with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle.* Noting the tremendous amount of work undertaken on this matter, Councilman Clawson indicated that every buffer of a certain size will be reviewed individually. He explained that this staff-intensive approach will result in more developable land and better protection for streams and wetlands. *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Law pointed out that staff did an outstanding job in helping people understand this complicated issue. *MOTION CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the garbage Solid Waste: Garbage ordinance. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff Ordinance recommendation to approve amendments to City Code to clarify and add definitions, make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, add and clarify violations to the garbage ordinance, and criminalize violations. These amendments are part of the stepped up code enforcement and nuisance abatement effort. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading, and that the ordinance contain an emergency clause. Pointing out that the ordinance increases the penalties for extreme cases, it was MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 130 for ordinance.) Now PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Date V-//- a00S April 11, 2005 Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations (Referred October 18, 2004) lThe Committee has studied the documents prepared by City staff and the consultants including, but not limited to, best available science reviews, proposed policy, map, and regulation amendments, and public comments and responses. The Committee concurs with the City staff recommended approach, and in particular finds that: The City's program for"Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations" focuses primarily on new stream/lake and shoreline buffers,which are designed to develop standard stream/lake/shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and values. Further, to provide incentives to restore degraded buffer conditions,the City's proposed Critical Areas update allows for both standard and flexible review processes, so that applications proposing to substantially improve functions and values may be allowed to reduce buffer widths with added site-specific studies and mitigation. Regarding wetlands, in most cases,the City expects that the standard wetland buffers will be sufficient to protect the functions and values of wetlands. However,the proposal also recognizes: 1)Renton's proposed code would widen buffers as needed to preserve all functions and values(including wildlife). 2)Renton has performed reconnaissance of its wetlands(and streams)and does understand to a greater degree the functions and values and categories of streams and wetlands in its jurisdiction, increasing confidence in its code structure to protect functions and values by lowering risk. 3)Renton's areas of linked wildlife habitat are limited to those areas where the City has been active in its purchases of wetlands and wetland banks and property along Springbrook Creek,May Creek, and the Black River. The City continues to be active in habitat protection and restoration as evidenced in its Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2010. 4)Recognizing another concentration of higher value wetlands is found in the Soos Creek vicinity outside of the City limits, Renton has added a policy to do cooperative basin planning for the Soos Creek watershed should annexation be imminent. The Committee recommends that the City Attorney's office prepare ordinances, and that the City Council take action as follows: Approve the recommended Shoreline Master Program amendments including policies, maps, and regulations dated January 26,2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through March 31, 2005. Approve the Critical Areas Regulations Amendments and related Title 4 code amendments dated January 26,2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through March 31, 2005. CAO doc\ Rev 01/04 bh ISO *010 Lastly, the Committee recommends that approval of Comprehensive Plan Policy amendments not associated with the Shoreline Master Program policy integration be deferred to be considered with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. C ...3 Ok4r4.,A_„s_) Dan Clawson, Lc" Denis W. Law, Vice Chair IlAte-ASL' t4Plrn(2ft-- Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind CAO.doc\ Rev 01/04 bh Nor r.r April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 113 MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR WITH CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.h. AS PRESENTED.* Councilman Persson requested that the detour be well marked on NE 44th St. *MOTION CARRIED. Separate Consideration Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an ordinance to Item 8.i. increase the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 by$2,382,300 for Transportation: Fund 317 2005 completion of transportation projects in 2005 and to reallocate the funds by Increase and Reallocation project. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.i. TO THE TRANSPORTATION(AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Nelson and Corman, previously excused. CORRESPONDENCE Two items of correspondence were read from Suzanne Krom,Herons Forever Citizen Comment: Krom- President, PO Box 16155, Seattle, 98116, suggesting changes to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance proposed critical areas ordinance,including incorporation of the 1995 Harza - fish study and report recommendations, referring to bulkheads as having C negative environmental impacts, and P-1 pond dredging issues. Citizen Comment: Pace- Correspondence was read from Sam Pace, Seattle-King County Association of Critical Areas Ordinance Realtors, 29839 154th Ave. SE, Kent, 98042,regarding the City's proposed critical areas ordinance. The correspondence also includes information prepared for the City of Kent pertaining to its critical areas updates. Citizen Comment: Various - Correspondence was read from: Joyce Ray,201 Union Ave. SE,#101, Renton, Utility Taxes on Utility Bills 98059; Shirley Arthalony,201 Union Ave. SE,#35,Renton, 98059; Renee Vandemaele, 201 Union Ave. SE,#250, Renton, 98059; Connie Duncan, 201 Leisure Estates SE,#228, Renton,98059;Jean Webb, 201 Union Ave. SE, #248,Renton,98059;Edie-Mae Lawyer, 201 Union Ave. SE,#20,Renton, 98059;Eugene Olson,201 Union Ave. SE,#233,Renton,98059;Jo Ann Olson, 201 Union Ave. SE,#233,Renton,98059; Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton,98056; and Wyona M. Moser, 201 Union Ave. SE,#160,Renton,98059; all asking for the removal or reduction of utility taxes on senior and disabled citizen utility bills. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Added Correspondence was read from David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices P.S., Citizen Comment: Halinen - 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue, 98004, on behalf of the applicant SR Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat 900 LLC,requesting reconsideration of Council's decision on 3/21/2005 Appeal, SR 900 LLC& regarding conditions of approval#2 and#3 for the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Herons Forever,PP-04-002 Plat. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO AUDIENCE COMMENT. CARRIED. rc& 1 05" Herons Forever comme[il'S' (Ofle l diet 0 One a.mai�> C1iYl Critical Areas Ordinance b Page 1 of 2 Suzanne Krom, President Herons Forever POB 16155 Seattle, WA 98116 March 28, 2005 City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: proposed Critical Areas Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, Please accept this letter as the official comments for Herons Forever on the above- mentioned action. I am president of Herons Forever, a 450-member non-profit organization involved with the preservation of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. Our members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region. A large number are Renton residents. Herons Forever has been involved in the public process with land use issues as it relates to the Black River Riparian Forest area since our inception. My comments regarding the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance are as follows: 1. We encourage Renton to incorporate the recommendations from the Harza fish study and report, titled "Final Report Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook System," dated June 1995. It was a multijurisdictional study headed by the City of Kent that involved the City of Renton and Ron Straka, both of whom are named in the Acknowledgements section. This study documented chinook salmon, along with many other species of fish, using the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) fish ladder to enter the P1 Pond, then migrate up through the Springbrook, Garrison, Mill Creek systems. The BRPS is likely the sole vehicle allowing fish to enter the P1 Pond, and Springbrook, Garrison, and Mill Creek systems. This makes the BRPS and P1 Pond critically important for fish, including chinook salmon, using this creek system. The report includes recommendations for improvements to the BRPS that make it more fish friendly while not requiring an expensive overhaul of the dam. Herons Forever commei ' Critical Areas Ordinance Page 2 of 2 2. During the reading of the proposal, it was my understanding that bulkheads were referred to as "significant environmental improvements." In fact, creating bulkheads converts riparian or near-shore habitat to upland habitat, which is destructive not constructive. Bulkheads should be regarded as having significant negative environmental impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed ordinance. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom . From: suzanne krom <szkrom@juno.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2005 3:27 AM Subject: Re: Critical Areas Ordinance comments Dear Councilmembers, In addition to the two points I bring up in my comment letter of March 28, there is another related concern that should be evaluated for inclusion into Renton's CAO. The muddy base of the P1 Pond has been rising steadily over the years. If allowed to continue, it is my understanding that the area will turn into a mudflat that is wet only during our rainy season. As this pond deteriorates, so too does its ability to support aquatic life, including fish, frogs, and snakes, all of which are important to the Black River herons for food. In addition, the health of this pond plays an important role in the overall health of the Springbrook/Garrison/May Creek system. At some point in the near future the P1 Pond will likely need to be dredged. The short-term challenge will be in controlling the hazardous substances released when this work is conducted. Currently the muddy base caps a 20-year accumulation of toxins that have flowed downstream until becoming trapped by the pump plant. In a study conducted several years ago, the water quality of the P1 Pond was determined to be highly contaminated. During construction of the pond in the mid-1980s, the spoils dumped onto the northwest tract of the Black River Riparian Forest(closest to the Pump Plant, bordered on the south by Oaksdale)rendered that section hazardous. Department of Ecology determined that the land could not be developed unless it was cleaned up. For this and other reasons, the City purchased the tract, thereby eliminating the need for cleanup. The P1 Pond has likely accumulated far more toxins than existed before, generated by Queen City Farms and other highly contaminated industrial runoff and nonpoint pollution. I request that Herons Forever be involved in any discussions and planning for this dredging activity. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President Herons Forever On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:54:38 -0800 suzanne krom <szkrom@juno.com>writes: Please accept these comments from Herons Forever. A signed hardcopy of my letter will follow in the mail. Suzanne Krom evrresporidence yy05' • From: Jay Covington To: Pietsch, Alexander; sampace@concentric.net; Walton, Bonnie; Warren, Larry Date: 3/30/2005 4:31:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Renton CAO Sam, thanks for forwarding this information to us. It was good to talk to you today. By this email, I'm forwarding your documents along to staff for their information. I believe Renton is on the same track you suggest, in that we have tried to develop findings that either support BAS, or give justification for using other science in determining our recommendations for Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. I'm also forwarding your email to Bonnie Walton, our City Clerk. While the public hearing on this matter was closed Monday night, I'm sure your comments will be considered by the Committee as it deliberates prior to making a recommendation to the full Council. Jay >>> "Sam Pace" <SamPace@concentric.net> 3/30/2005 3:45:13 PM >>> TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mr. Jay Covington, City Administrator City Council Planning and DevelopmentCommittee Members FROM: Sam Pace Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS RE: Renton Critical Areas Update , DATE: March 30, 2005 Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler, Mr. Covington, and Councilmembers Law, Clawson and Palmer: I'm writing to you regarding three items related to the City's update of its critical areas protections: Findings Attached (in the event it may be of value or assistance for Renton in connection with the City's update of the CAO) is an e-copy draft of some ideas for"CAO-Related Findings"that I prepared for the consideration of the Kent City Council in connection with the forthcoming adoption of Kent's Critical Areas updates. These have not yet been blessed by the Kent Council or staff, but were simply provided to them in an attempt to try to be of assistance, particularly if the City determines that some of the City's approach may be outside the range of alternatives that Best Available Science (BAS) alone would support. In the WEAN decision (referenced in the attached Findings)the Court of Appeals indicated in dicta that Findings would be needed if a municipality determined that some of its approach is outside the range of alternatives that Best Available Science (BAS)alone would support. (We understand the guidance from the Court of Appeals in WEAN was contained in dicta because there were not findings available to support Island County's decision regarding its environmental protection, and thus this guidance from the Court was not required to dispose of that particular case). As reflected in these draft Findings for Kent, given the substantial deficiencies in the BAS and the lack of any data to indicate existing protections in Kent are legally deficient, there is some reason to doubt that Kent's approach would fall outside the range of alternatives that BAS alone would support. Nevertheless, since the City's consultants indicated they thought such would be the case, Findings may help to buttress the City's position in the event of an unmerited appeal. Subsequent to the preparation of these draft ideas for the development of CAO-Related Findings, there were a couple of additional ideas that occurred to me as possible areas for Findings that are not included in this preliminary draft which I prepared in connection with Kent's update of that City's critical areas protections: 1. They could consider including some additional language that fleshes out the history of the City's existing non-regulatory program (maybe identify the number of CIP critical areas projects, approximate dollar value, projects of special significance, staff analysis that the projects have been undertaken successfully, etc.) 2. Having identified some of the rather serious limitations in the BAS, it might be worthwhile to add some language to indicate that although the City incorporated BAS in some areas, it did so in an overabundance of caution about trying to avoid even an unmerited appeal, and in a effort to placate some of the folks, and NOT because (1)the BAS demonstrated any deficiencies in the City's critical area protections, or(2)the City's protections of critical areas are legally deficient. II. Non-Regulatory Programs You will note in these draft Findings a reference to the creation of a more formalized "non-regulatory" program to protect wetlands as part of the City of Kent's CIP program. This builds on the long-standing effort by the City of Kent (as part of its CIP program)to identify, preserve and remediate significant critical areas that may have been compromised in some way during earlier times when the City's current stronger environmental regulations were not yet in place, or when annexed areas were still under the control of King County. Kent's approach will likely include an"Early Actions"provision in connection with the Non-Regulatory Program. These "Early Actions" in 2005 are structured to be dependent upon funding from the state, and would not require City monies. The City receiving from DOE/CTED the funding necessary to undertake the"Early Actions" is the"trigger"which creates an obligation on the part of the City to commence that work within 30 days of receipt of the funding. The Early Actions ended up being structured this way(with Ecology/CTED having the responsibility to find non-city funding to pay for the Early Actions in 2005) because the 2005 budget for the City was already set, and Ecology was making requests that Kent undertake portions of the non-regulatory program almost immediately(within 30-60 days)to demonstrate"the City's good faith." (The "good faith" reference by Ecology seemed to me, personally, to come out of left field, especially given the fact that, so far as I'm aware, the City of Kent has a long history of undertaking such actions on its own without the necessity for any intervention on the part of Ecology to mandate the program as part of the City's CIP). As a practical matter, this amounted to a financially impossible demand on the City by Ecology. In response, I suggested that the City merely develop the work plan for non-regulatory actions during 2005, (which would allow the City to plan for Non-Regulatory Program cost in the budgets for 2006 and subsequent years). If Ecology wanted the City to do more during 2005 than simply develop the work plan for future years, Ecology could pay for it. Essentially, this would allow Ecology to gain control of whether or not the Early Actions get started in 2005. But Ecology would have to"fish or cut bait" in terms of coming up with non-city revenues to cover the cost of the Early Actions. A critically important question the City of Kent will need to examine is this: Are Ecology's cost estimates for that work realistic? That is, will the money Ecology and CTED propose to find for the City be sufficient to cover the cost of doing those Early Actions which Ecology desires be completed by the City in 2005 as a"sign of good faith"? I have the sense Kent's staff may think the Early Actions work plan Ecology has laid out for the City might cost about$150,000,which I think may be more than Ecology's cost estimates for the work. A copy of the DRAFT Non-Regulatory Program language is also attached in the event it may be of value. III. CAO Language We are not aware of any local data to indicate the City's current environmental regulations and development standards are insufficient to protect wetland values and functions. The glaring absence of any such data, or studies, that demonstrate a deficiency in the City of Renton's existing critical areas protections tends to support the following observations: 1. There is no basis for a presumption that Renton's existing environmental protections for critical areas are legally insufficient. This observation is strengthened significantly by the fact that Ecology's own Peer Reviewers concluded the BAS assembled by the Department of Ecology is insufficient to substantiate the notion that existing protections are legally insufficient. Those comments by Ecology's Expert Peer Reviewers (and Ecology's responses)are reflected in the attached Findings. In response to the BAS deficiencies identified by Ecology's own Expert Peer Reviewers, Ecology has attempted to"write around"the problem by relying upon what it refers to as "Basic Principles"such as: § Water runs downhill § Large sediment settles out of moving water faster than small sediment § Wildlife fills a niche The deficiency in Ecology's BAS do not make the extreme extrapolations from agricultural studies and/or forestry studies applicable to a built urban environment like Renton that is characterized by strong stormwater protections, strong clearing and grading restrictions, steep slopes regulations, existing critical area buffers, existing stream buffers and a whole host of other currently existing environmental protections that are not typically available to protect critical areas in agricultural and/or forestry settings. It's like the difference between "night"and "day"and the difference between the two is not eliminated, or even significantly narrowed, by citation to the Basic Principles upon which Ecology attempts to rely. 2. There is no legal precedent that we have found which requires the City to adopt the same critical areas amendments that other cities may, or may not, be adopting in order to be politically correct, or to have a legally sufficient CAO. That is simply not the legal standard in this State, as we understand it. 3. The decision about which standards to adopt are the province of the City, and are not subject to a veto power by any state agency, or other special interest. From the review that we have been able to conduct thus far of the City's proposed update of its critical areas protections, Renton seems to be embarked upon a reasonable, balanced approach that positions the City well, not only to continue to protect critical areas consistent with state law, but also to allow the City to continue to pursue its other Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities under RCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. We continue to be concerned that the City needs to retain the flexibility to address those additional responsibilities while continuing to protect critical areas consistent with the requirements of state law. We would note the Masterbuilders Association has indicated they have some interest in discussing four rather small remaining issues that are somewhat technical in nature, and we trust the City will have the opportunity to consider those matters, perhaps at tomorrow's Council Committee meeting, but in any event prior to any final action on the City's update of its CAO. I would be most appreciative if you would add these comments to the City's record in this matter. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments, and to provide you with the attached documents. ►' Noe If you have any questions, comments or concerns, or if we can be of any assistance, please do no hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Sam Pace Sam Pace, JD, MBA, GRI Housing Specialist Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS® 29839- 154th Ave. SE Kent,WA 98042-4557 sampace@concentric.net Direct: (253)630-5541 Fax: (253)630-5542 Cell: (253)569-2663 CC: Clawson, Daniel; Keolker-Wheeler, Kathy; Law, Denis; Palmer, Marcie DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Recommended Action: The City Council should adopt, (by resolution ? ), the following additional "Findings" in connection with the ordinance(s) to amend KCC 15.08 regarding PUDs and KCC 11.06 regarding Critical Areas updates. Rationale For Recommendation: 1. The Growth Management Act not only requires early and continuous public participation, the Hearings Boards have made it clear the opportunities for the public must in fact be meaningful. For it to be meaningful, citizens must have the opportunity to know why the City is taking action, and the findings the City is making, not just what policy is being adopted. To this end, cities are required to "Show Their Work" and these Findings support the City's efforts in this regard. 2. Providing additional "Findings" is consistent with, and appears to be required by the WEAN case. In the WEAN case (WEAN v. Island County, No 50736-2-I, June 7, 2004) the Court to Appeals provided in dicta that: "...under the GMA, (a municipality) is required to balance the various goals of GMA set forth in RCW 36.70A.020. It is also true that when balancing those goals in the process of adopting a plan or development regulation under GMA, a local jurisdiction must consider BAS regarding protection of critical areas. This does not mean that the local government is required to adopt regulations that are consistent with BAS because such a rule would interfere with the local agency's ability to consider the other goals of GMA and adopt an appropriate balance between all the GMA goals. However, if a local government elects to adopt a critical area requirement that is outside the range that BAS alone would support, the local agency must provide findings explaining the reasons for its departure from BAS and identirying the other goals of GMA which it is implementing by making such a choice. "(Emphasis added) 3. These additional Findings supplement the City's extensive record in connection with the amendments to KCC 15.08 regarding PUDs and KCC 11.06 regarding Critical Areas updates. Findings 1. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to review its ordinances that protect Critical Areas in the City of Kent. It also requires that the City modify those ordinances where appropriate, but does not require the City to presume existing environmental regulatory protections are legally inadequate. 1 2. Existing Environmental Protections Are Sufficient To Discharge The City's Legal • Responsibilities Regarding Critical Areas: A. The City Council has been presented with testimony that indicates that Kent's current set of strong environmental protections are doing a good job of protecting critical areas in the City. While there were some problems associated with earlier less stringent environmental regulations (including but not limited to earlier King County regulations and City regulations), the City has acted where appropriate to strengthen environmental regulatory standards, and to implement non-regulatory protections for critical areas in the City of Kent. B. There is no credible local evidence or data that demonstrate that the strong environmental protections currently in place in Kent are insufficient to provide the required environmental protections of critical area in the City of Kent. C. There are three reasons Kent already has strong environmental protections in place: (1) We have a strong commitment to the environment in the City of Kent; and (2) When problems have become evident in the past, the City of Kent has made adjustments to the City's regulatory enactments to ensure those problems are not repeated; and (3) The City of Kent has for many years implemented (as part of its Capital Investment Program in the City's Comprehensive Plan) a program of non-regulatory preservation and remediation of critical areas where indicated. 3. Best Available Science (BAS) A. To assist the City in connection with the utilization of Best Available Science in the review of the City's Critical Areas and the update of the City's Critical Areas regulations, the City enlisted the assistance of outside consultants who have been working with our own city staff, and city officials, to conduct a review of Best Available Science. B. The City has not only assembled a wealth of BAS, the members of the City Council, City staff, and the consultants hired by the City have substantively and carefully considered it. Where appropriate to do so, it has been incorporated in the City's revisions to Kent's Critical Areas regulations. C. The record and public hearing testimony, and the work of the Critical Areas Focus Group assembled at the request of the Department of Ecology, indicate very 2 clearly that the scientific literature that has been presented to the City is not based on Kent's local conditions. D. The City's consultants pointed out on the public hearing record that there is no local data that demonstrates the efficacy of, or which would justify, increasing the City's existing buffers. There is no local data that demonstrate the City's current buffers and environmental protections are inadequate to protect critical areas. E. Very little of the BAS literature that is available, if any, involves urban areas with Kent's particular soils, climate, topography, ground cover, existing regulatory protections and non-regulatory program of preservation and enhancement of critical areas. Instead, as the City's consultant and other commentators have noted, much of the scientific literature that is available is based on (1) studies of agriculture and timber properties; (2) studies from areas of the country that have physical characteristics, flora, fauna, soils and climates different from ours, and/or(3) studies of situations that did not have the kinds of environmental protections available that are present in the City of Kent. Examples of such environmental protections include, but are not limited to: • Kent's existing stormwater regulations, • Kent's existing clearing and grading regulations, • Kent's existing steep slopes regulations, • Kent's existing wetland buffer regulations, • Kent's existing stream buffer regulations • Kent's existing critical areas regulations, and • Other provisions in our City code. F. During the Critical Area Focus Group process, members of the Focus Group asked the Washington Department of Ecology Wetlands Specialists if any of the approximately 17,000 BAS studies the Department reviewed (or the approximately 1,500 the Department cited)involved studies of environments similar to Kent. Ecology indicated there were no such studies in the voluminous materials regarding BAS that the Department had assembled. In response to that answer, since the Department of Ecology indicated there were no studies of urban environments similar to Kent, members of the Focus Group then asked the Department of Ecology to identify the study(in the BAS the Department of Ecology had assembled) that was most relevant to Kent. The Department of Ecology indicated it was not able to do so because relevance depended upon what buffer function was being examined. In response to that answer, members of the Focus Group pointed to the following five different buffer functions identified in the Department of Ecology's PowerPoint slides that had been provided to the Focus Group, and asked the 3 Department to identify the most relevant BAS study for each of those five different buffer functions: (1) Removing course sediment (2) Removing fine sediment (3) Removing N or P (4) Screening wildlife from impacts (5) Wildlife habitat (wetland species) The Department of Ecology indicated it would not be possible to identify the most relevant study for an urban area like Kent for any of the five different priority buffer functions that the Department of Ecology focused upon in the PowerPoint materials it presented to the City's Critical Areas Focus Group. The Department of Ecology assembled voluminous BAS which requires extreme extrapolations because the BAS (1) involved studies of agriculture and timber properties; (2) involved studies from areas of the country that have physical characteristics, flora, fauna, soils and climates different from Kent, and/or(3) involved studies of situations that did not have the kinds of regulatory and non- regulatory environmental protections available that are present in the City of Kent. "Volumes of studies" are not a substitute for relevant BAS which demonstrates that in urban areas like Kent, the City's existing regulatory and non-regulatory protections are insufficient to protect critical area functions and values. G. The City is mindful and aware of the fact that when the Department of Ecology submitted its compilation of Best Available Science to the Expert Peer Reviewers selected by the Department, the analysis provided by those experts included the following statements, which are reflected in Summary of Significant Comments, Draft Volume 1 Synthesis of the Science Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State, dated 6/8/2004, along with the Department's formal response: Chapter 7, Comment 55: "55. Comment: I disagree with the conclusions regarding the adequacy of data sources. There is no analysis presented on how effective local regulations have been at protecting wetlands or wetland functions. There is no assessment addressing or quantifying to what extent the cumulative losses to aquatic functions are or are not occurring in Washington State under existing wetland CAO ordinances. There is no analysis of how the range of existing development review standards (including clearing and grading permits, extensive stormwater management requirements, CAO requirements, and other mitigations) may or may not be adequately protective of wetlands and aquatic environments in Washington State. 4 Response: We were unable to find any written information, either peer reviewed, expert opinion, or anecdotal, discussing the effectiveness of local regulations at protecting wetlands and their functions. We will be revising the text, however, to explain our reasoning that the existing efforts are not adequate in the State." Chapter 7, Comment 57: "57. Comment: Ecology has not presented convincing evidence that under currently imposed CAOs consistent and significant losses in wetland functions are occurring statewide. While wetland CAOs vary widely across the state, there have been no quantifications of the overall performance of these programs and no real systematic evaluation of their effectiveness or deficiencies. There is no consideration of how stormwater management requirements, grading permit requirements, and other mitigations are implemented to protect critical areas and under what circumstances these are sufficient or inadequate. While there is no question upland development affects non-water or wetlands dependent wildlife, there is little information presented in the document that shows, in Washington, wetland dependent wildlife are declining or otherwise being impacted by CAOs standards that are inadequate. Upland wildlife also requires certain protections under GMA, and governments must specify fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to maintain the viability of wildlife populations. Wetlands and wetland buffers should not necessarily be designed to maintain non-wetland dependent upland wildlife. Response: see response to Comment 55." In response to this significant, and critically important, deficiency in the BAS assembled by the Department of Ecology, the Department appears to have attempted to "write around" the problem by reference to some fundamental laws of physics, which the Department refers to as "Basic Principles," including but not limited to the general notions that: Water Moves Downhill, Larger Sediment Settles Out of Moving Water Faster Than Smaller Sediment, Different Species Fill Similar Niches, etc. Such an approach is not persuasive in filling the gaping hole in the Department's BAS, or in attempting to demonstrate the City's regulatory and non-regulatory critical areas protections are legally insufficient. H. When the Department of Ecology indicated in the Focus Group that it would prefer an increase in the City's buffers, its representative prefaced the Department's remarks with the words, "Setting the issue of balancing aside..." (which is reference to the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals in the 5 WEAN case where the Court indicated municipalities are "required" to balance • the environmental provisions in GMA with the Act's other Planning Goals). The pursuit of a single environmental agenda to the exclusion of all the City's other responsibilities under the Growth Management Act is ill-advised, especially when there is absolutely no credible data whatsoever from the Department of Ecology, environmental interests or other members of the public which indicate the City's existing program of regulatory and non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas is failing to protect the functions and values of critical areas in Kent. The fact that Kent may, or may not, chose to follow in lock step with the political decisions of other elected officials in other jurisdictions does not make the City's environmental protections legally insufficient. J. The recommendations the City has received from its consultant are based upon what Best Available Science alone would support. While the City's consultants and staff have tried to be sensitive to the other considerations the City must address under GMA, and while the Council is appreciative their efforts in this regard, in the final analysis the responsibility and authority for balancing the CAO development regulations with the other GMA Goals (as well as addressing any other legal, social and political considerations), belongs exclusively to the elected officials of this City. 4. Balancing & Departure From What Best Available Science (BAS) Alone Would Support The City's consultants have analyzed the areas where the City's approach to the update of its critical areas regulations might depart from what Best Available Science alone would support. To the extent the City's approach departs from what BAS alone would support, the City does so for the following reasons: A. The City Council must weigh not only the current level of environmental protections and the alternatives that Best Available Science alone would support, but also the rest of the Planning Goals the City is required to pursue under the state's Growth Management Act. Those goals are set out in state law at RCW 36.70A.020, and they include the following: Urban growth Reducing sprawl Transportation Affordable Housing Economic development Property rights Permits 6 Natural resource industries Open space and recreation The Environment Citizen participation and coordination Public facilities and services, and Historic preservation RCW 36.70A.020 makes it very clear that each of these goals stand on an equal footing. B. Economic Development RCW 36.70A.020 (5)requires that the City encourage economic development within the limits of our natural resources. Additionally, the City must do so in a manner that promotes economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and also in a manner that promotes the retention and expansion of existing businesses, and the recruitment of new businesses. The state statute reflects a recognition that for most of our citizens, real Quality of Life begins with a good job in a company that has great prospects. The City's record reflects that: (1) Adopting an approach that BAS alone would support would be inconsistent with the City meeting its responsibility to encourage Economic Development. It would not only fail to encourage Economic Development, it would actually cause harm in the City of Kent in this regard. (2) As an example, the record from the City's public hearing includes the testimony from 0 Boy! Oberto, an important employer in the City that would not be able to expand their company's facilities at their present location if the buffer requirements are increased. The opportunity for approximately 40 new jobs would be lost. (3) The situation presented by the 0 Boy! Oberto example is especially relevant for the following additional reasons: (a) First, the representative of the company testified that in order for their business to be successful, if they could not expand in Kent the company would have to consider moving its entire operation to Oregon. (b) Second, if that happened, approximately 60 additional jobs (60 in addition to the 40 associated with the aforementioned expansion) could also be lost. 7 (c) Additionally, the firm testified that based on their review of the issue (including review of the issue with expert advisers), off-site mitigation would be prohibitively expensive. (d) The City Council is also mindful of the following: 1. The company already has a facility in Albany, Oregon, which serves to make the company's statement especially credible and disconcerting. 2. Losing such a large employer would be inconsistent with the City's responsibility to encourage retention of existing businesses. The City must adopt regulatory frameworks that operate in a way that encourages such firms to stay, not in a manner that drive them out of town. 3. It will be significantly more difficult to attract new firms to the City of Kent if the City cannot keep the firms that are already here. The City is supposed to be encouraging the recruitment of new firms,not creating reasons for them to have new doubts about locating in our City. 4. This company has received an Employer of the Year award from the Chamber of Commerce in connection with its diversity efforts that provide opportunities for people who may be at a competitive disadvantage when trying to obtain employment in a stellar company. It does not escape the attention of the City Council that opportunities for such workers are an expressed objective of RCW 36.70A.020(5). Kent needs more companies (not fewer companies) that provide good jobs and opportunities for upward mobility to potentially disadvantaged workers. An important first step in this regard is to retain such employers who are already here in our City. 5. The example of 0 Boy! Oberto is especially poignant, and deserves such extensive comment in these findings, because (even if one were to set aside all of the considerable deficiencies in the available BAS), it encapsulates in a single example a vivid and unsettling illustration of the many reasons why adopting "critical area buffer requirements that BAS alone would support" would be a really bad public policy decision for the City of Kent, for the working families of our community, for disadvantaged persons, and for the future Economic Vitality of Our Community. (4) GMA requires that we seek to encourage the expansion of existing businesses within the limits of our natural resources. Expanding the 8 buffers would have just the opposite effect, which would be especially disconcerting in light of the information in the record that our existing buffers (in combination with the City's other environmental regulations and non-regulatory programs) are working well, and the lack of any local data whatsoever to demonstrate the City's regulatory and non-regulatory environmental protections for critical areas are legally insufficient. (5) In addition to the example of 0 Boy! Oberto, the City's record in this matter also includes testimony from commercial real estate experts with decades of experience in the City who provided the City with other specific examples of how expanded buffers would constrain other commercial properties in the City in ways that would essentially preclude commercial development. When GMA was passed in 1990, it included a requirement to preclude development in critical areas. Within a year the legislature realized that was a bad idea. As a result, in 1991 the requirement was deleted and the law was amended to instead require protection of wetlands. Kent does so. But expanding the buffers would take the City back in the direction the legislature recognized was a bad idea. (6) Moreover, if Kent is going to be able to recruit new businesses, the City must have properties available where they can locate. There is specific expert testimony in the record demonstrating that increasing buffers would serve to effectively take properties out of the marketplace. The reasonably foreseeable result of that action will be to raise the price of the remaining building sites. That, in turn, will likely have the effect of limiting the firms that are in a financial position to locate in Kent, and/or increase the costs and financial risk for firms that decide to take such a chance. Creating such a situation is not consistent with RCW 36.70A.020(5), or with the long-term best interests of our City. (7) While not the primary focus of these concerns, there is an additional dimension of this matter that involves the likely effects of larger buffers on the City's ability to encourage the retention, expansion and recruitment of businesses. It involves the following two realities: • The manner in which a city is perceived can materially affect decisions about where businesses choose to remain, to expand, or to locate, and • The decisions made by high profile businesses in the Community can materially affect such perceptions. There is no one single "silver bullet" that can "make" a City's reputation for economic vitality,but a misdirected projectile, or a single negative event, can cause a serious injury to the way a jurisdiction is perceived. 9 While the City's record indicates a variety of types of businesses would be adversely affected by the larger buffers, it does not escape the City Council's attention that even high profile businesses such as 0 Boy! Oberto and Reber Ranch have indicated they would be very seriously compromised. When such high profile businesses (some might even say "near-icon-like" businesses for the City of Kent) are among those who make significant decisions based on being materially and adversely affected, it can send a damaging ripple affect through the community that is significantly larger than simply the effects for the specific high profile businesses. The recognition of this market-based reality was a material consideration for the Governor and Legislature when they acted deliberatively and decisively to try to ensure that the next generation of Boeing airplanes is built in Washington State. And when they were successful in getting Boeing to stay, they understood the importance of trying to affect public perceptions by publicizing that success as an important part of the State's efforts to attract other employers and jobs. Conversely, when efforts to retain businesses are not successful, the damage that can result to a City's reputation is equally predictable. For example: • When Genie Industries chose to leave the City of Redmond, it was a significant "black eye" for the reputation of that City. • The City of Renton has worked extremely hard to earn a reputation as a good place for the expansion and location of businesses. But when Zones (one of the 10 largest employers in the City) chose to leave Renton, the City's reputation took a significant hit. Unlike the State's efforts to publicize its success in retaining Boeing,none of these cities sought to publicize the fact that they lost important employers and jobs, and for good reason. The requirement to update our CAO is not, and must not be allowed to become, a suicide pact concerning our City's Economic Vitality. Kent cannot ignore, or simply give lip service to, the realities of what will be required for the City to be successful in our efforts to discharge our statutory responsibilities for Economic Development and Economic Vitality under RCW 36.70A.020(5). 10 C. Housing RCW 36.70A.020(4) requires Kent encourage the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. The City's record includes testimony from a number of members of the public who explained, and offered specific credible examples, which demonstrate that increasing buffers would decrease the capacity of the remaining land supply to accommodate housing. Moreover, as supply shrinks relative to demand, that will create even more market pressure for higher home prices, and higher rents. A professional Housing Specialist from the Association of REALTORS offered verbal testimony, a PowerPoint presentation and extensive written testimony to the City. The REALTORS provided expert comment on the issue of our critical areas regulation updates both before the Land Use Planning Board, and again at the City Council Public Hearings. A number of disconcerting conclusions emerge from the testimony the City received on the effects larger buffers would have on housing in the City,but the Council is left with four impressions that remain particularly compelling and relevant with regard to Kent's responsibilities under the GMA Housing Goal: (1) The fundamental focus of GMA Goal #4 is the affordability of housing for all economic segments of the population. In fact, the Countywide Planning Policies place the CPP Appendix 2 targets for Total Housing Production, and the CPP AH-2 and Appendix 3 Affordable Housing Targets, on an equal footing. (2) Increasing buffers will decrease housing capacity, which in-turn impedes housing supply. Reducing supply relative to demand causes prices to go up. That would harm housing affordability in Kent, not encourage it. The City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are suppose to help make housing more affordable for working families in Kent, for senior citizens on fixed incomes, and for residents who are, or who might become, homeless. Increasing buffers would not only fail to encourage affordability(as required by RCW 36.70A.020[4]), and also fail to maintain the status quo, it would go in exactly the opposite direction and serve to make housing in our City less affordable. (3) Although Kent is keeping pace with its responsibilities for total housing production, the City's ability to meet its Countywide Planning Policy Housing Targets for Low Income households and Moderate Income households remains much more problematic. Increasing the size of buffers can only make it worse. Under the Countywide Planning Policies Frame Work policies, those affordable housing targets stand on an equal footing with the City's total housing production targets. 11 Nue (4) The GMA language of Goal 4 is clear: It doesn't say Kent must avoid harm to housing affordability. Rather, it requires Kent actually take affirmative steps to encourage housing to be more affordable. Housing affordability is a giant problem in King County, and Kent is not exempt from that situation, which is precisely why Kent's progress in meeting the City's housing targets for Low and Moderate Income households is already less than the Council would prefer given the affordability targets in Countywide Planning Policy AH-2 and CPP Appendix 3. D. Reducing Sprawl RCW 36.70A.020(2) requires the City to reduce sprawl. The testimony in the City's record is clear that increasing buffer requirements will cause a reduction in the City's capacity to accommodate new housing. The City's record in this regard includes not only public hearing testimony by property owners and members of the development community, it also includes a very specific reference by the Association of REALTORS to that fact that page 17 of the King County 2002 Buildable Land Inventory Report (prepared for all King County jurisdictions, including the City of Kent, in connection with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas updates in all King County jurisdictions) states: "Development restrictions associated with (updates to critical areas ordinances based on 'best available science) will have an impact on the developable land supply..." Reducing the supply of housing will contribute to the growing problems of King County's un-accommodated growth that is both sprawling up and down the I-5 corridor beyond the County's borders, and sprawling "leap-frog" across the County's rural areas to counties east of Snoqualmie Pass. As the Association of REALTORS and members of the King County Council and the GMPC have explained for more than a year, even though King County did a fairly good job with its housing targets for total units constructed, from 1993 to 2000 jurisdictions in King County failed to accommodate 44% of the actual demand for housing that accompanied net increases in employment inside the County's borders. The actual demand created by job growth during the period was for 133,505 new dwelling units countywide, but only 75,000 were added to the housing supply, creating a deficit of 58,505 homes countywide. The Countywide Planning Policies anticipated 103,553 King County workers (1.77 workers per household) would live in those 58,505 homes. If those 103,553 workers make just two commute trips each day(one trip into work from outside King County, and one trip back home) those workers alone add more than 207,000 additional multi-county daily commutes to the region's growing congestion problems. As they do so, sprawl worsens. 12 That sprawl comprises the environment(including air quality), increases congestion, compromises freight mobility and economic competitiveness, and makes solving the region's transportation challenges significantly more difficult than it otherwise would be. Such a result is not theory. It's already occurring, and having Kent add to the problem by reducing our existing capacity to accommodate homes for the family wage earners who work in our City would be inconsistent with Goal 2 of the Growth Management Act. Evaluated on balance, that is not a good idea. Critical areas amendments that move the City in such a direction must be rejected in favor of a more balanced and comprehensive view of Quality of Life. E. Property Rights RCW 36.70A.020(6)requires the City to protect the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. During the public hearing, City staff indicated that some of the developments that occurred on East Hill prior to the imposition of the City's current strong environmental protections had created problems on the valley floor. Staff also indicated the City has been pursing a number of capital improvement projects to remediate that situation. In addition, staff also indicated they were attempting to augment those efforts by trying to get as much as they could in the way of bigger buffers. It is the City Council's position that if such action occurs, it must be done with voluntary market-rate incentives in a manner that does not unfairly burden new projects with the responsibility to atone for the sins of others. In the case of Dolan vs. City of Tigard the United States Supreme Court said that there must not only be a "nexus" between the a property owner's project and the burden a city imposes, but the burden a city imposes must be roughly "proportional" to the problems created by the specific project. In addition, the Court said a city's actions must be supported by a "site-specific" analysis. During the City's public hearings there was a specific reference to the Dolan decision by the Association of REALTORS. The REALTORS made the reference to Dolan in connection with specific remarks made by City staff, and indicated that for the City to try to "get all we can" from current applicants to solve problems created by others at an earlier time under a different regulatory framework was like asking the last person entering the theater to "buy the popcorn for everybody." Taking such an approach on the basis of the record that is before the City would not be fair, and the City Council elects to adopt an approach that is more balanced, and fairer. 13 'flu►" F. At least one environmental organization has openly expressed an interest in filing an appeal of the City's update of Kent's critical areas protections. In addition, the Council is also aware that King County's actions are already under appeal to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board by the Association of REALTORS, in part because of the manner in which the County's Critical Areas Update compromised the ability of the County to discharge its other responsibilities under GMA. While the REALTORS did not make any threats, they were very candid in observing (in the verbal testimony augmenting their extensive written comments) that the scope of potential legal challenges is much broader than simply the risk of a challenge from a single focus environmental concern. As a result, the City cannot, and should not, make a decision out of fear over who will, or who might, challenge the City. Instead, in amending KCC 15.08 and 11.06, the City Council elects to: • Discharge its responsibilities as the elected decision makers for the City, rather than delegating that right and responsibility to any outside agency or interest, • Exercise the Council's right to make an independent analysis of the BAS, (including identifying deficiencies in the data and/or analysis), and incorporating BAS where required, • Recognize that the CAO update is part of a larger comprehensive planning effort under GMA, • Recognize that the City must ascertain and account for the cumulative impacts of the imposition of new regulations (including impacts that extend beyond a narrowly focused fixation on environmental values to the exclusion of all others values in the City), which is why the GMA requires the Comprehensive Plan and CAO to be considered contemporaneously, • Do the kind of balancing described by the Court of Appeals in the WEAN decision, • Undertake such balancing based on a comprehensive view of what is required for Quality of Life in our City; That kind of comprehensive view is at the very core of comprehensive planning under GMA, these findings, and the City's approach in updating KCC 15.08 and 11.06, and • Focus on what's best for the long-term future of the City of Kent and our residents. 14 • initial raft ►fLanguagefo Non;-Regiblatoay=Pro a Sec. 11.06.6870 Non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas 1. The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development, funding and implementation of a Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City. 2. The work plan for the City's Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall build upon the City's existing non-regulatory efforts to protect and acquire significant critical areas within the City, and will include the following: A. In cooperation with the Department of Ecology, and building upon both the City's substantial existing mapping of critical areas and the City's existing database regarding critical areas, the City will identify significant critical areas within the City. B. Based on this identification of significant critical areas, the City will develop a plan to acquire, and preserve or enhance, those significant critical areas within the City that are crucial for water quality and/or wildlife habitat. C. The City will identify funding sources to facilitate the implementation of the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program within time frames the City shall identify. D. The critical areas acquisition, and preservation or enhancement, projects that are part of the City's Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall be included in the Capital Facilities Element, and the six-year CIP program, of the City's Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the time frames identified in paragraph 2. C. of this section. • E. The Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall be integrated with a comprehensive citywide stormwater management program to provide for water quality and hydrologic functions. 3. In addition to the elements of the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program identified in Section 2, the City will undertake Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" prior to December 31, 2005, as follows: A. In cooperation with the Department of Ecology, the City will develop a prioritized list of Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions." B. The City will begin to undertake the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" within 30 days of the Department of Ecology and/or the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development securing and providing to the City the funding necessary to implement those early actions. C. The funding for the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" may be acquired by the Department of Ecology and/or the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development from a variety of sources from within, or from without, state government,but will not include City of Kent funds. Sec. 11.06.670 Non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development, funding and implementation of a Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City. p ( ;-ry,a,zt-t RECEIVED • March 31, 2005 i .l; 3 1 2005 Renton CityCouncil MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION of King and Snohomish Counties The Honorable Marcie Palmer Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance Draft Dear Councilmember Palmer: On behalf of the more than 3,800 members of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBA), I am writing you concerning Renton's draft Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO) update and the concerns and recommendations the MBA has with the city's proposal. The MBA has taken the time to review Renton's draft CAO and is interested in working with the city to adopt the most functional and effective regulations for development while fully protecting the environment from potential adverse affects. In its current form, the draft CAO is similar to the city's current sensitive areas ordinance, which the MBA finds sufficient for protection of critical areas inside the city limits, however if the city intends to adopt the draft CAO, the MBA requests the following questions be answered: 1. Has the city done any studies on the effect, positive or negative, the CAO will have on the Growth Management Act's Planning Goals: a. urban growth, b. reducing sprawl, c. transportation, d. affordable housing, e. economic development, f. property rights, g. permits, h. natural resource industries, i. open space and recreation, j. the environment, k. citizen participation and coordination, 1. public facilities and services, and m. historic preservation? If not, why not? MBA of King and Snohomish Counties 335 1 16th Avenue SE Bellevue,Washington 98004 425.451.7920 !800.522.2209 _ 425:646_59$i_mrn.masterbuiliiersinfo.com__ I Renton Planning&Develoient Committee ',NNW March31,2005 Page 2 2. Has the effect of increasing buffers been weighed against the potential loss of buildable land in the city? 3. Also, how many homes will be out of compliance and only allowed to remodel within the current footprint due to increased buffers? The MBA requests the following changes in the identified sections of the draft ordinance: K. HABITAT CONSERVATION: 1.(a.)ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; is not necessary to protect critical areas. Using Endangered Species listings developed and adopted by qualified federal and state agencies is sufficient reference for the city to protect the habitat of herons and birds of prey. Renton does not, and should not, employ qualified professionals to conduct habitat management studies beyond the work of state and federal agency professionals. If the bird is listed under ESA, appropriate measures should be taken to protect the bird. Further, protecting the rookery or nest, with or without the bird in question, does not guarantee it will flourish,but as currently written, when the bird is gone, the rookery and/or nest will continue to have significant buffer width. M. WETLANDS 1. In Renton's draft CAO, the minimum area of a Small Category 3 Wetland changed from 5,000 to 2,200. The MBA strongly believes the city has better value in allowing Small Category 3 Wetlands to be filled up to 5,000 square feet and agreeing to off-site mitigation at prescribed ratios. The function and value of a Small Category 3 Wetland is minimal at best. Allowing the developer to fill low function and value wetlands while creating and/or enhancing wetlands of higher function and value offsite is a much more effective long-term solution than trying to protect every wet piece of ground in the city. M. WETLANDS 1.(a.)ii. As listed above, the presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas is unnecessary. M. WETLANDS 6.(e.)iv. Why is public notification necessary? M. WETLANDS 6.(f.)iii. The MBA can provide assistance in the definition of low impact development through the Association's Built Green Program. Renton Planning&Develo,lrhent Committee °"'" March31,2005 Page 3 The BUILT GREENTM Program was designed for builders and developers by builders and developers to set standards of excellence in King and Snohomish Counties when using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. The MBA's BUILT GREEN TM Program focuses on actions that can make a significant impact on development applications and, when effectively applied, a positive difference for the environment and community. The BUILT GREENTM Program is particularly dedicated to water conservation,but the success of water conservation measures is highly dependent on a developer and builder's participation and cooperation. Further consideration of how Renton might utilize the BUILT GREENTM Program as an incentive to developers and builders is warranted as a means to encourage environmentally friendly building standards. One of the most difficult challenges facing the city of Renton is the need to accommodate the City's share of the projected population increase, which has been allocated to the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act. If the City increases wetland and stream buffers,providing necessary new housing needed to meet the City's GMA population targets will become more difficult. Even assuming that there is some scientific justification for larger wetland and stream buffers than those currently imposed by the City, such increases would conflict with the City's ongoing efforts to implement other goals of the Growth Management Act. The larger King County area, including the city of Renton, already has a severe shortage of affordable housing, a fact documented in detail in the 2004 King County Growth Report and numerous other studies of housing prices. The MBA is committed to making the Growth Management Act work and believes in working with local communities to address growth concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (206) 605-8877 or ghuffman(a,mbaks.com. Sincerely, •0704.471.14/6 Garrett J. Huffman South King County Manager • RECEIVED MAR 3 1 2005 1 March 31, 2005 MASTER BUILDERS Renton City Council ASSOCIATION of King and Snohomish Counties The Honorable Marcie Palmer Planning &Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Renton's Best Available Science Dear Councilmember Palmer: The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBA) is the largest local homebuilder's association in the United States, comprising over 3,800 companies with more than 60,000 employees. Its builder members construct or remodel more than 95 percent of the homes in King and Snohomish counties. On behalf of that membership, I am writing you concerning Renton's proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) currently under consideration with the City Council. What is "best available science"? It is the position of the MBA that "best available science"does not necessarily support larger buffers than those currently imposed by the city of Renton. I am aware that the Department of Ecology(DOE)has suggested that wetland buffers of up to 300 feet are needed to comply with "best available science," and DOE's Model Critical Areas Ordinance would impose such buffers, but the scientific literature does not support this view. The Department of Ecology has prepared a voluminous Best Available Science Report, which is a compilation of studies on a host of critical area issues, including buffers. That report indicates, at Vol. 1,p. 5-20, that "the physical characteristics of buffers slope, soils, vegetation, and width—determine how well buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human development and provide the habitat needed by wildlife species that use wetlands." The report further states: "The majority of research on buffers tends to focus on the processes that buffers provide to filter sediment or take up nutrients (i.e., their influence on water quality). Far fewer studies look at the influence of a buffer's physical characteristics on attenuating surface water flow rates, except as it relates to water quality. The long-term effectiveness of buffers in providing such mechanical and biological processes is not well documented in the literature and may represent a critical need for future research." MBA of King and Snohomish Counties 3 3 5 116th Avenue SE Bellevue,Washington 98004 425.451.7920 '800.522.2209 425.646.5985_»mN3v.masterbui1dersin£o.com_____ Renton Planning&Development Committee March 31,2005 Page 2 It is clear from reviewing the studies cited in the DOE Best Available Sciences Report that there is very little agreement among scientists on how large a buffer needs to be in order to provide protection for a wetland or stream. One study indicates that a buffer as small as seven feet would remove 60 percent of all sediment, but an 82-foot wide buffer was required to remove 80 percent of the sediment. Yet another indicates that 85 percent of the sediment is removed with a buffer of only 30 feet. Clearly, the experts do not agree on some very basic scientific issues. More importantly, all of the studies indicate quite clearly that most of the benefit of the buffer happens in a relatively narrow area and that adding extra width to the buffers has very little beneficial effect. As noted above, the DOE report cites one study indicating a buffer of only seven feet would remove 60 percent of sediment transported by stormwater, but a buffer of 82 feet would be needed to remove 80 percent of the sediment. A different study cited in the same report concluded that a 100-foot buffer removed 90 percent of the sediment but the buffer would need to be doubled in size to remove just an additional 5 percent (95 percent) of sediment. These studies illustrate several important facts: • The scientific literature is not consistent. The results obtained in various studies are significantly different, undoubtedly due to differences in climate, soil characteristics, terrain and a host of other factors, which were not studied, and which are not addressed by fixed-width buffers. • Large increases in buffer widths do not create significant improvement in wetland and stream functions and values because there is a diminishing return on increases in buffer widths as most of the benefit of a buffer occurs close to the wetland or stream, and increases in buffer width do not provide a corresponding increase in benefit. • Simply increasing buffer widths is not the only way to protect wetland and stream functions and values. Sediment transport can be controlled by proper construction techniques, modern stormwater control systems, such as those required by the City's Stormwater Management Manual (SWM), and various best management practices routinely required by Renton for various activities. • There is no standard for what constitutes an acceptable level of sediment control for purposes of wetland and stream protection. Sediments naturally occur in wetlands and streams, so it is clear that 100 percent removal of sediments is not possible, even in a pristine environment. What percentage removal occurs naturally? If a buffer removes 50 percent of the sediment, which has the potential to reach a wetland or stream, is that adequate to protect its functions? Is 80 percent removal adequate? If the erosion control measures required by the City's surface water management regulations remove most of the sediments before they ever reach the buffer area, how much additional protection is needed from a buffer, and how wide does the buffer need to be to provide this extra protection? No one knows the answers to these key questions yet they are the ultimate questions when determining how wide a buffer is necessary. Renton Planning&Develo ent Committee `tso March 31,2005 Page 3 The MBA is concerned that Renton's "best available science,"which was obtained from DOE's Best Available Science Report, could be used to impose a restriction on development activities when, in fact, the scientific literature is inconclusive and contradictory at best for determining what buffers are most proper. The City Council is urged to proceed cautiously when considering any proposal adopting larger buffers, which will impose unfounded restrictions on development and property rights. Careful Review of Best Available Science Report is Essential! No matter what the source of BAS the city of Renton elects to use, the Master Builders Association urges the City to be very skeptical and careful when considering the information provided. As a review of the DOE and King County Best Available Science Reports will quickly indicate, both heavily rely on a series of studies from other states and jurisdictions (including Maryland, Virginia, Vermont, Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina). Those areas of the country bear no reasonable resemblance to the city of Renton because of different climates, different soil characteristics, different topography, and different vegetation. Moreover, there was no attempt in either report to determine whether the sites evaluated were developed under similar regulatory schemes as those existing in Washington or King County. It is widely recognized that local land use laws in the State of Washington, including rules imposed pursuant to SEPA and the Growth Management Act, have created some of the most stringent land use and environmental control standards in the United States. A study from some distant state on buffer impacts has no relevance to the city of Renton, unless one can demonstrate that the sites studied in those states are physically similar to conditions in Renton and were developed with stormwater control regulations and development policies comparable to those already applied in the City. Another striking failure of completeness in the DOE and King County Best Available Science Report is the fact neither agency included two major wetland studies that were undertaken in King County which evaluated the "before" and "after" situations in wetlands located in developments subject to current regulations which are roughly comparable to the City's existing critical area rules. These studies were conducted as the result of conditions imposed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) on the developments. Copies of the King County studies are attached to this letter as Attachments 1 and 2. Although they are highly technical, the bottom line is that both reports conclude that no change in water quality or other wetland features occurred after development pursuant to current wetland and stormwater regulations. This is the "best" available science—it is local information based on local conditions (climate, topography, soils, etc.) and current regulations. This "best" available science indicates that there is no justification for increasing buffers. The City Council should evaluate the need for dramatic changes in City regulations based on local conditions and local information, not studies from places like Arizona,North Carolina and Iowa. Under what circumstances can the City adopt critical area regulations that purportedly depart from "best available science?" As you are aware, the City is required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130, to review its Critical Areas Ordinance and, if necessary, update it by Renton Planning&Develcent Committee *41111110 March 31,2005 Page 4 December 1, 2004. As part of this process, the City is required to "include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas." The MBA is aware there is substantial confusion about whether local jurisdictions are required to adopt critical area regulations that somehow comply with"best available science." This issue has been addressed and resolved by the Washington State Court of Appeals in WEAN v. Island County,No. 50736-2-I (6/7/2004). In that case, the Court held: The City is correct when it asserts that, under the GMA, it is required to balance the various goals of GMA set forth in RCW 36.70A.020. It is also true that when balancing those goals in the process of adopting a plan or development regulation under GMA, a local jurisdiction must consider BAS regarding protection of critical areas. This does not mean that the local government is required to adopt regulations that are consistent with BAS because such a rule would interfere with the local agency's ability to consider the other goals of GMA and adopt an appropriate balance between all the GMA goals. However, if a local government elects to adopt a critical area requirement that is outside the range that BAS alone would support, the local agency must provide findings explaining the reasons for its departure from BAS and identifying the other goals of GMA which it is implementing by making such a choice. Quite clearly, the City has the authority to adopt critical area requirements, including buffer requirements for wetlands and streams that are not consistent with best available science, if the City finds that the rules suggested by science alone will interfere with the City's ability to comply with other goals of the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.020, establishes thirteen GMA goals. Of these, several are particularly relevant to an analysis of BAS and the proposed critical areas ordinance: • Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; • Reduce sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; • Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans; • Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock; Renton Planning&Develcc,rtnt Committee '406' March 31,2005 Page 5 • Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services, and public facilities; • Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions; • Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. The WEAN decision makes it clear that the City can depart from Best Available Science, if it finds that it is necessary to do so in order to comply with any one or more of these GMA goals. It is necessary, as the Court indicates, to identify the goals, which the City is implementing by choosing to deviate from BAS and to provide reasons for the departure. Thus, the crucial question is not whether the city of Renton can adopt rules that may be different from those suggested by Best Available Science,but whether, under the facts and circumstances, there is a legitimate reason to do so. Although the WEAN decision applies to all of the many proposed changes to critical areas rules which the City is currently considering, this letter is focused primarily on wetland and stream buffers. What evidence exists to support adoption of wetland and stream buffers not consistent with "Best Available Science?" The Buildable Lands Inventory: As the City Council is aware, King County, in coordination with all the cities in King County, completed a Buildable Lands Inventory in 2003. Some people have claimed the Buildable Lands Inventory proves there is an adequate supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the Urban Growth Area(UGA) (including all the cities and unincorporated King County's portion of the UGA), even if large increases in critical area buffers are adopted. This claim is inconsistent with the Buildable Land Inventory itself, which carefully disclaimed such a conclusion: The scope of the work mandated by the Buildable Lands amendment does not include all the factors that determine the pace or cost of development. This report does not analyze infrastructure availability or capacity; housing affordability; market feasibility or current market availability of land; or the actual rate of future development or which specific parcels will develop. Moreover, the Buildable Lands Inventory did not consider the loss of land attributable to existing critical area buffers, let alone the impact of expanding those buffers. The Report specifically admitted that it needed to be re-done if critical area rules changed: Renton Planning&Develoient Committee March 31,2005 Page 6 Future updates to the land supply inventory may need to re-analyze the impact of critical areas [on land supply] in response to several potential updates to the regulatory regime. Development restrictions associated with these [updates] will have an impact on the developable land supply, and further work likely will be necessary to identify the extent to which they further encumber potentially developable parcels of land. Since the Buildable Lands Inventory failed to consider the fact that significant areas of both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA have been unavailable for development for years and will remain so due to existing critical area buffer requirements, lack of traffic concurrency, lack of water and sewer availability and other regulatory and physical constraints, the Inventory cannot be used to support claims there is adequate buildable land in the UGA or removing a large area from production by imposing dramatic increases in buffer requirements will not impact the supply of buildable land. Since the issuance of the Buildable Lands Inventory, one further development casts additional doubt on the dependability of that report. The Inventory assumes that approximately 80 percent of the parcels in the County, which are "under-developed,"will be re-developed within the horizon year(2012) of the current GMA planning cycle. Under-developed parcels are those that contain some development, but are currently used at densities which are significantly lower than the density allowed by current zoning, theoretically making them prime candidates for redevelopment at higher density. However, the King County Housing Partnership recently sent a letter of inquiry to 280 property owners with land listed as vacant or underdeveloped in an effort to locate a site for a new affordable housing infill project. Only one of the 280 landowners indicated a willingness to sell. This level of interest is obviously inconsistent with the assumption in the Inventory that the vast majority of owners of under-developed land will be willing to sell their property by the year 2012. The Buildable Lands Inventory assumption regarding redevelopment rates is not supported by land availability information in the real world. Under these circumstances, reliance on the Buildable Lands Inventory to support increases in buffers that reduce buildable land supplies is unjustified. Impact on Housing Affordability: As noted above, one of the goals of the Growth Management Act is: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of the state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." No one can credibly claim that the entire King County area, including the city of Renton, does not already face a serious crisis regarding the availability of affordable housing. The average price of a single-family home in King County in 2000 was $289,000. In 2001, the same price rose to $294,000; and in 2002, the average price increased to $302,000. From the recently released 2004 King County Annual Growth Report, the average home price in King County in 2003 settled back to $298,000. Even though the average price slipped under$300,000, the typical first-time home buyer, earning 80 percent of median income, still faced a gap of$69,000 in 2003, which means the median Renton Planning&Develooxt'ent Committee ""+ March 31,2005 • Page 7 priced home cost 35%more than the first time home buyer could afford. Unfortunately, buffer increases will only exacerbate and add to the affordability crisis. Even small increases in housing cost severely affect those families who are at the margin of being able to afford a home. U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that for every$1000 price increase in the housing stock in the Seattle metropolitan area, approximately 2,000 families at the low end of the economic scale are priced out of the market. Land use regulations, which decrease the supply of buildable land inherently drive the cost of housing up simply due to the law of supply and demand. Given the fact affordable housing is already unavailable, great caution must be exercised by elected officials before any more pressure on the supply of buildable land is created. Analysis of Impact of Increasing Wetland Buffers: During the review process on King County's draft CAO, the County completed a very limited evaluation of the potential impact of increasing wetland buffers in the urban growth area. This analysis, a copy of which is attachment 3 to this letter, only considered the impact on buildable land inventory of increasing the buffer for Class 1 wetlands in the UGA from 100 to 300 feet and increasing a few isolated stream buffers to 165 feet. That analysis showed a decrease in buildable acreage of 22.5 percent (from 740.94 acres to 574.06 acres) and a 14.8 percent decrease (from 1716 to 1462) in the number of permitted housing units in the areas affected by these changes. The most important aspect of this limited County analysis is what it did NOT examine— the impact of increasing buffers for Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands. Class 1 wetlands,which the County study did consider, are relatively rare. Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands are extremely commonplace, to the point that it is actually unusual to find a potential development site that does not have such wetlands. Like King County, Renton does have 3-4 Category 1 wetlands, but Renton, like King County, has many more Category 2 and 3 wetlands in the City. Like it or not, if Renton were to increase buffers, the effect will consume buildable lands, affect affordable housing and eliminate the potential for new homes. MBA Analysis of Class 2 and 3 Wetland Buffer Increases. Because the County did not attempt to analyze the effects of a proposal to increase buffers on Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands, the MBA conducted such an analysis by randomly selecting several existing developments with Class 2 and 3 wetlands for which comprehensive wetland delineations had been completed. The results of that analysis are summarized as follows: The Trossachs example: The first site selected for review was the Trossachs project located in the City of Sammamish. The site was selected because it contains several Class 2 and 3 wetlands scattered over a fairly large site, which is a very typical pattern for such wetlands in the greater King County area. The project was developed pursuant to existing wetland regulations, which required buffers ranging from 25 to 50 feet for Class 2 and 3 wetlands. Attachment 4 to this letter is a map of the Trossachs project, as built. The dark green areas on Attachment 4 are wetlands and the light green areas are the buffers on those wetlands, which comply with buffer requirements of 25 feet for Class 3 wetlands and 50 feet for Class 2 wetlands. The dashed redlines indicate the location of • Renton Planning&Development Committee March 31,2005 • Page 8 buffers that would be applied if 100-foot buffers for Class 3 and 200-foot buffers for Class 2 wetlands were imposed. The net effect of imposing the proposed new buffers on the project would be a loss of 125 buildable acres and a loss of approximately 500 homes. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 40 percent in the number of houses on the site. The Beaver Crest example: Because the Trossachs site was a typical site with several wetlands scattered across the site, a second site, known as Beaver Crest, also located in the city of Sammamish, was selected because it contains a large area which does not have any wetlands but does contain one large Class 2 wetland that bisects the site. Although it is relatively unusual to find a site with such a large area without Class 2 and 3 wetlands, this project was selected as a contrast to the Trossachs example. Attachment 5 to this letter is a map of the Beaver Crest site, prepared in the same manner as the Trossachs example. In this case, application of the proposed increased buffers would result in the loss of approximately 90 units, about 20 percent of the total units in the project. The Hammer Property: Because the Trossachs and Beaver Crest sites are relatively large, a third smaller site was selected which is affected by just one Class 2 wetland that is located primarily off site, but includes a small area of wetland on one edge of the property. Attachment 6 includes copies of two layouts for the plat on this property. The first map shows the lot layout based on a 50-foot buffer on the Class 2 wetland. This layout would allow 27 lots, plus a future development tract for eight additional lots. The second map shows the layout for the plat if a 200-foot buffer is imposed as proposed by some interest groups. The revised project would yield only 12 lots and the future development tract is reduced to a single lot. This is a loss of 22 total lots, or a 63 percent reduction in the number of housing units. Of all of these projects, the Hammer property is the best example of the typical project that will occur in the future in the city of Renton. Large sites like Trossachs and Beaver Crest are difficult, if not impossible, to find in the City due to fact that most properties of this size have already been developed. New developments are now almost all infill projects on five- to ten-acre sites. (The Hammer site is eight acres.) The Hammer property is also typical of most infill sites—there is a single wetland on the site, which occupies less than one acre of the site. Under current wetland standards, 2.1 acres of the Hammer site would be protected as wetland and a fifty foot wetland buffer, leaving about 75 percent of the site usable. If the same site was developed with increased buffers, 5.5 acres would be set aside and only 2.5 acres or slightly over 30 percent of the site would remain to develop. Theoretical application to a 5-acre parcel. Comparison of the amount of lost housing units in the three projects listed above suggested that the impact of imposing larger buffers was more severe on smaller, infill sites. (Beaver Crest lost 20 percent of its units and Trossachs lost 40 percent, but the smaller Hammer property lost 63 percent.) A further review of the impact of larger buffers on small lots is included in Attachment 7, which contains two diagrams showing the impact of the existing and new buffers on a hypothetical 5-acre lot. The upper diagram on Attachment 7 shows a 5-acre lot with a 1-acre, Class 2 wetland in the corner of the property. Under current regulations (a 50-foot buffer), 3.47 acres of the Renton Planning&Develcrlient Committee V March 31,2005 Page 9 site would be available for development. With typical zoning allowing four units per acre, a development of 10 to 12 houses could occur on the buildable area of the site. If the buffer is increased to 200 feet, only 1.18 acres are buildable. However, even this "buildable" area has serious problems because it is a narrow strip of property 58 feet wide along two edges of the property. After construction of some form of an access road and the associated stormwater control facility, it is doubtful that more than one or two homes could be built on this property if a buffer requirement of 200 feet is adopted The lower diagram on Attachment 7 illustrates an even more serious problem. Again, the diagram shows a 5-acre lot with a 1-acre, Class 2 wetland,but in this case the wetland is in the middle of the lot. In this example, current regulations imposing a 50-foot buffer would leave 2.82 buildable acres on the site, ample room for six to eight homes. Application of a 200-foot buffer leaves the entire site unbuildable because the buffer zone would extend beyond the property boundaries on all sides of the site! Although the diagrams in Attachment 7 are hypothetical, they represent very realistic development scenarios. A significant number of existing underdeveloped lots in the City are five acres or less in size. The presence of even a single wetland on these sites can be a serious restriction even under current regulations. Imposition of large buffer requirements, such as those proposed by groups advocating that"Best Available Science" requires significant buffer increases,will render enormous numbers of these lots literally unbuildable. One of the most difficult challenges facing the city of Renton is the need to accommodate the City's share of the projected population increase,which has been allocated to the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act. If the City significantly increases wetland and stream buffers, it will become more difficult to provide the amount of new housing needed to meet the City's GMA population targets. The obvious negative impact of this on housing cost and supply must be avoided. Recommendations and Conclusion: The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties recommends that the City Council take the following actions regarding wetland buffers: Adopt the following findings regarding BAS: • There is no consensus as to what constitutes "Best Available Science" regarding wetland protection and wetland buffers in particular. Many critical questions have not been researched, and the results of the studies, which have been completed, are often contradictory and incomplete. Many of the studies cited in the report on "Best Available Science"were conducted in distant states, which have different climates, different soils, different topography, and different regulatory requirements regarding wetlands and storm water control. The relevance of these studies to the city of Renton's conditions is dubious at best. Local studies of wetland impacts indicate that current City wetland and stormwater standards adequately protect wetland functions and values. • Even assuming that there is some scientific justification for larger wetland buffers than those currently imposed by the City, such increases would 411110 Renton Planning&Development Committee March 31,2005 Page10 conflict with the City's ongoing efforts to implement other goals of the Growth Management Act. • The larger King County area, including the city of Renton, already has a severe shortage of affordable housing, a fact documented in detail in the 2004 King County Annual Growth Report and numerous other studies of housing prices. • Implementation of larger buffers on wetlands will have a significant negative impact on the supply of buildable land. Analyses of the impact of increasing buffers indicate detrimental effects to the buildable land inventory. Therefore, do not adopt increases in buffers for wetlands, streams or other critical areas and retain the current sensitive areas regulations currently in use by the City. The MBA is committed to making the Growth Management Act work and believes in working with local communities to address growth concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on "Best Available Science." I strongly urge the City Council take a flexible approach to the proposed CAO to help meet the goals of GMA. I am available to assist the City in any manner necessary or to address any questions that arise, so should you have any concerns,please feel free to contact me at(206) 605-8877 or ghuffman(a mbaks.com. Thank you. Sincerely, 4401 • Garrett J. Huffman South King County Manager ATTACHMENT 1 WETLAND BUFFER ANALYSIS TROSSACHS DIVISION 7 FEB-10-2004 15:04 P.03/09 Feb 10 04 11 : 17a n.r Kind1C I. Co, 11.0411 r- - • A.C. Kindig & Co. 12.501 BMlovuc44dniosu Rout,5Cl or 210 6Kroow,Wastiogeon 48003S509 � i18 0356 tar OS 1.55 etas Memorandum Date February 10,2004 Project Trossachs Division Seven Name Wetland ELS-21 Monitoring_,. To Bill Dunlap Project 136 Pacific Properties, Number • Incorporated From An Kindig,Ph.D. Regarding Monitoring Data Review and ii ry Conclusions „_...._. Overview (` Water quality data were collected at numerous locations upstream, downstream. and within the porn fen (bog) portion of Wetland EIS 21, which receives drainage from Trossachs Division 7.1 The report on that monitoring did not analyze changes in. water quality from baseline (predevcloped) data, or derive conclusions on the meaning of the results. Pacific Properties, Incorporated asked for a review and evaluation of the water quality data, which is provided in this memorandum. My conclusion is the data in the report show poor fen function was preserved after anticipated changes in storm drainage quality from the Trossachs project took place. The most sensitive portion of wetland ELS-21 (the poor fen/bog portion) was not adversely affected which also means the much more resilient "typical" component of the wetland was not adversely affected. The storm drainage and wetland buffers (type 1 -100 feet and type 2-50 feet) incorporated in the as-built project are(Motioning to protect wetland ELS-21 and its pour fen component. These conclusions are based on water quality results_ My understanding is that David Evans and Associates,Inc.independendy concluded that there were no adverse changes in wetland ELS-21 vegetative community as a result of data they collected over the same monitoring period. The reasons for my conclusion are explained below. t David Evans and Associates,Inc. June 2001. Final Muniktdnp,Report for Wetlands ELS 21.A,J, and M; Trossachs,Brighton's Landing,and Belvedere Park Properties. 02/10/2004 TUE 14:20 [TX/RX NO 6417] 0 003 FEB-10-2004 15:05 P.04/09 Feb 10 04 07: 413a ft. e.. lllnvis d IJ. __ • Mr. Bill Dunlap February t O. 2003 Page -_�, Evaluation and Results • Wellami F;LS-21 Oerscriplion Wetland ELS-21 has been variously identified as Wetland #22 and Wetland N in prior SEPA evaluation and reports. Raedekc Associates, Inc. (Raedeke) described the wetland as a scrub-shrub, broad leaved evergreen community surrounded by a ring of scrub-shrub broad leaved deciduous vegetation including hordhack spired? The central scrub-shrub, broad te•.aved evergreen community was described by Raecleke as having attributes typically characteristic of b0g5. The vegetation typical of a bop,in the central portion~of the wetland included dense Labrador tea as a dominant species, sub-dominated by western swamp laurel, and including hummocks of sphagnum and other rnwNes. The Hearing Examiner's Summary of Findings on appeal of the Trossachs Preliminary PL-tt approval by King County contains several sections summarizing testimony on the nature of wetland ELS-21 and expected impacts to the wetland as a result of the Trossachs residential project." Testimony by Ms. Dyarute Sheldon (Sheldon & Associates) and Dr. Andy Castello (Adolphson ek A%sociate s) ae►d l.ou.ir a Kuluer(King County) confirmed that E'LS-21 contained a poor fen vegetation component. Poor fins develop in organic peat rather than inorganic soil, and unlike typical wetlands have a vegetation community that is both adapted to, and physically affects, water quality. Water quality within the poor fen or bog portion of a wetland is typically very low in tttineraLs (like calcium), acidic (low pH-!), and low in nitrogen (total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite nitrogen). The sphagnum moss within poor fens or bops biologically maintains the water at an acidic (low) pH. The poor fen or bog plants are adapted to those low nutrient and acidic conditions, and as long as there condition% prevail, will self maintain. If the bog or fen portion of a wetland is adversely affected by increased nitrogen nutrients, flushed with so much water that the sphagnum moss cannot maintain a low pid, or adversely affected i'y higher minerals which will also raise pH", then non-bog plants will invade ae,• become dominant, and the fen/bog vegetative community will be degraded c)r lost. Rarekkw Ass(+e•iates,Inc. January 17, 1992. Plant and Animal C.nrnmunit«-s of the'1'rtKtchs Ridge Property,Kimg County,Washington. Kent/County Hearing i 3edminer Summary cot Findings. Increased maini:t b raise pH by increasing; the buffering; capaciey in water, which causes chemical rraetean5 tending towards a neutral or non-audio pH or in extreme case+c Ca an alkaline ar high pf-1 comlitivn.) . Trosmichs 1-Yrtlrtrn!EL5 27 Mandarin.J:rrdeart+uee 02/10/2004 TUE 14:20 [TX/RX NO 6417) IJ 004 FEB-10-2@04 15:05 P.05/09 Feb 10 04 U7: 41Ja H.L. Kinalg a a-o. z Mr. Bill Dunlap February 1(1. 2003 Pace ' .. Wrtlmid Etc; 21 Writer Quality Monitoring Stations and nut() Some data were collected in and around the poor fen portion of wetland E..LS-2 before deveiopment to establish a baseline condition. There were six stations altogether. Stations I and 2 are located upstream of the bog portion of wetland ELS-21, but still within the wetland proper, above and below the controlled and treated storrnwater discharge from nearby developed portions of Trossachs (reference Figure 3 in David Evans Sr Associates' 2001 report). Station 3 is located in the "moat" portion of wetland ELS-21, which is within the circle of open water and typical, non-fen vegetation that encircles: the fen portion of the wetland like a castle moat. Most water flowing through the wetland complex to its outlet(also from the moat)at Station 6 flows around the fen through this moat. Two stations, Station 4 and Station 5, are within the poor fen/bog porrion of wetland El S-21 (reference Figure 4 in David Evans & Associates' 2001 report, attached). These stations were the central focus of my evaluation. If the most sensitive portion of wetland El-S-21 (the poor fen/bog portion) was not adversely affected, then the much more resilient "typical" component of the wetland would riot be adversely affected. The data provided for this evaluation indicate Stations 4 and 5 (and all other stations) were sampled prior to development on April 29, 1993. After development, the same stations were monitored eight times between December 1998 and March 2001. Two of the post-development monitoring trips took place during a similar time of year as baseline;on April 2, 1999 and May 29, 2001. The parameters of principal interest for comparing prey- and post-developed conditions are the following: • Mimeo (calcium rCa) and magnesium (Mg]), and hardness. because they pertain to maintenance of acidic (low pH) water the poor fen needs; • Aci jty, (low p1I), because that shows how well the poor fen is able to maintain the acidic conditions the poor fen vegetation depends on: and • lt' 'en (nitrate and ammonia), because low nitrogen conditions are important to the bog vegetation. • • Trossachs Wetland 1:1„5-77 Moraiorrag 1.rMtunbOn 02/10/2004 TUE 14:20 [TX/RX NO B41?] fj005 FEB-10-2004 15:05 rir'u .&ai ..-, ., . . �..... ••- -- -----— P.06/09 �.► Mr. Bill Dunlap February 10. 2043 Page 4 FIGURE 4 Wet!asad ELS 21 Water Qaa city Sarnp)iag Stations tsar • wcrr intD•N-) 5t?l!v r7 -- X‘?"-- N \3‘.-- a2 - 7,/ ' I� 1 ------ L- -.` ;,.. ti y a, i • I.ta^.J..hot.vc�:/ l - / t \ \ - - I % t . I) \ \ \ -i • . „ j (An Ltr re J, e N. f ^GL —.!'h746ezi ii' 4 .,,rY .o l.. I;.,,,., Figure 4 from David Evans and Associates, Inc. (2001) showing water quality monitoring station locations, the moat, and the central poor fen portion of the wetland(labeled Labrador tea and bug laurel). ... -. Trrnsucln W,atburd ELS 2I Monitoring etwiwttttru • 02/10/2004 TUE 14 :20 [TX/RX NO 6417] e 006 FEB-10-2004 15:05 P.07i09 4 Mr. 13i11 Dunlap February 10. 2003 Pule 5 r Evithrrrfruit The prey- and post-developed data show no impairment to the central poor fen water quality has occurred since Trossachs was.constructed (Table '1). This is true no matter whether the comparison is for the comparable pre-developed to pot-developed season alone, or the entire year-around post-developed data are compared to the singe season baseline values. This conclusion is based on the following: 1. Alkalinity (an overall measure of minerals and buffer capacity in the water) and minerals (Ca, Mg) have not changed within the hen portion of the wetland. That means the active hen portion of the wetland remains amineral- poor, poorly pH-buffered environment, which is what the ten vegetation needs, 2. pl l remains acidic (well below a value of 7.00,which is neutral),which means the sphagnum mass is well able to maintain the pH regime favorable to the fen. 3_ Nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate)remains low during the spring season (when the pro-developed data were collected), as well as on an annual basis, which means the poor fen rernairts a nutrient poor environment as it should. Two outlier (unusual and unrepeatec1) observations, one for ammonia, and cane for nitrate,are noted.in Table 1. Conclusion The data indicate that the acidic, Iow mineral,poorly buffered and low-nitrogen water quality that poor fen wetland vegetation. needs to self-sustain have been retained inside of wetland F.15-21 after construction of Trossarhs, The stormwater treatment and detention system as well as the buffers employed at mitigation for Trossachs construction are working as intended to maintain water quality function within the most sensitive portion of wetland F]S-21, which is• the only Class 7 wetland affected by the development. • . ' •• 7'rossndts Wrtioad vs 21 Muajlon, F";Td(,yrhGnr 02/10/2004 TUE 14:20 [TX/RX NO 64171 lj007 FEB-10-2004 15:06 Fib 10 04 07:bUa H.L. Kinvic . . •-- - - - - P.08/09 ,..r Mr. Bill Dunlap 1=ebrusry 10. 2003 Page G Table 1 Pre- and Post-Developed Water Quality at Station 4/Station 5 Tor Fen- Important Parameters. 1 Parameter Baseline _ Post-Develo ed 449/93 4j/2/99 t 3,29/31 Range of 6 samplings Station 4/ Station 4/ Station 4/ (12/14'98 to 3/29/01) Station 5 Station 5 Station 5 Station 4/ Station S Alkalinit_ y -`. 1.c�ss-.titan _I Less than 1 Less than 1 All Less than 1 m 1 CaCO3) - 1.e_cs than 1. , .T)r -no water loss than 1 All Less than 1..,.„___I Ca(mg/t_) 1.91 1.18 133 ; 0.78 to 1.36 2.10 • Dry-no water 0.89 ' 0.46 I•n 0.89 Mr,(mg/(-) - 0.187 0_56 +. ._0 45 I 035 to 0,63 _ 0.54 [dry-no water 0.34 U.19 to 0.34 I 5.90 450 F---4.19 4.13 to S.1(1 _ .. _- 5,71 Dry-no water 4.17 a_.17 to 4.40-_ _ ...I Ammonia-- ( 0.029 0.043 0,015 1 cst than 0.01(1 tW1t1.160" Nitrogen 0.02E ! Dry-no water 0.020 I.ess than 0.010 to 0.02(1 (+nt,/l) Nitrate- 1_ 0.012 Less than 0.01U 1 sx$than 0,010 Ls.than 0.010 to 0,U66 Nitrogen Less than 0.010 Dry-no water Tess than 0.010 less than 0.010 to 0.052" *High value on 1/29/99 following"lailure"of the R/D facility (Vavid Evans 6r Associates, Inc.). Excluding this outlier value, the range of ammonia nitrogen was iess than 0.010 to 11.(143 mg/T.. Single outlive Filtrate value on 3/2/01, All other observations were less than 0.010 rng/t. nitra tv. Trossuths Wetland P.l.ti-21 Mvulrvriug Eodurrhan 02/10/2004 TUE 14 :20 [TX/RX 110 6417] Z 008 FEB-10-2004 15:06 P.O9/O9 Dery iu '-• . ... .. _. --o • - l75(R IV)(0•11t,14c10110ti.t Ktb,.1.SU iu•?(U ((alL-vur•,WA %(1(ki (425)6 tl 1158 f.t (l:(i)455 8365 FACSIMILE Date February 10,2004 Project Name Trossachs Division 7 •, _ To Bill Dunlap • Project Number 736 Pacific Properties, Incorporated ._. .. .. .M'Fax 425 649-13198 Regarding Wetland ELS-21 Water Quality Morutoring,livatuation • From And l indi No..of Pages 7 with Cover Bill, Here is the meinorandunn on Wetland ELS-21. I'll drop off the materials you gave me next time I'm passing by your office. Thanks very much, Andy • TOTAL P.O9 02/10/2004 TUE 14 :20 [TX/RX NO 6417] J 009 ATTACHMENT 2 WETLAND BUFFER ANALYSIS SNOQUALMIE RIDGE rrr/ A.C. Kindig & Co. EM'RONMENTAL CONSULTING 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210 Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)638-0358 fax(425)455-8365 December 12, 2003 Project No.185C Ms. Bonnie Geers Quadrant Corporation P.O. Box 3159 Redmond,WA 98073-3159 RE: Draft King County Critical Areas Ordinance; Wetland Monitoring Results for Snoqualmie Ridge Dear Bonnie, In February 2003 we assisted Quadrant's evaluation of the need for, and effect of, King County staff's proposed changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance wetland classification system and buffer sizes.1 The current draft CAO text is little changed from the early 2003 draft version with regard to wetland classifications and buffers. As part of our February 2003 evaluation, we reported that many years of monitoring of the Snoqualmie Ridge development show current wetland protections are protecting Snoqualmie Ridge wetlands from urban-density development. The City of Snoqualmie's critical areas ordinance is the same as King County's current Sensitive Areas Ordinance with regard to buffers for Class 1, 2, and 3 wetlands. Our conclusion was that enlarging buffer widths through combined classification and buffer width changes under the proposed CAO would have not altered or improved environmental conditions at Snoqualmie Ridge. ' Raedeke Associates,Inc.,A.C.Kindig&Co.,ESM Consulting Engineers,LLC. February 27,2003. King County Draft CAO: A Review of Wetland Categories and Buffers and Case Study. • Ms. Bonnie Geers December 12, 2003 Page 2 Snoqualmie Ridge has an extensive history of pre-development baseline data, and data collected since construction and occupancy began in 1997 to 1998, under a Post-Construction Monitoring Plan (PCMP).2 That plan has been adaptively modified from time to time as warranted by site development and results, and the results have been issued in annual reports each year since 1998. One aspect of that monitoring includes assessment of wetland vegetation and hydrology in 21 wetlands (at various times since 1998), which includes one bog wetland and six "control" wetlands (wetlands unaffected by development during early construction phases). The monitoring is specific to measurements made within the wetlands themselves, and not within the wetland buffers, since the wetlands are the resource being protected. Since the wetland buffers at Snoqualmie Ridge are the same as those that would be imposed under current King County SAO requirements, the data from these wetlands indicate whether current levels of protection are maintaining pre-developed hydrology and vegetation communities (i.e., habitat conditions) within the wetland's boundaries. Attached to this letter are pages from the Executive Summary sections containing overviews of wetland monitoring results from each of the six annual Snoqualmie Ridge PCMP reports. These reports are from water years 1998 through 2003 (a water year runs from October 1 through September 30); we included title pages to each report. I have been the project manager responsible for overall assembly of the monitoring plan and annual reports since the plans inception in 1998; Raedeke Associates, Inc. has performed all of the wetland discipline monitoring and evaluation. Post-development monitoring over six years has shown the hydrologic regime of some wetlands may have been influenced by clearing and stormwater routing during construction, the effects were temporary and have not affected the vegetation community of any of the wetlands in the study. Species richness (vegetation community complexity) has increased since 1998. There has been no increase in bare ground. There has been no increase in non-wetland, non-native, or invasive plant species. The City of Snoqualmie reviews the annual reports each year; a process that takes some time to complete. City reviews are concluded for the 1998 through 2000 reports. The Executive Summary text in the 2001 through 2002 reports 2 Associated Earth Sciences,Inc.,and Raedeke Associates,Inc. May 13, 1998. Snoqualmie Ridge Post- Construction Monitoring Plan. Ms. Bonnie Geers 4410 December 12, 2003 Page 3 incorporates City review comments, but the review process has not been formally concluded for these reports. The City received the 2003 report this past November and has yet to conduct its review. Please let us know if additional or more detailed information from these reports would be helpful. Sincerely, 141 An w C. 'ndig, ' .D. Princi A.C. Kindig & Co. A.C. Kindig & Co. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Snoqualmie Ridge Project 2003 Post-Construction Monitoring Report PREPARED FOR Quadrant Corporation 35131 SE Douglas Street, Suite 112 Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 PREPARED BY A.C. Kindig & Co. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Project No. 160 November 13, 2003 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210,Bellevue,Washington 98005-2509 Tel 425 638-0358 Fax 425 455-8365 2003 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary Future Fisheries Monitoring • Annual monitoring in D, E, and K Creeks will continue in WY2004. Benthic invertebrate sampling will also be conducted once a year in D,E,and K Creeks coinciding with the annual fish survey in September. WY2004 will be the final year of fisheries and benthic invertebrate monitoring(City of Snoqualmie and Quadrant Corporation 2002). • The trigger value for maximum pool depth was exceeded in D Creek. Shallower pool depths have been an annual occurrence since channel changes associated with natural movement of LWD occurred several years ago. The change in channel configuration is not believed to have been a project impact since no correlation between the decay and occasional shifting of LWD in this off-site location and project activity has been found.The percentage of fine sediment in the substrate at this location(used as an indicator of erosion)is very low. The findings will be discussed with the City of Snoqualmie fisheries biologist and the need for Level 2 monitoring evaluated. • Trigger values for total trout population, fiy population, and maximum pool depth were exceeded in E Creek. Maximum pool depth declined below trigger values in WY2001, and remained low ever since. However, the percentage of fine sediment in the substrate at this location is consistently very low. The decrease in fry numbers could point to a potential problem with spawning habitat quality or it is possible that the low numbers reflect an unusually low flow year. It is also possible that habitat factors outside the monitoring reach (but within the project area)are having an impact.Construction on Parcel Z,the access bridge across E Creek, and a storm water discharge pipe occurred within the previous 12 months within a few hundred feet of the monitoring reach. It is our recommendation that further Level 2 surveys be conducted this fall to evaluate habitat quality within and downstream of the recent construction area and identify any changes that might be affecting the fish population. The nature and scope of Level 2 monitoring will be discussed with the City fisheries biologist. WY2003 Wetlands Summary(See Chapter 3 for Details) The overall K-1 bog community has not changed significantly over the monitoring period from 1998 to 2003. However,there has been a statistically significant change in the mean Weighted Mean Index (WMI) of the bog between 2003 and some of the previous sample periods, including 1998. These changes are attributed to increased areal cover of facultative upland species in the spring and summer. There has been very little change in the relative amount of bare ground present within the bog plots. An increase in species richness was recorded within the bog from 1998 through 2002 by the same observer. New observers monitored the bog in spring and summer of 2003, and recorded the same number of species in spring and summer. There has been a statistically significant increase in species richness within the bog from 1998 to 2003, based on spring data. There has been a statistically November 13,2003 A.C.KINDIG&CO. Page E-6 2003 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary significant increase in species richness in the bog from 1995 and 1998 to 2002,based on the summer data. Qualitatively, there were no new species recorded in spring 2003, and one "new" species (Musci) recorded in summer 2003, which likely had not been discerned from Sphagnum spp. in previous years. As in previous years,the 2003 data do not indicate that invasive species are expanding into the center of the K-1 bog,nor does it appear that obligate bog species are being competitively excluded or are experiencing a reduction in dominance within the bog. While the 2003 data indicate that the relative dominance of Douglas spirea increased from 2002 to 2003 in some plots, overall abundance of Douglas spirea has not significantly increased from 1998. Wetland K-1 bog groundwater levels recorded in 2003 were similar to those recorded in 1998. This is in contrast to the lower surface water levels,present for a shorter duration, in 2003 versus other years. Inundation and peaks in surface water levels showed significantly less fluctuation in 2003 than in 1998 and 1999. For the second consecutive year(WY 2002-2003),hydrologic monitoring of the K-1 bog indicates that an equilibrium has been reached since the end of construction disturbance to the wetland buffer. Water levels and fluctuations are statistically indistinguishable from the baseline condition. The hydroperiod observed during PCMP monitoring in the K-1 bog has generally followed seasonal precipitation patterns found in the Puget Sound region,with higher groundwater and surface water levels observed during the wetter months of November through May. Qualitative comparison of hydroperiods between monitoring years in Wetland Kl also indicates that overall water depths and durations from year to year generally fluctuate depending on total annual precipitation. As such, vegetation responses to the Wetland K1 hydroperiod are likely to show natural variation from year- to-year. Future Wetland K-1 Monitoring • Under the PCMP protocols,we recommend monthly hydrologic monitoring and spring and summer vegetation monitoring in WY2004 using the same methodologies and protocols as in the 1998 through 2002 PCMP reports. WY2003 Hydrology Summary(See Chapter 4 for Details) On-site rainfall during WY2003 was 75 percent of the 1931 through 2003 annual average measured at the Snoqualmie Falls National Climate Station. With consideration of annual variability in rainfall and seasonality,no recharge impact to the Lake Alice Aquifer has occurred as a result ofdevelopment activities during WY2003,based on water level measurements from the on-site monitoring well and Basin M and Basin 0 aquifer discharge monitoring. Baseflow to the E,K,and M Creeks is supplied by the Lake Alice aquifer during the driest season,and by the Lake Alice aquifer plus local interflow networks plus stormwater discharges during the wet season. WY2003 was a dry year and a very dry November 13, 2003 A.C.KINDIG&CO. Page E-7 A.C. Kindig & Co. F1.v^RONME.NTAL CONSULTING Snoqualmie Ridge Project 2002 Post-Construction Monitoring Report PREPARED FOR Quadrant Corporation 35131 SE Douglas Street, Suite 112 Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 PREPARED BY A.C. Kindig & Co. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Cedarock Consultants, Inca Raedeke Associates, Inc. Project No. 160 November 22, 2002 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210,Bellevue,Washington 98005-2509 Tel 425 638-0358 Fax 425 455-8365 Aar 2002 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary area caused by pond SRBP2 leakage. The surveys would be conducted concurrently with the normal September monitoring surveys. The additional pools would be sampled for fish populations and habitat quality (width and depth). Results may help explain why the population in the monitoring reach has dropped. WY2002 Wetlands Overview(See Chapter 3 for Details) During WY2002, Wetland K1, the bog in Basin K,the near-surface saturation levels(groundwater hydroperiod)returned to pre-development WY1995 to WY1998 measures,after being significantly higher during monitoring from WY1999 through WY2001. As in the previous monitoring years,near surface groundwater(within 12 inches of the surface)was present through July,versus through June during the pre-development monitoring (though the duration of saturation in WY2002 was not significantly different from WY1998). Surface water ponding has never shown a statistical difference from pre-development, but durations and peaks in surface ponding from WY1999 through WY2001 had been greater than pre-development measures. In WY2002,peak ponding depths were lower than measured in WY1998 or WY1999, and surface saturation duration was similar to WY1998 and WY1999. WY2002 data show no significant changes in bog vegetation composition or colonization by invasive species in response to these hydrologic changes. As in WY2001, Wetland K1 in the Plat 1 area was specifically investigated for the abundance of Douglas spirea,based on concerns of the City of Snoqualmie's consultant. Douglas spirea is not an obligate bog species,but it was present in Wetland K1 when pre-construction monitoring began in 1995,and thus may be an indicator species that would increase in cover or abundance if bog functions are impaired. There was an increase in species richness(number of species)within the bog moat and within the center of the bog mat in WY2002. The bog continues to be dominated by the same bog- obligate species noted in all previous years: Sphagnum spp. moss, Labrador tea, and bog laurel. Qualitatively, the WY2002 data indicate an increase of one species (western hemlock)within plot K1-1 at the edge of the bog. The WY2002 data show that Douglas spirea is not expanding in relative abundance along the bog edge, or expanding into the bog's center, or otherwise out- competing bog-obligate species. Rather the 2002 data indicate that the relative dominance of Douglas spirea at two of the plots is decreasing (negative change recorded in both spring and summer), possibly due to senescence (die-off following maturity)within the local population. Previous monitoring that showed increased depth and duration of late spring and summer surface water had raised concerns that the hydroperiod within the bog had been altered. Those increases may" have been a result of development-related routing of storm water into the buffer of the bog with the intention of matching pre-developed hydrology. Although the region did experience a relatively wet late spring and early summer in 2002, increased depth and duration of surface water noted from WY1999 through WY2001 did not recur in the WY2002 data. We recommend consultation with the City's consultants and Quadrant to determine how hydrologic monitoring can be used to draw a conclusion on any need for adjustment to water delivery to Wetland K-1. November 22, 2002(Revised December 12,2003) A.C. KINDIG&CO. Page E-10 t A.C. Kindig & Co. E NVIRONMENTALCONSULTING Snoqualmie Ridge Project 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Report Volume I: Executive Summary and Discipline Reports PREPARED FOR Quadrant Corporation 7001 396th Street SE Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 PREPARED BY A.C. Kindig & Co. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Project No. KB01002D January 25, 2002 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210,Bellevue,Washington 98005-2509 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary Recommendation 2-3 M Creek monitoring would continue in WY2002 then would cease ifresults remain favorable. Annual benthic invertebrate monitoring would be conducted along with the annual September monitoring in M Creek in WY2002. The monitoring in WY2001 was conducted to confirm that the fish population rebound noted in WY2000 was not an artifact. Although the population dropped somewhat, it did remain well above both the trigger value and values observed during the pre-construction period. Although some of the habitat indicators in the monitoring reach are below pre-construction values, it is obvious based on the high fish population that habitat availability throughout the larger M Creek basin is abundant. WETLANDS(CHAPTER 3) WY2001 Wetlands Overview In consultation with the City of Snoqualmie,monitoring of the Preliminary Plat 3,Preliminary Plat 5, and Neighborhood Center wetlands will no longer be conducted. Monitoring for wetlands associated with Preliminary Plat 3, Preliminary Plat 5, and the Neighborhood Center that relied upon using wetland D3 as a control was terminated due to changes to the area surrounding wetland D3, rendering it unsuitable as a control for the established monitoring methodology. Field inspection conducted in conjunction with the City's wetland consultant has revealed no discernible effect on either the vegetation or hydrologic regime of these wetlands based on the one year of data collected. A brief analysis of basin influences and general patterns in the hydrographs of these wetlands is presented herein. A comparison of the pre- and post-development data shows that while the hydrologic regime of some wetlands within the Preliminary Plat 3, Neighborhood Center, and Preliminary Plat 5 basins have potentially been influenced by basin clearing and water routing activities, these effects appear to have been temporary and have not affected the vegetation community of any of these wetlands. Wetland K-1,the bog in Basin K,continues to display a longer period ofnear-surface saturation and surface water ponding. A significant change in the presence of standing water in the plots has occurred in the year 2001, spring data. Five of the nine plots had areas of inundation(no evident vegetation)for the first time, and in 60 percent of those plots,the standing water was deeper than 1 inch. This finding is important in consideration of hydrologic data that shows an increased in depth and duration of water in the bog. However, these changes in hydroperiod have not resulted in significant changes in bog vegetation composition or in colonization by invasive species. Because Wetland K-1 again had higher ground water and standing water well into the summer of 2001, relative to earlier years, we recommend additional hydroperiod data be gathered in WY2002 to determine if this is a result of infiltrated storm water from the project,and to correlate water quality and water quantity data. The additional data are needed to definitively determine if an extended hydroperiod may result in adverse effects to the bog system. January 25,2002(Revised December 1,2003) A.0 Kindig&Co. ACK/af-KB01002D5-PROJEC7SI20010021KBIWP-W2K Page E-9 %OP Imo Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary As in 2000, Wetland K-1 (bog) in the Plat I area was specifically investigated for the abundance of Douglas' spirea(Spiraea douglasii),based on concerns of the City's consultant. Although Douglas' spirea is not an obligate bog species,it was present within Wetland K-1 at the time pre-construction monitoring began in 1995. The WY2001 data show that Douglas'spirea is not expanding in relative abundance along the bog edge,or expanding into the bog's center,or otherwise out-competing bog- obligate species. In fact,current data indicate that in some areas,the relative abundance of Douglas' spirea may be declining possibly due to some type of senescence within the local population. Increased species richness noted within the bog in 2001 reflects an increase in species both within the bog moat and within the center of the bog mat. Bog cranberry(Oxycoccus oxycoccos)was noted for the first time in 2001. The bog continues to be dominated by the same bog-obligate species noted in all previous years: Sphagnum spp. moss, Labrador tea, and bog laurel. WY2001 Wetlands Work Performed Wetlands in Basins E,C(the Lake Alice Basin,referred to herein as'LA),and Wetlands D5 and D9 (Preliminary Plat 5 -Parcel R)were field reviewed in conjunction with the City's wetland consultant on June 1, 2001. This field visit was intended to determine whether any discernable changes have occurred in the vegetation communities of these wetlands. Monitoring was subsequently terminated following the June 1,2001 site visit with the City's wetland consultant because no discernable changes were noted and questions were raised regarding the continued suitability of Wetland D3 as a control,given on-and off-site clearing within its vicinity. A compilation of the hydrologic data gathered since 1998 for the D, E, and LA Basin wetlands (associated with the Neighborhood Center and Preliminary Plats 3 and 5), as well as regional precipitation since that time, was requested by the City's consultant in order to document the hydrologic condition of these wetlands at the time the monitoring was terminated. The hydrologic data gathered since 2000 in Wetlands D5 and D9(Preliminary Plat 5-Parcel R),is similarly presented along with regional precipitation. The Wetland K-1 bog was monitored to evaluate the impacts of development of Preliminary Plat 1 and the effectiveness of the measures designed to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions in the bog. The analysis of the Wetland K-1 monitoring data for WY2001 follows the protocols outlined in the approved PCMP. Beginning with WY1999,qualitative comparisons ofwetland parameters within individual wetlands on a year-to-year basis were added to the work specified in the PCMP protocols, as requested by the City. The results of both types of analyses for the Wetland K-1 bog are included in this WY2001 report. If the qualitative analysis indicated noticeable trends in any of the bog parameters,the quantitative protocols of the PCMP were then used to statistically investigate whether these trends were statistically significant. WY2001 Wetland Results Preliminary Plat 3 and Neighborhood Center Wetlands January 25,2002(Revised December 1,2003) A.C.Kindig&Co. ACK/aJ-KB01002DS-PROJECIS1200/0021KBIWP-W2K Page E-10 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary The vegetation within Wetlands D8, E8, LA4, D4 (potential impact wetlands), and D3 (a control wetland) has changed, both yearly and seasonally, within each of the wetlands. However,the joint field review with the City's wetland consultant concluded that such vegetation changes do not reflect a decrease in the functioning of these wetlands,and do not appear to be related to development ofthe surrounding uplands within their respective basins. Preliminary Plat 1: K-1 Bog There is no on-site control for the K-1 bog,because it is the only wetland in Basin K and the only bog on the site. The infiltration system designed to maintain hydrologic conditions in the bog was made operational in November 1998. Therefore,the majority of the comparisons for WY 1999, WY2000, and WY2001 data are made to the 1998 condition measured prior to changes in basin conditions. Per the request of the City's reviewer in 2000,the wetland indicator status(WIS)value of Sphagnum spp. moss was changed to FACW+ (1.67) and thus all of the 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 data presented in this report reflect that WIS value. The characteristic bog community has not changed significantly over the monitoring period from 1998 to 2001. There has been no statistically significant change in the mean Weighted Mean Index(WMI) of the bog between 2001 and any of the previous sample periods,based on either spring or summer data. There has been very little change in the relative amount of bare ground present within the bog plots. An increase in species has been recorded within the bog from 1998 through 2000 by the same observer. There has been a increase in species richness within the bog from 1995, 1998,and 1999 to 2001,based on spring data. There has been an increase in species richness in the bog from 1995 and 1998 to 2001, based on the summer data. Qualitatively, the 2001 data indicate an increase of one species(bog cranberry)within Plot 4 in the center of the bog and one species(wooly sedge[Scirpus atrocinctus])within Plot 1 at the edge of the bog. As in previous years,the 2001 data do not indicate that invasive species are expanding into the center of the bog, nor does it appear that obligate bog species are being competitively excluded or are experiencing a reduction in dominance within the bog. Similarly,as in previous years,the 2001 data do not indicate that invasive species are expanding into the center of the bog. Rather the 2001 data indicate that the relative dominance of Douglas' spirea at two of the plots is decreasing (negative change recorded in both spring and summer). Douglas' spirea has been anecdotally reported as declining in vigor and relative abundance in other wetlands on the Snoqualmie Ridge site and was particularly noted in Wetlands D3, D4, and LA4 during our May 2001 site visit. Declining populations of Douglas' spirea may allow for increased spread of existing bog-obligate species or colonization by other acid-tolerant species. As in 1999 and 2000, the ground water hydroperiod within Wetland K-i in 2001 was significantly longer than in 1998. Ground water levels were closer to the surface during the summer of 2001 than they have been in 1995, 1998, 1999, or 2000. As in the previous three monitoring years, surface January 25,2002(Revised December I, 2003) A.0 Kindig&Co. ACK/af-K60I002D5-PRQ/ECI51200I002I WP-W2K Page E-11 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary water was present from January through June 2001 and near-surface ground water(within 12 inches of the surface)was present from July through August. Standing surface water levels throughout 2001 have consistently been lower than 2000 levels, but were present over the same,increased duration documented in 2000. This duration is 1 month and 2 months longer than the duration observed during 1998 and 1999, respectively (as measured at the eastern staff gauge). While peaks in surface water have also been lower in 2001 than in previous years, peaks continue to occur later in the year in 2001 than in 1998 or 1999 (as measured by the eastern crest gauge). The increased depth and duration of late spring and summer surface water has raised concerns that the hydroperiod within the bog has been altered. This increase may be a result of development- related provisions made to ensure adequate water for the bog by routing storm water into the buffer of the bog. Although the region did experience a relatively wet late spring and early summer in 2001, this concern again appears to be supported by the 2001 data. We recommend consultation with the City's consultants and Quadrant to determine if additional hydrologic monitoring can be successfully implemented to determine the efficacy of the infiltration system on the bog's hydroperiod. Preliminary Plat 5 Based on the June 2001 site visit with the City's wetland consultant,the team concluded that there has been no significant change in the vegetation or hydrologic regime of Wetlands D5 and D9 since monitoring was initiated in 2000. Wetland D5 remains dominated by Douglas' spirea. Wetland D9 remains dominated by both emergent and scrub-shrub vegetation indicative of wetland conditions. The limited overlap of 2000 and 2001 data (March, April, and May) do not suggest a significant change in the ground water hydroperiod, depth or duration of standing surface water, or period of surface water peaks within Wetlands D5 or D9 under post-development conditions. We concur with the City's wetland consultant that no further monitoring of Wetlands D5 and D9 is warranted,and that the monitoring regime as detailed in the PCMP be terminated for these wetlands. Wetlands Recommendations for WY2002 Work Recommendation 3-1 No further monitoring of the wetlands triggered by Plat 3 and the Neighborhood Center is recommended by both Raedeke Associates,Inc.and the City's wetland consultant. Based on the June 2001 site visit with the City's wetland consultant,the team concluded that there has been no significant or negative change in the vegetation or hydrologic regime of Wetlands D3, D4,D8, E8, and LA4 since monitoring was initiated in 1998. January 25,2002(Revised December 1, 2003) A.C. Kindig&Co. ACK/af-KB01002D5-PROJECTS12001002tKB WP-W2K Page E-12 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. . ' SNOQUALMIE RIDGE POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN 2000 ANNUAL REPORT Volume I: Executive Summary and Discipline Reports • • Prepared for: Weyerhaeuser.Real Estate Company Project No. KB00002D November 6, 2000 Corporate Office•911 Fifth Avenue,Suite 100• IGrkland,WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424 West Sound Office- 179 Madrone Lane North • Bainbridge Island.WA 98I 10• Phone 206 780-9370• Fax 206 780-9438 • 2000 Post-Construction Monitoring , Snoqualmie Ridge Executive Summary of 2000, relative to earlier years, additional hydroperiod data will be gathered in WY2001 to determine if this could be resulting from infiltrated stormwater from the project, and to correlate to water quality and wetland data. The extended hydroperiod may not result in adverse effects. WY200O Wetlands Work Performed Wetlands in Basins D,E,and C(the Lake Alice Basin,referred to herein as'LA')were monitored to evaluate the potential impacts associated with development of the Neighborhood Center and Preliminary Plats 3 and 5. Wetland K-1,the bog in Basin K,was monitored to evaluate the impacts of development of Preliminary Plat 1 and the effectiveness of the measures designed to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions in the bog. Wetlands D-5 and D-9 were monitored to establish a baseline for subsequent development of Preliminary Plat 5 (Parcel R). The analysis of the wetland monitoring data for WY2000 follows the protocols outlined in the approved PCMP. Beginning with WY1999, qualitative comparisons of wetland parameters within individual wetlands on a year-to-year basis were added to the work specified in the PCMP protocols, as requested by the City. The results of both types of analyses are included in this WY2000 report. The qualitative analysis requested by the City was done first for wetlands in each of the two development areas investigated for impacts (Wetlands D-3, D-4, D-8, E-8, LA-4, and K-1). Wetlands in the third development area (Wetlands D-5 and D-9)were only monitored to establish baseline in WY2000,so no comparative statistics were warranted. If the qualitative analysis indicated noticeable trends in any of the wetland parameters,then the quantitative protocols ofthe PCMP were used to statistically investigate whether these trends differed between the control and potential impact wetlands. The City determined that monitoring of the Parkway wetlands is no longer required because field inspection has revealed no discernible impacts. Monitoring of the Parkway wetlands was completed in WY1999, and they are not discussed further in this WY2000 report. WY2000 Wetland Results Preliminary Plat 3 and Neighborhood Center Wetlands Wetlands D-8,E-8,D-4(potential impact wetlands),and D-3(a control wetland)were monitored and analyzed in 2000 following the protocols in the PCMP and qualitative comparisons of wetland parameters within individual wetlands on a year-to-year basis. Vegetation has changed, both yearly and seasonally, within each of the wetlands. However, the changes in the potential impact wetlands were not consistent, nor were they significantly different, from those in the control wetland. All of the wetlands increased in species richness from 1998 to 2000. The increase in richness was statistically indistinguishable between control and potential impact wetlands. There was generally no change in bare ground within these wetlands,with the exception of the control Wetland D-3 and Wetland E-8 during summer 1998 to 2000. There were no non- November 6,2000;Revised March I1,2002 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. KB00002D5-LD-D:laplll-00-W2K Page E-7 • ti..r *moo 2000 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Executive Summary native/invasive plants noted in these wetlands during any of the monitoring years. Wetland hydrology continues to reflect annual rainfall variation. The control Wetland D-3 and two of the potential impact wetlands had higher ground water levels and durations in 1999 and 2000 than in 1998. All of the wetlands(control and potential impact)had greater depths and durations ofstanding surface water in 1999 and 2000 as compared to 1998. This pattern reflects the observed pattern in regional precipitation. Breeding Pacific chorus frogs(Pseudacris regilla)were only observed in Wetland D-4 during spring amphibian surveys and during other monitoring activities. Few of the wetlands in this group appear to have the vegetative characteristics and hydrologic regimes preferred by amphibians for breeding. Preliminary Plat 1: K-1 Bog There is no on-site control for the K-1 Bog,because it is the only wetland in Basin K and the only bog on the site. The east half of the infiltration system designed to maintain hydrologic conditions in the bog was made operational in November 1998. Therefore, the majority of the comparisons for WY1999 and WY2000 data are made to the 1998 condition measured prior to changes in bog hydrology. As a footnote,per the request of the City's reviewer,the wetland indicator status(WIS) value of moss(Sphagnum spp.)was changed to FACW+(1.67)and all of the 1995, 1998,and 1999 data were rerun accordingly. The new WIS rating was used for all of the 2000 analyses. The characteristic bog community has not changed significantly over the monitoring period from 1998 to 2000. There has been no statistically significant change in vegetation between 1998 and 2000 in either spring or summer,although preliminary qualitative review of the data suggested that the spring conditions of some study plots may be influenced by species with a slightly higher (although still characteristically wetland) WIS value. Principle components classification of the K-1 Bog data verified that the vegetation community of the bog is,as expected,quite different from the other(non- bog)wetlands on the site. Since 1998, there has been a statistically significant increase in species richness in the bog. This increase in species has been recorded from 1998 through 2000 by the same observer. The increase likely reflects both an increased number of species within the plots and greater effort expended in the collection process over the 3 years. There were no significant differences in either the number of plots containing bog-obligate species or in their relative abundance within the plots between 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2000. The 2000 data do not indicate that invasive species are expanding into the center of the bog,nor does it appear that bog-obligate species are being competitively excluded or are experiencing a reduction in dominance within the bog. The ground water hydroperiod within Wetland K-1 was significantly wetter in both 1999 and 2000 than in either 1998 or 1995. Similarly, standing surface water levels have been higher during the spring and early summer of 2000,and have been observed for a longer period of time in 2000 than in previous years(although this result was not statistically significant). Peaks in standing surface water November 6, 2000;Revised March II,2002 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES.INC KB00002D5-LD-D:lapII l-00-W2K Page E-8 2000 Post-Construction Monitoring • Snoqualmie Ridge Executive Summary have also been higher and have occurred later in the year in 2000 than in 1998 or 1999. Because this pattern has persisted into the late summer of 2000,the City has questioned whether the higher ground water and surface water levels recorded in the bog suggests that more water is entering via the infiltration system, even though the results can be explained by site-wide water conditions from the greater than average rainfall. Consultation with the City's consultant on this matter is ongoing,as a result of a site visit conducted in October 2000 with the City's consultant to review site conditions. Additional monitoring efforts will be initiated following consultation with the City and Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company. Preliminary Plat 5 The first year of baseline sampling for potential impact Wetlands D-5 and D-9 occurred in 2000. The data collected will serve as baseline information for comparisons with future years. HYDROLOGY(CHAPTER 4) WY2000 Hydrology Overview Rainfall during WY2000 was 113 percent of the 1931 through 1998 historic average. No declining trend in base flow to any of the streams monitored was evident. Summer base flows in Streams K, M,and E in WY2000 were similar to the base flow patterns in WY1998 and WY1999, • within reasonable allowance for annual availability. The Lake Alice Aquifer supplies base flow to these streams,and static water levels in the aquifer have risen in each of the 3 water years(WY1998 through WY2000). All of the three representative detention ponds that were monitored complied with the evaluation criteria for peak flow releases during WY2000. Pond BP 1 continues to infiltrate as in prior years,but as discussed in prior years there are no known disadvantages to allowing this to continue. Five of the twelve golf course sand filters continued to overflow during storms less intense than their design storms, as they had in WY1999. The remaining seven sand filters either did not overflow at all, or overflowed only when rainfall rates exceeded the average design storm rate for 2 or more hours. With City concurrence,outlet risers were installed in four of the five sand filters in April 2000. Data from two subsequent storms indicated these retrofits appeared to correct conditions in three of the four retrofit filters. A fifth filter(2a)was not retrofit because it was submerged. Filter 2a,and the filter that was not corrected by the retrofit(2b),will be replaced by a wet pond,after City approval. November 6,2000,-Revised March 11,2002 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC- KB00002D5-LD-D:bp1II-00-W2K Page E-9 tym DRAFT POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN 1999 SUMMARY REPORT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE • SNOQUALMIE, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company . PROJECT NOS. KB99002AB/C; KG99002A; KH99002A November 1, 1999 CORPORATE OFFICE 91�1��t'Avenue,Suite 100 ASSOCIATED !GAM 7701 Washington 98033 (425)82�'-rent EARTH FAX (425)827-5424 SCIENCES, INC. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Modrone Lone North Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 (206)780-9370 FAX(206)780-9438 149 Post-Construction Monitoring • Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary implement that review, it was confirmed that all of the flow controls were built per plan and the as- builts have been completed and approved by the City. Despite 1998 reports of sediment in the lower reaches of K Creek, the fish population in K Creek appears to be relatively high in comparison to baseline survey results. No evidence of impacts was noted in the fish population, although fines in the spawning habitat are higher than desirable. 1999 erosion study results showed no sign of aggradation in Lower K Creek. Monitoring will continue in K Creek in 2000 because it will be triggered by the percentage of Plat 1 development completed in the basin,but is no longer needed as a contingency response measure. Wetlands The Executive Summary portion of the Wetlands Chapter extends beyond the present water year and provides the most-up-to-date information. Therefore,the Executive Summary reflects the results of the June 2000 field inspection that is referred to as future activity in the actual Wetlands Chapter. Wetlands in Basins B, D, 0, and P were monitored in 1999 using the protocols of the PCMP to evaluate the potential impacts ofthe Parkway and the effectiveness of interflow mitigation. Wetlands in Basins D, E, and C (the Lake Alice Basin, referred to as LA) were monitored to evaluate the potential impacts associated with development of the Neighborhood Center and Preliminary Plat 3. Wetland K-1, the bog in Basin K, was monitored to evaluate the impacts of development of Preliminary Plat 1 and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures designed to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions in the bog. The analysis of the wetland monitoring data for 1999 follows the protocols outlined in the approved PCMP. Also included are the qualitative comparisons of wetland parameters within individual wetlands on a year-to-year basis as requested by the City's reviewer. It was the reviewer's opinion that,due to the loss of original data plots and differences in consistency of observers,comparison of data between baseline(1994-1995)and future years should be done cautiously. The results of both types of analysis are presented for each development area. Parkway Wetlands Monitoring of pre-construction conditions in the Parkway wetlands occurred in 1994 and 1995,and included both control wetlands(sample size 5) and wetlands potentially impacted by the Parkway (sample size 8). Vegetation Statistical analysis of the vegetation monitoring data finds no change in the mean wetland indicator status(WIS)values in either the control or potential impact wetlands over the sample period of 1995 to 1999. The principal components and community classification analyses also show no change in vegetation communities in the potential impact wetlands and only minor changes in two ofthe control wetlands. There has been a significant change in species richness in both the potential impact wetlands and the control wetlands. This change likely reflects natural maturation ofthe wetlands over November 1, 1999;Revised March I1,2002 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. KB00002A2-LD-D:Vd16-00-W2K Page v • ‘o.r 1909 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary time from shrub dominated to forested systems. Similarly,there has been an increase in bare ground in both potential impact and control wetlands. Non-native/invasive species have decreased in both potential impact and control wetlands since 1995. Qualitative analysis of trends in vegetation within individual wetlands over the study period, as requested by the City's reviewer, is described in Section 2.3.1. The qualitative analysis of within- wetland changes in the mean WIS values showed a consistent trend only in control Wetland D 17,in which the weighted mean index(WMI)increased(Le.,got drier). The pattern in the other wetlands was quite variable, with the range of change in the potential impact wetlands similar to that of the controls. The principal components and classification analyses referenced above as quantitative analyses are also within-wetland,year-to-year analyses. As previously noted,these analyses showed no significant change in vegetation communities of the potential impact or control wetlands,from year to year over the study period. The qualitative analysis of vegetation descriptors (e.g., bare ground, species richness, or invasive species) within individual wetlands over the study period showed highly variable patterns, with no consistent trends in any of the potential impact or control wetlands. The range of variability within individual wetland parameters again was similar for both the control and the potential impact wetlands. Hydroperiod The 1998-1999 water year had 55 percent more precipitation than 1997-1998,which was also wetter than 1994-1995. The statistical analysis of the monitoring data indicate that both the potential impact and control wetlands had similar hydroperiods in all years,and that the ground water hydroperiod was wetter in 1999 than in 1995 and 1998. The regression analysis of the surface water monitoring data indicates that the potential impact and control wetlands responded in a similar fashion when changes over the study period were compared. There were no consistent differences between potential impact and control wetlands when comparing depths, peaks, or duration of standing water from 1995 to 1999 that would indicate changed conditions within the potential impact wetlands resulting from Parkway construction. The qualitative analysis of year-to-year changes in hydroperiod within individual wetlands, as requested by the City's reviewer,is presented in Section 2.3.2. As demonstrated in the quantitative analysis,the qualitative analysis showed that the majority of the control and potential impact wetlands were wetter in 1998 and 1999 when compared to 1995. Exceptions were control Wetlands B4 and 01 and impact Wetland P3, which showed spikes in their data. Summary • The 1999 wetland monitoring results did not reveal a consistent change in two or more of the November 1, 1999;Revised March II,2002 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. KB00002A2-LD-D-Vd16-00-W2K Page vi 19 Post-Construction Monitoring Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary Although changes have occurred in the vegetation communities of the Parkway wetlands, these changes were determined to be of the type and degree that is expected as such systems mature. In addition, as these changes were evident in both the potential impact and the control wetlands, such changes were deemed not due to any effect of the Parkway construction. Consequently,the review concluded that no further screening level monitoring was needed to ensure the health of the potential impact wetlands associated with the Parkway phase. The results presented herein therefore constitute the final year of monitoring data that will be collected, analyzed, and presented for the Parkway wetlands. Preliminary Plat 3 and Neighborhood Center Wetlands Wetlands D8,E8,D4(potential impact wetlands),and D3(control wetland)were monitored in 1999 following the protocols in the PCMP. The analysis of the wetland monitoring data for 1999 follows the protocols outlined in the approved PCMP. Also included are the qualitative comparisons of wetland parameters within individual wetlands on a year-to-year basis, as requested by the City's reviewer. Vegetation The statistical analysis of the monitoring data showed no significant differences between the mean WMI of the control wetland (D3) and any of the impact wetlands between 1998 and 1999. The principal components and classification analyses did not change between years for any of the wetlands. There was no significant change in the species richness for these wetlands from 1998 to 1999. There were no non-native/mvasive plants noted in these wetlands in either sample year. The qualitative year-to-year analysis of change within individual wetlands is presented in Section 3.3.1. Only two wetlands,one control and one impact,showed a consistent pattern of change,with both showing an increase in WMI, with the increase greater in the control than the impact wetland. Again,the principal components and classification analyses,which are within wetland comparisons from year to year, did not show any changes for individual control or impact wetlands. Species richness increased in all impact wetlands from 1998 to 1999, but remained the same in the control wetlands. There was no consistent pattern of change in bare ground in any of the wetlands. Hydroperiod The statistical analysis of hydrologic data revealed that the patterns of change in ground water, standing surface water, and peaks in standing surface water were not different between 1998 and 1999 for either the control or potential impact wetlands. The qualitative analysis (Section 3.3.2) showed no change in ground water conditions in Wetland LA4, wetter conditions in D8, and variable conditions in D4 and D3 (the control). Patterns of standing surface water and saturation of inundation were variable,with no consistent patterns evident November 1, 1999;Revised June 12, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. KB00002A2-LD-D:it 6-00-W2K Page vii SNOQUALMIE RIDGE POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN 1998 SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company 7802 Fisher Avenue SE Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington .98033 Raedeke Associates, Inc. 5711 NE 63`'Street Seattle, Washington 98115 March 1999 Project Nos. KB99002A/B/C; KG99002A; KH99002A Post-Construction Monitoring Plan Snoqualmie Ridge,Project Executive Summary In response to the fisheries observations in M and E Creeks, K Creek will also be monitored in 1999. Monitoring in K Creek for fisheries is not triggered by the PCMP in 1999 because of development, but as a contingency response to the observed data for 1997 and 1998. A fisheries action plan is under development between Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company and the City of Snoqualmie that addresses these fisheries recommendations, examines alterations to flow management in E and M Creeks, and proposes enhancement of E Creek habitat through placement of large woody debris (LWD). Wetlands Wetlands in Basins B, D, 0, and P were monitored in 1998 to evaluate the impacts of Parkway construction and the effectiveness of interflow mitigation following the protocols of the PCMP. Wetland monitoring in Basins D, E, and LA was initiated to provide baseline data for evaluation of development impacts associated with the neighborhood center and Preliminary Plat 3. Wetland K-1, the bog in Basin K, was monitored to evaluate the impacts of development in Basin K and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures designed to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions in the bog. Parkway Wetlands Monitoring of pre-construction conditions in the Parkway wetlands occurred in 1994 and 1995, and included both control wetlands (sample size 5) and wetlands potentially impacted by the Parkway (sample size 8). The 1998 monitoring revealed no significant change in mean wetland indicator status (WIS) values from 1995 to 1998 for either control or potential impact wetlands. The mean WIS of control and potential impact wetlands was significantly different in spring 1998, with the potential impact wetlands having a higher mean WIS value (e.g., a plant community associated with drier conditions). A reduction in species richness from 1995 to 1998 was also noted in both control and potential impact wetlands. The abundance of non-native invasive plants declined in both control and potential impact wetlands from 1995 to 1998. The quantitative classification of vegetation in wetland plots did not change from 1995 to 1998 (based on principal components analysis of detailed plot data). With regard to hydrologic conditions,the potential impact wetlands had more standing water than the control wetlands and appeared to experience a longer period of inundation during spring 1998. However, there was no significant difference in ground water either between years or between potential impact and control wetlands. May 1999-Revised September 1999 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. KB99001A10-9/30/99 Id-WP8 Page iv Post-Construction Monitoring Plan Snoqualmie Ridge Project Executive Summary Preliminary Plat 3 and Neighborhood Center 1998 monitoring of the wetlands in this area was conducted as baseline monitoring of pre- development conditions. Vegetation plots, piezometers, and staff/crest gauges were established and monitored following the PCMP protocols in Wetlands D3, D4, E8, and LA4. Descriptive data for all wetlands are presented in the report for comparison to monitoring in future years. - Plat 1 - K-1 Bog Monitoring of pre-construction conditions in the bog occurred in 1995; nine vegetation sampling plots, a piezometer, and a staff gauge were installed at that time. Monitoring in 1998 was to have been the first year of post-construction monitoring; however, the infiltration system designed to maintain hydrologic conditions in the bog was not in operation until November 1998, after the monitoring was completed. A comparison of the 1995 and 1998 data showed a significant decrease in mean WIS for the plant community within the nine plots in the bog from 1995 to 1998 for both spring and summer sampling periods. However, there was no significant difference in presence of bog obligate species, although individual plots showed changes in percent cover of bog obligate species from 1995 to 1998. This change is mostly attributable to change in observers. Re-evaluation of plot photo-documentation confirms that there has not been a dramatic change in plant composition or relative percent cover from 1995 to 1998. The presence of non-native invasive species (cattails and hardback)has also not changed between 1995 and 1998. There was no significant difference in the ground water hydroperiod in the bog from 1995 to 1998. Summary There were no consistent patterns of change in any of the wetlands that indicated a need for additional monitoring beyond the screening level in 1998. Continued monitoring of all systems for 1999 using the same field techniques and evaluation procedures is planned. Hydrology Continuous discharge gauging was established and maintained in Basins E (upper and lower basin), K, and M. Discharge data were collected from each station and compared with their respective '/i of the 2-year, 2-year, and erosion threshold discharges. M Creek was essentially restricted to base flow during water year 1998, because construction runoff was diverted to the high flow bypass to avoid turbid discharge to M Creek. Only lower E Creek exceeded the 'fi of the 2-year discharge. However, it did not reach the 2-year discharge or erosion threshold. None May 1999-Revised September 1999 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. K099002,410-9/30/99 Id-WP8 Page v ATTACHMENT 3 DDES ANALYSIS IMPACT OF INCREASING BUFFER ON CLASS 1 WETLANDS ,..r• *.►` Buildable Lands Impact of 2nd Draft CAO 3tt' - 777 - s fTf. -$:: b eats 7 ,,'°#:. .. "-.-.,-.ea7 e''t :-7 •s.P'ss.; � f� i,ii:Y y,:r.-7 s4' Y (it --;� € sig8 .i e #ell 44 _ *°X,r:;, a i� `Eye'& s' yr > 9.t SY"co . R-01 456.28 121.40 334.87 125 177.62 278.66 113 R-04 321.32 169.80 151.51 385 207.79 113.52 318 R-06 281.44 120.94 160.51 564 166.10 115.34 433 R-08 77.58 38.90 38.68 128 54.57 23.01 87 R-12 22.69 1.74 20.95 119 4.64 18.05 163 R-18 33.84 16.33 17.51 124 21.21 12.64 141 R-24 34.62 17.71 16.90 272 21.78 12.84 207 Totals 1227.77 486.83 740.94 1716 653.71 574.06 1462 Table 1:Parcels in unincorporated urban King County that are either(1)located within 165 feet of a Class 1 or 2 stream within a basin that has been identified as a"special urban habitat area"or(2)within 300 feet of a Class 1 wetland ' Total sensitive area acres under existing SAO for wetlands and buffers, streams and buffers, and hazard areas. Does not include class 2 or 3 wetlands or their buffers. 2 Gross acres minus existing sensitive area acres. 3 Number of housing units after subtracting for sensitive areas,right of way, and market supply factor. The market supply factor takes into account whether a parcel is vacant or redevelopable. Total critical area acres for wetlands and buffers,streams and buffers, and hazard areas using the buffers proposed in the October 2003 draft of the critical areas ordinance,e.g. 165 feet on a Class 1 or 2 stream and 300' on a class.1 wetland. 5 Gross acres minus proposed critical areas ordinance acres. 6 Number of housing units after subtracting for proposed critical areas,right of way,and market supply factor. The market supply factor takes into account whether a parcel is vacant or redevelopable. 12/09/03 ATTACHMENT 4 ANALYSIS IMPACT OF INCREASING CLASS 2 AND CLASS 3 WETLAND BUFFERS TROSSACHS PROJECT err:- • ! I i pip, 0A „eh... ,.,,, ,,;:.47,p.rin,.., m Two-4‘,10%jazz_ 46'.row .-::::: : ', , '‘7414w NE X looirlioa we ma sh um!"al ''Iiii °'' ,:,...i,":',•11-:,,,'41'.',, 4,14,:trat 41114s-oitryhtleiri ..49 ....=___t IRECREATION TRACT 'Cte'' . •� ,'' ,t 1 -F�`,,,•._- JLANDSCAPE TRACT/OPEN SPACE fY' 414.4 (@ _ !SENSITIVE AREA TRACT jA �. �4 .•C®d •�� 4 1 'PLATTED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS - INEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTS S a., % f�-NM Y k Si•%� • - -'FUTURE RE DEVELOPMENT FAMILY J!{' '. I", q m -pipt�i',�. . .., ' !DETENT!FUTURE NTRAC •• '' .3� (c %t4tt ! ,e AL, y d 'SCHOOL SITE TRACT a !SCHOOL SITE .* • !Ill 1.' 70 ..�I►./,,.�• ' � - r �� 4�i�� ��/ y �Y� .�i+ 0, . T • � �'At , SEa , ♦ .„ :.FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MMEW pre S"..s.IN..), v44A-40i.r48am117.aa'O0Pa W;:,5-', BEAVER LANE 'ea",�L4.•I1II v4A.: . 'Y ,.:-P05:f1;a.t zl.-lki1.4%e.•*til.p1.,1t..t lk'.l",\eli•l,4 / _ i c•* C.r�l- .ev; rr1.'�f 46ff -, ', SCHOOL ,\\\\,\4 r A!f . 1 .,P ia-'l,11.ip,p 4,t•f 4\ie'Op' a �4$ '& � � . 3■10 tb76 r '� sew at; & �� I tfi > f� ��• tab .1� . ,,o ■ r 6 , er ` r P ] . 'iy, 0 ki' 11, Vi „itRod► � -, :, R - '_ 1 �ot,,,,o,,,, 111PIFIllp , kttb to**4A1, I IRO I VY =,. 1111',111011.1,1 eft al lirimm", : .. . __--- wT,.E v..l.Ro. 7 ,o„,_„/ * THE AREA DEPICTED WITHIN THE RED DOT PATTERN (APPROXIMATELY 125 ACRES), IS A GRAPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF EXPANDED WETLAND BUFFERS PER THE KING COUNTY DRAFT CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE APPLIED TO TROSSACHS AND BEAVER LAKE ESTATES. * THE 125 ACRES ELIMINATED FROM DEVELOPABLE AREA BY EXPANDED BUFFER WIDTHS WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 500 LOTS/UNITS. MOTE.THIS IS A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND MAT NAVE DISCREPANCIES FROM FINAL PLATS. SAMMAMISH,WASHINGTON PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION : 2003 KING COUNTY DRAFT CAO BEAVER LAKE ESTATES&TROSSACHS ATTACHMENT 5 ANALYSIS IMPACT OF INCREASING CLASS 2 AND CLASS 3 WETLAND BUFFERS BEAVER CREST PROJECT ........ 4- - :=_,H,,,, ::,::, / — "-c, " K -- ,i) II . Lv LAI ‘ ti ....,... Preliminary interpretation: UO32 king County Draft CAO- Current Classification: Current Classification: Current Classification Class 2 Wetland Class III Stream Class HI Stream 50 Buffer 25'Buffer 25'Buffer ,—\ Proposed Classification: Proposed Classification: Proposed Classification: Category III Wetland Type'II'Water Type Type'N'Water Type , 100'Buffer 65'Buffer 6S'Buffer \ "r5c,„ " '''' "7.'7-1 . ,*:. ..--711077 *, -7 4 7.7.71 ,,,,„,-4 1 , .. , , .,,,.,.. I ,,, __i_i_c •,...t,,,,,4, _ • , -,... =4, ra, . . , , 11 c... II -.-.*•.' . .:), .\\/ 2., : -. ---, N., • ..,\ , `i-i'-',.",t,I.,*A.,11P \ ------ h,....,'1.'",,- •/‘-,,,,, .',.„,, , . ....0 ]111:--------- '0t ' • % .',„, %. :'"!IMF,It, :'''' ' I/ 4-•. \-'•- ' %. .-.:-.-.k A , ,. ."/ -,v, ..„. / .. el = • ( --,:' - l'-'' ..,, t $ 'r., ' P •S'• if / -:'. . , . . . , •- ,L,.., — is c-- /- liii: ,L.,er1, -,,o ., # .,le-t---g :ll% ;Imilimp;?.,,, '1,4,`, ':'," `• ' ..i:iirttic."':)1!1.-- 11111 '''.,;-1::.,',,,;;;;Ri,..:,,,,,.tt,,,r1:'-•..: ::,i'L;;,,,,,,:.,,,!: . .'.7 7,t::1''' ' ,,,.„.,,,, . ma „,,.,1 . , ilt i, ItN, '1/4'"'-r—Ivnift, •,, ,„.. ,..t.,,,,,.. 9i.,11to, .: oh ,,. ". -''' .,,,,,fr 1,:i.,* '1 yt e,4i -3-, •,4 _____, < $:21.7.11 V wir,,,,,,,,,,..,.4,,, ,,,,, 06 •..--- , - ,,,.,* ,,,, ,,., , 'ill' Ig:-7 k.''.'''''\ ,, ;,?.•1441i. 'F.' • . : 1.,v4,5%,' \ 'MN ---, L 4 ISI*V \ • , „..,,,,y.,,,,..) 2- .,, ..,.. I. / \ I = c tfAiki-v•Zii;',,,' -i-41-1/';'‘ Ig,''',0''''''.' ,,,"'. ' ' ::' D -.44.,42t.ik(4,,A4,•'?:,i,, ,,- ...„.,_ _ __----t— rA WI •-• `,'.9'104.1 ,, ,,,,v,.,4-, ::::;:cA'fieit''''' ', 's I .z ill , ,..„.......... ,. „ , : .-.. Class 2 Wetland SO'Buffer Proposed Classlficaticne Current Classification: Category II Wetland Class 3 Wetland 200 Buffer 25 Buffer Proposed Classification: *The area depicted within the red dash pattern Category IV Wetland is a graphical interpretation of expanded critical SO'Buffer area buffers per the King County draft Critical Areas Ordinance applied to Beaver Crest. *The 15 acres eliminated from developable area Legend by expanded buffer widths would result in the loss of approximately 90 lots/units. I Single Family Lots ._,-0.:-5-Xi Wetland Multi Family Lots I Sensitive Area Buffer .I Park/Open Space Tract ""'...„. Proposed Critical Areas 5 Ordinance Buffer I .Detention Tract -- north —)) 95303SP I Feb 7.2003 ATTACHMENT 6 ANALYSIS IMPACT OF INCREASING CLASS 2 WETLAND BUFFER HAMMER PROPERTY **ow i if i :P Y a Y $! t gal ti 1 1 Ili iE • 9i it i Mg r li g ifL. A t 11 is II ib — — — — �� — - , '_�„., 3N AV-• 14 s4 \s _ r_ _ .___1 _ __ �• o N — N ,..... - Y hs- Pli s •✓a i •\g, w !F.........„ i f S. +0 (44 - _____—__....,% Nr., 4r •.,.„ �d6.ODI�� 1yy may„_.,,. i �. C 'w� f�L, Myy 8 N 4 w _ \ _DM.SS3 ^ .. WI , 51fis • ..4, • a +‘<�, ~mil. -i- i: 4rS I��+ t if a 4 \:. O — "'rw -.. -\ �,`I `il • it a� i 5k .N ~ \Z ,`\ � t A i + + a `w O + + �� C e Z • \ at Q� V, - i 010 \ -,,...... , r , \ ,... , .S „.._____, 1\s, ,N, 1 \i, I i \ I 5'--_ "-� ' L.)-- i �T. , /‘ ,5. \ . art 2 g * i ,�.''' _.....` t ?i .."----4 1 i1 Irmo •,.., if ii hi it P PER a I igq $� . If_ .ill ifr .'! "--. ..,_,/ \\-'-' \ - I- - — — a i M u r \� i '.`I.'. s v....„2" . ,.. Ito'4 -,..., Aria h4'; i, : .09., . . •-•. ' Alli. ; **',., . .:-.-N• 4 7::- .‘,. NI _• . . Et 1/// .Z,,,I/ /',1\"\II:H \ ;Z1 1.6. . . **•: + .1.,.4, ,/f/ 5. ---1-' g• , ..4. . • , • , . , ,.,,,;/ , \\ : . . . .0 ii ,..A. 1 / 11. la .. 1-, , *'* • * f;*-1+ . .47:0•0"/ " . :.„ ... \ - t. g , \ ., , If - ,. . ' , MN. r: OP . i . i . i . +1,10041 • /‘....,-4,...... \ = \' MO I / • s ✓✓✓/ \ '''* • CII C ' " : : / + „• �` `� • Ali N..„._. , q 4 g- . 'fl/z-,/$. / .-".'•- -.... . --I - 3 = a • ►/ _ ---4 • 'e4/ i 1 I .1 / , ATTACHMENT 7 ANALYSIS IMPACT OF INCREASING CLASS 2 WETLAND BUFFER HYPOTHETICAL 5 ACRE LOT wetland S acre <Jt 6-ch2-1 cx re a -_ 2/7, 780 46' - t.)4410,..A aram- - y3,Sdo �3 a�Y 4/FOP� Sv b uP Pe r - (2o v 100 ' [45 le ca re a - Int 2/4 50 foot buffer Extra 150 buffer area LA-5 G“` �+"�� - 57 3/6 rtr,,`;,.`q. > 4 K IYS Svc - 7 5-6 0 4 l0K 11- Extent of 200' buffer 4/4.4 5 acre lot boundary S a c v-e of a re, - 2/7, 7PO46 50 foot buffer ',..Class 2 wetland - s-/301,/ 975 308' � 44.4 E4 �► wb e. are -/21 ?A zir o8v sb via I b K r - !LG,IO'1 4 30g` usd6 e0 - U Cyt .gut Netts pH- ;, ,, CITXF RENTON ..0 r Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor CITY OF RENTON March 24, 2005 APR 0 5 2005 SUBJECT: Critical Areas Ordinance REIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:30 AM 7th Floor/Council Conference Room City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This is not a public hearing, but a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding this meeting, please phone Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, 4(17e-n."- oe„..J Dan Clawson, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6501 RENTON w AHEAD OF THE CURVE •.�� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Suzanne Krom Campbell Mathewson Farideh Mastan 4715 1/236th Ave. SW Century Pacific, L.P. 13810 SE 42nd Place Seattle, WA 98126-4715 1501 Fourth Ave., Suite 2140 Bellevue, WA 98006 Seattle, WA 98101 Richard A. Gumpert Dean Radford Daniel E. Pentilla Independent Development Co. King County Journal WDFW Habitat Program 10933 84th Place NE 600 Washington Ave. S P.O. Box 1100 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kent, WA 98003-5707 LaConner, WA 98257 Matthew Mega, AICP Tom Malphrus Garret Huffman Seattle Audubon Society Friends of the Black River South King County Manager Master Builders Association 8050 35th Ave. NE 18713 102nd Ave. SE 335 — 116th Ave. SE Seattle, WA 98115 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 PGP, Inc. Brad Olschefski Sandra Lange, Planner Attn: Renee Schaefer 6672 — 156th Ave. WA DOE—Shorelands & Environ. 1325 —4th Ave, Suite 500 Bellevue WA 98006 32190— 160th Ave. SE Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Donna J. Bunten Traci L. Shallbetter Lowell Anderson WA Dept. of Ecology Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 8225 S. 128th St. P.O. Box 47600 1501 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98178 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Seattle, WA 98101-1688 David Halinen Chad Armour Jerry Brennan Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 6500— 126th Ave. SE 3405 Lake Washington Blvd. 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98004 Richard Robohm James C. Hanken Kristina Cerise Wetland Specialist, WA DOE Law Offices of James C. Hanken Buck & Gordon 32190— 160th Ave. SE 999 Third Ave., Suite 3210 2025 — 1st Ave., Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98121 Suzanne Krom Don Merlino Michael Merlino c/o Halinen Law Offices, P.S. c/o Halinen Law Offices, P.S. P.O. Box 16155 8th 8th Seattle, WA 98116 10500 NE St., Suite 1900 10500 NE St., Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98004 • March 21,2005 Nor' Renton City Council Minutes `✓ Page 92 Continuing,Judge Jurado reported that another factor negatively affecting court revenues is a decision of the Washington State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee regarding the collection of costs as a result of agreements with defendants. Due to the decision that the costs collection is unlawful, he noted that the agreements are no longer possible. Judge Jurado also reviewed the reasons for his finding that a portion of Renton's criminal trespass ordinance is unconstitutional. Responding to Mayor Keolker-Wheeler's inquiries, Judge Jurado described the traffic infraction calendar process, and explained the reasons why domestic violence cases are dismissed. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Critical Areas accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Ordinance public hearing to consider Renton's Best Available Science critical areas regulations and Shoreline Master Program Growth Management Act integration proposal. Lisa Grueter, consultant with Jones & Stokes Associates, stated that the purpose of the proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act(SMA) mandates, as well as Renton's Comprehensive Plan and goals for critical area protection, taking into consideration Renton's urban and environmental context. She noted that the City's protection of critical areas is multifaceted, and includes City ownership of some sensitive lands, regional collaboration with other jurisdictions,capital improvement programming, and critical area regulations. Ms. Grueter reviewed the City's current regulations, and listed the steps that have been taken so far in the development of the proposal. In regard to the State requirements,Ms. Grueter explained that the GMA requires protection of the following critical areas: wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas,and geologically hazardous areas. GMA also requires the use of Best Available Science(BAS) in City policies and regulations, which is defined as the use of information generated from a valid scientific process. The SMA requires that the Shoreline Management Program(SMP) be a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the City provide equivalent protection for shorelines of the State. She pointed out that the City must be able to demonstrate how BAS has been included in its plans and regulations. Ms. Grueter then reviewed the four main components of the City's proposal. • 1. BAS Review. Ms. Grueter relayed that consultants conducted BAS literature reviews for both streams and wetlands. Additionally, an example code comparison was conducted on aquifer recharge,flood hazards,geologic hazards, and procedures. 2. Policy Amendments. Ms. Grueter noted the movement of the SMP policies to the Comprehensive Plan land use and environment elements. She also noted the addition of two shoreline topics, and the restructuring of the shoreline use priority policies. Ms. Grueter indicated that the environment element is the City's main focus, with its rivers and stream policies and floodplain policies. • March 21,2005 `or. Renton City Council Minutes *1'1" Page 93 3. SMP Map Amendments. Ms. Grueter explained that the amendments address the map and text inconsistencies on the Black River, address the unclassified areas on the Cedar River, and clarify interpretation of aquatic environments. 4. Regulation Amendments. In regard to streams, Ms. Grueter stated that a stream classification system, stream buffers, and stream mitigation standards are proposed with the following principles: no net loss of stream function; inner and outer buffers (standard un-enhanced buffers and reduced buffers with enhancements); and standard and flexible review processes. She then reviewed the class system for water types as follows: Class 1 -Shorelines of the State(Salmonid Bearing) -Lake Washington, May Creek, Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek. Class 2-Salmonid Bearing Stream-Examples are portions of Honey Creek, Maplewood Creek, and Panther Creek. Class 3 -Year Round, Non-Salmonid Bearing-Examples are Kennydale Creek, and Rolling Hills Creek. Class 4 -Intermittent, Non-Salmonid Bearing-Examples are portions of Maplewood Creek and Gypsy Creek. Class 5 -Artificial, Non-Salmonid Bearing -Where no natural channel existed before. For the critical areas regulations, Ms. Grueter illustrated the processes for the different regulations and stream types using flow charts. She pointed out that Class 1 is different because it is in the SMP, and therefore administrated differently since it is a shared responsibility with the State. There are no shoreline exemptions in Class 1; some are exempt from a permit but none are exempt from the requirements. Additionally, Ms. Grueter used examples of already developed sites to further illustrate the processes. Continuing with the regulation amendments, Ms. Grueter explained that for the wetlands approach, the regulations retain the current wetland class system; retain standard buffers, but require that all proposals review whether criteria are met for increased buffers; and modify some exemptions to reduce potential for cumulative impacts. She reported that consultant Parametrix who conducted the initial BAS review, also assessed the characteristics of 17 representative wetlands in Renton and its Potential Annexation Area, and compared the City's and the Department of Ecology's differing methods of classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to protect existing functions and values. Ms. Grueter stated that the consultant determined that the City's classification system-together with its buffer requirements, its process to determine whether there is criteria that shows when a wider than standard buffer is appropriate, and its other code requirements - is sufficient to protect functions and values of wetlands in the City. She noted that minor regulation amendments are also proposed for the other critical areas. Moving on, Ms. Grueter stated that comments were received over time from State agencies, interest groups, and property owners. Responses to the comments included pointing out the flexibility of the regulations, or recommending additional supplemental amendments. She noted that the responses and supplemental recommendations concerned: existing and new • March 21,2005 "w.r Renton City Council Minutes `'"" Page 94 development and streams and lakes, criteria for Class 1 water buffer reduction, wetland exemption, wetland buffers, wildlife habitat, and other housekeeping and clarification changes. In conclusion,Ms. Grueter reported that the next steps are for the Planning and Development Committee to consider the comments from the public hearing, and then present its recommendations to the full Council in April. She pointed out that the State needs to approve the shoreline amendments; therefore, they will not immediately go into effect. Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, said 1)the City is responding to the State's requirement to update the critical areas regulations, and 2)the City has taken an approach to balance the goals of protecting the shorelines and wetlands with the Growth Management Act, as development in urban areas needs to continue. Public comment was invited. Correspondence was read from John Mauro,Livable Communities Coalition Director, 1617 Boylston Ave.,Suite 201, Seattle, 98122, suggesting five major improvements to the critical areas ordinance update concerning strengthening wetland protection, strengthening stream and riparian area protection, improving fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas protection, imposing substantive penalties for violations, and incorporating the "precautionary principle" that states that conservation planning should err on the side of protecting too much rather than protecting too little. Jerry Brennan, 3405 Lake Washington Blvd. N.,Renton, 98056, stated that he is one of many affected by the proposed change in buffers from 25 to 100 feet, and noted that BAS has changed over the approximately five years in which he has been trying to install a dock. He asked that Council not conduct second and final reading of the ordinance earlier than April 11th to allow him time to complete his project. Chuck Pillon, 15753 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd., Renton, 98059, stated that he is a 24-year veteran of law enforcement and has studied the public safety issues affected by BAS. He indicated that large woody debris in rivers and streams is supported by BAS, and he expressed concerns regarding the potential hazards of these debris installations to swimmers, and the potential risks to governmental entities. Mr. Pillon suggested that caution be used when applying BAS,especially when it affects public safety. Becky Stanley, Conservation Chair for the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, 4108 48th Ave. S., Seattle, 98118, stated that Renton's critical areas ordinance does not adequately protect water quality, and she expressed concerns about the following: 1)the exemption from protection of all wetlands less than 2,200 square feet, 2) the protection of only three categories of habitat for fish and other wildlife, and 3)the stream and wetland buffers are not defensible as BAS. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue,98004,expressed his opposition to the proposed changes to eliminate the Class 2 wetland exemption and to reduce the Class 3 wetland exemption. He indicated that conceptually, the smaller wetlands have a relatively de minimis effect on the environment, and the current exemptions were carefully considered and balanced with property rights issues. If the changes are made as recommended,Mr. Halinen suggested that at a minimum,a 1,000 foot exemption for Class 2 wetlands be allowed. March 21,2005 'two Renton City Council Minutes '� Page 95 Jim Bonwell,9616 146th Ave. SE, Renton, 98055, stated that his property contains a Class 1 stream and salmon, and a wetland is located to the east of his property. He expressed concerns regarding the way property is developed, and described the effect a nearby horse farm has on a wetland located downstream from it. Mr. Bonwell pointed out that people must pay attention to how their property maintenance and development practices affect the water quality, habitat, and vegetation on his and other properties. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding large woody debris, Andy Kindig,consultant with A.C. Kindig & Co., stated that the placement of woody debris usually has to do with a restoration project, which is not within the confines of the critical areas ordinance. Mr. Clawson indicated that characterizing the critical areas ordinance as an endangerment to children who swim is unreasonable. Councilman Persson stated that if someone is already in the process of obtaining a permit,the old rules still apply. City Attorney Larry Warren said that is generally true; however,depending on whether the development regulations or the environmental regulations are involved, an exception could be raised. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Appeal: Sunset Bluff regarding the appeals filed by SR 900 LLC and Herons Forever on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002). The Committee heard this appeal on &Herons Forever, PP-04-002 3/17/2005. After reviewing the record, the written presentations by both parties, and having heard oral argument, the Committee found that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommended that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: 1. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed plat development impacts. However,the Hearing Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat,certain conditions should be applied. The plat should be approved according to the conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 and 23. 2. There is some confusion about the fencing. Fencing is recommended in item 9 of the conditions to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and again in item 12 of the Hearing Examiner's conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences, one separating the residences from the drainage pond, and a second fence at the toe of the slope at the property line between the subject property generally to the south. 3. Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Hearing Examiner's report should be amended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, wildflowers, trees, and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by planting materials that already have some size to them. Noe 1` Y O &o ♦ � ♦ CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration Proposal March 21, 2005 • The purpose of the City's proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection, considering Renton's urban and environmental context. • What is Best Available Science (BAS)? GMA requires cities and counties to use information generated from a valid scientific process in developing policies and critical area regulations. BAS Sources may include research, monitoring, inventory, surveys, modeling, assessment, synthesis, and expert opinion. The City must also give special consideration to protection of anadromous fisheries. • Schedule. GMA requires the City to demonstrate compliance with BAS provisions in City policies and regulations. The original timeline was completion by December 2004. Adoption is projected in April 2005 at this time, including adjustments that the City Council may make. Following this public hearing, the package will go back to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for their recommendation to the full City Council in April. • Proposed Amendments would: * Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies especially the Environment Element. * Amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify streams/rivers/lakes and apply buffers. Proposed stream/lake buffers would increase from 25 feet to 35 to 100 feet depending on stream class. Buffers may be reduced with enhancement. * Modify exemptions, review criteria, and similar sections to improve or better document the wetland review process. * Make minor amendments to aquifer, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations, as well as general review procedures, e.g. modify review criteria, address volcanic hazards, etc. * Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies, address text and map inconsistencies along the Black River and Cedar River, and provide for shoreline buffers similar to Critical Areas Regulations,while responding to use priorities of the SMA. Council Hearing Handout 03-21-05_short_l.doc\ • r ifs: _ City of Renton: Critical Areas and Outline Shoreline Master Program Update . • What is the pu:rem! pose of the proposal? :i.,,g1::::; • What does State law require? m • What are the components of the proposal? City Council • Staff recommendations Public Hearing:3/21/05 • Schedule ii AP/ � r What is the purpose of the Purpose and Context proposal? • Meet: r. : - Growth Management Act(GMA), ilii,i1.. _- Shoreline Management Act(SMA),and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection,considering Renton's urban and environmental context. , ' ,n va i. k Context Context (2) • Founded along the Cedar and Black Rivers7:: • Land in City Ownership: and Lake Washington £;''° - Cit ide,Cit owns a _>. yw' y pprox.1450 acres of land - City's Downtown and key industries along major containing 248 acres of wetlands and much of it shorelines �� lying along streams/lakes - Much of City has been altered by past activities in Green River Valley alone,City owns approx.340 • City protection of critical areas is multifaceted: acres with approx.208 acres ofiwetlands City Ownership,regional collaboration,capital - Potential Annexation Area,City owns approx.27 14, programming,as well as critical area acres of land with 5 acres of wetlands regulations F. 1 *••tr Nome ter .. . ,.44 tt a s ' ytar „, �§ ) Is' 1 : g YY 'c ,7 J-7--?-:'5.- -4.::t'.1.a:*;,,itAiii,''till , , Renton Owned Parcels _ f Renton Owned Veley Parcels u•+. a Context (3) i Current City Regulations w • Regional planning forums:Renton participates • City Critical Area Regulations € in WRIA 8 and 9 efforts as well as GMPC Response to Local Community and GMA,I98os&1990$ '. •Shoreline Master Program • • City Capital Improvement Program 2005 to •Greenbelt Ordinance t 2010,includes: •FEMA Flood Hazard Regulations -Wetland mit.bank plan&construction$1.5 million •Wetlands Regulations - Springbrook Creek improvements including fish •Aquifer Protection R ons •Tree Cutbng/Land Clearing A passage:$1.3 million ,. -25 foot stream setback - Green River Ecosystem Restoration:$70,000 - Consolidated Critical Areas Ordinance in 1999 �� - May Creek Basin Plan Implementation:$275,000 •Streams-Reserved zr ter What steps have been completed? CRITICAL MFA•MON.IKE I1E W AAIION! '. •O SMOMNE WSIFR N.OSM•AMEM ENTS .n. awwmw •.nxwrr•r. ' • Inventory,analysis,draft regs-Nov 2003 to present ••--n _ -lam...Want.-.M.•••--.••••••••-n. r • Early Agency Review-Mar 2004 .r...• ^• ,...•.n.,.....rn..•®n.,•••••••,., • Public Review Draft-July 2004 "•"""•"^^^•• • Open Houses-July/August ...mown •.e••..•.rr zy - General Public Open House&Builder's Open House Summer 2004 ..•r...•.w.,,,�.d,•.,..,.,...,,,,,,•..,.,.••. _ • SEPA Review-July/August 2004 .uo....••• •••• ate,r - SEPA Appeal Sept 2004;HEX upheld City determination Dec 2004 ':'"',.4,'•""'"0..• • Revised Public Review Draft-Jan 05 •""" ......^-.--^'•-^°- ^.-^^^ ^••^F-^^-'•---, ..w •... • Planning Commission ,—"p n, , = ' - Meetings February/March 2005,prior briefings in 2003 and 2004 - - Hearing March 2,2005 „, ^ � • City Council:Planning and Development Committee briefings 2 r 'vine :Nook !II:';1,1,1j,l,,!„,,',1,:',. iei';'.1 What does State law require? State Requirements ir Growth Management Act(GMA)defines critical areas and requires their protection: a) wetlands; : • .' 3 b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; 5 • c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; \� t .- d) frequently flooded areas;and e) geologically hazardous areas. '�> (Some issues overlap) F (RCW 36.70A.030) s ;; V i. 1ems` 'r What does State law require?(2) What does State law require? (3) fr ' • Growth Management Act: • Criteria to demonstrate how BAS has been included in ,; >,;�; - Use best available science(BAS)in policies&regs. plans and regulations: - ,, .BAS-use iaormacon generated from a void scieradic processmaa - The policies and regulations adopted to protect critical areas; involves peer review,reputable methods,log/car cvnclusims'reasonabie I` =`;. miorences,quammalive ave/y s,inrormar/on p arced rn conlexr,and - Sources of BAS included in the process; pro son of references. Non-scientific information,e.g.legal,nodal,cultural,economic, .ens Sources may nclude research,monkori g,i ventory,su veys, '=rx and political,used to depart from BAS.If used,the jurisdiction: tyti modeling.assessment,synthesis,and expert opinion. s .Identities the non-scientific information in the record; Special consideration-protection of anadromous fisheries. •Explains the rationale for departing from science-based • Shoreline Management Act recommendations; if °_ - Shoreline Master Program part of Comprehensive Plan •Identifies potential risks to the functions and values of the critical Equivalent protection for Shorelines of the Slate area or areas at issue and any additional measures to limit risks. •Cedar River,May Creek,Sprirgbmok Creek,Black River,Lake ,3 ti Washington Oi What are the components of the proposal? Components of Proposal .., • t_ Best Available Science 4. Regulation Amendments - ' Review - Streams/Lakes €' - Streams - Wetlands # A , .. r - Wetlands - Other - Other critical areas -, • - Proposal consists of 1/26/05 „ 2. Policy Amendments draft with supplemental ,,= ¢.g" - Shoreline Master Program recommendations H Policy Amendments _ Supplemental changes 4 - Other Comprehensive Plan made in responses to v- Elements comments as of 3/16/05 .te,tv, 3 Shoreline Map Amendments completion of Planning 11 Commission Review 3 v.r *ow BAS Review OP Policy Amendments ir • Best Available Science Literature Reviews , • GMA/SMA Based: � Streams - SMP policies moved to Land Use&Environment Elements - Shoreline topics added- - Wetlands •Historic/Cultural/Sclentific/Educational • Example Code Comparison •Flood Damage Prevention - Restructuring of shoreline use priority policies Aquifer Recharge ,� • GMA/General Critical Areas: - Flood Hazards - Environment Element focus t7 - Geologic Hazards •ESA Task Force � •Rivers&stream policies and flood plain policies .' - Procedures ,ir ,: - Other Elements:Transportation,Utilities,&Economic a rIgOig �:y Development Map Recommendation Summary Shoreline Master Program Map Loved°. Current Class Proposed Class _ Amendments Black River-North Bank Nan.](nap and text) Natural,ems of Monster Road,• ' allow fin habitat enhaanonw,v. Bowl cosuol,and potentially Vira Baited public access. • Address SMP Map and Text conflicts on Black Wes°Monster Road,Urban River Black River-South Bank Natural(nap) Conservancy,east of Monster lik-A Urban(text) Road • Address unclassified areas on Cedar River West nf Monster Road,uban Cedar River along Golf Course Not classed in Renton SMP. Conservancy • Clarify interpretation of aquatic environments and Roo Regis Pyk-North King County applies Bank Conaervaney. Cedar River along Golf Course Not classed in Renton SMP. Conservancy amend use and Ron Regis Park-South King County applies allowances for waive recreation Bank Conservancy. — = Cedar River %i r '°" .r N w t,t w , - = - t 1' 'i . it "emk-' NN Pi due4 •ff - C N-- N. Ry jiff werrr. N ww. -. . •y r� Ay ace 'tea^fy A 4 Regulation Amendments— A .ti";: Streams/Lakes . Water Types Mapping - •• Regulations •• Principles • Class 1 Shorelines of the • Class 3-Year round,non- ,- State salmonid bearing(e.g. - Stream Classification - No-net-loss of stream Kennydale Creek,Rolling function ,. - Lake Washington - Stream Buffers r Hills Creek,etc.) a - Stream Mitigation - Inner and Outer Buffers - May Creek �\ • Class 4-Intermittent,non- - Cedar River ,� ` 5 Standards ••Standard Un-enhanced _ str salmonid bearing(e.g. .. •Reduced Enhanced - Black River portions of Maplewood Creek Standard and Flexible 1 - Springbrook Creek and Gypsy Creek) Review Processes • Class 2-Salmonid Bearing • Class 5-Artificial,non- :.I.: Stream(e.g.portions of salmonid bearing,where no Honey Creek,Maplewood natural channel existed Creek,Panther Creek,etc.) before , Ream Pining Regulations.lMau-f ukptUAedettlahi.rfti8ttltll Chit ft.ti Wean 4::-., j t� _ ',` 9,FendA iy SM. nme9e.ital 0.i4n?,, �3�rJ I at ] -i a _�?: NuSalnJaemom rerennUl Nen4VnmJil6:arinJ nomMWICC.J1 In... Men NaraueC9amel !Oj .- ' ; Nelmo or lateen Water,viac l l N __ +w ..r.. ems: y ° r.. , 1 4 a 1 J i *. � " r.,y.. WATER CLASSES »4 : ,---."`"" ei�DRAFT .-r ..._._r.=..`,- Bostic Promised Isolation eneU Uan M annulling Moss 1 Waters ; smm„ei we s.v. ._�r :.. '--��� 55 Williams— Cedar River(Class 1) I ..«». fe r.. .... ..M.. "`" • Std.buffer 100 feet s "'^vl I - Would eliminate much of --,i ® b the building at present r height&configuration — Reduced buffer Lie standards are possible — to 50 feet for multifamily SW "^"' in Urban Center •.... d�r -. . , g` r �,,,�,,�. - Demonstrate no-net-loss �,�� :..=a.'.." — Other improvement(City e, „„„ :` ,. � � ....,......... trail)intervenes 5 Nape .r Bristol at Southport— Lake Wash. MA (Class 1) Honey Creek Estates II (Class 2) • Std.buffer 100 feet Z E • Most of 100'buffer falls in • - Would eliminate some of the - a'-u' $:_' steep slope area where 3 _ building at present height and _ 44: development is unlikely - .,w R configuration • t ' • if developed with proposed "�� • • Reduced buffer possible to 50 regs.could lose a lot.Could feet for water enjoyment uses - 1 make up the lot if zone allows - Demonstrate no-net-loss . "''> clustering. • •}' 1, *, - Except for at a comer,the t • Additional impervious surface "t* k 50-k setback would be met $ would not be able to be F - Existing developed areas can ,. ''. added in the buffer area t$ - €. retain impervious surfaces ySHj • Demonstrate no-net-loss of G Averaged buffers/setbacks -. .— are possible shoreline ecological function r to reduce or average buffer - Bulkhead may also be a �. factor to reduce buffer. $9'� tap: SE 128th Street, near Post Office (Class 4) Wetlands Approach 35- -r I- -ly f•Ils it i '' • Retain current wetland class system ,4 abutting wetland area �- 1 �. • • Retain standard buffers,but require that all proposals • Where there is no abutting wetland,the stream buffer • • review whether criteria are met for increased buffers would be 10 ft wider than �i I Wit, • Modify some exemptions to reduce potential for current 25-ft std. eia Little effect on the commercial f �F cumulative impacts,e.g.road/utility expansions,small wetlands z plat/site plan r- +r,}s. t • No-net-loss of shoreline #lgy; vt. ecological function would <- „need to be demonstrated "'" .- *'.' Iheil Wetlands —Additional Analysis (1) : • Wetlands—Additional Analysis (2) • A surveyof 17 representative wetlands in • Parametrix conclusions,the result of: P Renton performed by Parametrix (1)the City's wetland classification system, Assessed the characteristics of wetlands present in „, • (2)buffer designations based on that classif.system, the city;and (3)process to determine when wider than std.buffers !Tr; - Compared City's and DOE's differing methods of �' are required to protect functions and values,and classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to (4)other code req'ts for storm water quality and protect existing functions and value. quantity controls, ,a _ ...will protect functions and values of wetlands that exist within the City. 6 %.r N.! Other Critical Areas Comments • Make minor amendments to: • Comments received over time from: - aquifer, - Agencies:State Departments of Ecology,Fish and flood hazard, Wildlife,and Community/Trade/Econ.Dev. - geologic hazard, - Interest Groups:Seattle Audubon Society,Master - habitat conservation regulations,and ,',6 Builders • - general review procedures, - Property Owners: • For example, modify review criteria,address volcanic •Barbee Mill and Baxter property attorneys r,orwi:I hazards,etc. •Richard Gumpert,property owner ii,t,,,ii,;.!.i.,:. . •Greg Fawcett,property owner •Stoneway property attorney •Jerry Brennan,property owner ' -, Responses and Supplemental Recommendations Next Steps • Existing development and streamsllakes: - mPsvwus eufaos -r - can request man*.buffer.edctwn or a waging for adddicns/ndevelopment ' ': "' ,ti - angle family can rebuild•a is.where b'(suggest cad•woo.rd.l " • New development and streams/akes:flexibility with administrative buffer ,, averaging and reductions �, • Criteria for Class t water buffer reduction:Clarify use priorities g. • Wetland exemption.keep proposal to balance BAS/wetland protection& code administration • • Wetland buffers:Retain proposed approach but add: `'' • ' - Soo•Creek Policy - Reference DOE Option 3 when considering buret...Wee, ,,g P-V, • Wildlife Habitat:Focus on State listed&wetland dependent species • • Other housekeeping/clarification changes w 77 Ili-t ♦h Next Steps • After public hearing,comments considered by Council's Planning and Development • Committee t • Planning and Development Committee meeting(s)and recommendation,early April • City Council Action,April :: 7 star PIXie{,e; From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk art..dA a ln< To: John Mauro, LCC Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2005 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Comments on Renton CAO update Dear Mr. Mauro: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Copy will be presented to Council and made a part of the Public Hearing record tonight. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"John Mauro, LCC" <john@livablecoalition.org> 3/21/2005 2:24:53 PM >>> Dear Councilmembers: Attached are comments regarding your critical areas ordinance update. I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's hearing, but that I am interested in the process and any other opportunities for public involvement. Please contact me with any questions you might have. Sincerely, John Mauro John Mauro Director Livable Communities Coalition 1617 Boylston Ave. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206.343.3074/ Fax: 206.709.8218 <mailto:iohn a(�livablecoalition.orq>johnt livablecoalition.orq <http://www.livablecoalition.orq>www.livablecoalition.orq 'goal *ere A4 March 21, 2005 LIVABLE Renton City Council COMMUNITIES City of Renton COALITION Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 1617 Boylston Avenue,Suite 201 Seattle,WA 98122 council(aci.renton.\ a.us 206.343.3074 206.709.8218(fax) RE: Critical Areas Ordinance Update Recommendations, info(a;livablecoalition.org RMC 4-3, Renton Municipal Code www.livablecoalition.org Protecting, Dear Renton City Councilmembers: Restoring Livable Communities Coalition is a broad-based coalition of and neighborhood, affordable housing, transportation, land-use, and Maintaining environmental advocates in the King County region. We advocate Healthy, for and promote healthy, equitable, and sustainable communities, believing in protection of and access to clean water and air, open Equitable space, forests, farmlands and wildlife habitat for all citizens. LCC and is a coalition of 25 other organizations with individual members in the City of Renton. Sustainable Communities The Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) should be designed to protect In King property, water quality, and human safety(from flooding and erosion), while including flexibilities to ensure responsible County development and that taxpayers save money in the long run from allowing natural systems, as often as possible, to do work in place BOARD of DIRECTORS of costly mechanical systems. Janice Cannon-Kyte Thank you for the opportunity to submit our following recommendations; we hope they are of assistance. Please include Allen Cox them in the official record. Also, please register us as a party of record and keep us informed of future opportunities for public John Healy involvement and any decision points. Jennifer Joseph In order to better protect public health, safety and general welfare, Paul Kampmeier we would like to add the following five major suggestions for improving RMC 4-3: Matt Mega Aaron Ostrom Gina Stark Paul Wiesner Renton City Council r.✓ ••✓ Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 2 of 9 1. STRENGTHEN WETLAND PROTECTION ■ Isolated and smaller wetlands need protection. Renton's draft CAO (Section M (1), line 2272) proposes an exemption for smaller Category III wetlands. Smaller and even isolated wetlands provide important habitat functions, however, and filling wetlands as an exemption will result in a net loss of functions and values and, therefore, runs counter to case lawl'2 and to the Growth Management Act (GMA)3. Furthermore, wetlands smaller than 2,200 square feet provide functions and values—and Renton has a state mandate to protect those functions and values regardless of if they are equivalent to or connected to larger systems. Best available science counters some assumptions that may underlie the draft language: (emphasis added): As with exempting a certain wetland size, there is no scientific basis for exempting wetland impacts under any particular size without an analysis of the cumulative effects of the exemption. A study of the management area is needed in order to measure the net result of the exemption as applied over time.4 There is absolutely no scientific justification for exempting isolated wetlands from regulation(Volume 1, Chapter 5). Isolated wetlands are generally defined as those wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from other aquatic features. Hydrologic isolation is not a determinant factor in the function of wetlands. Isolated wetlands in Washington perform many of the same important functions as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Many wildlife species, including amphibians and waterfowl, are particularly dependent on isolated wetlands for breeding and foraging.5 ■ Wetland buffers widths are inadequate to protect wetland functions and values. Pilchuck Audubon Soc'y v. Snohomish Cty[Pilchuck II],CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0047c, Final Decision and Order P. *21, 1995 WL 903206, *21 (December 6, 1995). 2 Tribes v. Snohomish County[Tulalip], CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0029,FDO, January 8, 1997,13. 3 RCW 36.70A a Washington State Department of Ecology.August 2004 Draft.Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands.Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-024. Section 8.3.3.2. 5 Ibid. Section 8.3.3.3. 2 Renton City Council *ewe _✓ Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 3 of 9 A state report from August 2004 notes that despite the wetland regulatory programs in place, the data show that impacts continue and that we have not achieved the federal and state goal of"no net loss."6 Buffers in Renton's draft ordinance should be increased to adequate distances given in the scientific literature. As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), Best Available Science (BAS)must be incorporated into the update of all Critical Areas Ordinances; proposed wetland buffer numbers cast some doubt into the rigor of the City of Renton's BAS report. We encourage a further investigation of the Washington State Office of Community Development list of BAS citations. We also suggest that criteria from State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development's (CTED's) Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas8 be incorporated. If a deviation from BAS is desired, a full documentation of reasons should be provided. Major discrepancies in state recommendations and RMC are noted in the following tables: Department of Ecology Wetland Buffer Recommendations Intensity Wetlands Category of Use r Category 1 I Category 2 ( Category 3 Category 4 High 300 feet 200 feet ' 100 feet 50 feet Moderate j 250 feet 150 feet 75 feet 35 feet Low 200 feet 100 feet 50 feet 35 feet City of Renton Proposed Wetland Buffers Wetlands Category Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Standard Buffer 100 feet 50 feet 25 feet The City of Renton uses buffer distances that are significantly smaller than those recommended by the state. This is a particular concern for us, since this deviates substantially from the best available science. The best available science supports Category 1 buffers in a range from 200 to 300 feet, depending on land use intensity; the City of Renton uses a distance less than half of that supported by 6 Ibid. Section 3.1. 7 Washington State Office of Community Development. March 2002. Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science For Designating and Protecting Critical Areas http://www.cted.wa.gov/uploads/BAS Citations.Final.pdf 8 State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. 2003. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Appendix A:Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. http://www.cted.wa.govluploads/Appendix_A.pdf. 3 Renton City Councils Name Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 4 of 9 BAS for high intensity land uses. For Category 2 buffers, BAS supports between 100 to 200 feet, while the City's proposed buffers are clearly not in this range. The City's Category 3 buffers are set at 50 feet; 50 feet is generally understood as the baseline buffer distance for wetlands. Since the City is proposing a 3-tier system (and, again, we recommend a 4-tier classification system), we suggest using 50 feet for Category 4 wetlands and increasing protection for Category 3 wetlands to at least 75 feet. The City must provide evidence in the record as to the reasons for deviating from the best available science and actions taken to address potential risks to critical area functions and values (WAC 365-195-915). Relying on previously established standards is unacceptable. A standard scientifically-governed baseline buffer distance is necessary to ensure no net loss. We recommend increases in buffer distances to comply with state recommendations and best available science. Furthermore, we recommend substantial revisions of the buffer averaging and reduction section to ensure no net loss of functions and values. • The critical areas ordinance should incorporate a 4 tier classification system We strongly suggest that you update the City of Renton's 3 class system to a 4 class system. Aside from more updated information, if you adopt the 2004 Rating System, the development community will be less encumbered by having to rate wetlands twice—once for state standards and once for city standards—and, instead, merely need to rate them once. We support this more streamlined process and the protection it affords. • Mitigation replacement ratios should follow BAS. Mitigation success rates, as documented by scientific studies and state BAS documents, are often very low. Likewise, mitigation has "not been successful for various reasons and [has] resulted in lost acreage, wetland types, and wetland functions (Castelle et al., 1992b; Ecology, 2001; Mockler et al., 1998)." While restoration has an important role to play, especially in important but heavily impacted environments, studies of mitigation show that enhancement is not working. As the authors of Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study-Phase 2, Evaluating Success, conclude: • Only 22 percent of enhanced wetlands were achieving all measures, while 44 percent of enhanced wetlands were not achieving any measures. • Only 11 percent of enhanced wetlands adequately compensated for the impact, while 78 percent of enhanced wetlands did not compensate. 4 Renton City Council •`.. `✓ • Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 5 of 9 Enhancement projects did a poor job compensating for the impacts to wetlands, primarily because enhancement activities provided a low contribution to wetland functions. • Over 50 percent of the enhancement sites provided minimal or no contribution to overall wetland functions. • 75 percent of enhancement sites provided minimal or no contribution to the general habitat function. The results of this study are troubling, since the vast majority of enhancement activities focus on improving habitat by adding vegetative structure and species diversity. If the majority of enhancement areas are not even providing a moderate contribution to wildlife habitat, then enhancement projects are resulting in a net loss of wetland acreage and functions.9 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2:Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Publication # 04-06-024)10 provides a solid synthesis of current BAS for western Washington wetlands and mitigation replacement ratios. We suggest incorporating the ratios in this document and not allowing reductions since this poses a threat to wetland functions and values. 2. STRENGTHEN STREAM AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION • Stream buffers are too narrow to protect the functions and values of riparian areas. RMC 4-3 requires buffers of as low as 35 feet (not including potential averaging), while the best available science supports buffers between 150 and 250 feet. The City of Renton's stream buffers are significantly less than those supported by the state and best available science. 9 Johnson,Patricia and Dana L. Mock,Andy McMillan,Lauren Driscoll,&Tom Hruby. Feb 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study-Phase 2, Evaluating Success p. 84(Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands&Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA,Publication No. 02-06-009). This report has been identified as best available science by Washington State Office of Community Development's Citations of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas pp. 8 -9(March 2002). 10 See Table 9 on page 15 of Appendix 8-C: Washington State Depaitiuent of Ecology. August 2004. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-024. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas wetlands/vo12/Appendix%208- C%20external%20review%20draft.pdf. 5 Renton City Council _ *woe Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 6 of 9 Not only do stream buffers perform necessary habitat functions, but they help protect human drinking water, aid in flood protection, and help account for special consideration for anadromous fisheries, as required in the 1995 GMA amendments. A 35-foot buffer provides negligible functions, according to the best available science, and will not provide for the state mandate (and CAO regulation) of"no net loss"to stream functions. Buffers larger than those provided are required—greater than 100 feet in most cases—are necessary for reasonable sediment control,Il nutrient removal, 12,13,14,1) pathogen removal,'6 and wildlife habitat,'?"8"9'2o,2t,22 among other valued functions. Recent findings on floodplain management, as well, illustrate the importance of protecting human safety and property with adequate buffers: It is the latter reason, viz.,habitat protection, that has spurred countless Washington communities to define buffers, usually through the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section of local CAOs. These buffers often encompass areas larger than identified floodways; on smaller streams, they normally are wider than the floodway. This provision is perhaps the most effective floodplain management practice in the State at this time.23 11 Sheldon,D.,T.Hruby,P.Johnson,K.Harper,A. McMillan, S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale. Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State,Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#03-06-016. 12 McMillan,A.2000. The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implication for the Management of Wetlands. M.S.Thesis. Olympia,WA:The Evergreen State College. 13 Castelle and Johnson.2000.Riparian Vegetation Effectiveness.National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.Technical Bulletin#799. 14 Belt, G.H.and J. O'Laughlin. 1994.Buffer strip design for protecting water quality and fish habitat. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 9(2): 41-45. 15 McMillan,A.2000. 16 Sheldon,et al. 2003. 17 Castelle,A.J.,C. Conolly,M. Emers,E.D. Metz, S. Meyer,M. Witter, S. Mauermann,M. Bentley,D. Sheldon, and D.Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios:Defining Equivalency. Publication No.92-08. Olympia,WA:Washington Department of Ecology. 18 Chase,V.,L.Deming,and F. Latawiec. 1995.Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters:A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Concord,NH: Audubon Society of New Hampshire. 19 Fischer,R.A.,C.O.Martin,and J.C.Fischenich.2000.Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for water quality and wildlife.In P.J. Wigington and R.L.Beschta,Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources Association. 20 Groffman,P.M.,A.J.Gold,T.P.Husband,R.C. Simmons,and W.R.Eddleman. 1991.An Investigation into Multiple Uses of Vegetated Buffer Strips. NarrangansettBay Project No.NBP-91-63.Providence,RI. 21 Howard,R.J.and J.A.Allen. 1989.Streamside Habitats in Southern Forested Wetlands:Their Role and Implications for Management.U.S.Forest Service. 22 McMillan.2000. 23 Washington State Department of Ecology.February 2004.Floodplain Management in the State of Washington A Status Report as of February 2004. Page 10. 6 Renton City Council Num.? Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 7 of 9 We encourage you to take the best available science into account and make serious increases to riparian buffers. • Stream typing should be done in accordance to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources new lettering system. Instead of using stream typing that is specific to Renton, we suggest that you use the WDNR lettering system. This will allow for a more accurate and reasonable designation of stream types and, subsequently,better protection of stream functions and values. While an adaptive management approach allows for possible changes, integrating this new lettering system as other jurisdictions are doing—would streamline the process, allow for easier use by the development community, and result in better and more updated protections. 3. IMPROVE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS PROTECTION • Other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aside from those assigned, should be protected. RMC 4-3 defines "critical habitat" areas for protection as one of the following: i. The documented presence of non-salmonids ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or iii. Category 1 wetlands We encourage the City to protect feeding,breeding, and nesting grounds for species of local importance and other non-endangered and non-threatened species. We also suggest incorporating protections to Priority Habitats, Areas Associated with Priority Species, Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems, State Natural Area Preserves,Natural Resource Conservation Areas, and Land Useful or Essential for Preserving Connections Between Habitat Blocks and Open Spaces—all recommended by the state. 4. ADDRESS ADDITIONAL CONCERNS • We suggest substantive penalties for violations. We feel strongly that the penalty should fit the violation and discourage noncompliance. Given major impacts to critical areas around the Puget Sound region, other jurisdictions have increased fines to $3000 per violation per day (see the City of Edmonds, for example). We suggest a similar increase to assure the 7 Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 8 of 9 protection of critical areas—and the health and human safety of the citizens—of Renton. 5. CONSIDER THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE Consistent with this principle, conservation planning should be conservative in the sense of being more willing to err on the side of protecting too much rather than protecting too little. It is more efficient and cost-effective to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later24, and a"low risk" strategy,based upon the best available science, will provide the best chance for protecting critical areas. This basic principle of conservation biology is known as the "precautionary principle."25 WAC 365-195-920 supports this approach and advises that where cities lack scientific information, they should take a precautionary or"no risk" approach in which development and land use activities are strictly limited until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved. WAC 365-195-920 also advises local governments to employ an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and non-regulatory actions will achieve their objectives, and can make timely programmatic changes in response to that feedback. The guidelines further advise that the feedback loop from management results should operate quickly enough to be able to detect deficiencies in the program and correct them before the resource is placed at risk. A "low risk" conservation planning strategy for critical areas should embody two principles that will ensure effective protection: 1) Prevent new impacts ("do no harm" and"no net loss") 2) Employ the "precautionary principle", i.e. the greater the uncertainty, the more conservative a habitat conservation plan should be. Incorporating the precautionary principle (WAC 365-195-920) will enable the City of Renton to effectively protect critical areas now and into the future to ensure no net loss of critical area function and value and protect the livability and quality of life for all Renton residents. Thank you for your commitment to the protection of Renton's critical areas and the health and general welfare of our members and all citizens;we hope you use this opportunity to incorporate our comments and set a superior example for other municipalities in the region. 24 Weiss,Edith Brown,Ed. 1992. Environmental change and international law:New challenges and dimensions. United Nations University Press,The United Nations University.493 pages. 25 Noss,Reed F.et al. 1997.The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act.Island Press 8 Renton City Council — Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 9 of 9 We thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. Feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, John Mauro Director cc: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, rlind(dici.renton.wa.us 9 V RECEIVED MAR 17 2005 rirouinti ' , /i /zo9 Renton City Council Memorandum Date: March 15, 2005 To: Rebecca Lind,Principal Planner,Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner cc: Alex Pietsch, Administrator, Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department Subject: Meeting with Richard Robohm, State Department of Ecology Last week Donna Bunten was in contact with you on behalf of Richard Robohm, Wetland Specialist, at the State Department of Ecology(DOE). We arranged a meeting between staff, consultants, and Mr. Robohm, which took place yesterday, March 14, 2005. The topic of discussion was State Department of Ecology concerns with respect to wetland ratings,buffers, and mitigation ratios, similar to their December 7, 2005 letter to the City. While the City continues to propose its current rating system, buffers, and mitigation ratios, the City has made several efforts to improve its wetland reviews described in the March 2, 2005 memo provided to the Planning Commission. In addition to reducing exemptions, these improvements include,but are not limited to, a mandatory review of criteria under which buffers could be increased. Based on discussions with Mr. Robohm, we propose some additional policy and code refinements as follows: ■ Add a policy to the Environment Element under Objective EN-L (adaptive management) as follows recognizing that there may be higher quality wetlands in the potential annexation area, such as the Soos Creek vicinity: Policy EN-68. RESERVEDConsider a new or updated basin plan for the Soos Creek basin in the Renton Potential Annexation Area when either annexation occurs or appears imminent. The basinplan should address critical area functions and values, existing and projected land use patterns, community character, infrastructure needs, and habitat protection and restoration opportunities. • Further modify the criteria for increased buffers shown in the March 2, 2005 memo to reference the State's Option 3 approach for determining buffers as follows: d. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width: Each applicant shall document in required wetland assessments whether the criteria d.i through d.ivi are or are not met and increased wetland buffers are warranted. Based on the applicant's report or third party review,the Responsible Official may require increased standard buffer zone widths in unique cases, i.e.,endangered species, very fragile areas,when a larger 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com now buffer is necessary to protect wetlands functions and values. Such determination shall be attached as a condition of project approval. Analysis shall be prepared as directed in subsection v, and notification shall be given pursuant to criteria vi. existing species; or ii.The wetland is used by species listed by the Federal or the State government as threatened,endangered and sensitive species and State-listed priority species, essential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees or evidence thereof; or iii.The subject property,or Nnearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetland into the wetland are susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or NearlyfrThe subject property,or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetland into the wetland have minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than fifteen percent(15%)and conditions cannot be restored to prevent adverse wetland impacts; or iv.Wetland dependent wildlife species are observed to be present in the wetland, and may require larger buffers based upon the evaluation in subsection v; and v. For proposals meeting any of the criteria in subsections i to iv,buffers are established using aA site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Bu'ers and Its Im s lications or the Mana:ement o Wetlands, McMillan 2000, • _ • , _ __ or a-similar approachs,and; vi.Notification is given consistent with F8. Last, Richard Robohm was interested in the complete picture of wetlands protection in the City. As we discussed with Mr. Robohm, the City's regulatory proposal is taking place in the context of other non-regulatory programs as well as the developed nature of the City. Nonregulatory programs have included: wetland acquisition particularly in the Green River Valley(340 acres of City property containing around 208 acres of wetlands of Category 1, 2, and 3 rating),promotion of a wetland mitigation bank in the Green River Valley, ownership of open space and park lands containing various critical areas along May Creek and the Cedar River, participation in WRIA plans, and inclusion of capital improvements in the City's budget intended to support fish and wildlife habitat restoration or conservation. We also reviewed an aerial photo showing that most of the City has been developed. The City's acquired open spaces stood out in that developed framework. The City's context has been part of the framework through which we developed the regulatory approach, and will be part of our findings and record. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.yanesandstokes.com Judith Wright- Letter from Rebecca to r")E Naar From: "Lisa Grueter" <LGrueter@jsanet.com> To: "Judith Wright"<Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/15/2005 12:54:53 PM Subject: Letter from Rebecca to DOE Hi Judy, Here is a draft paragraph for the content of the letter to DOE if you want to place it into a letter template with Rebecca's signature(please have Alex review it): Thank you for meeting with Alex Pietsch our Department Administrator as well as staff from our Stormwater Utility, Development Services Division, and consultants. We appreciated your time to discuss Ecology's comments and concerns with us and hear the thoughts behind our approach. As a result of the meeting,we are proposing a policy amendment regarding the Soos Creek basin to guide future planning should that area annex to the City, and a code revision referencing the DOE Option 3 document in our criteria for increasing standard wetland buffers. Please see the attached memo from Jones &Stokes describing the changes. Please feel free to contact me as needed. Lisa Grueter Jones &Stokes Senior Planner 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 W:425-893-6428* Fx:425-822-1079* Reception:425-822-1077 Igrueter@jsanet.com <mailto:lgrueter@jsanet.com> www.jonesandstokes.com <http://www.jonesandstokes.com/> Your Project Means the World to Us o RECEIVED""" lUlIiH 1 ��Nye- E3 1 e'k � P MAR 17 2005 0,15r, Ltfe 511 u()5 Renton City Council Memorandum Date: March 15, 2005 To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner,Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Depai tiuent cc: Alex Pietsch, Administrator, Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Subject: Planning Commission Follow-Up Questions Since we mailed the Planning Commission packet last week, we had several questions come up from Planning Commissioner Gerrie Jackson and have replied to her. For the benefit of the other Planning Commissioners, Commissioner Jackson's questions and our replies are listed below: Shoreline Buffer Comparisons Question: Do we have a breakdown of setbacks and buffers for other cities in the area? I am specifically looking for Bellevue, Kirkland and Bothell since they have similar growth with lakes and creeks. I think we might have discussed this before but I can't recall. I looked briefly on the web at a Bellevue Shoreline handout and it appears there is a 25' setback from Lake Washington for residential. Response: Each jurisdiction is in a different phase of their planning process to determine buffers. Recently adopted or proposed drafts of regulations are based on each jurisdictions' own best available science review and community context. Renton's standard buffers are similar to other local standard regulations presented below. The Commission should focus on the Renton's best available science review (see February 2003 AC Kindig& Company review) and code provisions for administrative flexibility in particular. Jurisdiction/Classification Standard Buffer Width State DCTED: Type 1 250 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(current 2004):Type S 115- 165 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft): Class 1 100 feet Bellevue(draft):Type S 50—100 feet(50 ft lakes, 100 ft streams plus 20 foot setback) Bothell(current, 1996;under revision in 2005, considering State DCTED): Category 1 100 feet Kirkland(current, 1986/89, 15%of lot depth(but no less than 15 feet)to 100 feet depending City has not yet updated its SMP) on shoreline environment State DCTED: Type 2 State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(current,2004):Type F 115 - 165 feet plus 15 foot setback 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com Jurisdiction/Classification Standard Buffer Width Renton(draft): Class 2 100 feet Bellevue(draft):Type F 100 feet plus 20 foot setback Bothell(current, 1996;under revision in 2005, considering State DCTED): Category 2 with salmonids 100 feet Kirkland(current 2002):Type 1 75 feet plus 10 foot setback State DCTED:Type 3 150-200 feet plus 15 ft setback King County(current,2004):Type F 115- 165 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft): Class 2 100 feet Bellevue(draft):Type F 100 feet plus 20 foot setback Bothell(current, 1996;under revision in 2005, considering State DCTED): Category 2 with salmonids 100 feet Kirkland(current 2002):Type 1 75 feet plus 10 foot setback State DCTED:Type 4 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(current,2004):Type N 65 feet buffer plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 3 75 feet Bellevue(draft):Type N 50 feet plus 10 foot setback Bothell(current, 1996;under revision in 2005, considering State DCTED): Category 2 perennial 75 feet Kirkland(current 2002):Type 2 60 feet primary basin,50 feet secondary basin,plus 10 foot setback State DCTED:Type 5 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(current,2004):Type 0 25 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 4 35 feet Bellevue(draft):Type 0 25 feet plus 10 foot setback Bothell(current, 1996;under revision in 2005, considering State DCTED): Category 3 intermittent 50 feet Kirkland(current 2002):Type 3 35 feet primary basin,25 feet secondary basin,plus 10 foot setback Notes: DCTED=Washington State Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development Example Code The above summary does not reflect the full complexity of the jurisdictions'codes/proposals,but attempts to identify typical or standard cases. Most jurisdictions include conditions under which buffers can be increased or decreased from those presented. Buffer widths and ranges may vary due to type or range of critical areas present in the community. Some rating systems that are unique are not necessarily fully equivalent to others. Some provisions may be departures from best available science. Home Additions, Piped Streams,Environmental Clean Up Questions: Lisa has done a great job going through all the information and putting together the public notice timeline. The concerns I have heard have been mainly the size of the buffers causing hardships and the fact that people would not be able to add on to their existing homes. So they would be stuck if they wanted to add a family room or that fabulous master suite they have been dreaming of. Businesses would be equally affected. Seems like overkill for an urban environment. Also, if you think about how big a 100 foot buffer is, if you put a stake in the 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel.425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.ionesandstokes.com • a Now ground and called that your wetland, for example, the buffer would be almost an acre in size, going 100 feet in all directions. (An acre is about 205x205). This is a lot of property! Given the backlash going on in regard to regulatory takings, this may just be adding more fuel to the fire. On another issue,my own personal "wants"would be to (1)have a small buffer over/around piped streams in case it was possible in the future to daylight them and (2) to have a buffer waiver for environmental clean-up activities as long as best management practices are followed. Responses: Regarding the size of the buffer and ability to add on to existing structures if they lie in the proposed standard buffers, the proposed regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels because site conditions will vary. Renton's proposal intentionally includes a great amount of flexibility by emphasizing administrative reviews. If someone wanted to add on an upper story to a residence they would not have to comply with the buffer since they would not be expanding their impervious surface'. We note as well that the City's buffer standards are much less than the State's recommended standards and less than King County's standards. See the Table above. Regarding piped streams, there would have to be some kind of setback/easement consistent with the City's stormwater regulations. We have also included incentives for daylighting. See the January 26, 2005 code at lines 2340-2343 and 2697 to 2717. Last, the Shoreline Master Program amendments do address allowances for environmental clean up through landfill and dredging. Land uses and new impervious surfaces are subject to buffers, but activities such as landfill and dredging are not subject to the buffers (see line 4595 and seq. in Section J). Within Section K,there is code indicating that landfill and dredging can be used accomplish site remediation(see line 4851 and seq. and 4962 and seq.). The section specifically allowing dredging and landfills in buffers is listed below (line 4595 and seq): c.Proposed Activities Independent of a Use: Section K includes standards for practices or activities within waters or along the shoreline that can be unassociated with a land use,including but not limited to dredging,landfills,and stream alteration.Proposed activities or practices that are independent of a land use are subject to: i.Authorization in the Use Environment. ii.Evaluation in a Stream/Lake Reconnaissance and Supplemental Study. iii.Preparation of a Mitigation Plan consistent with subsection J.2 as appropriate. iv.Consistency with applicable specific criteria in subsection K in addition to Subsections J2, J5and J6. As written,modifications of existing homes in Class 2 to 4 buffers are exempt when not intruding further into buffer. Other additions intruding further, or new structures,would require administrative buffer reductions or variances to go closer than the standard buffer. As written,under Class 1 a property owner may include an addition or a new structure if providing supplemental study and requesting a buffer reduction, in which case they can go to as little as 25 feet. Also,buffers are treated as setbacks when there are existing impervious surfaces, and existing impervious surfaces can remain,but no new structures may be added. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com ' 7 cce /up e< ✓t- t; )1 t tNti� i tf-e 3)i 200 Frequently Asked Questions: Single Family Homes and new Stream/Lake/Shoreline Buffers March 8, 2005 What are the new stream/lake/shoreline buffers? Current stream/lake/shoreline buffers for residential uses are 25 feet measured from the ordinary high water mark. The proposed stream/lake/shoreline buffers would increase to between 35 and 100 feet measured from the ordinary high water mark, depending on the class of the water body. Class 1 streams are consistent with designated Shorelines of the State and also are salmonid bearing(i.e. Lake Washington, May Creek, Cedar River, Black River, and Springbrook Creek). Class 2 water bodies are salmonid bearing streams that are not Shorelines of the State. Class 3 water bodies have year round flow, but do not contain salmonids. Class 4 water bodies have intermittent flow and do not contain salmonids. Class 5 water bodies are manmade streams and are not regulated. The proposed buffers are: Class 1 and 2: 100 feet Class 3: 75 feet Class 4: 35 feet The proposed regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of ecological function. This is intended to provide for a variety of site conditions where standard buffers cannot be met. • Class 1 Shorelines: Some of the reduced buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current shoreline setbacks in current regulations. For example, an applicant can request a buffer reduction through an administrative, locally determined process if they meet threshold criteria(extensively vegetated or ability to enhance with vegetation; shoreline priority use; or stream daylighting). If they meet the criteria and provide a supplemental study/mitigation plan as appropriate then along Class 1 shorelines the minimum buffer would be 25 feet for a single family dwelling on a pre-existing legal lot where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to reasonably accommodate building pads and off-street parking. There are other allowances for docks to be at 0 feet through the same process. There is also an ability to request a lesser buffer administratively for substantial existing structures that essentially cut off the buffer area from the water body it is intended to protect. • Class 2 to 4 Shorelines: Along Class 2 to 4 waters administrative buffer reductions to 75 feet are possible if threshold criteria are met(extensively vegetated or ability to enhance with vegetation; or stream daylighting) and if a supplemental study/mitigation plan is provided. There is also an ability to request a lesser buffer administratively for substantial existing structures that essentially cut off the buffer area from the water body it is intended to protect. It is also possible to request lesser buffers via an administrative variance for single-family homes on pre-existing lots (process is parallel to wetland regulations). 1 ti Why is the City considering changes to its regulations? The purpose of the City's proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection, considering Renton's urban and environmental context. GMA requires critical areas such as fish and wildlife conservation areas (includes streams and lakes) as well as wetlands, geologic hazard areas, flood hazard areas, and aquifer recharge areas to be protected by ordinance. GMA requires the use of best available science in the formulation of policies and regulations with particular attention to be paid to protection of anadromous fish. Based on the SMA and related legislation, Shoreline Master Program regulations(for Class 1 waters)to protect critical areas must be at least equivalent to the protections in the local government's critical areas regulations. Through the SMA,the City also needs to accommodate shoreline priority uses. What is Best Available Science (BAS)? GMA requires cities and counties to use information generated from a valid scientific process in developing policies and critical area regulations. BAS Sources may include research, monitoring, inventory, surveys,modeling, assessment, synthesis, and expert opinion. The City hired expert biologists to assist in the collection and analysis of BAS. Can I keep my current home and improvements that would be inside the new buffer? Yes. Buffer management criteria address already developed situations. Existing impervious surfaces in a buffer do not have to be removed. Impervious surfaces can be rearranged if it results in an improved environmental situation. No new buildings or impervious surfaces can be constructed in the required buffer. Note that the buffer width may be reduced as described above. What happens if my home (that lies in the new buffer width) is damaged or destroyed? A damaged or destroyed home can be rebuilt to its original location and dimensions. There is no limit on the value of the improvements to rebuild. The City's regulations allow for legally established nonconforming single-family structures(dwellings that met standards when they were built but that do not meet later zoning, critical area,or other development standards)to be rebuilt to the same size, location, and height. Improvements would need to commence within two years of the damage. Where can I find further information? Additional information can be found at http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/cao.htm under the Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department or by calling Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, at 425-430-6588. 2 Vluior ;'N rat( ,3 t G G tic Memorandum Date: March 9, 2005 To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton; From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Subject: Documentation of Public Review Process and Planning Commission Review: Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration INTRODUCTION The Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration began as a part of the City's efforts to comply with the Growth Management Act's (GMAs) seven-year review due in 2004. The subject work program began in Fall 2002 to allow time to complete the effort by the State deadline of December 1, 2004. It was delayed by a SEPA appeal in 2004. With the City's SEPA determination upheld by the Hearing Examiner in December 2004, efforts to complete the proposal continued in earnest in early 2005. The City now intends to complete its review by April in order to come into full compliance with GMA and avoid being denied the opportunity to apply for grants/funds for infrastructure and other works the City accomplishes for its citizens. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, some Planning Commissioners commented upon the review schedule and methods for citizen participation. Staff responded at the meeting with information about the basis for the schedule and methods of public participation. To give some further background, we provide documentation of the general public review steps and Planning Commission review since 2003 in this memo. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Growth Management Act requires public participation for amendments to Comprehensive Plan and development regulations (RCW 36.70A.140): "The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments,public meetings after effective notice,provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments." State agency review is also required during a 60-day comment period. Additionally, a public hearing is required prior to legislative action. Considering other relevant laws, the Shoreline Management Act requires public participation in the development of amendments to the Shoreline Master Program including agencies, tribes, and citizens; public participation occurs primarily with the local city, but the State Department of Ecology will also conduct its own review process prior to its action. The SEPA process and Renton's permit review process also requires public notification during environmental review. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel.425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com f 1 Page 2 of 6 March 9, 2005 Pursuant to Renton's development regulations in Title IV, the Planning Commission is given responsibility for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Shoreline Master Program amendment hearings,while the City Council reserves for itself the requirement for a public hearing on development regulation amendments. Although the City Council could have directed that one single public hearing be conducted by itself, the City has elected to have one public hearing with the Planning Commission and one with the City Council. Based on GMA public notification requirements (RCW 36.70A.035), which are similar to other state and local laws mentioned above, examples of public notification methods may include: • Posting the property for site-specific proposals; • Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; • Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; • Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and • Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. The proposed plan and regulation amendments were part of the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update project, and as such were coordinated in terms of public review. Various methods were used in the advertisement of various meetings and opportunities for comment as follows: • Early State Agency Review with a meeting at State Department of Ecology Bellevue offices on March 23, 2004, State comments in May 2004, and responses to comments in July 2004. • Planning Commission review of documents/approaches in Spring 2003 to the present(see section below). • Issuance of a Notice of Application/Optional Determination of Nonsignificance for the Critical Areas/Shoreline Master Program proposal and its environmental review in July 2004. The notice was posted in 20 locations instead of the standard 3 locations for nonproject legislative actions. It was mailed to a list of interested parties that the Department of Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning developed since Fall 2002 and to State/tribal/neighboring governments. Interested parties could sign up as parties of record to be notified of future meetings and activities. • Advertisement of community workshops and public hearings as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan Update. The notice indicated that the Environment Element and other critical areas topics would be addressed at the community workshop on July 27, 2004. The r Nor Page 3 of 6 March 9, 2005 community workshop was advertised in the Notice of Application described above, as well as in the Renton Reporter, and by direct mail to all addresses in the Renton postal carrier routes: 98055, 98058, 98059, 98056. Interested parties could sign up as parties of record to be notified of future meetings and activities. • Daytime workshop with Seattle/King County Master Builders and neighboring jurisdictions on August 16, 2004. • Request for formal 60-day review by State agencies in August 2004. Email notification of the revised documents and Planning Commission process occurred in February 2005. • Publication in the newspaper of the City's SEPA Determination, and mailing of the determination and responses to comments in August 2004. • Publication in the newspaper and direct mail of the Planning Commission public hearing notice in September 2004 to parties of record and to property owners along the Black River (given the multiple ownerships in a location where the Shoreline Master Program use environment map is proposed for amendment)'. ■ Written notification to parties of record of the SEPA appeal that the September 2004 Planning Commission hearing would be rescheduled for the Critical Areas/Shoreline Master Program proposal only. • Written notification to parties of record that the SEPA Appeal hearing would be held in November 2004. ■ Written notification to parties of record of the Hearing Examiner decision in December 2004 upholding the City's SEPA determination. • Publication in the newspaper and direct mail of the Planning Commission public hearing notice in February 2005 to parties of record regarding the March 2, 2005 hearing before the Planning Commission. • Publication of a newspaper article in the South County Journal on approximately February 28, 2005 describing the proposal and upcoming Planning Commission hearing and City Council Planning and Development Committee briefings. • Posting of memos and documents describing the proposal between July 2004 and March 2005 at www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/cao.htm. • Renton Development Service Division discussions with property owners and developers at the permit counter and through preapplication meetings. Meetings between Renton ' The other proposed Shoreline Map amendment applies to the City's publicly owned property along the Cedar River—the golf course and Ron Regis Park. T 1 Page 4 of 6 March 9, 2005 Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff and property owners requesting meetings(e.g. Richard Gumpert property owner in the Green River Valley, and Stoneway property owners regarding the Cedar River). ■ Courtesy notification of parties of record regarding Renton Council Committee of the Whole and Planning and Development Committee meetings during 2004 and 2005. Additional notification (newspaper;mailing to parties of record)will occur with the City Council public hearing(planned for March 21, 2005). The public participation approach is appropriate to the nature of the Plan and Code updates, and is consistent with State and Renton requirements. The public participation process led to written comments during State agency reviews, the environmental review process, and oral participation at the Planning Commission's public hearing. Comments received are listed as follows: • State Agency Comments: — Comments by Sandra Lange and Richard Robohm of the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and Dan Pentilla of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife described in "Summary of State Agency Comments, DOE Early Review,Response to May 13/14, 2004 Comments." — Letter from Richard Robohm of DOE, December 7, 2004. — Letter from Lynn Kohn at Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, October 19, 2004,noting positive comments about the Shoreline Master Program amendments, and recommending an implementation plan for the Environment Element. • Comments received during Notice of Application/SEPA Review Process. — Davis Wright Tremaine for Barbee Mill Company, August 2, 2004. — James C. Hanken for JH Baxter,August 9, 2004. — Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company, August 9, 2004. — Seattle Audubon Society, August 9, 2004. • Comments received prior to or at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. — Greg Fawcett, Letter received February 28, 2005. r Page 5 of 6 March 9, 2005 — David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices,March 2, 2005. — Garrett J. Huffman, South King County Manager, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties,March 2, 2005. — Jerry Brennan,resident 3405 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, WA 98056. Mr. Brennan had expressed concerns about public notification indicating he found out about the hearing through the February 28, 2005 newspaper article. Reviewing the City's party of record list, we have confirmed that Mr. Brennan and others listed above are parties of record and were mailed notices of the March 2, 2005 public hearing. Mr. Brennan additionally attended the February 2, 2005 Planning Commission briefing at which the upcoming public hearing was specifically discussed. We understand from conversations with Mr. Brennan after the public hearing that his concern with the slightly accelerated schedule in comparison to that advertised on the web page in early February is that he would like to vest to current regulations by submitting a complete application for home and dock construction prior to the adoption date; he has retained consultants and is preparing an application now. In our comments and responses memo under separate cover, we describe the proposed regulations and how they are intended to recognize pre-existing small residential lots such as those he owns. We also describe how the Shoreline Master Program regulations will require State Department of Ecology approval prior to their full effect. As we noted at the hearing,the legislative action is citywide in nature and not site specific. However, during the early portions of public participation process described above,the notices for the community workshops and public hearings last fall were sent to every address based on all zip codes found in the City, and other notices and articles appeared in local newspapers to help advertise the meetings. Most comments prior to March 2, 2005 have previously been provided to the Planning Commission. Now, all comments through March 2, 2005 are compiled in full under separate cover in another memo dated March 7, 2004 to be sure that the Commission has all comments. Responses to comments are also provided. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW We appreciate the Planning Commission's diligence in reviewing the critical areas/shoreline documentation over the last month in particular. The essential (and the vast majority of) documents were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the Commission's February 2, 2005 briefing, and discussed at briefings on February 2 and 16, 2005. It is also useful to note for the proposal record that Planning Commissioners received several documents and briefings about the work program over a two-year period: • 2005: 2/16/05, 2/2/05 ■ 2004: 4/14/04, 3/17/04, 2/18/04 t � Page 6 of 6 March 9, 2005 ■ 2003: 6/4/03, 5/21/03, 5/7/03 Planning Commissioners felt it appropriate to absorb the public comments and the supplemental staff information provided at the March 2, 2005 public hearing and complete deliberations at the March 16, 2005 meeting. We appreciate that the Planning Commission is reviewing the materials to be ready to conduct its deliberation. We would glad to receive any questions the Planning Commission may have in advance of the meeting, in order to be of the greatest assistance at the Commission completes its review on March 16th. r � r.r A NI Jones & Stokes Memorandum Date: March 9, 2005 To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton; From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Subject: Responses to Planning Commission Hearing Comments: Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration INTRODUCTION The Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration began as a part of the City's efforts to comply with the Growth Management Act's (GMA's) seven-year review due in 2004. The public participation process for the work program led to written comments during State agency reviews, the environmental review process, and oral participation at the Planning Commission's public hearing as described more fully under the memo"Documentation of Public Review Process and Planning Commission Review: Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration." Comments received are listed as follows: ■ State Agency Comments: — Comments by Sandra Lange and Richard Robohm of the State Department of Ecology, and Dan Pentilla of the State Depaitinent of Fish and Wildlife described in"Summary of State Agency Comments, DOE Early Review, Response to May 13/14, 2004 Comments." — Letter from Richard Robohm of DOE,December 7, 2004. — Letter from Lynn Kohn at Department of Community,Trade, and Economic Development, October 19, 2004, noting positive comments about the Shoreline Master Program amendments, and recommending an implementation plan for the Environment Element. State Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments were provided to the Planning Commission in a memo dated January 26, 2005, "Agency Comments March 2004 to December 2004." Responses to comments are in the January 26th memo as well as a memo provided to the Planning Commission on March 2, 2005, "Staff Recommended Adjustments to January 26, 2005 Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments." ■ Comments received during Notice of Application/SEPA Review Process. — Davis Wright Tremaine for Barbee Mill Company, August 2, 2004. 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel.425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com t ► Page 2 of 20 March 9, 2005 — James C. Hanken for JH Baxter, August 9, 2004. — Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company,August 9, 2004. — Seattle Audubon Society,August 9, 2004. The first two commenters' concerns were summarized in the Hearing Examiner Decision and Report sent to the Planning Commission in January and February 2005. A complete summary of SEPA related comments—the "Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, LUA-04-084, ECF: Citizen Comments and Responses: August 11, 2004"—was provided to the Planning Commission on March 2, 2005. ■ Comments received prior to or at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. — Greg Fawcett, Letter received February 28, 2005 — David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, March 2, 2005 — Garrett J. Huffman, South King County Manager, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, March 2, 2005 — Jerry Brennan,resident, 3405 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton, WA 98056. Public hearing comments were provided to the Planning Commission at the hearing on March 2,2005. ■ Oral Comments following Public Hearing. A consultant, Owen Dennison, of AHBL inquired about piped stream requirements and hydraulic analyses and noted some text could be stated more clearly while retaining the same intent. For a complete record, we have compiled letters and responses in Attachments A, B, and C to this memo corresponding to State Agency, SEPA-related, and public hearing(post hearing oral comments) comments. Our recommendation would be to approve the January 26,2005 compilation of Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program policy amendments, Shoreline Master Program map and regulation amendments, Critical Areas regulations amendments, and interrelated code amendments with revisions contained in Attachment B (memo with Staff Recommended Adjustments to January 26, 2005 Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments dated March 2,2005)and Attachment C responding to public comments made in association with the Planning Commission public hearing. If the Planning Commission has any questions in advance of the March 16, 2005 meeting, we would be happy to assist. ATTACHMENT A STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES State Department of Community, Trade,and Economic Development Letter dated October 19, 2004. Memo dated January 26, 2005, "Agency Comments March 2004 to December 2004." Memo dated March 2, 2005, "Staff Recommended Adjustments to January 26, 2005 Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments." • MAR-07-2005 13:48 *ewe:ITY OF RENTON ewe 425 430 7300 P.01/02 (')Ii'C'LNI vim::11,, Vi'ertze•) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY. TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 124 106 Avenue SW y PO Box 42525 y Olympia,Washington 98504 2525 y(360)725-4000 October 19,2004 Ms.Rebecca Lind Planning Manager 1066 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan a nd Development Regulations for 2004. Dear Ms.Lind Thane you for sending the Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development (CTED)the proposed amendments to Renton's aomprehe naive plan and development regulations that we received on August 26,2004. We roc ognize the substantial Investment of time.energy,and resources that these documents represent. i We especially lee the following: • The statement in your Land Use Element(Policy LU•50)that"Zoning should be applied to areas for pro- active�tem�in tterce rmsofe eon,nvironmental henappropriate, protec,du d ring and the e a this type of annexation procese commitment is • I n the Land Use Element under Annexation,the polio les dealing with regional coordination are very proactive and designed to prevent potential problems related to development a nd its impacts on natural and urban systems • The updates to your critical areas ordinance(CAO)and the comprehensive plan to integrate shoreline maser program(SMP)polices.Is admirable. Including your SMP policies In your growth management plan should make It easier to: (1)update both programs at the tame time,and;(2)provide a comprehensive document which will give decision-makers most of the information they will need to make Informer}decislon about development prope sale in shoreline areas. Richard Robohm,Wetland Specialist at the Department of Ecoiogy,will be revs awing your S P and .e can be contacted at (425)649-4447,If you have any questions regarding those portions We have some sggeslicns for strengthening your plan and development regulation amendments that we encourage you to consider either in these or future amendments: • In your policy statements,particularly in the La nd Use Element,the word"should'is used quite extensively. For example,under Amaxations,Policy LU-35: 'The City should continue to recognize that it has an inherent Interest in future land used easione affecting its Potential Annexation Area'. This • POSt-It'Fax Note 7071 Date.3..7—O•S Phone• — f riut Q t ► MAR-07-2005 13:48 !`TY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.02/02 Ms.Rebecca Lind October 10,2004 Page 2 would seem to be a policy that would warrant a st ronger statement. Clang"are,""shall"or°will" instead of"should"makes this a statement require an action,rather than something that might be considered. • We appreciate the fact that the city has decided to develop an Economic Development Element and a Parks and Recreation Element prior to the mandated requirement to do so. Both of these elements consist of a set of policy statements. We would encourage you to build on both elements to Include goals,strategies for achieving those goals,action items ,and a budget These additions could strengthen the policies by Identifying programs and projects that will foster economic growth and development and parks would berecreation o prog them.am steps have already been taken in other plans or documents,it • The Environmental Element also consists of a set of policy statements and again,we would encourage you to build on this element to include goals,atra fogies for achieving those goals,and action items. Congratulations to you and your staff for the goo d work there amendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any of her growth management issues,please call me at (360)725-3064. We extend our continued support to the City of Renton in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Lynn Kohn Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services LK:lw cc: Leonard Bauer,MCP,Managing Director,Growth Management Services,CTED David Andersen,AICP,Planning and Review Team Manager,Growth Management Services,CTED Ike Nwankwo,Technical and Financial Assistance Manager,Growth Management Services,CTED TOTAL P.02 t Nue Jones & Stokes Memorandum Date: January 26,2005 To: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, ED/N/SP Department From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Subject: Agency Comments March 2004 to December 2004 Attached are State agency comments made as a result of early agency review in March 2004 and in response to the City's July 13, 2004 review draft. The matrix shows comments and responses from March 2004. The December 2004 letter from the Department of Ecology is also provided. We are preparing a more formal response to all points of the Department of Ecology letter. That will be provided for a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. However, there are notes in the January 26, 2005 code version(particularly in exemptions)where we have responded to several comments. 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel.425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com 1 t l y 4 T . U bA YO ° ,5 0 3 3 1.. b o a ; °' °' 0 • ; •� 03 .0 0 ar .E y E V 0 o. (.0 o ~ - 0 0.a „,v 0 4° Ow o a0i �? o = 'E b v To' o .v a o 0, co :a 0 A a -., v) O0000^ U alw .0 'E 0 En O • V V > y al N o cd o O .E .n '"' 00 , 0 Kc. Q' V O y H • _ o :ow oO : aE a 0 , O " 4., ° oo oms Qa0 Q yVodEu ° y i 0 0 IAA a • w 0o01 3C0 .� o § b to ,I w > fl W V 0= {, N C.) O N 0o at w . UW -9 A O = c o E .5 2x V- a x a . aa - d d 3 i. N as 13wo E O OD (/� w E ftS O �..� +,,, y y O > a O o o O 9 E a> a> .� >, ova. • OO co .OD .Y y O .P w p N6. V ."O+ a. y = Q N 0 N3 ° � 'e > gabaa..E � . ° E 2 -0 " :al .. E 'U b cvcH tD r it 20) or Y8 to . Ua0 .0 En O ,♦ M w .�° ° 3ay a.•,n ��„ YEo a � .-. U V E c0 y N E G r+3 S', c0 . . y O . o E °) v ' >, �. 0,, . E � 4.) 3o : .° 50 C) ,E . �ao � ° o 8 . a ..o O 2 0 . C.) ., y u ,MO- 0aVV40E ' v .. O 0 y O U N > v: ° V i�+ vVi lid N 'd .: co N ', '.: 0 O c c0 O V.. s,.y V • w .•+ ) U to 0 co4-0 r Q O N � ° -' oy � d > IiV '5 �' P a .a i s Nal 0 " j -! ,,, E h 8 a, c0\, (/) O O ci aU U ) 0 f � aAb" , ° d v 2 J a „ c. -� aV ° E o 'b Va' 4 N O z, a .o 7,4 a � w V C;. rz v o wa a : a .E o y a t) C7 0 ° °' O o 3 .. > - av -Ls O y 2O , a. ab CU �41 N 1-, O '` •> c)i ; d gv' b 8 O 0 3 W 2ti. 11 iI1fl '5 E E0 ,- . >, n � b yp g ., 0 ' V '0 a+ y 0 . c0 N � w. 00 N cad • . !` 'b F. of at 0 O o V OO O 0 O a8i g' O O U U o 00 8 g'2 y 0 C c0 a ca v) vo a. 0 tn a. .E U H v) a, v) id -0 P, E a. a. S o 0 N E `'' n ' N ^" Z .›-, ti r • • .) V) ur 4 N U , yo O. 2 0 >. > 4 "03 o I, .p• y •'V . G cd p a a' ou) " O O ...a ¢ o y a ' . Q o Cl) Q v 0 Q as ' a N U „ a c o b.0 4. oa.) p 4aC - a� 'o a ,, 0 E a 0 'o a O 0 ' )W b ooZ' o 0 a) yb 0. •yw w A co 0. o . }'' b 0 v v' cn a, w °' ao ?' ti e E ' , 4 5n o :5 u, aa)) Co 0 0 0 Q cd D II') ao) N v; E0 xEn ti `� 0 cd u, O C O O 4 O I, U U w U y 3 ... N b O cd 4., . o p C q ° b? yp : ocd r. • a) d G ap • p F. 4) b r) y * oal y w 5 .fl ...• C °) 0 e° a>i b o aVi ccdd •0 a0iD ° 0 18 ' C)g o 3 ai ) o ea 0 .o 0 — o .z ,. •° F0 •c U F �, .� U r__,"'" 43 4 ., '� U bl) cdCb bw o o Lti _ O 09 --,Ay d '-. • t' 0 N >,4. 4, @ at .b 5 O • .O •4;(n O tN a) y w > N O .Q Nu a C b O . cd -O Y a b ) o a U U b Y c d ,a > > " „ .� d a 4. a, p,' . SU W ra 174 ai . a) . G ' N o o 0 E6 ~ to •�a- 3 � vc° 4 C U [-I 3 ;; aO -. O 'o -• b 0 F0 ..-. .,• • 0ay ai •-E 49G v, 8 00 8 ' pO d 'qO L b0 0tV ti • Oa) a tia bo .fl p, v, . M 0 G. HO '� uJ t d �y U 00 ~ d O '+ .00.) r, .h Fu - rIO . 0N 0 rny .0C0ri o 0o A ° It ti. wA O bo v) o ' • Q E.° a • • • ai ..; b cc Q iv . U O • OA G o 0 • 0 0 •0 o ro 9 Y 4 .n U 3 cd `. a) a, • c~d N a g 0 3 to`„ 0 o- 0 > > • a-r Q U 6, 0 _• C a) I. a) q • a) U cd -d - > C at N 5U G• U a cn• 7 0 0 ob a.•- p 3 2 •E U o a a :0: 0 a) 3 H 0 o w o o ea 0 I o oe' b0 a o •rcd a' b yr oN 0 . o, � o G r, 0 0 bn al 0 00 U U OD ,--i 5 Cl) ) wvov° al. w O 0 N E. M Z , ti T CO N 01 cc: .. y O ur R 11 10 0.) • O yWbq cll.' U ed o N N 0. 0 y A U4,b > O o v�v O '� cOfil N Y ^ y .. U N v2 A en h 4) Q �,• 'b a0i ,n ° U O a>i y 3 +-' b ^ O ~ O a O W N. o °�' 0 � U VI a0i yb �A4a 0.— o 0. Q a c co 2 0 bD M•[ O y 3 cd U O N N- O .O V] N V] .. U O • O 4j � u, a-. C O W U 0 0 N N 'N vJ O •� cd N V ° • > aUi cd� o •� uJ q •5 b -c.'' U O CA ' w. • ' + o O -. N U . cd O ° bA 6 U a 4+ ... CD ,n O } •� a C y. V• , t� v 4 .0 O R4 'G at '.° a b F. U aa> ° , vbobo v, O ,zt sa ° . o � U id ,� • '� O O o . .0 co .4 y cd O G 0UvU •.. O< b . U y O • -0 o o O y ,, Uw .; U 3 a, 0 0Y V) O tl• U •.o N '' O N N [ . .0wO 'O p O b • O .0F., y .+ " -0 w �b -, v, 0p r Q �. d v O 0 • , v, 0 . . G a p a a. , a.)- 0 4)E. a;i .c 1 o o w° o o o O a� 0. b a� E. 0 U O o .. Oh esQO � OO .0 cad -0y .� °ioo v ci) �ai ' �ci) °' ° b °' a>i `d�. Q 'L1 U •b N 'b 'G W'0 U 1.. cd .0 U "0 /-+ > Cd a � � � H .0 a o • • .., C •0 c o , � a8 " D U w U N O .) c,, .. vUi ° g ed -0 bl) F Hr ° C to aC, .� > U w .' 0 .0 ¢ O cu ° ci) v +. o N n Ld 0 Y U °• U cc E � u3a) a cn.e � 0 c cy -0 .b ° U � wa -• 00 U U d 0 N I. . E 0 W o . O VI O .+ • y • N .O uJ 5 C U y Y G cd N N 4 o ay'> ao Cl) '., vo bo�. a> ea O00o � 0 .� 3 o b ,0 -O VI y ✓ a3 °-' o P E 0°o2 8 o 0 N C M cr.; .-1 Z ›' 0 f 1 scar► v.,r an 'O an li an o o w • a, N W N y Q 'U °� °� �'' • o $ ep w . o d .5 o o a a`+i _ 3 ca ; A 0. ' yOo oCo > CD a) b >' a .:O • a, .0 O ce . al .0 a)0 . .nco '.5 Ga a' to - G yN yE ) aa 3 inO . h ->o5 0 N..o,'b — 0 a w .L c� ' o s - 'b • • El -0N • m a C -'its o a o oo ,B. 3b2G gbhpCD oo .d a, o aa) ''-,— oo '0 f'y y � 0 . y d o va, a 4 Oa > i 1, 'Y7 o aa w ' • q N3 m no O sN�A, O ^ — tee. ' n p 0 3 O — 5V pM O 12 N a..- 0 t; — [Q! h p'1 O da .. s Ito a� ap a. o 3.14 yN = aa = b0oi3 : . ' Ab 0' h� . = .5 -a. • • N 0a) w 0a -0 'b O C a) a O +'�.+ �+ a'• 'b . U U .3. d l� a' cd c -•' �' N k O M0 a, i-u:..: O v1 �i U c... = '3 a, p ;. Cd O 3 0 "...elj b N p ..0 ol. HI U id G". 0 •5 a, L O ao 3 ate, 5 a`di -', b b o b y 1, a V .0 ch p cdto E+ w �. Z 2 o p o V 0;5CC y . a, a Va° ..0a5i CdC Cd wo , :; 4 a o4 a ao;o p,' ca a 5 ,o•� U z0 •co o acoo n , oa •0 • 0 Eno 4 E~ . a O A 3 a a E-. E--. ca o 0 N E• en Z ti I Y .5 a) a) .1 rn -0rr U u nO � r" 0to V l a) ,O v y U 'b Oc� O ti '+=• 3 0 y p O w co (n > o b C O > U .0 O La, 0 N U0 +' '� ' ax) a .5 a 01• o a) 0 0 0 . oti 'CC �. q ca ,O cd w. 'U 0 c'd �,.+ IA a) o Y on .. v� ss • o is 0 :D . U voi aUi = 00. fl 0 v o `° 2 a . y K p v�i `:; o 0 �'3 'a b i ib ti En 0 > O v bw .d b • a� = " � .+ M 0 4) Ia 0 0 .0 .� N ,. �, cll o 0 cn . ., a) R‘g co 0 � b Cti fn. •.4 a3) 'b ...5. I,Y. = o `n b o b •• tar/ 4 Z 0 3 4-4 a. °� 3 � . ,- 9, 0> b ••� • .. 0b • � 0 �En 0 V � o � i. 3 c a) 3 N 'ti R, o u 3 a o o .� n •o o a) c3 •a. o .2 0 .4 ° 4 3 g� 3 a. p, 5 w cd .D d b a. 0 p, on b .. V) F� u U U a 3 o y Y 5 r ' VI 0 -d a) l a Y *O . o ..0 > o 0 cn _ a' a) cd by M 0 .0 a) b w 4Q, _ 3 Ft) E n 'b - ++ - 0 0 e3 v,c 3 .2 E.[ 1a) ° ^ o cd c) .� O 4U 3 , toti y y 4: a) Oa) O F. y Q C y>•, 0> .5bp ;a `° C r a) 3 •0 w '6 U aa of N .. h -0 N O 0A.-. S'1 O VIp ..fir i.+ O �, cy b0 A N •cd p U o a b 0 a`�) 3 2 2 U 1 g � U •2 �won3 w 'r a) S g •5 U•EcR a) a) 4. r. V cd b '� acn •R a O .0 0 N cd U cd fn V U cC w 4., y 0 .... , c N C -, .+ fi Q) • ti 3 O a) Pi' 'd 0. N c 0 13 0 0w ••N•. N .. ~ 6) 0 pp ►" .; N N c� cd (�i 0 y� O Z4 O Ocil •E ., .5 r-. 3 • o W 3 • D O 74). Vyc+? 51U U a O OO • " ` �a x v w33 _a o P. 0 CV c c 6 ram-. N M ti Now ct _ �z - ae c w, bn - U O 'w O. O O C cc o O b o o v id r� oo o c� wo Uo wo 5 Ry `" d v n +• v CC v b a v x q N 0 'V .2 74 a3i C r U o •- v ��' p 'rm. ti v O Y `� y p vi 'b O fn c0 U 70 c0 0 .� U 0 V b o rn 0 ., p, ,, v 0 F, cd cC ti w, Q 5 v -`d v o .G _o 0 co O t •� 0 d p .0 •U b +^, LL •C a) •w-. N }'' - .° v •� y a N a-, vpi y a.) v 0 E v 0 v v y ... rd O U av c v v f a v 41 ck,� •3U � • .ma x ao 0 o • xd 0 .� .b v b . - " ccs v ep o6.fl v a 0 v 0' a cn 0 o h) . 0 � oo aV . . ,4 o . • 3 0 v Cl.vv k; 'c) o.-' vcv o o � v v b 3 vo acn o' 0 = • 0 o,cn ocv 0 .. x P. w v 9 �. �' w 0 - 0 1..0 00 �, .. •� a Y ... c. o i o b0A el) a0) b- v3 aw A 0 >, 0 0 . � . a s a .n 0 w 0 cc, v 3 . v 3 > E � o00 � o � 0 � . � �: a a � a � o b a„ G 0 ..� 0 v 'd O O v o v 3 v w v .� y 11. s o v H . v v .d 0tH . O v---, -0 ,' 0 v `' " 0 .':cV v 0 rn + 3 y Cl .V N .b O N $, N ,�O•� �.» ,., h •d 0 v' 0 a " 0 ;,y �' O v d 0 h U iel a.) O W ` mvo 'd0O 1 o mO ofog - , .U0Qgbn ' .� � , w 3 � a • � �Y � � � Eay . b bip3 w o .� auvp�w o NIv mo o 2 g i g g . .0 -=, 4., Ali, .2 &4_,-, . tr-1 ,11-) . --c5 ii V. �' bA et v b .00 v G a e° o '!:.. `ci 0 3 axi a�i . co 1) p 3 E .3 'b o -E .2 o m •� •af 0 V ' 1yo 3 3 •8o LL 4? ez03 y N o a tl 3 o }, .3 .+ of: v 0 ... ty b , v v . " 5, w o 0 bq � 1� . � c0 ,, v v ci � 0 ,5 0 . Q 8 w 0 ce •5 +'' ti O v .' h . ag T2 w '0 N 1.1 0 4: N 00 'd o y o w0 y N ,0 A."0 p o G \ w 4. `° O 4 v a. :r-r a. > ca 0 g O a) V1 a) VI V M p 0' fa a ci i. .2 = o i Y V v a c. T v� o 0 • 2 b y a0i ao^� b v' b � i "o °N o H 3 ❑ � Ex on no v N 0 N E. vi ,.O M Z >' ti t *411111, an Ccca C O .�U � a) .p 5 yy> y • O ' a !) ccl a) � a) •., . 0 ,O 0 co t-, 'D R' a'o 0 w `" y a -0 CD w Y 0 o 6 � ccdo C 'bo � `� '� 0 OD VI 13) a) rn a .6 cn t., ,Q O cC ccl 'D O U O 0 o o v U O o O ti a w N c~d 0 asO -o 6U Cl) Cl) -' .0 • y c0 e, Ca HC3clx 4, 5 0 ,. 3 :a a 'b �, U ai o H o aCL) f...4 o C 0 q 0 .n3czi a, .,•5 0a ) y 8 a0ola [ 0 'o YO •n y 00 3 0 C o o DUG 'G N 0 ��] a) a) o. 3 q, Fri 0) 2 y 0 0 3 ,n 0 a) b aE ) 3o U 7,3� ow ° oza00 a.") 0N a"i0 a o t o i;i • 'a) oa) •5O u5 c'�i . cp .b 0 x a) a a 0 a ,, a) - w OA O �° 0 tDA.0 44" A 1 0 c� b `° O U .0 c4 03 p o E o 5 3 E o , o • ao'...' c a . .5 a o cd O 15 O � k y y . ,A 'D v a a C 2 o 5 b • O O p ' ycsi cua) oU � q0 a 5U ' a)o r 0 > 3 . tvi. ) a) aa)i (� of E di a) U 0 - p • }? pp b06. 0 .d o $ fi r.. 3 a• ... ,v c4 as 5 ' .0 y ,0 3 ;; 0 .., v 00.5 .0 a, ., 6,0 2 4.. 00 a) 'a' O� 3 z•5 ..., ;G oU p 4" C y • ce > y y '� y a y w a0.� . a O .`= .UD 4 o o ao aH a.5 6 .5 ,.. 0 a p 0 0 0 5 o i- 0 Q, a, 0 5 , '2 a) 0 >i 2op0 4. U 1=4 N N a r4 a) a� a� O 2 5 > F, p o0 p U a) U O a':': 0 ,~U, 4.,•b r > OD w., C. 0 O >, >, 3 .o v aU3 . US Jo 0. 0 0 0ya I.cd a, o C.) 0 a 1) a... 3 0 U V •� a, E0 O U ..0 2 . a. 0 'a .0 .0" a 0$ y o fp y .... o •5a, vi aGa5 � ww- ovsaH ° — o -0 w 5 • •� 0 O N E ri• M Z .;' F-y l December 7, 2004 Ms. Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Lind: RE: Comments on Renton's Draft Critical Areas Ordinance Update Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed revision of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO). I have reviewed the portions pertaining to wetlands of your July 13, 2004, draft. I appreciate the work that went into this proposed revision and your efforts to include best available science (BAS)in developing your regulations. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)supports the stated purpose of the CAO to"[p]reserve,protect and restore wetlands ..." and"[p]revent the loss of wetland acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over present conditions." The current draft of the CAO provides many of the standards required to meet these goals. However,proposed buffers and other provisions fall short of what is needed to protect against degradation of wetland functions and values in the City of Renton(City). Our suggestions aim at ensuring that the best available science is included and that wetland functions and values are fully protected. Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 2 C.APPLICABILITY—EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES 5. Specific Exemptions—Critical Areas and Buffers c. Agricultural, Harvesting Vegetation Management: ii. We recommend that the City add a specific time frame to its definition of existing and ongoing agricultural activities, e.g.: "Agricultural activity within a critical area or buffer must have been conducted within the past five years." We encourage the City to require best management practices and farm conservation plans, and to promote incentive-based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near wetlands and other critical areas. d. Surface Water: i. As stated in Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001), stormwater discharges to wetlands should"maintain the hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and substrate characteristics necessary to support existing and designated uses." Appendix 1-D of this manual is a good guide to the level of protection that should be required for different categories of wetlands with respect to stormwater management. In wetlands relatively unaffected by human activities, stormwater quality and quantity should be managed to match predevelopment conditions, hydroperiod, and hydrodynamics. e.Roads,Parks,Public and Private Utilities: iii & iv. Utilities such as transmission lines, sewer lines, and pipelines can require clearing and permanently maintaining wide areas,with adverse effects on wetland and buffer functions. Ecology recommends that the City require specific compensatory mitigation for the impacts of utility construction and maintenance. f. Wetland Disturbance,Modification and Removal: i &ii. The draft CAO proposes exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands determined to provide"no or insignificant functions."The idea that a wetland could have no wetland functions is unsound, and invites the erroneous conclusion that filling small wetlands could have no adverse impact at all. The proposed ordinance offers no criteria for deciding whether or not a wetland's functions are "significant." In the absence of specific, objective criteria for determining the significance of a wetland's functions, a qualified professional's determination that functions were insignificant would be entirely arbitrary. Best available science offers no support for excluding wetlands from protection based on size or hydrologic isolation. Even very small and isolated wetlands can provide habitat and important ecological processes. The proposed exemption for wetlands up to 5,000 square feet should be justified by analysis of the exemption's cumulative impact on wetland functions within specific basins or watersheds. In-lieu fees that could be spent on wetland projects in the City may be considered in place of direct mitigation for minor impacts. Noe Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 3 iii. This exemption could allow removal of vegetation and temporary placement of fill in nonforested Category 2 and 3 wetlands with no compensation for the temporal loss of wetland functions. Clearing, grading, and temporary placement of fill in such wetlands should be regarded as impacts that should be compensated for at the replacement ratios prescribed under Section M.11.e. Impacts on forested or Category I wetlands should not be considered temporary and should not be exempt from the standard provisions of the CAO. h. Emergency Activities: The exemption for emergencies should not eliminate the need for later mitigation to offset the impacts of emergency activity. Once the immediate threat has been addressed, any adverse impacts on critical areas should be minimized and mitigated. 7. Exemptions in Buffers: a. Activities in Critical Area Buffers i. Trails should be permeable, for pedestrians only, and should avoid wetlands and buffers whenever possible and to the greatest extent possible. When allowed, trails should have no adverse impacts on water quality and be restricted to the outer 25% of the wetland buffer, with barriers to intrusion on the side of the trail closer to the critical area. Trail construction should avoid damaging significant trees and other habitat elements. D. ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION 4. Review Authority: b. Review Authority—Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands: iv. Wetlands As noted above under 5f and below under M1 and M6,proposals to exempt small wetlands from regulation and to allow reduction of already-inadequate buffers will ensure the continued degradation of wetland functions and values in Renton and are inconsistent with the stated purpose of the draft SAO. M. WETLANDS 1.Applicability: As noted above under 5f, wetland regulations should apply to all wetlands, regardless of size or hydrologic isolation. a. Classification System: We urge the City to adopt Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington(2004). Ecology first introduced a rating system for western Washington in 1991, and it has been extensively field tested,revised, and refined since then. A new edition of the rating system(see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0406014.html),which was finalized in August, is based on Nkiiro *NO Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 4 a better understanding of wetland functions,ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. This function-based rating system represents best available science for rating wetlands in Washington. The City's draft CAO proposes a modification of the system adopted by King County in 1983 that is inconsistent with the best available science. The thresholds for wetland size and number of vegetation classes are not related to performance of functions and should not be used as a basis for differentiating wetlands for applying varying protection measures. King County has abandoned this outdated approach to wetland rating and has adopted Ecology's new wetland rating system. We recommend that Renton do the same. b. Rating System Comparison: The Rating System Comparison shows the City's wetland categories with presumed equivalent categories under Ecology's system, "[biased on Parametrix review." The June 28, 2004, BAS review by Parametrix of the City's CAO makes no reference to any field testing or comparisons of the City's system with either the 1993 or the 2004 system of Ecology. The conclusions by Parametrix do not appear to be supported by any testing to compare the results of classification of specific wetlands—in Renton or elsewhere— using the different systems. The draft CAO's comparison of rating systems is not a trustworthy or useful guide. Ecology has conducted extensive field testing of our new rating system and has data on over 100 sites in western Washington that compare the results of the old Ecology rating system with the new one. We would be happy to share this information with you. 6.Wetland Buffers c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths: The wetland buffers proposed in the draft ordinance,which are unchanged from the existing code, fall far short of the widths that the scientific literature recommends to protect wetland functions. Buffers of 50 or 100 feet, for example, are not nearly wide enough to prevent degradation and loss of moderate-to high-quality wildlife habitat in wetlands next to high-intensity land use. The Parametrix BAS review dismisses the need to protect the water-quality-improvement functions of wetlands with the following statement: "Generally,wetland buffers are not expected to control water quality ... because City code requires stormwater management facilities that are designed to improve these functions." This assertion is at variance with the mandate of the Growth Management Act(GMA)"to protect the functions and values of critical areas" [RCW 36.70A.172(1)]. While stormwater management provisions can significantly reduce potential impacts on wetland water quality from adjacent land uses, they do not eliminate all impacts. Buffers are still important for protecting wetland water quality,particularly from the impacts of adjacent residential developments. The Parametrix BAS review states that land use,habitat fragmentation, and other conditions restrict"many highly sensitive wildlife species from using many wetlands in Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 5 the City" and concludes that"wetlands in the City will often not require the level of buffer protection identified by Ecology." We generally concur with this statement, and Ecology's new wetland rating system is designed to provide information about which wetlands in an urban setting are, in fact, providing important habitat for wetland- dependent wildlife. The GMA requires the protection of all existing functions. Buffer standards should be adequate to protect at least the more common wetland-dependent species such as amphibians,waterfowl, and wading birds. Ecology's guidance on buffer widths and compensation ratios relies on our improved understanding of how to protect wetland functions and represents the best available science. The buffer widths we recommend take into account not only the functions that need to be protected, but also the impacts of adjacent land use. Low-intensity adjacent land uses allow for narrower buffers around wetlands than those needed to protect from the impacts of high-intensity uses. Our recommendations are contained in the enclosed Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of our BAS document,Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State(the entire document is available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas_wetlands/index.html). Buffer Alternative 3 (Tables 4 through 7)described in this appendix offers the most flexibility, basing buffer widths on the wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland functions that require protection. Also enclosed are Appendices 8-E and 8-F,which explain the reasons for the recommended buffer widths and compensation ratios. The advantages of using this approach include the following: 1. It provides for specific buffer widths based on the more detailed information provided by the new wetland rating system that the City proposes to adopt. 2. It is based on the best available science regarding wetland buffers and provides for wider buffers around the more valuable and sensitive wetlands and narrower buffers around the wetlands that are less valuable and sensitive. 3. It will generally result in smaller buffers around wetlands in highly urbanized areas because many of the wetlands in developed areas are not providing the habitat functions that require larger buffers. 4. It provides incentives to landowners and developers to incorporate low-impact site- development measures to reduce runoff, noise, light, etc. Using such measures allows for reduced buffers. 5. It provides incentives to landowners and developers to provide connectivity between wetlands on their property and other habitat areas in exchange for reduced buffers. This approach will also provide a greater degree of predictability for applicants and reduce the risk that the City will act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in applying buffer reductions. King County has adopted buffers consistent with our recommendations under Buffer Alternative 3 for areas both inside and outside of their urban growth area(UGA). We recommend that Renton consider doing the same. Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 6 d. Increased Buffer Zone Width: This provision is an important means of ensuring protection for wetland functions in special cases. Because increased buffers may be required only rarely and because of the expectation that standard buffer widths almost always apply,the standard buffers should be made wide enough to protect wetland functions in almost all cases. e. Reduction of Buffer Width Assuming that adequate standard buffers are adopted, allowing buffer widths to be decreased by up to 25%(but not to less than 35 feet)may be reasonable under specific conditions. It should be demonstrated that no reasonable use of the property is possible otherwise and that the decrease does not impair buffer and wetland functions, and mitigation should compensate for the buffer impact. However, allowing reductions from standard buffers that are at or below the bottom end of the range supported by best available science will result in degradation of wetland functions and values. e. Averaging of Buffer Width: In addition to the criteria given in the proposed CAO, it should be shown that no feasible alternatives to the site design could be accomplished without buffer averaging. In addition to allowing reduction of a buffer width in places by no more than 25%,we recommend that a buffer not be reduced at any point to less than 35 feet. 9. Compensating for Wetland Impacts: We applaud the goal expressed here of"no net loss of wetland function and acreage" and for"a net resource gain over present conditions." 11.Wetlands Creation and Restoration e.Acreage Replacement Ratio The draft CAO's proposed replacement ratios for creation and restoration appear to be within range of Ecology's recommendations, depending on how wetland categories are determined. If Renton's Category 3 wetlands were in fact equivalent to Ecology's Category IV,the proposed compensation ratio would be appropriate. Without a function- based classification,however, higher ratios may be needed to guard against a net loss of wetland function. For example, under a three-tier system, compensation ratios for nonforested Category I wetlands should be 4:1; for forested and scrub-shrub Category 2 wetlands,the ratio should be 3:1. This would better account for the risk of mitigation failure and the at least temporal loss of wetland functions and values. We urge you to consider using Ecology's four-tier classification system and the guidance on pages 12 to 19 of the attached Appendix 8-C. Table 9 in this appendix shows suggested compensation ratios for different types and categories of wetlands and for various kinds of mitigation. This guidance is consistent with what the state and federal agencies require for mitigation. By adopting this guidance the City will help applicants Nue Ms. Rebecca Lind December 7, 2004 Page 7 by providing consistency with state and federal requirements, which will streamline the approval process for mitigation projects. Ratios may be increased or decreased in specific cases according to the probability of success, the difference in functions,the timing of mitigation, and other factors. We suggest that standard compensation ratios be based on the category of the wetland impacted and the nature of the mitigation, i.e.: • reestablishment or creation,; • rehabilitation; • enhancement; or • a combination of reestablishment or creation and enhancement. King County has adopted the mitigation ratios in our recommendations for areas both inside and outside of their UGA. We recommend that Renton consider doing the same. I hope you will evaluate the enclosed documents and consider our suggestions for improving your draft ordinance. Where the proposed CAO departs from the guidance of best available science, the City should set forth the reasons for this departure and its implications and potential risks. The City's reasoning and analysis should be part of the findings of the adopting ordinance. Ecology's wetland specialists will be available to discuss our comments with you and provide additional assistance throughout your CAO update process. I look forward to working with you to support your efforts to update Renton's CAO using best available science. Please call or e- mail me with any questions or for further discussion. I can be reached at(425) 649-1417 or riro461 c(r�ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, /< Richard K. Robohm Wetland Specialist Enclosures RKR:rc cc: Anne Fritzel,Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Donna Bunten, Ecology CAO Review Coordinator Erik Stockdale, Wetlands Specialist, Ecology Northwest Regional Office Jones & Stokes Memorandum Date: March 2, 2005 To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton; From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner Subject: Staff Recommended Adjustments to January 26,2005 Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments I. Introduction The City prepared a Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments package dated January 26,2005, which is a subject of the March 2, 2005 public hearing before the Planning Commission. The purpose of this memo is to provide supplemental staff recommended changes as a result of: • Additional comparative wetland class analysis in response to prior State Department of Ecology comments provided in December 2004; • Considering the application of the proposed stream alteration regulations (e.g. transportation crossings and stream relocation)to example locations; and • Housekeeping/clarification changes. This memo summarizes the supplemental changes in each of these topic areas in the remainder of this memo. The recommended supplemental code changes are shown in Appendix A. II. State Wetland Regulation Comments In December 2004,the Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE)provided comments on the City's July 13, 2004 draft critical areas/shoreline regulations update. DOE's comments primarily addressed wetlands regulations where the City intended to maintain its current wetland classification and buffer approach with some modifications. In response to comments, the January 26, 2005 draft critical areas regulations included several changes in exemptions. It retained standard buffer widths but added that the increased buffer width review process would be a mandatory review instead of discretionary. Appendix B describes the DOE comment topic and the resulting change in the January 26, 2005 Review Draft code proposal. 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 • Bellevue,WA 98005-1946 • tel.425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079 www.jonesandstokes.com One Ecology comment addressed differences in City and DOE wetland classification systems. Since the time that the January 26, 2005 draft code update was made available for the public review process,the City's wetland consultant, Parametrix,has completed additional research comparing DOE and City wetland rating systems and resulting potential buffers. As a result of the additional review, the consultant and city review team continue to recommend the approach to wetland classification and buffers in the January 26, 2005 draft code update, but also recommend that the review criteria under which wetland buffers may be increased be further modified as well under what circumstances buffers may require vegetation enhancement. The potential additional amendments and the related policy issues are described below. A. Wetland Rating Comparison Renton relies on development standards for storm water detention and storm water quality treatment to protect wetland water quality and hydrologic conditions and functions. Therefore, wetland buffers in Renton primarily protect the habitat function for wetland dependent wildlife. The wetland rating system used by Renton focuses on ranking wetlands as habitat for wetland dependent wildlife species. A survey of 17 representative wetlands in Renton was performed in 2005 to assess the characteristics of wetlands present in the City, including wildlife habitat, as part of the City's critical areas ordinances review(Parametrix, 2005; see Appendix C). That survey included comparison of City's and DOE's differing methods of classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to protect existing functions and values (see Table 1). The survey showed that very few(if any)wetlands in Renton score high for wildlife habitat using DOE criteria(greater than 28 points per the DOE 2004 rating system). Most wetlands in the City have low to moderate wildlife functions. In Renton,DOE Category I wetlands have moderate wildlife functions and high to moderate functions for hydrology and/or water quality. The highest buffers recommended by DOE (225-300 feet)are primarily to protect high wildlife habitat value and therefore are not generally necessary for wetlands in the City of Renton. To protect wildlife functions in those few wetlands where wildlife habitat does have high value, the City has included a code provision with criteria for increasing buffers beyond its standard range. Wetlands with moderate wildlife functions (between 20 and 28 points) are rated Category 1 and Category 2 wetlands by the City's system, requiring 100 and 50 foot buffers respectively. Wildlife functions are further protected by existing and proposed City code provisions that mimic DOE's guidelines for reducing wildlife impacts on wetlands (fencing, signage, lighting, and noise provisions are a few examples). In cases where wetland dependent wildlife are present, increased buffer widths may be required by the City to protect the wildlife and all other functions of the wetland. For the wetlands with low wildlife functions (less than 20 points), 6 were found to be Category 2 wetlands and 4 were Category 3 wetlands,requiring 50 and 25 foot buffers respectively. These wetlands generally lack true aquatic or semi-aquatic habitats and the survey showed they would generally not support wetland dependent wildlife species. The March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 2 NNW 'wine buffers that the City requires on these wetlands would provide habitat for upland wildlife species present in the wetland and buffer areas. To ensure that functions and values are protected for the Category 3 wetlands,the 25-foot buffers are required under proposed amendments to be restored to full function if they are degraded, or alternatively increased buffer widths could be required to protect functions and values for poor quality buffers. The result of(1)the City's wetland classification system, (2)buffer designations based on that classification system, (3)process to determine when wider than standard buffers are required to protect functions and values, and(4) other code requirements for storm water quality and quantity controls, will protect functions and values of wetlands that exist within the City. Table 1 Comparison of Renton and Ecology Rating for 17 Wetlands Size(Acres) Rating/(Buffer) Ecology Score by Function (Estimated) Water Wetland Renton' DOE2 Habitat3 Quality4 Hydrologic Total Springbrook >10 2(50) II(110-150) 22 30 14 66 4th and Union 2 3 (25) III(60-80) 17 12 16 45 Sunnybrook A 0.7 2(50) III(60-80) 15 14 6 35 Sunnybrook C 3.8 2(50) III(60-80) 16 14 6 36 Sunnybrook D 1.5 2(50) III(60-80) 15 14 6 35 Sunnybrook E 0.2 3(25) III(60-80) 12 14 6 32 KC Cedar 150 11 2(50) III(60-80) 17 16 12 45 KC Soos 1 7 2(50) I(110-150) 22 28 26 76 KC Soos 2 134 1 (100) I(110-150) 27 32 32 91 Cedar 2 37 2(50) I(110-150) 22 32 32 86 Bank Site A-1 (27-G) 24 2(50) I(110-150) 23 32 16 71 Bank Site B-1 (27-E) 22 1 (100) III(110-150) 23 32 16 75 Bank Site B-2(27-F) 10 2(50) II(110-150) 21 20 26 67 Bank Site B-3(27-D) 0.3 3(25) III(60-80) 15 12 8 35 Bank Site C-1 34 2(50) III(60-80) 16 12 10 38 Bank Site C-2,C-3 48 3(25) III(60-80) 14 12 12 38 Bank Site D-1 7 2(50) II(60-80) 12 24 16 52 ' Renton buffers are as proposed in the 2005 Critical Areas Ordinance. 2 Ecology buffer requirements assume the Ecology 2004"Alternative 3 Approach"and represent the range of buffers achievable under the"High Impact"land uses. The lower number presented can be achieved when certain mitigating measures are implemented,as required by the city code. 3 Bold indicates moderate habitat value(i.e.>19 points,per Ecology);all other scores are low habitat value. 4 Bold indicates wetlands function"well"(i.e.24-32 points per Ecology)at improving water quality. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 3 B. Summary of Recommended Supplemental Wetland Regulation Adjustments Based on the Parametrix analysis of best available science in June 2004 and the recent rating comparison summarized above and in Appendix C,the following supplemental amendments are recommended: • Continue the City's 3-tier wetland class system. Because some development proposals require both State and City permits,the critical areas code proposal in July 2004 and January 2005 indicated how a wetland rated under the DOE system would rank under the City's class system. However,based on the review and conclusions of the rating system comparison, it is recommended that the City continue with the City's current wetland rating system and remove references to the DOE rating system. • Continue with the proposal for mandatory review to determine if increased buffers are warranted. Modify the criteria related to increased buffer widths to ensure that their intent is achieved. • Specify or cross-reference the conditions of approval that may be applied to reduce potential impacts of development on the functions of wetlands/buffers (such as fencing, signage, directional lighting,planting types, stormwater controls, erosion control, and others to provide for proper buffer function). • Require that Category 3 buffers (25 feet)be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. Additionally,to clarify further the limitations on wetland exemptions and mitigation compensation, some supplemental edits to the January 26,2005 code proposal are also recommended: • A review criteria,used when considering exempting small Class 3 wetlands, addresses the presence of water to support amphibians. This would be further modified to indicate the general depth of water and time of year. See Appendix A. • The City can require increased wetland restoration/creation mitigation ratios. The ability to increase ratios for the combined approach of restoration/creation and enhancement is proposed to be added. C. Policy Issues —Increased Buffer Width Review Process A process for reviewing increased buffer widths acknowledges the occasional variability in wetland habitat functions in Renton's planning area. As written the process does not provide a specific upper limit on a potential wetland buffer increase favoring a more flexible review process. The review process is based on site-specific conditions and analysis, including a wetland analysis demonstrating use of best available science. Another approach to create more certainty in the permit review process would be to establish upper numeric limits if increased buffer criteria are met. For example, the upper cap could March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 4 %r. v✓ be based on Ecology Buffer Alternative 3 (Hruby 2004)that creates a variable buffer system based on wetland conditions and proposed land use intensity. Alternatively, since the City's wetland conditions are reflected in a narrower range than Ecology's approach for western Washington, the upper cap could reflect a smaller potential increase. The potential pitfalls of creating an upper cap are two-fold: 1)the upper buffer cap becomes a point of appeal during permit review if the City determines that increased buffers are not warranted or that increased buffers between the standard and upper cap are appropriate rather than the maximum cap; 2) setting a specific upper cap could also create confusion where a buffer above the cap may be appropriate but not authorized, in which case the City would need to use its SEPA authority to condition a proposal. To solve these problems, the code provides that increased buffers be sized based upon best available science as necessary to protect existing functions and values. Ill. Stream Alteration Regulations The code allows for transportation crossings and stream relocations under certain circumstances (e.g. no other alternative exists, relocation is needed for purposes of flood control or results in net environmental benefit, etc.)As a result of several pre-application reviews where road crossings and the potential for associated stream relocations and buffer reductions are being considered, it was apparent that some of the code languge was not entirely clear. Some supplemental changes are recommended: • The criteria for stream buffer reductions includes that the buffer is either well vegetated or can be improved to be well vegetated. The code language is dense, and we propose to break out the concepts in the criteria for better understanding. • The ability to cross a stream is allowed subject to criteria including that there is no other feasible alternative as well as minimizing the crossing length, etc. We propose to clarify the criteria related to no feasible alternative to instead say that the crossing alternative has the least environmental impact and meets the City's plan and design requirements. • The ability to relocate a stream is provided if the propsoal is due to a public flood control project,public road/facility expansion with no other feasible alternative, or when a water body is restored to have a net benefit to habitat/species. The conditions include that buffer widths are based on the requirements of the stream class or based upon compensation for no-net-loss of function. We recommend clarifying the buffer requirements between a ditched stream and a proposed expanded road,particularly for Class 4 streams where water quality is the primary concern and habitat functions are of lesser concern(buffer between facility and stream is no less than current; enhancement is required). IV. Housekeeping/Clarification Changes Based on staff review of how the code would be interpreted and applied, some housekeeping or clarification measures are included: • Clarify how stream buffers are measured at pipe openings—measure at 90 degrees from the pipe opening rather than a 180 degree arc. • Ensure stream and wetland report content requirements indicate the report must describe how any applicable criteria are met/not met. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 5 • Remove a duplicate definition of"high rise" in RMC 4-11. V. Summary Staff recommends that the January 26, 2005 code proposal be approved subject to the further amendments described in this memo. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 6 Appendix A Proposed Supplemental Edits to 1/26/05 Review Draft Regulations (Base text accepts the revisions from the January 26, 2005 version and adds supplemental changes shown in strikeout/underline.) Amends 1/26/05 C.APPLICABILITY—EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: draft, 5. Specific Exemptions—Critical Areas and Buffers: page 19 d. Surface Water: i. New Surface Water Discharges:New surface water discharges to wetland Categories 1,2 and 3,or buffers of 'Categories 1,2 and 3,and to streams or lakes from detention facilities,presettlement ponds or other surface 'water management structures;provided,the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm and Surface Water Drainage Regulations(RMC 4-6-030);will not result in significant adverse changes in the water temperature or !chemical characteristics of the wetland or stream/lake water sources;and there is no increase in the existing rate of flow unless it can be demonstrated that the change in hydrologic regime would result in equal or ;improved wetland or stream/lake functions and values.Where differences exist between these regulations and RMC 4-6-030,these regulations will take precedence. f.Wetland Disturbance,Modification and Removal: i. ActivityAmends Any in Small Category 3 Wetlands:Any activity affecting hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland no 1/26/05 greater than two thousand two hundred(2,200)square feet when consistent with all of the following criteria: draft, (1)Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts,i.e.approximately 12 inches to 18 inches in depth from I page 23 'approximately December through May,to support breeding amphibians; (2)Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened,or the presence of essential :habitat for those species,are not present; (3)Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions,for example,stormwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation;and (4)A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption ,are met. The wetland assessment shall be subject to independent secondary review at the expense of the applicant consistent with Section 4-3-050.F.7. March 2, 2005,Recommended Adjustments 7 L. STREAMS AND LAKES: 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply:These stream and lake regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters which are exempt.All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable. b. Measurement: i. Stream/Lake Boundary:The boundary of a stream or lake shall be considered to be its Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM).The OHWM shall be flagged in the field by a qualified consultant when any study is required pursuant to Subsection L of this Section. ii. Buffer:The boundary of a buffer shall extend beyond the boundaries of the Amends stream or lake to the width applicable to the stream/lake class as noted in 1/26/05 draft, Subsection L.5 below, Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements.Where streams 2090 and lines and to enter or exit pipes,the buffer in subsection ii shall be measured in an arc 180 corresponding perpendicular to the ordinary lines 4288 to high water mark from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the 4291. stream. 9°. / Figure X. Buffer measurement at pipe opening. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 8 'goy Nme 5. Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements: c. Reduction of Buffer Width: i.Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study,the Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum buffer widths where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections iv(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii above; or compliance with Subsections iv(b), (c),(d), (e), and (f)below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii. above. ii. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator:An enhanced buffer shall not be less than the widths specified below for reduced buffers. (a) Class 2: 75 feet (b)Class 3: 50 feet (c)Class 4: 25 feet (d) Sites Separated from Shoreline:As determined by the Administrator,for development proposed on sites separated from the shoreline by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures, roads, bulkheads/hard structural shoreline stabilization, or other substantial existing improvements. For the purposes of this section, the intervening lots/parcels, roads,bulkheads/hard structural shoreline stabilization, or other substantial improvements shall be found to: • Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or width; and • Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most riparian functions from the subject upland property to the water body. The buffer width established shall reflect the riparian functions that can be delivered to the regulated stream. Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a)through(c)above require review as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B.Where a Class 2 or 3 stream is daylighted,greater buffer reductions may be allowed by modification in RMC 4-3-050.N.2. iii. Procedure: Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file. Public notification shall be given as follows: (a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record, if any, in accordance with RMC 4-8. (b)For applications that are subject to notices of application,the buffer determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon determination, notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made. iv.Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: The following criteria(a)and(c) through(f),or criteria(b)through(f)shall be met: (a) Buffer condition: Either subsection i and iii through v shall be met or subsection ii through v shall be met: March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 9 Amends i. The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including 1/26/05 draft, trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species lines 2436 to cover and has less than fifteen percent(15%)slopes, or 2444 and ii. er-The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non- corresponding native species per criteria(c), and has less than fifteen percent(15%)slopes; lines 4368 to and 4377. Hi. the The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; and iv. the The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and v. no-No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to Subsection F3 and RMC 4-8-120; or (b)The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed,as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and (c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or in the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on- or off-site riparian/lakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions and (d)The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (e)The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and (f)The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 8.Alterations Within Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers a.Transportation Crossings: i.Criteria for Administrative Approval of Transportation Crossings in Stream/Lake or Buffer Areas: Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study subject to the following criteria: Amends (a) Thereis-no--tether--feasible-alternative-route-wit#-lessThe proposed route is 1/26/05 draft, determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City lines 2563 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4- and cor- 6-060; and responding line 5301. (b)The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and (c)Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and (d)Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and March 2,2005, Recommended Adjustments 10 Now Amends (e)Bridges-Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish 1/26/05 draft, and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine line 2572 and Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings,2000,as cor may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; responding and line 5308. (f) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and (g) Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii.are met. e.Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers--Stream Relocation: i.Administrative Approval of Stream Relocation: Stream relocation may be allowed when analyzed in an accepted supplemental stream or lake assessment, and when the following criteria and conditions are met: (a)Criteria—Stream relocation may only be permitted if associated with: (i)A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies;or (ii) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or (iii)A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species. (b)Additional Conditions:The following conditions also apply to any stream relocation proposal meeting one or more of the above criteria: (i) Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location, provided that the Amends buffer widths may be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of L.5 c or d or 1/26/05 draft, subsection (b)(ii).;-er Where minimum required buffer widths are not feasible for lines 2669 to stream relocation proposals that are the result of activities pursuant to criteria 2672 i(a)(i) and i(a)(ii) above, other equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-loss of riparian function is provided_;and (ii)When Class 4 streams are proposed for relocation due to expansions of public roads or other public facility improvements per subsection (a)(ii)above, the buffer area between the facility and the relocated stream shall not be less than the width prior to the relocation. The provided buffer between the facility and the relocated stream shall be enhanced or improved to provide appropriate function given the class and condition of the stream; or if there is no buffer currently, other equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-loss of riparian function is provided. (iii)Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. must be met.;ar d (i ijy Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations, per I RMC 4-3-050.D.3.b, Information to be Obtained and Maintained, and RMC 4-3- 050.D.3.c, Alterations of Watercourses, in cases where the stream/lake is subject to flood hazard regulations of RMC 4-3-050, as well as RMC 4-3-050.F8 if neighboring properties are impacted. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 11 M.WETLANDS: 1.Applicability:The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in RMC 4-3-050.C. (Amd. Ord.4851, 8-7-2000) a. Classification System:The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating wetlands in the City.Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance criteria shall be based on the following rating system: i. Category 1,Very High Quality Wetlands: Category 1 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species;and/or (b)Wetlands having forty percent(40%)to sixty percent(60%)permanent open water(in dispersed patches or otherwise)with two(2)or more vegetation classes; and/or (c)Wetlands equal to or greater than ten(10) acres in size and having three (3)or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or (d)The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence; and/or Amends 1/26/05 draft, lines 2746 to State-of-Washingten-Department-of-€cology- 2747. ii.Category 2, High Quality Wetlands: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b)Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c)Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e. a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d)Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Amends 1/26/05 draft, lines 2759 to 2761. iii. Category 3, Lower Quality Wetlands:Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 12 'Nov low • Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and • Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and • May have altered vegetation. (b)Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: • Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and • Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c)All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Amends 1/26/05 draft, lines 2780 to 2782. 6. Wetland Buffers: a. Buffers Required: i_Wetland buffer zones shall be required of all proposed regulated activities abutting regulated wetlands. ii.Any wetland created, restored, or enhanced in conjunction with creation or restoration as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall include the standard buffer required for the class of the wetland being replaced. iii. _I required wetland buffer zones shall be Amends retained in their natural condition. Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet 1/26/05 draft, require the buffers be fully vegetated with native species or restored; lines 2897 to otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be 2903. required. iv.Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. b. Measurement of Buffers:All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of subsection M4a of this Section, Methodology. c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths: i_The width of the required wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the wetland category.The buffer zone required for all regulated wetlands is determined by the classification of the wetland. If standard buffer widths cannot be met,and buffer reductions per subsection M6e of this Section, and buffer averaging per subsection M6f cannot be accomplished, a March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 13 variance to buffer requirements may be requested per subsection N of this Section,Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures. If the criteria in subsection d below are met, standard buffers may be increased. _ Wetland Category Standard Buffer I Ve HigF Category 1 —Very-High-Quality 100 feet ;Category 2—High--Quality 50 feet !Category 3—Lower-Quality 25 feet ii.To protect the buffer functions, the Reviewing Official shall condition permits as appropriate to the nature of the development. Conditions of Amends approval may include, but are not limited to,the following: 1/26/05 draft, lines 2907 to (a) Fencing pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.E.4.e, plant materials, and 2914. signage pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.E.4.f, to limit pet and human disturbance; (b) Directing lights from buildings or parking areas,or noise generating activities, away from the wetland; lc) Implementing water quality treatment measures required in RMC • 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water)Standards; (d)Avoidance of buffer disturbance and retention of the buffer in a natural condition consistent with 4-3-050.M.6.a. d. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width: Each applicant shall document in required wetland assessments whether the criteria d.i through d.ivi are or are not met and increased wetland buffers are warranted. Based on the applicant's report or third party review,the Responsible Official may require increased standard buffer zone widths in unique cases, i.e., endangered species,very fragile areas, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetlands functions and values. Such determination shall be attached as a condition of project approval.Analysis shall be prepared as directed in subsection v, and notification shall be given pursuant to criteria vi. Amends 1/26/05 draft, lines 2907 to ii.The wetland is used by species listed by the Federal or the State government 2940. as threatened, endangered and sensitive species and State-listed priority species, essential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees or evidence thereof; or iii.The subject property, or Nnearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetlandare susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts;or March 2,2005,Recommended Adjustments 14 °4110w law iviii. Nearby-The subject property,or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetland ' have minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than fifteen percent(15%) and conditions cannot be restored to prevent adverse wetland impacts; or iv. Wetland dependent wildlife species are observed to be present in the wetland, and may require larger buffers based upon the evaluation in subsection v; and v. For proposals meeting any of the criteria in subsections i to iv, buffers are established using aA site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000,or a-similar approach-has-been conductedes, and; vi. Notification is given consistent with F8. e. Reduction of Buffer Width: Based upon an applicant's request, the Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard wetland buffer zone widths on a case-by-case basis for Class 1 and 2 wetlands where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with subsections M6ei and iii or ii and iii below. Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file and public notification shall be given in accordance with M6e(iv).Conditions may be applied in accordance with subsection v. (Amd. Ord.4851, 8-7-2000) i. The buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%)slopes and no direct or indirect,short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City,will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered;or ii. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced buffer will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer.An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a twenty five percent(25%)reduction in the buffer wid Amends . Greater buffer width reductions 1/26/05 draft, require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section. lines 2941 to 2974. iii. A-The proposal shall rely upon a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000,or a-similar approaches ha;. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iv. Public notification of the buffer reduction determination shall be given as follows: (a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record, if any, in accordance with RMC 4-8. (b) For applications that are subject to notices of application,the buffer determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 15 application. Upon determination, notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made. v. The Reviewing Official shall apply conditions of approval equivalent or greater than those identified in M.6.c.ii to ensure that the reduced buffer width protect the functions and values of the associated wetlands. f.Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i.That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and iv.A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or a similar approach has been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905;or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%)of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet(25)wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions,wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to F8. 12.Wetland Enhancement: e. Ratio Modification and Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: i.An applicant may propose an increased creation or restoration ratio and a Amends decreased enhancement ratio if the total combined ratio is maintained 1/26/05 draft, overall. Restoration/creation or enhancement ratios shown in subsection lines 3199 to M12d of this Section may only be reduced by modification or variance 3207. pursuant to subsection N3,Alternatives, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B,Variance Procedures, and RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures. In order to maintain no net loss of wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or creation ratio be less than 1:1.This minimum ratio may not be modified through the variance process. March 2,2005, Recommended Adjustments 16 ii. The Reviewing Official may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation or enhancement proposal; significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions;projected losses in functional value; or off-site compensation. The requirement for an increased mitigation ratio will be determined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations where the Administrator or Environmental Review Committee may require increased mitigation ratios. March 2, 2005,Recommended Adjustments 17 4-8-120.D DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 19. Definitions S: Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental: The application shall include the following information: a. Unclassified Stream Assessment: If the site contains an unclassified stream, a qualified biologist shall provide a proposed classification of the stream(s)based on RMC 4-3-050.L.1 and a rationale for the proposed rating. b.Alterations to Stream/Lake and/or Buffer(s):A supplemental report prepared by a qualified biologist shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria for justification: i. Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake or buffer; ii. Minimize any stream, lake or buffer impacts; iii. Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts,; iv. Restore any stream, lake or buffer area impacted or lost temporarily; v. Enhance degraded stream or lake habitat to compensate for lost functions and values. c. Impact Evaluation: i.An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a qualified biologist, to include: (a) Identification, by characteristics and quantity, of the resources (stream, lake) and corresponding functional values found on the site; (b) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modifications, or alternative methods of development to determine which option(s)reduce(s)the impacts on the identified resource(s)and functional values of the site; (c) Determination of the alternative that best meets the applicable approval criteria and identify significant detrimental impacts that are unavoidable; (d)To the extent that the site resources and functional values are part of a larger natural system such as a watershed,the evaluation must also consider the cumulative impacts on that system; ii. For a violation,the impact evaluation must also include: (a) Description, by characteristics and quantity,of the resource(s)and functional values on the site prior to the violations; and (b) Determination of the impact of the violation on the resource(s)and functional values. March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 18 Noe ,Note Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure compensation for unavoidable significant adverse impacts that result from the chosen development alternative or from a violation as identified in the impact evaluation.A mitigation plan must include: a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than 1"=20' (unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director): i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies)flow(s); ii. The ordinary high water mark(OHWM)determined in the field by a qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b(the OHWM must also be flagged in the field); iii. Stream classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3- 050QX or RMC 4-3-090 or as determined through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study approved by the Administrator; iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s)and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where slopes are 10 percent or greater; v. 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies)flow(s); vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major drainage flow; vii.Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed, banks,and buffers to scale; viii.The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position,species, and size of all trees at least 10 inches average diameter that are within 100 feet of the OHWM; ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s);and x. Location of site access, ingress and egress; xi. Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation measures will take place on the site; xii. Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take place and areas where vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and xiii.Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact indicated on site plan. b. Mitigation narrative that includes the following elements: i. Description of existing conditions on the site and associated water resource(baseline information); ii. Resource(s)and functional values to be restored,created,or enhanced on the mitigation site(s); March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 19 *Or NVIO iii. Documentation of coordination with appropriate local, regional, special district, state, and federal regulatory agencies; iv. Construction schedule; v. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the site; vi. Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to be achieved by mitigation; vii. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring standards and timelines(i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly); viii. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation; ix. Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating surety device; and x. Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for the proposed Amends stream/lake alteration or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of 1/26/OS draft, conformity to applicable mitigation plan approval criteria of 4 3 050.L.9 and 10 or d 3 line 6357. 0904:9. xi. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project. 23. Definitions W: Wetland Assessment: A wetland assessment includes the following: a. A description of the project and maps at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet(1"=200')showing the entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the wetland boundary surveyed by a qualified wetlands ecologist, and pursuant to RMC 4_3- 050M3; b.A description of the vegetative cover of the wetland and adjacent area including identification of the dominant plant and animal species; c.A site plan for the proposed activity at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet(1"=200')showing the location,width, depth and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, stormwater management facilities,sewage treatment and installations within the wetland and its buffer; d. The exact locations and specifications for all activities associated with site development including the type, extent and method of operations; e. Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the wetland and its buffer at contour intervals of no greater than five feet(5')or at a contour interval appropriate to the site topography and acceptable to the City; March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 20 sir �.++ f. Top view and typical cross-section views of the wetland and its buffer to scale; g. The purposes of the project and, if a wetland alteration or a buffer reduction or Amends averaging proposal variance-is being requested, an explanation of why-the-prepesed 1/26/05 draft, how applicable review criteria are met; lines 6503 to 6504. h. If wetland mitigation is proposed,a mitigation plan which includes baseline information, an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions, environmental goals and objectives, performance standards, construction plans, a monitoring program and a contingency plan. i.Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: • Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; • Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; • Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts; • Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; • Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and • In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator.Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. j. Such other information as may be needed by the City, including but not limited to an assessment of wetland functional characteristics, including a discussion of the methodology used; a study of hazards if present on site,the effect of any protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards;and any other information deemed necessary to verify compliance with the provisions of this Section. (Ord.4587, 3- 18-1996;Amd. Ord.4835, 3-27-2000) March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 21 Chapter 11 DEFINITIONS 4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H: HIGH RISE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)A structure exceeding seventy-five(75)feet in height. [Editor's Note: From Renton's adopted SMP 9.20.] Amends 1/26/05 HIGH RISE:A structure exceeding seventy five feet(75)in height. draft,line 8965 March 2, 2005, Recommended Adjustments 22 a., w 0 co C ca a. p " a) .y > V1 - O c .� o ct c � ° aik .,rd1Q °� � 4)a oq• 5 b o w ° 3 „05 .55a E • o ,5 ha0 . oo 0 , a5 • a) ° ap ° 0 a 0a o o 4 o a) . v " � �0 > 2 >,0 - o rA•i ° 0t ° 0 ° a N � V > i, ,0 . OO 3 . 0 U ' a) Y r)y Io tn ti Y 3 coG 30 on o o ti - w o U > ° �v) o 3 a) 0 o ° ' 0 o ▪ O C ° o =. a i ..a� ,, ,. �yb 'G y al �' 3 a o o a' o > , c a) v) N ' ay W o ao U .Y .� O •o N «. o ,b y t "' 4„col 0.)y � E VU p hiN• ' w O o cd O0 o 'a 0 O cC •C c U ° ° v O •d ri' mdwQ y e, ., .) ° a a) Nbc) " C . w ° cp 7 }' m NN tiU 60 O ° C b1 'do • cV - a) o o -Ok 0 - ,6 o b ta a4 Up' aW a) . ) o0 E wo o y cv ;; o, ° ° � : � iaU o b o U a) a rzli • .o " ,° . y ate .. o oo wrn 0. . >, b e a p e a . Uio o °0 .ow To' Kao > a) o v o `110 o co ti ., a I •54-4 r: Y -v .b 3a. aC � oa (iE w a 3 , d i o o . 0 �o o . 0 'p o ' u ph M c b a u E. c 4, q 5.Q. .0 a � co 0 Y �'.' ,0 0, o w' o I-.0 B ° aa. G 0 co a � � c.) , o , • E-, 0 .5 QLE oO ewao h w -9 V .0 0 3 Q •Cn ati EO ° w4° .o F. 3 CD re N a) � o. . w .> • p5 N o- C ~ U O a ci ••-• i • 'e � yw mo O C m 'b 0 ) rn a',.) 4) U y 0 0 1" y• ,,.. -O Y .� .., m .b •O f-� w. 4..•' a) f t. G> . i 4 . a y N .4 3 0, O cS• 0 w 74 O > a.'u e - N O C. d - > cd c° a) cl ., .cvpp �, ,o" a) o a) o .s ao ,� o i a) O. w w a 0 0 N o cd 00 `� c o y v U ti w o o ., �' k 04 f iy -0 0 u, b 3 , ao) ce .b4 a,) O• n o t y >,.G cP. U w C U r 2 vi 'El t w a) S : C W oo C 'p _ ° a) 3 >,.b av o 'Cpm 0, . a N 'g .ty '0) .... > 00 o V w = o a' p a) • O 4 o a) y rn cd •r. r2 ci O ca YO a) ,_,0.,„, C.. d '0 g U •0 . N a) . G'"..r co ao .+ a a) . "�• a 0 3 Et o .' o u c" a) o 3 c4, .ra' :r as w k Ec a) '. as 0 ,S •, •° a N a) o woo o 'tea �▪ aa) o oa ./ea) 0 > o ,,, o. caoN En 3 „)" N 0 4 0 . OA o a) a� to) 3 a) V cad w ° c) b m :• •b e. A > 0 eN 4 a� o a ca a v a' op t' o rn c O o 0 ° •' a l as2 :3 cps co ri o ,os 0.. N U 0 U :-,. N bo U 0 v os •'a.' o o p.N Q) c� •in 0 y a'_".., ~ :y d \ ° ., ,S a) 3 • A. co � oo0o3t° ,�`a,, a3i00 .5 > � o• co . ,,5EN �co o0.000 a}0) 2 . 0 Ci cd o Q a, OS' b ,. o a o .b a >ea a a� 3 O c°) cos •� c o ;= 0 « a a. ca 0 3 o ' ,. a[a 0 o., c°, 3 cda v b p, .' c,, '' w .-+ l0 w • 'rI) •a) C o CN,' y •� •--� .� pp . � pp .fl -e •� ,S',, � p d U •b Cam. O y O '� .� y 110 cd N ed O •b N �O O cd y L. . 'o a) tel .4 0 3 a`") tu 7) o a) >' a) Q'$ °a a") o o '0 3 c`O.i a_ ca a E• co° E-, 3 C •n 0 o .5 b w ca H o -E b E O.g4 3 0, 3 w c>a a , 'rA v 3 ti U a) a) o ..V., o3 to 1.0 U cii do 'b 0 el Ed 15O 0 o -. Y x a .~ 0 go g o co . 0 0 a 0 , 'oai . `i o GG a) o,„ a aJh . rnb7Un p W Q ..�W c W ..-. W A g 46ll►' v' N p a) w. c0 >, w. a) "0 tIO4. w q61 <t) c0 , C q O n aw a v " ,„ y y q 00 ° � D 'b o ai wY v 0C O t T G :0 y� " H N c0 0) O 0 ... •', c0 b F (0 O ti .b N N H U 0 U r+ O N y� o v� c) ,U5 N :° c0. Oi as b by _ y y U b `� p 0 v, a ti a) 'Y a,) a) '� >,= w .0 .o up•q p, by •gib ° cu 2w 4 0 w o - U , o • ' 3 0 -0 v A o 'V) CO• a' Mt o a) o cd a' y • -o fA4. >, V3 Y 0 a.- G N 0 O -o ° by voi q 0 a) p Lq q cy q w w ... q .� ,o y }, ,(n O 0 — 04 U 9, y y 'b q 0 0 . , y •-. 0 ^s'� 00 0..p q b .,�. q .c4 y a5 C 3 (" I • ii a. • b. ,�, (� �-�W by w � cd 0 3 Y o v �i j y Q q 'y pop O O o .� "3v 6, D v L-' O U y0 N N a) ., A („� q 0 0 .U U c0 ''' YUi O V 'q c0 ^ Q Q .. 3 °M o ° = .0 0 u aqi 0 b u.0 w0 a) 4 ' a (n tu a aa) 3 ~ o c0 0 lo 3 0 (n �a) 'b E 5 o. •0 b .� . 2 N ••q L. > °' b b ti 'h 'c7 0 0 k .kro a � � ' y � � ° .� 0° -Jo o -o cue .n .fl cq0 '� o 0 a O - d q U F. ° p w a) y o.• b)..0 a) 'V) (a p c0 aai C p ▪ p .� cj -0 ° a) ca o w g 0 d ... cJ r ccf /) ,4 E-, o F-( c0 o .c b H 15.., 'b .n U o. c0 0 d a o o ) N M ,q 0 A C o qGNY .+ cd . ow G . O L' 2 >'.5 y co N 'D i0 •"" 00 k 5 Cl) .Cl) . p •(n G p 6. OF's y y N U CI U 4- ? .0 C YO a6) CT b q > O O v o b -0 O • Q U O " o O y w (0 'd (n 'b• U .,, 6) -' 0 ero Ts 0 ,o ti ab) . p^) y0, o 4. cg U •o CIn 0 0 0 a▪ 0i c0 d O h a) o ,. In 0 by O Q' 3 q U w i ..... p g y O1. `n •0 p +(/� 0 3 w a) 4.}' c` 0Cr cod 'id 0 4, . aI) 0• cy, ° 0 2 N qo b '" a0 al �'i b ° ( 3 aoi y o E o b :� 00 K w (Nn 'b 'n 42. N >, o p N 'r •� N „ U 0 O "' '� O o • c0 cap 3 'bL., bn A 4) . 0 ° N p, 0. w. U .0 .0 N 0) .. 3 0 rn by'Opp 'b (n CS' 0 y .U v y 'U by LL a) a) U w cd a) > 5+, i0 •9 , a '+� cd O v' O •�y u q (. O s� u . , q m > b U ° y U 0 U V E-' O N W Ty N C p U U , U N U o. 4, c.w tics �s .— ►-� .. rn a.• a) 0 co 6, •C q q . - 1' > o k) p 3 a) p a u o .b 6 0 0 0 a 0 'Y ed 0 ,.. c .0 O m/ a •° ,� a°i C , A' 0 > a�4 0 t' w 0 § 00 a co 0 a) to O 'b O a) X 4" K .2 h k a) a) ° ° c0 'o 10 H ° 0 0 e1 (j F-4 Cl F; w a a 3 N o w ., ob = x o. a. 0 a' a) q ati E-+ H ._ • a 2 b 0 �••t. o o ,.,. a) bo . W Ot_ H U (!) � � CA C0O E � go WU 0oa¢ `d 0 )• : )0 a) V o N H o ai • o � N ri¢ V o ov o .o-W , p p ° ° ,i d C to CCL try a: yV. ., of V. ''' '., C i`" ''' -o cd w ¢ w � E" 33c4voAa3r: N cn C En 0 "0 0 vi a N 0 ' I „ a i3 ' 0. a) O a) .-° y .t' h y ad to E• u U U V a o E .00 a) 0 NdEv .yp a) „, a . N oo..... 'o ., a, 00, o a 9 m � �, v' a.2 a Ea'b 'Y cl o; "0) E � t ° oF �0pa ' 0 � a o ' •- opoy , o c . te 5>,p i ao y • o 4.) o ay . coG ., y 0 y a cm .., ,, . u > g -xi b ,� ° a oN13 0 ' C UUca 0 c a ' NE N Uv IS va) ?, cn `� ' . o ;.. >. E o E a) 0 .- .0 b 0 a 0 0b > v; 4 , .-, 0 od U cdE 74 .E N0 a 5 ff 5, a) .ab •E � 0 09 ▪ 0 r, .s w a Ual o s . ❑ o • 'ti Y N V A Vj N ONa a ° CA O [ R CC; O ` ° O ' oQ) o . • ay 0 •2eio ° +4- > ° o F-' . vi Y E ;g .. ° g ' om ., =O , . . 3 b .o u p a 4v = a) o t-' 04_,, w H 1 ' 3 y .b a U ) a) a ••, pp 4. a) V y .+ o cd..r U N V a a Cd .. Oa s0 4. Y «s 3yo 40 $0. N cy VI 4. 0 t" O a) a. 4 C. O 0 . •a O • i0U ' bA4 b1 _ .., y a . ) •'' 4° .° o w,' U ° .. o a O D0. ) i V 4 .1 E•' ab .- ' )b c N �. 3 .,0 b . • y C.) a '-' vo o ) Q t1 o o pD N Ti V- ^ '-' a) ° 00 = ' cC 3 ) � . EN Eb +, w o a °' 4. V. y g a) tu a 5 a E 'o ° a • ° a) 'v Ey oNa) UNo " a ga. ) ¢ Ny ' : •° " 'C E -- t • a ,, 3 a �) Ey ' �, y d. O �+.� � a a) es 0 . a) OEv4 4. ° 0 6H -CS cC td 4+ y 0 .0 'V c '0 E . . , ° X 0 ., c6NU a .. pG y NC.0 'b t. 4.,) P.i5 .O V] ) Ire) y Ncd • y ..0 I. N u .b O a . ti . Eov3 .2 � oco0 v w 't ca) •b > a) � v •5 a � ' - a oa) .? o a) a.) 0a Y b v oa U 'ti 4 a v O ° ° o o 0.,(:.,, E '.�.. °, y m a . - o.> 4. o2 tiaE a) o10oJo .0 Eo . ; 9 o O C 4 . a) .. a) 4 toEn v U ^ o..y 'b • a) O o Uy o ° . Q, 0U 0c" aya °y .a a c '.2 -o > IE3 0 .-• E •� � >, a a) 0 0 00 ioo to ca '4. co ,4 N a c� G 'b +- a) 'd y L 9 'a U •po4 .o O f� 417 b . En U . 0 p0 '+ 0 1p 4... a 0 'A .0 .0 k . b n a al o ct44 > a a '0 ) N ° b 'dE -doN 'dOvg .° bo4 O > b p.,4 ¢ ti .5 E o E 4.. .o V. o ° o 0 3 cts cci 2 cts 4).. a) to p. E a v, 0 0 la 0 E CI .4 ..o o a) U 0 co) "0U W 4. N a) O O 03 4) N aP o R. •-+ .0 o o • a 4) 0 o 2 •� .. 0 b� o. o E ¢ 0 v, v Q..- 00•� � E-.. ,- 0 H O U a) N ( w 0o kris •OC. o O a) N E-+ toU o Ns- •Y ca. p U ¢' 3 3a N V as 0Ib ! i >, VCw 4) p N . a) cC 'it" o a) cC [--. 'C1 y F. O 3 3 ''a).o O o ` >,b �. >, a0i o 3 `° 0 3 ti .. .0 0 0. 0 06 d 2 ca �.. w v; e, a s ..... 'J.' O " Oq 0 3 0 coia. z L. '4' p.,° aa) ' 0 2 - •0 y ... 'b CA)•••-• 0 O.:b 0 O 4. •o O W 0 . 'U y Y ID .c3 . '+ 0V0R. aL tiOH .° cc9 a) 0 w O O41 ,0 ��?" 4. ~ ed '0 47N U O 0 4° 2" 0 a) p i+' 0 O U Y cd O p., t c" O q $ cy va cn .O " U 0 ,� f� v a) 0 C >, a, Q o • 3 n p at ., y w 0 a.') a0i 0 0 4.) 4) O ., . v32p v ab > ,. Qu. a) U a0o ., � ou � a) •� ai) 7,4 w p .a) a) H 0 `c� b 0 .b 0 Oq .12 d O .., ca N ,. o .� O 0 o a) - " 4 3 v) G o o ••� 3 0 ••. v) I. I. tn `° °' 7 caw q q ° `) >>p. o p �' 3 0 4� u . o o .n •� o o . 0 V O N o N 00 p p. O N U V Q N 'fl 3 , a) O a) .� .0 a) 03 O '{". W is ,4:.. `0 F„ a) p GA A > a) � � ,� y c°> ° w � �' c 0 o a a .� 00 al �' y o0,o a�a ba d . .o a0 w o ?)) 0 -5 o .° o 0 U A. 0 0 >, E y a . 0 . a .3 Cl W o 'M kw ob .. •i 0 -.' 0 ea . O a) b F... 't•7 a> p 0 w 0U 2 0 0 ~ > v •- o a) 0 o 0 3 .� .o z �, o O 0 b • a, -- ' •0 Ci-y a) a o � b o � � .0ac1 eta, '. O Q' N a) .O .ti .--.V t y O a) ,P cC O 4r V. y Q . cC O y ... O •v O N u. O O ti N a) F, , tom.. y •F p E.. H `., cC O •� 0 V ° 4� �. 6, O V 4i Cl 64 'O V I..O O • w>, v0i •0 `a Cl2- l 00 N G b 1-4 N E O w• 0 0 . W a n O C .5•� O •° O q iC •... .4 o' Cl• c.' '^01 t„ .O ., .0 0 ., .b •O 0 a) c G 0 0 O •.,• F v, i •v • cy o c w o o ., C b y o :� 0 -,, c —. •-. 0 ... 0 tv ;C cn y y• i. N t, .+ ,�. a) aO+ .... N N. N O O O O G ` �•. ^ •.. m 6'.+ y cn y h ., t. 7.3 .0 W w v 3 ao.. 0 • "0 rn 'b o 0 3 ., . 0 /. cC 0 Q cn P. ai f� b .° b 0 at U a) .6, a) v O a) rn 0 g W 0 'n 3 N `~ 2 bo 0 g 0 o 0 •,. -, o .b N b .o 4 H •0 0 0 VIU 0 a.)P4 Cd 0 ... b es 0 O F Q CV N 0 -0 z w V.► N W vi ti o 3 o •p u.'t E 4 0 O CO j el) q of '0o p ' O YN >> O „cs > U c0 0) N y •:: ti, �% cal N U •o U O •O 2 •2 3 'U � O y a , • 'c0 OO c0 0 • L" C Y N s. ��" O O O > 'C .O 0 .O O 'b OyQ000 N O 'bW U� `�,. 3W 0L tg " " o o - oE UQ.A • o b el) y 0 c0 0 'o .5 P1•o EO F O 1.4 a) 3 E U a) -a a) a) p, c0 (1) .2 0 B E " O g o E a) a e' A v, a U �1 U rx 7,3 ° cl U U V cl o a) U ° 0 d w 3 d ..y N N .b V .b 0 U c� H O .i� U Cd • • • 00 N CA N .73 ai N O U Vl N N td Appendix C Parametrix Memo March 2005 roz=rziii ENOINEEAtNO.RANNtNO•ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 411 108th AVENUE NE,SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE,WA 98004-5571 T.425.458 200 F.423.458.6363 I VO w J f1CLLI1.c a M E M O RAN D U M Date: March 2,2005 To: Dr. Andy Kindig,A.C. Kindig& Co. From: Jim Kelley,Ph.D. Subject: City of Renton Wetland Rating System—Field Review cc: Lisa Grueter,Jones and Stokes Project Number: 553-4942-001 Project Name: City of Renton Best Available Science Review Introduction A survey of representative wetlands in Renton was performed in 2005 to assess the characteristics of wetlands present in the city, including wildlife habitat, as part of the City's critical areas ordinances review (Parametrix, 2005). That survey included comparison of City's and Department of Ecology's (DOE) differing methods of classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to protect existing functions and value. The survey consisted of: • Review of wetland reports, maps, and aerial photographs to identify 17 wetlands to evaluate further. • Conduct a field reconnaissance, review wetland reports, maps, and other documents. • Rate 17 wetlands according to the City of Renton and the 2004 Ecology rating system. • Compare the rating of the wetlands and 2 rating systems to determine how the City's buffer requirements protection wetland functions Findings The general results of the survey are summarized in this section. Based on the rating and review of 17 wetlands and other observations, a variety of wetland types are expected in Renton (see Tables 1 and 2). Table 1. Summary of Ecology and Renton Rating for Wetlands Occurring in Renton Ecology Observed Renton Category Ecology Type Categories Occurrence in Renton' I Natural Heritage/Bog Uncommon Estuarine/Coast Lagoon Does not occur Habitat 29-36 pts Uncommon Habitat 20-28 pts 1 and 2 Common None of above Uncommon II Estuarine -Interdunal Does not occur Habitat 29-36 pts Uncommon Habitat 20-28 pts 2 Common None of above 2 Occasional III Habitat 20-28 pts 1 Occasional None of above 2 and 3 Common IV All Common Renton relies on development standards for storm water detention and storm water quality treatment to protect wetland water quality and hydrologic conditions and functions. Therefore, the wetland rating system and protective buffers used by Renton focus on ranking wetlands as habitat for wetland dependent wildlife species. Therefore, the results of Ecology and Renton ratings are discussed in terms of wildlife habitat ratings. Based on the general review and detailed ratings of wetlands, there are no or few DOE Category I wetlands in Renton with high habitat values. The wetlands that have moderate habitat functions (DOE Category I and II wetlands) are Renton Category 1 wetlands that are likely to support wetland dependent wildlife, or are Renton Category 2 that may or may not support wetland dependant wildlife. If wetland dependent species are present in these Category 2 wetlands, they are likely to be small mammal and amphibians and less likely to be bird (waterfowl) species. However, some Renton Category 2 wetlands could contain stream channels with fish. t The occurrence of these wetland types is estimated from detailed investigation of 17 wetlands and from other observations of the City's wetland inventory and field conditions. Parametrix Page 2 of 5 March 2, 2005 *OW *4110 Table 2. Comparison of Renton and Ecology Rating for 17 Wetlands Size(Acres) Rating/(Buffer) Ecology Score by Function (Estimated) Water Wetland Renton2 DOES Habitat` Quality5 Hydrologic Total Springbrook >10 2 (50) II (110-150) 22 30 14 66 4th and Union 2 3 (25) III (60-80) 17 12 16 45 Sunnybrook A 0.7 2 (50) III (60-80) 15 14 6 35 Sunnybrook C 3.8 2(50) III (60-80) 16 14 6 36 Sunnybrook D 1.5 2 (50) III (60-80) 15 14 6 35 Sunnybrook E 0.2 3 (25) III (60-80) 12 14 6 32 KC Cedar 150' 11 2 (50) III (60-80) 17 16 12 45 KC Soos 1 7 2 (50) I (110-150) 22 28 26 76 KC Soos 2 134 1 (100) I (110-150) 27 32 32 91 Cedar 2 37 2 (50) I (110-150) 22 32 32 86 Bank Site A-1 (27-G) 24 2 (50) I (110-150) 23 32 16 71 Bank Site B-1 (27-E) 22 1 (100) III (110-150) 23 32 16 75 Bank Site B-2(27-F) 10 2 (50) II (110-150) 21 20 26 67 Bank Site B-3(27-D) 0.3 3 (25) III (60-80) 15 12 8 35 Bank Site C-1 34 2 (50) III (60-80) 16 12 10 38 Bank Site C-2, C-3 48 3 (25) III (60-80) 14 12 12 38 Bank Site D-1 7 2(50) II (60-80) 12 24 16 52 2 Renton Buffers are as proposed in the 2005 Critical Areas Ordinance. 3 The range of buffers includes the Ecology 2004 "Alternative 3 Approach" and represents the range of buffers achievable under"High Impact"landuses. The lower number can be achieved when certain mitigating measures are implemented. High Impact Use buffers may be reduced if proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts are included. These measures can include: I. Direct lights away from wetland. 2. Place noise generating activity away from wetland. 3. Route all untreated runoff away from wetland,or covenant restricting pesticides w/in 150 ft,or Integrated Pest Management Program. 4. Infiltrate or treat,detain and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces including lawns and tilling. 5. Impenetrable natural vegetation around and/or in buffer to discourage resident and pet intrusion. 6. BMPs for dust control. 4 Bold indicates moderate habitat value(i.e.>19 points,per Ecology);all other scores are low habitat value. S Bold indicates wetlands function"well"(i.e.24-32 points per Ecology)at improving water quality. Parametrix Page 3 of 5 March 2,2005 Ecology Category IV wetlands were not evaluated in detail in this study. They commonly occur as small wetland areas adjacent to roads and other development, and are presumed to also occur on undeveloped land. It is expected that these wetlands would meet Renton's criteria for a Category 3 or Category 2 wetlands. These wetlands would not contain moderate or high wildlife functions. The survey and rating of wetlands showed that very few (if any) wetlands in Renton score high for wildlife habitat based on the DOE criteria of than 28 points for habitat indicators that are part of the DOE 2004 rating system. Most wetlands in the City have low to moderate wildlife functions. In Renton, DOE Category I wetlands have moderate wildlife functions and high to moderate functions for hydrology and/or water quality. These wetlands are rated variously as Renton Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands. Ecology rated Category III wetlands have low habitat functions (less than 20 points for habitat indicators) and are rated as Renton Category 2 or 3 wetlands. The inconsistent correlation between Ecology wetland categories and Renton wetland categories results from fundamental differences in the rating systems. In general, the Renton system rates wetlands according to a few key features that are generally related to wildlife habitat functions (especially wetland dependent species) while the Ecology system is based on rating wetlands according to several functions, one of which is wildlife habitat. The scoring of other functions by the Ecology system and the greater array of habitat variables in their system results in the variability in ratings between the two systems. Protecting Wetland Functions Renton relies on development standards for storm water detention and storm water quality treatment to protect wetland water quality and hydrologic conditions and functions. Therefore, the wetland rating system and protective buffers used by Renton focus on ranking wetlands as habitat for wetland dependent wildlife species. The result of(1) the City's wetland classification system, (2) buffer designations based on that classification system, (3) process to determine when wider than standard buffers are required to protect functions and values, and(4) other code requirements for storm water quality and quantity controls, will protect functions and values of wetlands that exist within the City. The highest buffers recommended by DOE (225-300 feet) are primarily to protect high wildlife habitat value and therefore are not generally necessary for wetlands in the City of Renton since few of these wetlands are present in the City. To protect wildlife functions in those few wetlands where wildlife habitat does have high value, the City has included a code provision to identify those situations and establish criteria for increasing buffers beyond standard ranges. Wetlands with moderate wildlife functions (between 20 and 28 points) are rated Category 1 and Category 2 wetlands by the City's system, requiring 100 and 50 foot buffers respectively. Wildlife functions are further protected by City code provisions that mimic DOE's guidelines for reducing wildlife impacts on wetlands (fencing, signage, lighting, and noise provisions are a few examples). In cases where wetland dependent wildlife species are present, increased buffer widths may be required by the City to protect the wildlife and all other functions of the wetland. Wetlands with low wildlife functions (a score of less than 20 points using the Ecology system) are Renton Category 2 and Category 3 wetlands. These wetlands require 50 and 25 foot buffers Parametrix Page 4 of 5 March 2, 2005 respectively. These wetlands generally lack true aquatic or semi-aquatic habitats and the survey showed they would generally not have habitat characteristics that are necessary for wetland dependent wildlife species. The buffers that the City requires on these wetlands would provide habitat for upland wildlife species present in the wetland and buffer areas. To ensure that functions and values are protected for the Category 3 wetlands, the 25-foot buffers are required to be restored to full function if they are degraded, or alternatively increased buffer widths could be required to protect functions and values for poor quality buffers. The result of(1) the City's wetland classification system, (2) buffer designations based on that classification system, (3) a required process to determine when wider than standard buffers are needed to protect wetland functions, and (4) other code requirements for stormwater quality and quantity controls, will protect functions and values of wetlands that exist within the City. Parametrix Page 5 of 5 March 2,2005 ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMETNAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING SEPA REVIEW PROCESS ERC Report and Decision dated August 17, 2004 Containing a summary of environmental information,buildable lands analysis, and comments and responses,titled: "Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, LUA-04-084, ECF: Citizen Comments and Responses: August 11, 2004" • STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: August 17, 2004 Project Name: City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations Project Number. LUA-04-084, ECF Project Manager: City contact—Judy Wright(425-430-6575);Alternative City Contact—Rebecca Lind(425-430-6588) Project Description: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act(GMA),Shoreline Management Act(SMA),and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context. Specific objectives are to: • Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the Environment Element. • Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes,and based upon the literature review develop buffer requirements.The review program includes recommendations to amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies, apply buffers,and provide for no- net-loss of ecological function. • Document a best available science review of the City's wetland regulations, and provide for appropriate amendments to improve or better document the wetland review process. • Compare the City's aquifer protection,flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as appropriate. • Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies,address text and map inconsistencies,and provide for shoreline protection regulations. These limited amendments would apply in the interim until full Shoreline Master Program Update is accomplished in accordance with the new SMA schedule(2009 for the City of Renton): o Integrate Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive Plan,essentially intact. Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities of RCW 90.58.020(differentiate between Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all other Shorelines of the State that are found in the City). o Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course to address Shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified annexed area. Field review and analysis were conducted for the limited map amendments. For these areas regulations would be applied consistent with environmental limitations and existing uses. o Address shoreline protection regulations,including buffers,in the Shoreline Master Program to provide for equivalent protection per State legislation(ESHB 1933),while responding to use priorities of RCW 90.58.020. Project Location: Would apply citywide. Exist. Bldg. Area gsf.• non-applicable Site Area: non-applicable B. RECOMMENDATION CAO ERC Augl7_f { City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environta!Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton BAS Critical Areas Regulations &SMP GMA Integration LUA-04-084 ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF A UG UST 17,2004 Page2 of 4 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. X Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None proposed. See Section D. 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 Non-applicable. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? The proposal adds stream regulations expanding the buffer width from 25 feet in most instances to 35 to 100 feet depending on water class; it enhances the coordination of the Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan; it makes minor adjustments to other critical areas such as addressing volcanic hazards;and it modifies review procedures generally. The proposal is a non-project action. The proposal has been developed by the City. No mitigation measures are proposed. The proposal includes several features intended to balance environmental protection with the varying environmental conditions—urban, suburban, natural—found in the City. Buffer widths vary by classification based on the quality of the critical area. Addressing the variable environmental conditions and need to allow reasonable use of property are the following measures: • Existing development would be recognized, and in cases where the buffers are largely developed,they would be treated as setbacks; • Density credits in buffers (same development potential,clustered away from critical area); • Buffer reductions where enhancement or other mitigation is included;some would be allowed administratively provided criteria are met;further reductions allowed by variance; • Buffer averaging provided enhancement or other mitigation is included:averaging the total area required with the reduced areas up to half of standard width;further reductions allowed by variance. • On and off-site mitigation allowed where buffer reductions, buffer averaging, or impacts to critical area are identified;and • Modifications and variances. CAO_ERC_Aug17_f sirri City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton BAS Critical Areas Regulations&SMP GMA Integration LUA-04-084 ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17,2004 Page3 of 4 The chart below summarizes the environmental analysis in the SEPA Checklist associated with the DNS. Topic Summary Analysis Earth Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The regulations maintain development precautions in areas of geologic hazards. Minor improvements to the City's geologic hazard regulations are proposed: • Additional review criteria are proposed to ensure development is safely accommodated. • The proposed regulations would newly address volcanic hazards and require critical facility proposals (e.g.government,hospital,etc.)in the Lower Green River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to demonstrate adequate engineering standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and prepare an evacuation and emergency management plan. Air Quality Not applicable to this non-project action. Water The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The proposal adds new stream,river,and lake regulations,including amendments to classify water bodies, protect streams and lakes with buffers,and provide for no-net-loss of stream/lake ecological function. The regulations maintain development precautions in aquifer protection areas.Amendments include minor modifications to improve or better document the City's decision-making process with respect to wetland protection as site-specific developments are reviewed. Plants/Animals The proposal will increase protection of aquatic life,particularly salmonids with new stream,lake and river buffers and related standards. The proposal will continue habitat conservation regulations,which may be used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development.The City designates habitat conservation areas,primarily by referencing State and Federal designated endangered,threatened,sensitive,and priority species. It requires a habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and Federal Agency input. The City may condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas. Energy Not applicable to this non-project action. Environmental Health Not applicable to this non-project action. Noise Not applicable to this non-project action. Land Use The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act(GMA),Shoreline Management Act(SMA),and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the context of the City of Renton environmental and planning conditions. The non-project proposal would increase the compatibility of the City's plans and regulations with State planning requirements. It would allow for mitigation of future site-specific land use proposals with the potential to impact critical areas and shoreline ecological functions. Housing At a programmatic level the development regulations would affect how development occurs. Existing residential development can continue.New residential development is generally required to be clustered away from the critical area and any required buffer.Regulations would continue the City's practice of excluding critical area buffers from net density calculations,which means density in buffers is"credited" for a development and density would not necessarily be limited by the buffer regulations. Future site- specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. Aesthetics/Light and Not applicable to this non-project action. Glare Recreation The proposal will facilitate shoreline permitting for some City park and recreation facilities by addressing the City's golf course and parks in the SMP Use Environment Map, rather than relying on the King County SMP. It will allow for consideration of appropriate levels of passive and activity recreation in the Use Environment regulations. Historic/Cultural The proposal continues and cross-references historic and cultural preservation policies as part of the integration of Renton SMP and Comprehensive Plan Policies. Transportation Proposed stream and shoreline regulations address road and utility crossings and criteria intended to allow for needed public infrastructure while promoting non-net-loss of ecological function. These measures are intended to address the environmental impacts of future development and infrastructure proposals. Public Services/Utilities Not applicable to this non-project action.(Also see Transportation.) Also as part of the environmental review record,the ERC reviewed a discussion of buildable lands capacity in relation to the stream regulations. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased,but the increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has substantial growth capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning districts, particularly multifamily,commercial,industrial and mixed use districts,offer flexibility in building heights, CAO_ERC Aug17_f City of Renton P/B/PW Department Enviroml}Isntal Review Committee Staff Report, City of Renton BAS Critical Areas Regulations&SMP GMA Integration LUA-04-084 ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST l7.2004 Page4 of 4 • setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of stream ecological function. The analysis is contained in the project file. Also considered in the issuance of the threshold determination were several documents produced as part of developing the non-project action: • "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration," Jones&Stokes, July 13,2004. • Draft City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig&Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27,2003. • Stream/lake classification results are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map prepared by AC Kindig &Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning staff. • "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments,"Jones&Stokes, July 13,2004. • "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments,"Jones&Stokes, March 8,2004. • "Transmittal of Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations,"Jones&Stokes, July 13, 2004; together with"Best Available Science Ordinance Review"by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004. • "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard,and Habitat Conservation Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code,"Jones&Stokes, July 13,2004. • "Revised Review Draft--Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments,"Jones&Stokes, July 13, 2004. Includes proposed code amendments. Includes example sites and how proposed stream regulations would apply. Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department,as well as the City of Renton website (www.ci.renton.wa.us/, under the Department name). 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. ERC considered public comments made during the comment period for the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-significance(DNS),and are part of the Official File. The comment period began July 19,2004 and concluded on August 9,2004, and included a one-week extension of the comment period to allow additional opportunity for public comment. The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Parties of record are on a mailing list to be notified of upcoming public hearings. The public may also contact the Renton Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, or view the City of Renton website (www.ci.renton.wa.us/,under the Department name)for upcoming meetings. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7,2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. CAO_ERC_Aug t 7_f Effect of Proposed Stream Regulations on the City's Buildable Lands Analysis August 12, 2004 Overview Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has substantial growth capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning districts, particularly multifamily, commercial, industrial and mixed use districts,offer flexibility in building heights,setbacks, lot sizes, densities,etc.to accommodate substantial development. Last,the proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging,and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of stream ecological function. Buildable Lands Analysis Summary • The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a Citywide capacity for 10,620 housing units based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme, not including the new Urban Center zone adopted in 2003 which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings through the year 2030. This is 71%to 154%above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target of 6,198 units.The buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for critical areas(steep slopes and wetlands). • The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205 jobs,not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs.This is 17%to 166%above the City's assigned 2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed reductions for critical areas as noted above. • The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with partially developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite. However, City regulations for the commercial, office,and industrial zones allow substantial heights and minimal setbacks,which should allow flexibility in arranging developments'. For residential developments, it is important to note that in accordance with net density defintions buffers are not subtracted from net density calculations,meaning unit potential within the buffers remains for each site allowed residential uses, and units may be clustered onsite. For example the maximum density in the COR 1/2 zone without bonuses is 25 units per net acre, and bonus densities are also possible. The number of units would be determined by calculating densities on all buildable areas and buffers,but not critical areas themselves such as in-water or in-wetland areas. The COR standards do not prescribe a minimum For example,the following mixed use,industrial,and commercial zone summaries give a sampling of flexible standards: • The COR zone allows up to 125 foot building heights,a 10 foot front yard,no standard rear or side yards,and no minimum lot sizes. • Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibility include:no minimum lot depth,no lot coverage standards,no minimum side or rear yards unless abutting residential zones,50 foot building heights in the IL zone with the ability to request conditional use permits for greater heights,and no building height limits in the IM and IN zones. • The CA zone has the following features:50 foot height limit with ability to request additional height with conditional use permits; no minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths;front yard setbacks of 10 feet;and no minimum rear or side yard widths for properties that do not abut residential zones. August 11,2004 Page 1 of 3 lot size, width, or depth. Building heights, densities, and use allowances would accommodate a variety of structures including multi-storey attached units. Since the 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes, but not streams outside of wetlands,City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information for ERC consideration. The general approach was to 1)determine the area of the stream corridors,2)calculate the ratio of developed versus undeveloped and redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for single family zones; 3)determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4) determine the change in the number of possible units. Multifamily zones, commercial zones,and mixed use zones were not included in this analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these zones were based on recent achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed which is conservative. Also, these zones allow greater height to express the density/intensity potential. The table below identifies the outcome of discounting streams in the buildable lands analysis? Stream Reductions - Single Family Buildable Lands R-5 Linear Feet of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of Stream R-8 Area R-10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct. meters ft. class meters ft. class meters ft. class 98.09 321.84 4 643.68 168.47 552.75 1 16,582.42 71.33 234.02 3 1,170.10 288.66 947.10 1 28,412.96 111.71 366.53 4 733.05 216.72 711.06 1 21,331.78 47.56 156.05 4 312.10 56.37 184.94 1 5,548.12 438.34 1438.19 1 43,145.83 16.52 54.19 2 1,625.83 34.37 112.75 2 3,382.55 57.33 188.09 2 5,642.67 17.87 58.63 2 1,758.89 78.40 257.24 2 7,717.16 40.06 131.44 2 3,943.25 75.04 246.19 3 1,230.96 141.90 465.59 3 2,327.94 58.48 191.89 3 959.44 30.65 100.55 3 502.76 59.16 194.12 3 970.59 88.14 289.20 3 1,445.99 57.16 187.55 3 937.76 138.80 455.41 3 2,277.05 22.95 75.30 3 376.50 22.00 72.19 4 144.38 44.72 146.73 4 293.47 25.01 82.07 4 164.13 12.80 41.99 4 83.98 186.36 611.46 4 1,222.93 45.15 148.13 4 296.25 77.15 253.12 4 506.23 2 The City's buildable lands analysis removed critical areas,but not buffers as these are credited for density,and in nonresidential zones,flexibility in heights and other development standards allow development potential to be expressed. August 11,2004 Page 2 of 3 • R-5 Linear Feet of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of Stream R-8 Area R-10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct. meters ft. class meters ft. class meters ft. class 8.72 28.60 4 57.20 94.84 311.17 4 622.34 SF 643.68 153,511.33 2,215.26 Acres 0.01 3.52 0.05 Unit Reduction 6 du/ac 0.09 6.7 dulac 23.61 9.53 du/ac 0.48 24.19 Notes: Stream area deducted from buildable lands considered in September 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report. Stream buffers are credited for densities in the net density definition,and are not deducted. R-1,No stream removals per City GIS. R-14,not estimated;not likely to have further reductions,and streams are not mapped. Multifamily,Commercial,Industrial,and Mixed Use zones,not estimated since there are greater heights allowed and since dwellings (where allowed)were not calculated at maximum densities in the buildable lands model. Stream width assumptions: Class 1,30 feet,measurement of Cedar River at Maple Valley Road at the R-8 zone,per King County I-Map. May Creek at R-8 along 1-405 is less wide,but 30'used for conservative estimate. Class 2,30 feet,measurement at Honey Creek Estates II plat,although that includes associated wetlands,and Is likely conservative. Class 3,estimated 5 feet wide. Class 4,estimated 2 feet wide,from sample development site on SE 128th,an upstream segment of Maplewood Creek. Given the City's substantial growth capacity above targets and the City's net density approach,the general conclusions above did not substantially change as a result of the stream and buildable lands review. References City of Renton. July 8,2003. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS. King County. September 2002. King County Buildable Lands Evaluation Report. • • • August 11, 2004 Page 3 of 3 • City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration LUA-04-084, ECF Citizen Comments and Responses:August 11, 2004 Table of Contents Summary Table of Comments and Responses 2 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses 7 Comments by James C.Hanken on behalf of JH Baxter and Potential Responses 11 Comments by Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company, and Potential Responses 14 Comments by Seattle Audubon Society and Potential Responses 20 Renton Shoreline Master Program Definitions of Water Oriented/Non-Water Oriented Uses 22 • *100 Summary Table of Comments and Responses The following chart summarizes comments and responses that are more fully described later in this document. All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). The comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program,which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well. Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses Davis Wright Tremaine for Barbee • Proposed regulations appear to • Stream buffers are proposed to be Mill,August 2,2004 have significant adverse impacts increased,but the increased on existing land use plans and buffers are not anticipated to population allocations, significantly affect the City's recreational and development existing land use plans and opportunities,and private use and population allocations. The City enjoyment of the waterfront. has substantial growth capacity • Traffic and pollution associated above its targets. • with concentrating densities • The City's zoning districts offer elsewhere within the City to flexibility in building heights, offset the elimination of buildable setbacks,lot sizes,densities,etc. lands under the proposed In addition,the proposed stream amendments have not been regulations allow for disclosed or considered. administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, • The proposed revisions appear to and modifications or variances for force a few private landowners to reductions/averaging below the bear burdens for the public administrative levels provided benefit but should be borne by the there is no-net-loss of stream public as a whole. The proposed ecological function. Some of the minimum buffer standards have reduced buffer widths allowed significant adverse impacts on the administratively are comparable ability to develop land translating to current shoreline setbacks and into impacts on economics and stream buffers in current land use more generally. regulations. • The City's net density calculation, which retains the dwelling unit potential for critical area buffers, is an"onsite"calculation and is not transferable to other sites. • The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals and 2 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses purposes of the State Growth Management Act(GMA)to consider best available science in regulations and policies,to provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the public trust,as well as to meet other GMA and City goals for management of growth. Flexibility in terms of administrative buffer reductions, averaging,and modifications or variances are a part of the regulations to provide for reasonable use of property. The ordinance as a whole,both standard buffers and requirements and provisions for flexibility, have been considered in the City's environmental review. • SEPA focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts,while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process,are not a required SEPA topic(WAC 197- 11-752, 197-11-444,and WAC 197-11-450). i is James C.Hanken for JH Baxter, • The determination of • See Davis Wright Tremaine • August 9,2004 environmental impacts must response above regarding zoning accommodate the urban and flexibility and stream regulation industrial nature of many of these flexibility. properties that have current • The regulations recognize that environmental issues such as landfill and dredging and stream hazardous cleanup requirements. Saddling these properties with alteration may be required to further economic constraints such accomplish site remediation in as proposed may well defeat the urban shoreline(Class 1 urban positive environmental objectives shorelines). These activities can the City wishes to advance. No occur in the water body and evaluation or study as to the effect buffer area according to the of such regulation on the proposed regulations subject to a economic viability of such stream/lake study and mitigation • remediation efforts have been plan,as well as compliance with included or considered in this Shoreline Master Program criteria process,which makes the for these activities. proposal under consideration • See Davis Wright Tremaine fatally flawed. response that SEPA focuses on environmental impacts,rather than fiscal and economic impacts. 3 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses Richard Gumpert,Independent • Density of development within • The CA zone provides flexible Development Company,August 9, certain urbanized growth areas is development standards. See 2004 a critical issue and a major policy Davis Wright Tremaine response objective of the GMA and above regarding stream regulation Comprehensive Plan. The need flexibility. for services as contemplated by the CA zoning remains material, • The regulation amendments are and the location of such intended to meet the goals and development at the intersection of purposes of the State Growth two prime arterials serves Management Act(GMA)to important traffic and other policy consider best available science in concerns. Reduced density,and regulations and policies,to thereby the reduced services to be provide for Shoreline provided at my Property by virtue Management Act use priorities as of an expansion of the buffer from part of the public trust,as well as Springbrook Creek,has not been to meet other GMA and City given adequate consideration in goals for management of growth. the draft ordinance. The benefit Flexibility in terms of to the shoreline of an imposition administrative buffer reductions, of an additional buffer given the administrative buffer averaging, current state of the land,pales and modifications or variances for with the other objectives of the reductions/averaging below the GMA and Comprehensive Plan administrative levels are a part of including,without limitation, the regulations to provide for density and the utilization of the reasonable use of property. stock of CA zoned land for the • The proposed regulations allow creation of livable-wage jobs. for already developed stream • By complying with these various buffers to maintain impervious conditions,including using my surfaces(buffers would function private property for a public- as setbacks in this case). For access trail and natural vegetated developments on shorelines with buffer,this Property is vested and partially developed or natural my company should not be buffers,development would need required to dedicate more land as to cluster onsite. a buffer. A landowner who fully • Based on discussions with the complies with and has satisfied all City Attorney,new materially the conditions imposed by the complete permit applications vest City should not be subject to new to the regulations in place at the conditions. time of application. Recent case • I did not perceive any significant law has affirmed this strict scientific information,new or definition of vesting. If a previously existing,that supports materially complete application is the imposition of an additional received by the City prior to the buffer at the Property under the adoption of the proposed current situation. As such,any regulations(expected by the end ordinance that serves to impose of 2004),that application would an additional setback at the be vested to the regulations in Property is too broad in its place at the time of application, i.e.the current Shoreline Master application and should be deemed inappropriate given the other Program and Critical Areas policy objectives and the Regulations and other City Constitutional rights of private development regulations. landowners. • An alternative approach could be 4 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF • C. • Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses • The regulation of this specific a development agreement.The Property by the draft ordinance is agreement has to be consistent not fair,disproportionately with the City's development €. burdensome and inconsequential regulations,meaning one would in furtherance of any legitimate need to put an agreement together objectives. It is tantamount to a before the new rules go into taking by regulation without effect. It would require a public legitimate public justification. hearing. The ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends and not disproportionately impact private rights without reason. Seattle Audubon Society,August 9, The commenter supports the • Surety Mechanisms— 2004 following provisions: Performance Criteria: Mitigation • Regulations protect critical areas plan contents are defined in 4-8- meeting definitions/criteria,even 120.D. For example the wetland if unmapped mitigation plan requirements include establishing goals and • Conservation easements or other objectives,preparing a monitoring mechanisms for native growth program,and a contingency plan. areas • Habitat Assessment Evaluation— • Priorities for mitigation—avoid, Citywide. The use of State PHS minimize,and compensate data will help the City define • Peer review of habitat blocks of habitat,including those assessments at City's discretion, that provide connections,such as particularly for controversial the PHS program category of development cases. "urban natural open space." Also, the City's proposed Environment Recommendations for changes to the Element amendments include a proposed regulations,or policy regarding adaptive recommended studies: management. • Surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans—agree but • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing recommend a list of performance Purpose to Protect Habitat. criteria. Because the primary citywide regulation addressing streams is • Habitat assessment requirements currently found in this ordinance, —agree. Suggest that the City but is proposed to be conduct an overall health habitat substantively amended and assessment,particularly looking contained in the critical areas at corridors and areas of regulations,and because the tree interconnection. cutting/land clearing regulations • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing cross reference rather than repeat E' Ordinance keep purpose critical area and habitat statement to preserve wildlife conservation regulations,the habitat and other important areas purpose statement was proposed rather than delete. Leave it in to to be amended. draw attention to the importance • Hazard Trees—Criteria or List of of trees as a major component of Arborists. The City wishes to habitat. provide some consistency in its • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing review of hazard trees,and has proposed a definition as follows: Ordinance—Exemption for Hazard Trees. City should clearly "[a]ny tree or tree part that poses 5 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF i i %isif NNW Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses establish criteria and/or establish a high risk of damage to persons a list of reputable arborist to or property as certified by a ensure such trees meet the qualified arborist and accepted by definition of"hazard"so that the the City." label is not misused and becomes • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing an excuse for easy tree removal. Ordinance—Land Development • The Tree Cutting and Land Permits Criteria for Tree Cutting. Clearing Ordinance includes The focus of the City's regulation performance standards for land amendments proposal is related to development/building permits. critical areas.The City has the The criteria for tree cutting is ability to protect designated incomplete and contains critical habitat through its critical loopholes. area regulations. Outside of critical areas,the tree cutting and land clearing regulations ensure that there is no indiscriminate tree removal. All proposals are required to meet the general standard that"trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing..."and the City has the ability to condition plans. 6 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF Summary-August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses Comment 1. The City's proposed DNS fails to adequately consider the magnitude of potential significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area regulations. Projects ultimately designed to benefit the environment may need to undergo SEPA review and SEPA recognizes this (WAC 197- 11-330(5)). Specifically,the proposed revisions appear to have significant adverse impacts on existing land use plans and population allocations, recreational and development opportunities, and private use and enjoyment of the waterfront. For example,the amendments reduce the availability of buildable lands on privately owned waterfront property, resulting in a shift of densities elsewhere(outside of the critical areas). The reduction of buildable lands may conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan,and this is apparently ignored in the City's documents. The proposed regulations retain critical area restrictions/buffers for certain geologic hazards and wetlands. In developing the new stream buffer regulations it is important to note that the City considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example sites. (See"Revised Review Draft--Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments,"Jones & Stokes,July 13,2004,updated from memos with similar information in 2003 and Spring 2004.) These were listed as supporting documents in the SEPA checklist. Buildable Lands. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has substantial growth capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning districts,particularly mixed use districts as applied to the Barbee Mill property, offer flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of stream ecological function. • The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a Citywide capacity for 10,620 housing units based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme,not including the new Urban Center zone adopted in 2003 which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings through the year 2030. This is 71%to 154%above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target of 6,198 units. The buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for critical areas (steep slopes and wetlands). • The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205 jobs,not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs.This is 17%to 166%above the City's assigned 2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed reductions for critical areas as noted above. 7 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF • The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with partially developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite. However, City regulations for the commercial, office, and industrial zones allow substantial heights and minimal setbacks,which should allow flexibility in arranging developments(e.g. COR zone for the Barbee Mill property allows up to 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard,no standard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot sizes). For residential developments, it is important to note that,per the City's net density definition,buffers are not subtracted from net density calculations,meaning unit potential within the buffers remains for each site allowed residential uses, and units may be clustered onsite(see response to Comment 2).For example the maximum density in the COR 1/2 zone without bonuses is 25 units per net acre, and the ability to achieve bonus densities is not cumbersome. The number of units would be determined by calculating densities on all buildable areas and buffers,but not critical areas themselves such as in-water or in-wetland areas. The COR standards do not prescribe a minimum lot size,width, or depth. Building heights,densities,and use allowances would accommodate a variety of structures including multi-storey attached units. • The proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of stream ecological function. This is intended to provide for a variety of site conditions where standard buffers cannot be met. Some of the reduced buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current shoreline setbacks and stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-oriented uses(generally mixed use developments or other developments that incorporate significant public access,visual or physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone applicable to the Barbee Mill property)may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable to the current commercial setback along Shorelines of the State. Since the 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes,but not streams outside of wetlands, City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information for City Environmental Review Committee consideration. The general approach was to 1)determine the area of the stream corridors, 2)calculate the ratio of developed versus undeveloped and redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for single family zones;3) determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4)determine the change in the number of possible units. It is estimated there would be a 24 unit reduction by removing streams from single family buildable land acres,which does not alter the conclusions above. Multifamily zones, commercial zones, and mixed use zones were not included in this analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these zones were based on recent achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed which is conservative. Also,these zones allow greater height to express the density/intensity potential. Recreation. Proposed stream regulations address recreation. Trails are possible exemptions in Class 2 to 4 buffers if exemption criteria are met. Other recreation uses would be subject to the same critical area stream regulations as other public or private property development. For Class 1 shorelines,where the State Shoreline Management Act(SMA)does not permit exemptions to regulations,the proposed regulations do address public access, a shoreline priority use. Buffer 8 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF Now reductions for public access are possible due to the need for a shoreline location. Also based on the SMA use preferences,water-oriented uses (that incorporate significant public access, visual or physical as described above)may be granted greater buffer reductions subject to criteria. Private Development. See Response to Comment 3. Comment 2.Traffic and pollution associated with concentrating densities elsewhere within the City to offset the elimination of buildable lands under the proposed amendments have not been disclosed or considered. The City's net density definition/calculation, which retains the dwelling unit potential for critical area buffers, is an "onsite" calculation and is not transferable to other sites. The City's flexible development standards in terms of lot widths, setbacks, size, coverage, etc. are intended to allow for flexibility onsite, such as where critical areas are present. Also, the regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions and administrative buffer averaging to address differing site conditions. Last modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels are possible. The City has conducted environmental review of its overall land use plan and annual amendments as appropriate, including traffic and associated impacts. For example a thorough review of City development capacity with the Boeing redevelopment plans and Urban Center zones was conducted in 2003. The City's analyses address a range of future development scenarios consistent with the City's planning efforts. See Comment 1 for related buildable land information. Comment 3. The proposed revisions appear to force a few private landowners to bear burdens for the public benefit but should be borne by the public as a whole. The proposed minimum buffer standards have significant adverse impacts on the ability to develop land translating into impacts on economics and land use more generally. The City's "reasonable • use exceptions" retain certain baselines under which development may not occur even if there are no adverse impacts regardless of best available science. See responses to Comments 1 and 2. The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals and purposes of the State Growth Management Act(GMA)to consider best available science in regulations and policies,to provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the public trust,as well as to meet other GMA and City goals for management of growth. Flexibility in terms of administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels are a part of the regulations to provide for reasonable use of property. The ordinance as a whole,both standard buffers and requirements and provisions for flexibility,have been considered in the City's environmental review. It should be noted that SEPA focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts, while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process, are not a required SEPA topic (WAC 197-11-752, 197-11-444, and WAC 197-11-450). 9 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF toe 41.0 Public Process—Advisory Note All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program,which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well. 10 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF New Summary-August 9, 2004 Comments by James C. Hanken on behalf of JH Baxter and Potential Responses Comment 1. Support for Comments made on behalf of Barbee Mill Company by their counsel,Traci Shalbetter. See responses to comments "Summary—August 2,2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses"above. Comment 2.The determination of environmental impacts must accommodate the urban and industrial nature of many of these properties that have current environmental issues such as hazardous cleanup requirements. These require substantial economic investment to achieve that objective. Saddling these properties with further economic constraints such as proposed may well defeat the positive environmental objectives the City wishes to advance. No evaluation or study as to the effect of such regulation on the economic viability of such remediation efforts have been included or considered in this process, which makes the proposal under consideration fatally flawed. The properties that are zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact of such regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue from the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than current industrial uses. The City's zoning districts,particularly the COR district as applied to the Baxter property,offer flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes,densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development,particularly appropriate when there are environmental constraints. Features of the COR zone that result in flexibility include: range of densities with the potential for density bonuses, 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard,no standard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot size or width. Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibility include: no minimum lot depth,no lot coverage standards,no minimum side or rear yards unless abutting residential zones, 50 foot building heights in the IL zone with the ability to request conditional use permits for greater heights,and no building height limits in the IM and IH zones. The proposed shoreline buffer regulations would apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require preparation of stream studies. The proposed ordinance drafted to date includes the following measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions: • Density is credited in shoreline buffers. See responses to comments"Summary—August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses"above. • The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces(buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines f` with partially developed or natural buffers,development would need to cluster onsite. 11 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF • If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet,provided it is "made up" elsewhere on site. • The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possible. For non-water oriented uses as defined in the Shoreline Master Program,the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently the proposed regulations structure the Class 1 buffer reductions based on Shoreline Management Act priority uses. Some of the reduced buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current shoreline setbacks and stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-oriented uses(generally mixed use developments or other developments that incorporate significant public access,visual or physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone applicable to the Baxter property)may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable to the current commercial setback along Shorelines of the State. Water dependent development, including water dependent industries,can have as little as 0 foot setbacks. • The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads and utilities,as well as for public access, subject to criteria. • The regulations recognize that landfill and dredging and stream alteration may be required to accomplish site remediation on urban shorelines (Class 1 urban shorelines). These activities can occur in the water body and buffer area according to the proposed regulations. Applicants for such activities would need to submit a stream/lake study and mitigation plan, as well as comply with Shoreline Master Program criteria for these activities. It should be noted that SEPA focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts, while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process, are not a required SEPA topic(WAC 197-11-752, 197-11-444,and WAC 197-11-450). Comment 3.Urge consideration of same comments in opposition to DNS posed by Barbee Mill, as well as comments here regarding the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of the proposed regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites. Absence of a full environmental impact determination is a fatal defect. See responses to comments"Summary—August 2,2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses"above. Regarding clean up of sites,please note the flexibility of zoning regulations and proposed stream regulations identified under Comment 2. The regulations allow for clean up of hazardous materials as noted above under Comment 2. Public Process—Advisory Note All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). 12 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program,which governs Lake Washington,are further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well. is s 13 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF • Summary-August 9, 2004 Comments by Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company, and Potential Responses 1. Growth Management Act(GMA) and Comprehensive Plan Objectives—Density of development within certain urbanized growth areas is a critical issue and major policy objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The need for services as contemplated by the CA zoning remains material, and the location of such development at the intersection of two prime arterials serves important traffic and other policy concerns. Reduced density, and thereby the reduced services to be provided at my Property by virtue of an expansion of the buffer from Springbrook Creek,has not been given adequate consideration in the draft ordinance. The City's stock of CA zoned land is a part of the balance that was created relative to the contemplated jobs that would be created within the City. Currently my company is under construction of a 60,000 square foot medical office building that is planned to include physicians' offices,a surgery center, a medical lab and other medical-related uses. It is our current plan to build additional phases that ultimately will create a medical campus with multiple medical buildings and a parking structure. This plan,if implemented,will create livable-wage employment in the City and increase the healthcare services available to the region. These are certainly important objectives of the City planning process that have been subordinated to other policies without adequate consideration or public input. Other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan likewise need to be weighed in these considerations. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased,but the increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and citywide growth targets. The City has substantial employment growth capacity above its targets. The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205 jobs,not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs.This is 17%to 166%above the City's assigned 2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs. The City's zoning districts,such as the CA zone applied to the subject property, offer flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development, and this flexibility is particularly important for sites with environmental features, such as creeks. The CA zone has the following features: • 50 foot height limit with ability to request additional height with conditional use permits • No minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths • Front yard setbacks of 10 feet • No minimum rear or side yard widths for properties that do not abut residential zones • Greater lot coverage allowances for proposals with parking garages such as that proposed in the Phase II preapplication submittal for the subject site. 14 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF In addition to the City's flexible zoning standards,the proposed stream regulations offer flexibility to recognize different site conditions, such as administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of stream ecological function. At a localized level,the City considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example sites. (See"Revised Review Draft--Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments,"Jones&Stokes,July 13, 2004,updated from memos with similar information in 2003 and Spring 2004.) The potential application of the regulations has also been discussed related the subject site,and various options have been discussed with the property owner. Also see the response to Comment 3. Please also see Response to Comment 5 regarding the ongoing public review process. 2.Vesting by Prior Compliance with Development Conditions—The Property was mapped in 1998 to create the parcels that currently exist, at which time the City imposed a requirement that a 50-foot setback be established, a public-access asphalt walking trail adjacent to the easement be built(it is south of the easement on my Property), and a • private stormwater detention pond and bioswale be established south of the trail. By • complyingwith these various conditions,includingusingmyprivate property for a P P h' public-access trail and natural vegetated buffer, this Property is vested and my company it should not be required to dedicate more land as a buffer. A landowner who fully complies with and has satisfied all the conditions imposed by the City should not be subject to new conditions. The proposed ordinance is not intended to reduce vesting rights as determined in State Law and Case Law. Based on discussions with the City Attorney,new materially complete permit applications vest to the regulations in place at the time of application. Recent case law has affirmed this strict definition of vesting. If a materially complete application is received by the City prior to the adoption of the proposed regulations (expected by the end of 2004),that application would be vested to the regulations in place at the time of application, i.e. the current Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Regulations and other City development regulations. An alternative approach could be a development agreement. The agreement has to be consistent with the City's development regulations,meaning one would need to put an agreement together before the new rules go into effect. It would require a public hearing. If a new application is submitted after the new regulations are in effect, the proposal would be subject to the new regulations. We note that the site size and the general types of uses planned may allow some flexibility to meet the proposed regulations. Following are some questions that the proponent may consider: 15 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF 110 ** Can they redesign the private parking accessway closest to the trail area to reduce the access width? Can they plant trees between the access/parking and the trail to provide some function for the stream? **The proposed standard buffer would be 100 feet. It can be reduced to 75 feet if a proposal meets reduced buffer criteria and is a"non-water-oriented use."However, "water enjoyment" uses can go to 50 feet(these are a priority shoreline use). The definition of a water enjoyment use appears on the last page of this document. Since the site contains a public trail, and a preliminary site plan includes a mixed office/commercial retail area,could they design it in such a way as to meet the definition of water enjoyment? The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite. 3.The Ordinance is Inapplicable to My Company's Property and in any Event it is Too Broad in its Application—The ordinance does not appear to include provisions that contemplate the situation described above. Specifically,it appears to assume that "undeveloped land" is all naturally vegetated adjacent to the shoreline. As described above,the land adjacent to Springbrook Creek is developed—it's just that not all buildings have yet been built. North of the Creek is a major industrial development that includes hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings, and only the 50 foot buffer is observed. On the south side,which is my company's land,although I haven't yet built all the buildings that ultimately will be at the Property,the natural buffer,the public-access asphalt trail and the stormwater pond are in situ, and the additional strip just recently imposed as a condition to the current development will be in place shortly. Consequently, there is no natural vegetation south of the asphalt trail,and there has not been any in place for some time. For purposes of protecting the shoreline with existing natural vegetation, the Property is already protected and it is "developed" and no further buffer should be imposed. My company should not be required to do a panoply of biological studies and take other measures in order to attempt to exempt itself, or reduce the impact,from the new ordinance. Rather, the ordinance should address this situation and expressly acknowledge that the ordinance does not apply,whether by virtue of prior vesting,or a definition of development,or given the competing policy objectives,or other reasons. Precious private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are involved, and the City must take the time and make the effort to assure that its ordinance is crafted to protect those rights to the fullest extent subject only to the furtherance of its legitimate public purposes. I do not believe that sufficient precision has been used in this instance. Further,the benefit to the shoreline of an imposition of an additional buffer given the current state of the land,pales with the other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan including,without limitation, density and the utilization of the stock of CA zoned land for the creation of livable-wage jobs. Please see Comment 2 regarding vesting. Please also see Comment 5 regarding the ongoing public review process. 16 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF • i- The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). The City Council will consider the balance of GMA goals as it considers GMA requirements to consider best available science in its policies and regulations, as well as it considers Planning Commission recommendations and citizen comments. Further the City Council will need to consider Shoreline Management Act(SMA)Goals since Springbrook Creek is a Class 1 Shoreline of the State. SMA goals are considered GMA goals. Further the City is to provide equivalent protection to critical areas subject to the Shoreline Management Act as those protected in its GMA critical areas ordinance. SMA goals are excerpted below for shorelines of the state(RCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings-- State policy enunciated--Use preference; also see WAC 173-26-176): It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which,while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters,will promote and enhance the public interest.This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife,and the waters of the state and their aquatic life,while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. *** In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures,ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks,marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the department. There are additional, stricter use preferences for Shorelines of Statewide Significance applicable to Lake Washington. The proposed shoreline buffer regulations would apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require preparation of stream studies. The proposed ordinance drafted to date includes the following measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions: 17 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF 140 • Report preparation requirements may be waived by the City if a barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity, or applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an additional study is not necessary. (There are other waiver potentials if the water body or buffer does not exist on a site and the subject activity won't impact it.) • The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces(buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite. • If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet,provided it is "made up" elsewhere on site. Buffer averaging below the requirements would require a variance. Based on discussions with Andy Kindig and Carl Hadley,our scientific consultants on streams,the existing oversized detention pond would provide only a partial benefit for the stream--the trees/vegetation may provide function for the streams,but not the open water areas. It could be possible to partially count the detention pond vegetated areas toward buffer averaging,but this probably won't make up the full area needed. • The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possible'. For non-water oriented uses as defined in the Shoreline Master Program,the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently the proposed regulations structure the Class 1 buffer reductions based on Shoreline Management Act priority uses, and reductions are possible for other categories of uses such as "water oriented." Similar to the wetland regulations,there are maximum buffer reductions that can be requested administratively, and requests for buffers below the administrative level would require a variance. (In this case,a shoreline variance would be needed and is ultimately approved by the State Department of Ecology after Renton reviews it.) Definitions of water-oriented development appear on the last page of this document. • The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads and utilities,as well as for public access, subject to criteria. As described under Comment 5, the public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. 4.Best Available Science—Having read the consultant's report upon which the proposed ordinance is based,I did not perceive any significant scientific information,new or previously existing,that supports the imposition of an additional buffer at the Property under the current situation. As such, any ordinance that serves to impose an additional setback at the Property is too broad in its application and should be deemed inappropriate given the other policy objectives and the Constitutional rights of private landowners. The proposed buffer standards are based on a review of the best available science by the City's consulting biologists. The ordinance applies citywide,but is customized in terms of its The City's consulting biologists indicated that planting trees east/south of the trail may provide some function for the stream,e.g.leaf litter,shade,and temperature. 18 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF classifications of water bodies, and in terms of flexible measures intended to address various shoreline conditions. Please see response to Comment 3. 5. Fairness and Cooperation—The implementation of land use regulations requires good faith by both the City and the landowners. The imposition of conditions to development needs to be fair, related to the development and the consequences it will have, and reasonably sculpted to further important public purposes. My company has honored the conditions and fees imposed on its various developments in this City and neighboring jurisdictions in a spirit of cooperation. However,in this instance it appears that the regulation of this specific Property by the draft ordinance is not fair, disproportionately burdensome and inconsequential in furtherance of any legitimate objectives. It is tantamount to a taking by regulation without legitimate public justification. Rather than the burden being placed on the landowners in such circumstances to exempt itself from the ordinance,the ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends and not disproportionately impact private rights without reason. The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals and purposes of the State Growth Management Act(GMA) to consider best available science in regulations and policies,to provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the public trust, as well as to meet other GMA and City goals for management of growth. Flexibility in terms of administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels are a part of the regulations to provide for reasonable use of property. The City's Environmental Review Committee has considered the comments and they are part of the project file. The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Springbrook Creek, are further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well. 19 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF Summary of August 9, 2004 Comments by Seattle Audubon Society and Potential Responses Comment 1. The commenter supports the following provisions: • Regulations protect critical areas meeting definitions/criteria, even if unmapped • Conservation easements or other mechanisms for native growth areas • Priorities for mitigation—avoid, minimize, and compensate • Peer review of habitat assessments at City's discretion,particularly for controversial development cases. The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Comment 2. Recommendations for changes to the proposed regulations,or recommended studies: • Surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans—agree but recommend a list of performance criteria and specific courses of action if standards are not met. Could be tied to adaptive management. • Habitat assessment requirements—agree. Suggest that the City conduct an overall health habitat assessment,particularly looking at corridors and areas of interconnection,to allow for a "big picture"view and not just individual parcels. • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance currently includes a purpose statement to preserve wildlife habitat and other important areas—this is being removed since critical areas regulations cover. Disagree since not all habitat will be identified in the critical areas regulations (covers only specific identified areas). Leave it in to draw attention to the importance of trees as a major component of habitat. • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance exempts removal of dead, diseased, damaged or dangerous groundcover or trees. The proposal inserts the word "hazard" before trees. City should clearly establish criteria and/or establish a list of reputable arborist to ensure such trees meet the definition of"hazard" so that the Iabel is not misused and becomes an excuse for easy tree removal. • The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance includes performance standards for land development/building permits. The criteria for tree cutting is incomplete and contains loopholes. Significant trees over a certain caliper and trees proposed to be cut should be identified regardless of circumstance. (Staff note: the section referenced by the commenter indicates that except for critical areas and zoning setback areas trees to be cut can be generally indicated with"clearing limits.") 20 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF Responses: The comments are noted. The City's Environmental Review Committee has considered the comments and they are part of the project file. The comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Specific responses are provided below. Surety Mechanisms—Performance Criteria: The surety clause applies to any mitigation plan required by the critical areas ordinance. Mitigation plan contents are defined in 4-8-120.D. For example the wetland mitigation plan requirements include establishing goals and objectives, preparing a monitoring program, and a contingency plan. Habitat Assessment Evaluation—Citywide. The City's Habitat Conservation regulations use the State's Priority Habitat and Species Program in part to define and map critical habitat. The use of this State data will help the City define blocks of habitat,including those that provide connections, such as the PHS program category of"urban natural open space." Please also note that the City's proposed Environment Element amendments include a policy regarding adaptive management. The recommendation that the City conduct a habitat health evaluation on a broader basis may be one way to implement the policy in the future. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Purpose to Protect Habitat. Because the primary citywide regulation addressing streams is currently found in this ordinance,but is proposed to be substantively amended and contained in the critical areas regulations,and because the tree cutting/land clearing regulations cross reference rather than repeat critical area and habitat conservation regulations,the purpose statement was proposed to be amended. Hazard Trees—Criteria or List of Arborists. The City wishes to provide some consistency in its review of"hazard trees,"and has proposed a definition as follows: "[a]ny tree or tree part that poses a high risk of damage to persons or property as certified by a qualified arborist and accepted by the City." The City will review submissions by qualified arborists. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance—Land Development Permits Criteria for Tree Cutting. The focus of the City's regulation amendments proposal is related to critical areas. Amendments to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations were primarily to ensure that regulations would not conflict and work in concert with one another. The City has the ability to protect designated critical habitat through its critical area regulations. Outside of critical areas, the tree cutting and land clearing regulations ensure that there is no indiscriminate tree removal. While the land development performance standards indicate that, except for critical areas and zoning setback areas,trees to be cut can be generally indicated with"clearing limits,"proposals are required to meet the general standard that"trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing..."and the City has the ability to condition plans. 21 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF %so goy Renton Shoreline Master Program Definitions of Water Oriented/Non-Water Oriented Uses WATER-ORIENTED/NONWATER-ORIENTED: "Water-oriented"refers to any combination of water- dependent,water-related,and/or water-enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. "Nonwater-oriented"serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act.Examples of nonwater-oriented uses include professional offices,automobile sales or repair shops,mini-storage facilities,multi-family residential development,department stores and gas stations;these uses may be considered water-oriented where there is significant public access. WATER-ENJOYMENT: Referring to a recreational use,or other use facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use;or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through the location,design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment.Primary water-enjoyment uses may include,but are not limited to,parks,piers and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state; and general water-enjoyment uses may include,but are not limited to,restaurants,museums,aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves,resorts/hotels and mixed use commercial/office;provided that such uses conform to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. WATER-DEPENDENT:Referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.Examples of water- dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas,ferry and passenger terminals,barge loading facilities,ship building and dry docking,marinas,aquaculture,float plane facilities and sewer outfalls. WATER-RELATED:Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location,but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: 1.Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water;or 2.The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient.Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the products cost,professional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water- transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water,seafood processing plants,hydroelectric generating plants,gravel storage when transported by barge,oil refineries where transport is by tanker,and log storage. 22 Review Draft Responses to Comments Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084,ECF BUFFER COMPARISON: STATE, KING COUNTY, RENTON Jurisdiction/Classification Standard Buffer Width State DCTED:Type 1 State DCTED:250 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(draft):Type S King County(draft): 115-165 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 1 Renton(draft): 100 feet State DCTED:Type 2 State DCTED:250 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(draft):Type F King County(draft): 115-165 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 2 Renton(draft): 100 feet State DCTED:Type 3 State DCTED: 150-200 feet plus 15 ft setback King County(draft):Type F King County(draft): 115-165 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 2 Renton(draft): 100 feet State DCTED:Type 4 State DCTED: 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(draft):Type N King County(draft):65 feet buffer plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 3 Renton(draft):75 feet State DCTED:Type 5 State DCTED: 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback King County(draft):Type 0 King County(draft):25 feet plus 15 foot setback Renton(draft):Class 4 Renton(draft):35 feet • Ability to request reduction administratively? State DCTED:No King County:Yes(1) Renton:Yes(2) DCTED=Washington State Department of Community,Trade, and Economic Development Example Code (1)Alterations are allowed to maintain,repair or replace existing structures or infrastructure and to continue existing agricultural activities. New structures,infrastructure and expansion of agriculture activities may be required to meet new standards or may not be allowed unless a variance or alteration exception is approved or a farm plan is developed. Subject to listed conditions reductions allowed for topography/geology/soils;road transects;advanced mitigation. Alterations allowed for in-water facilities; utilities;roads;flood protection;agriculture. (2)Reductions for new development including,general uses,shoreline priority uses and sites separated from shoreline(e.g.intervening lots,roads,etc.) to specific levels provided there is mitigation/enhancement and other criteria.Allowances subject to criteria for dredging;stream relocation;conservation/enhancement;existing agriculture;existing uses;utilities;roads;trails/open space;emergencies. { { AUG-03-2004 13:01 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.02/04 ECE1VE AUG 3 2004 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ECONOMICDEVELOPMcNT. MCI STRATE., +•.:,�ININ[S ANCHORAFK DELLEVUE LOS ANGELCS NEW YORK PORTLAND MN 7RANCISco sEATTLF SHANGHAI WASHINAT)N. D.C. 2600 CENTURY ;QUAKE TEL (206) 6Z2-3150 TRACI L. SHALLBETTER 1501 FOURTH AVENUE FAX (206) 628.7699 DIRECT (206) 623.7633 SEATTLE, VA 98101-168B www.dwt.corrt tracitkailbsttsre Jwt.cai August 2,2004 Ms. Judy Wright Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Proposed Determination of Nonsignificance("DNS")for Critical Area Regulation Updates/2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments using Optional DNS Process Dear Ms.Wright: On behalf of our client Barbee Mill Company,we attended the community workshop on July 27, 2004 and have reviewed the City's proposed revisions to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Regulations. We are concerned that the City's proposed DNS fails to adequately consider the magnitude of potential significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area regulations. The City appears to presume that since its proposed revisions have the goal of enhancing environmental quality and preserving wetlands and critical areas,the revisions do not warrant full environmental review. Yet,even projects designed to ultimately benefit the environment may need to undergo SBPA review, SEPA expressly recognizes this. WAC 197-11-330(5).1 • 'WAC 197-11-330(5)provides: - A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts,but rather,shall consider whether a proposal has any probably significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated in this section. For example,proposals designed to improve the environment,such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements,may have significant adverse environmental impacts. SEA 1531E170 26266-4 RUG-03-2004 13:01 10104CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.03/04 Ms.Judy Wright August 2,2004 Page 2 The fact that the proposed revisions may on first glance appear to be a net improvement over existing regulations does not excuse full and thorough environmental review of the potentially significant adverse impacts of the revisions. The adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments to critical area regulations and shoreline goals and policies could be substantial. Specifically,the proposed revisions appear to have significant adverse impacts on existing land use plans and population allocations,recreational and economic development opportunities, and private use and enjoyment of the waterfront. For example,the amendments reduce the availability of buildable lands on privately owned waterfront property,resulting in a shift of densities elsewhere(outside of the critical areas). The reduction of buildable lands may conflict with the City'-s Comprehensive Plan; yet,the environmental checklist and other documents relied upon by the City appear to ignore that impact. The adverse environmental impacts resulting from concentrating densities elsewhere may be significant in other respects. Traffic and pollution associated with concentrating densities elsewhere within the City to offset the elimination of buildable lands under the proposed amendments have not been disclosed or considered. In response to the SEPA checklist question regarding traffic impacts,the City has provided a non-response: [T]he proposal directs how development may occur in the context of environmentally sensitive/critical area. It would not be anticipated to adversely affect transportation,public service or utility demands. See Checklist at 17. Based upon a review of the City's support for such proposal,it appears adverse impacts are not"anticipated"because they were not considered. This lack of consideration or documentation is inconsistent with the mandates of SEPA disclosure. Finally,the proposed revisions appear to force a few private land owners to bear burdens for the public benefit, even though such burdens legally and in all fairness should be borne by the public as a whole. The proposed minimum buffer standards for critical areas have significant adverse impacts on the ability to develop land,which translates into impacts on economics and land use more generally. While the City has proposed a"reasonable use exception"for certain minimum buffer standards, such exception retains certain baselines below which development may not occur—regardless of whether development below such baseline would have any adverse impacts on the critical areas and regardless of what is revealed through best available science. In short, insignificant,if any, consideration is given to the impacts that the proposed amendments will have on private landowners and development,particularly in terms of economic impacts. SEA 1531817v1 26266-4 AUG-03-2004 13:01 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.04/04 Ms.Judy Wright ) August 2,2004 Page 3 We urge the City to more fully consider the significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from the revisions,keeping in mind the breadth of the definition of"environment"and the mandates of the Growth Management Act. Very truly yours, . Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Attorneys for B et Mill Traci L. Shalibetter cc: Campbell Mathewson Alex Cugini Robert Cugini Tom Goeltz - I SEA 1531817v1 26266-4 • TOTAL P.04 • ' AUG-09-2004 17:23 11011,CITY OF RENTON `irk 425 430 7300 P.01/09 r r, " LAW OFFICES of JAMES C HANKEN °Q9 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3210 SEAT LE.WASHINGTON 98104 FAX C204)149-7969 Post-tt"Fax Note 7671 Oat° '/p Pl files o' ? From k 145..4 CoIDovt. 00, Ms.Judy Wright ro Phone Development Services DivisionFax , 1055 South Grady Way */" gigs"ii�"i�79 ��` , Renton,WA 98055 _.. . . _. Re: Proposed Determination of Nonsignificance("DNS )for Critical Area Regulation Updates/2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments using Optional DNS Process Dear Ms. Wright: We submit this letter to state our client,J H Baxter's concerns regarding the City of Renton's proposed Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the Critical Area Regulation portions of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.As you know J H Baxter is a member of Quendall Terminals Joint Venture which holds the property adjacent to Barbee Mill.We join in with the comments and issues raised on behalf of Barbee Mill through Its counsel,Traci Shallbetter, regarding this issue. In addition, we would add these further comments. The role of determination of environmental impacts includes the entire gamut of impacts that are relevant to the environment. It must accommodate the urban and industrial nature of many of these properties which have current environmental issues such as hazardous clean up requirements.These require substantial economic investment to achieve that objective.To saddle these properties that face such burdens with further economic constraints such as are proposed here may well defeat the positive environmental objectives that the City seeks to advance. Yet no such evaluation or study as to the effect of such regulation as to the economic viability of such remediatlon efforts have been included or considered in this process. We believe that the absence of such evaluations or studies are defeats of such magnitude as to make the proposal under consideration to be fatally flawed. The properties that are zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact of such regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue through the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than current industrial uses. The adoption of such constraints will negate the ability of such property owners to change the current nature of uses locking such properties into uses that cannot achieve the goals that the City desires. AUG-09-2004 17:23 ome;ITY OF RENTON ,..0; 425 430 7300 P.02/09 (Name) August 9, 2004 Page 2 So while we urge the consideration of all the reasons that Barbee Mill presents in opposition to the Determination of Nonsignificance,we also urge that the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of such regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites has been overlooked. To do so withoat a full environmental impact determination being made is a fatal defect.We urge that the City conduct a full environmental review taking into account the many concerns raised by Barbee and Baxter regarding this proposal. • Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C.HANKEN /slued/ James C.Hanken Cc: Georgia Baxter Robert Cugini JCH: AUG-09-2004 17:23 IlifeCITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.03i09 Seattle Audubon Society for birds and nature 8050 3Sth Avenu.NE Otri0FR44tC1" 5aattkWA9811S 1 r•'1;'3t7:1"/ • AUG 0 9 2a4 August 9, 2004 .!,,l1):..Iy41 Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager City of Renton Department of Planning 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Critical Areas Ordinance Update Dear Rebecca: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance Amendments(CAO).A cursory review of the ordinance suggests that the City has thought extensively about environmental issues and should be commended.Seattle Audubon encourages the City to use the CAO for guidance not only when reviewing • development proposals on a site-by-site basis,but also as context for die entire health of the City. General Comments • Overall the CAO has many strong points with a few areas that Seattle Audubon would recommend improving. Seattle Audubon strongly urges the City of Renton to use the CAO to its fullest potential. This means using not only the regulatory aspects of the document but also the performance standards that are described.The goal of any CAO is not simply to restrict or regulate development but to seek a balanced approach to development.As stated on lines 59 and 60 the purpose of the CAO is to"provide city officials with information to evaluate,approve,condition or deny public or private development proposals." As such the City needs to ensure all members of the City Council and Planning Commission understand the CAO and that this document is not just about regulation but ensuring that development can occur without further degradation of critical areas in the community.All development proposals should be reviewed in light of the purposes of CAO. Detailed Ordinance Discussion To help facilitate the adoption of Renton's CAO the following section provides specific line-by-line discussion and suggested changes. Line numbers refer to the PDF version of "RMC 4-3-050 through 410410, plus chapter 11 Definidons"available on the City's websire. Line 386 establishes that the reference map held by the City may not include all critical areas and each individual site should be evaluated.We agree. AUG-09-2004 17:24 21TY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.04/09 Line 878 calls for conservation easements or other permanent protections for native growth areas.We agree. Line 1041 establishes surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans and areas.We agree, however, the City may want to develop a list of performance criteria and specific courses of action if standards are not met.This can be accomplished case by case or generally for different wetland types.This will provide a clear picture of what is expected of developers when mitigation plans are proposed.This may be tied to adaptive management as discussed on line 7321. Line 1978- 1985 discusses habitat assessment requirements,specifically calling for the need to determine "extent,function,and value of critical habitat?We agree and hope that the City maintains the'big'picture view of all development reviews. It is imperative to look beyond Individual site developments and consider the overall function of the habitat areas. The City should conduct an overall habitat health assessment,specifically looking for corridors and areas of interconnection. If true function is co be maintained interconnectivity will be critical. One of the hardest jobs for a local government is to move away from thinking about development as occurring on individual parcels of land. Habitat spans boundaries and the City must have a comprehensive view of habitat and other critical areas to ensure the cumulative effects of individual development are addressed. Line 2000 establishes the priorities for mitigation;avoid, minimize and compensate.We agree and hope the City holds developers to burden of proof test when claiming a certain development proposal cannot avoid impacts. Line 2009 discusses the opportunity for the City to conduct a peer review of the habitat assessment at the developer's expense.We agree strongly and suggest in all controversial development cases that the City conducts an Independent review of the habitat,While the value of science cannot be underestimated there seems to be growing incidents of expert (professional consultant)disagreement depending on the bias of the consultant. Anticipating that certain development projects will have controversial elements of science, die City should conduct its own analysis.This analysis should ensure the highest level of 1 neutrality. Line 5362 is a strike out of previous language stating an important purpose of die tree- cutting ordinance is to preserve wildlife habitat and other important areas.The editor's note says this is now covered within the critical areas discussion.Seattle Audubon recommends leaving this language in this section as part of the tree-cutting ordinance.All habitat and important areas will not be identified in the CAO portion of the document.By leaving this language in,attention will be drawn to die importance of trees as a major component of habitat. Individual,groupings and large stands of trees promote healthy habitat corridors and interconnectivity.The CAO portion will only cover specifically identified areas. 2 AUG-09-2004 17:24 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.05/09 • Line 5380 interjects the word'hazard'tree as an exemption.While hazards trees are a growing concern within communities it is important to dearly establish criteria that will designate hazard tree.Throughout the region trees arc being labeled hazard as an easy way to remove without consequence. Renton should not foster this precedence.Clearly establishing hazard tree guidelines and/or identifying reputable arborists to identify hazards trees is imperative.The City should retain a qualified arborist to confirm any hazard tree designation. Line 5578- 5604 establishes criteria for tree cutting however, the list is incomplete and leaves too many loopholes.Significant tress over a certain caliper should be identified regardless of circumstance and the number of trees proposed to be cut needs to be identified regardless of circumstance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to working with the City in the future, /77 Sincerely, Matthew Mega,AI Urban Habitat Program Director • AUG-09-2004 17:24 :, ITY OF RENTON .m, 425 430 7300 P.06/09 CITIT MITON ;• i r� AUG 0 9 am INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY :J;LC;;;3C:;;,.47,1 742 1"Street South 204 East 17`h St.,Suite 202 Kirkland,Washington 98033 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Telephone (425)827-3688 Telephone(949)764-2679 Fax (425)889-9453 Fax (949)764-0105 MEMORANDUM TO: Alexander Pietsch—Department of Economic Development CC: Development Services Division FROM: Richard A. Gumpert DATE: August 9,2004 RE: Comments—LUA-04-084, ECF • The purpose of this memorandum is to follow up on the several conversations that I have had with you,your staff and your consultant relative to the new critical areas and shoreline ordinance update that has been proposed,and to provide written comment to the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance. As you know, my company owns the property west of Oakesdale Ave. SW between SW 43`d Ave. and Springbrook Creek(Parcels J,H,N and L)(the"Property"). You consultant has advised you and me that Springbrook Creek has been classified as a Class I stream. Although 1 have provided detailed verbal comments to the City's proposal, this shall serve to provide written comment; however, my discussions have been far more detailed,and those comments remain. Growth Management Act(GMA)and Comprehensive Plan Objectives—Density of development within certain urbanized growth areas is a critical issue and major policy objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The existing populations, developments and traffic on SW 43Fd Street and on Oakesdale Avenue SW would make my Property, located at the intersection of these two main arterials,a prime location for the dense commercial development that is an objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The Property is one of the few properties on SW 43rd Street,one of the busiest east-west arterials in the City,that is only partially developed. It is one of the few remaining CA zoned properties in the area. The need for services as contemplated by the CA zoning remains material,and the location of such development at the intersection of two prime arterials serves important traffic and other policy concerns. Reduced density, and thereby the reduced services to be provided at my Property by virtue of an expansion of the buffer from Springbrook Creek,has not been given adequate consideration in the draft ordinance. Additionally,the City's stock of CA zoned land is a part of the balance that was created relative to the contemplated jobs that would be created within the City. Currently my company is under construction of a 60,000 square foot medical office building that is planned to include physicians' offices, a surgery center,a medical lab and other medical- related uses, It is our current plan to build additional phases that ultimately will create a medical campus with multiple medical buildings and a parking structure. This plan, if RUG-09-2004 17:25 l`ITY OF RENTON SW 425 430 7300 P.07/09 Alexander Pietsch—Department of Economic Development Development Services Division August 9,2004 Page 2 implemented, will create livable-wage employment in the City and increase the healthcare services available to the region. These are certainly important objectives of the City planning process that have been subordinated to other policies without adequate consideration or public input. Other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive PIan likewise need to be weighed in these considerations. Vesting by Prior Compliance with Development Conditions—The Property was mapped in 1998 to create the parcels that currently exist,at which time the City imposed a requirement that a 50-foot setback be established, a public-access asphalt walking trail adjacent to the easement be built(it is south of the easement on my Property), and a private stormwater detention pond and bioswale be established south of the trail. In compliance with these conditions,the 50-foot easement has been honored and has all natural vegetation. The public-access asphalt walking trail has been built on my land and is in-place for the entirety of my land adjacent to the 50-foot natural buffer. The stormwater pond and bioswale is fully vegetated and is sized to accommodate development of all of my parcels. In other words, every condition imposed by the City for the protection of Springbrook Creek and access for the public has been satisfied. Indeed, in addition to the above,the City has imposed another condition earlier this year in relation to the medical building that is currently under construction on Parcel N. In relation to this current development, I am establishing yet another 2-foot wide gravel skirt south of the public-access trail. By complying with these various conditions,including using my private property for a public-access trail and natural vegetated buffer,this Property is vested and my company should not be required to dedicate more land as a buffer. A landowner who fully complies with and has satisfied all the conditions imposed by the City should not be subject to new conditions. The Ordinance is Inapplicable to My Company's Property and in any Event it is Too Broad in its Application—The ordinance does not appear to include provisions that contemplate the situation described above. Specifically, it appears to assume that "undeveloped land",is all naturally vegetated adjacent to the shoreline. As described above,the land adjacent to Springbrook Creek is developed—it's just that not all buildings have yet been built. North of the Creek is a major industrial development that includes hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings,and only the 50 foot buffer is observed. On the south side, which is my company's land,although I haven't yet built all the buildings that ultimately will be at the Property,the natural buffer,the public-access asphalt trail and the stormwater pond are in situ,and the additional strip just recently imposed as a condition to the current development will be in place shortly. Consequently,there is no natural vegetation south of the asphalt trail,and there has not been any in place for some time. For purposes of protecting the shoreline with existing natural vegetation,the Property is already protected and it is"developed"and no further buffer should be imposed. My company should not be required to do a panoply of biological studies and take other measures in order to attempt to exempt itself,or reduce the impact, from the new ordinance. Rather,the ordinance should address this situation AUG-09-2004 17:25 ITY OF RENTON ,00,. 425 430 7300 P.08/09 • Alexander Pietsch—Department of Economic Development Development Services Division August 9, 2004 Page 3 and expressly acknowledge that the ordinance does not apply,whether by virtue of prior vesting. or a definition of development,or given the competing policy objectives,or other reasons. Precious private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are involved, and the City must take the time and make the effort to assure that its ordinance is crafted to protect those rights to the fullest extent subject only to the furtherance of its legitimate public purposes. I do not believe that sufficient precision has been used in this instance. Further,the benefit to the shoreline of an imposition of an additional buffer given the current state of the land,pales with the other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan including,without Iimitation, density and the utilization of the stock of CA zoned land for the creation of livable-wage jobs. Best Available Science—Having read the consultant's report upon which the proposed ordinance is based, I did not perceive any significant scientific information,new or previously existing, that supports the imposition of an additional buffer at the Property under the current situation. As such,any ordinance that serves to impose an additional setback at the Property is too broad in its application and should be deemed inappropriate given the other policy objectives and the Constitutional rights of private landowners. Fairness and Cooperation—The implementation of land use regulations requires good faith by both the City and the landowners. The imposition of conditions to development needs to be fair,related to the development and the consequences it will have,and reasonably sculpted to further important public purposes. My company has honored the conditions and fees imposed on its various developments in this City and neighboring jurisdictions in a spirit of cooperation. However,in this instance it appears that the regulation of this specific Property by the draft ordinance is not fair, disproportionately burdensome and inconsequential in furtherance of any legitimate objectives. It is tantamount to a taking by regulation without legitimate public justification. Rather than the burden being placed on the landowners in such circumstances to exempt itself from the ordinance,the ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends and not disproportionately impact private rights without reason. Thank you for the courtesies extended in considering my comments. Al • ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES POST PUBLIC HEARING ORAL COMMENTS Noe ATTACHMENT C Page 2 ATTACHMENT C Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Greg Fawcett, February 28, 2005 Comment 1:Avoid Buffer Increase from 25 feet to 100 feet The current setback along Shorelines of the State(Class 1 shorelines) for single-family dwellings is 25 feet. The proposed regulations would instead include a standard buffer of 100 feet along Class 1 shorelines. The recommended buffer was determined through the consideration of best available science,particularly: Draft"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations,"prepared by AC Kindig& Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27, 2003. However, recognizing that sites are different along many City shorelines given the history of urbanization in the City,the proposed regulations include administrative provisions to reduce or average the standard buffers, and the regulations also allow property owners to be assured that existing impervious surfaces and structures can remain. Comment 2: If Buffer Must Increase, Consider Flexibility, e.g. averaging or off-site mitigation The proposed regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-loss of ecological function. This is intended to provide for a variety of site conditions where standard buffers cannot be met. Where buffers would be altered, onsite enhancement would be required; off-site mitigation is allowed if an enhanced buffer is not possible when there is an existing developed site. The commenter's vacant site is zoned R-8 and lies along May Creek. For such a site,an applicant can request a buffer reduction through an administrative,locally determined process if the proposal meets threshold criteria(extensively vegetated or ability to enhance with vegetation; shoreline priority use; or stream daylighting). If the applicant meets the criteria and provides a supplemental study/mitigation plan as appropriate then along Class 1 shorelines the reduced buffer would be 75 feet for dwellings in a new subdivision. There are other allowances for necessary road crossings (can intrude into buffer and over the water). Buffer averaging allows portions of the required buffer to be narrower(no less than 50 feet) in some locations if the buffer is expanded in other locations, so that the total square footage normally required is achieved. Generally, the buffer averaging would occur on the subject property. If part of the proposal includes a contiguous site upon which the buffer would be "averaged"that may also be workable. Last the R-8 zone allows lot sizes of 4,500 square feet, much smaller than the size if an acre were equally divided by eight. This lot size is intended to allow for creativity in subdivisions given ATTACHMENT C Page 4 critical area or other constraints. Please note as well that the City is considering amendments to its Planned Unit Development regulations, which would allow for smaller lot sizes and clustering than the standard sizes of the R-8 zone. If adopted, the regulations would be suitable for a parcel with significant constraints. Altering allowable densities would require separate consideration by the City of a Comprehensive Plan and rezone request. David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, March 2, 2005 Comment 1: Clarify Proposed RMC 4-3-090.J.4.d.iii(c) to Clarify Use Priorities as Based on Renton's Shoreline Master Program The City intends to implement the Shoreline Management Act's use priorities through its Shoreline Master Program. The suggested code edit, contained in the commenter's letter dated March 2, 2005, is appropriate and should be integrated into the code. 1/26/05 iii. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: If a proposal meets draft, lines Subsections (a)or(b) or(c)below and meets the environmental criteria of(d), 4383-4384 minimum buffer widths may be reduced as stated in Subsection J.4.d.iv: (c)The proposal includes priority uses pursuant to RCW 90.58.020, as interpreted in the adopted Renton Shoreline Master Program, which cannot be accommodated reasonably using standard buffers/setbacks;and Comment 2: Continue Current Small Wetland Exemptions The City is examining its wetland exemptions as part of the overall approach to wetlands protection including classification, buffers, and mitigation ratios. The City is proposing to retain its class system, its current buffers, and its current allowances for wetland alteration with mitigation(e.g. fill with wetland restoration elsewhere onsite). However, the City is proposing to reduce its exemptions and increase the criteria under which it may be possible to require increased buffers. We note that based on our best available science review of the City's wetland regulations by Parametrix dated June 28,2004, several scientific studies have demonstrated that some small wetlands can provide important wetland functions. On the other hand, many small wetlands lack the characteristics of those examined in scientific study, and are often highly modified. The City's exemption based on size alone was identified for amendment through the best available science review. The City's intent is to balance wetland protection and the cost and responsibility for critical area code compliance and administration. The focus of the regulations is upon reviewing wetlands that are important to the City at a broader landscape level. Accordingly, the 1/26/05 draft: removes Class 2 wetland exemption(previously at 2,200 square feet), reduces the size of the Class 3 wetland exemption from 5,000 s.f. to 2,200 s.f., and adds criteria. If the wetland IOW *NO ATTACHMENT C Page 5 exhibited presence of water supporting amphibians, or supported State or Federal listed species the exemption would not apply. Further some form of mitigation for hydrologic and water quality functions and a wetland assessment demonstrating functions and values are preserved would also be required. Additionally,the wetland class definitions are reworded in light of the exemption square footage amendments. Garrett J. Huffman, South King County Manager, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, March 2, 2005: Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance Draft Comment 1: Has the City done any studies on the effect the CAO will have? The City has studied the potential environmental effects to natural and built environmental topics, including the potential change to its buildable land supply needed to meet its Growth Management targets. This information is summarized in the Environmental Review Committee Report and Decision dated August 17, 2004 summarized in response to comment 2 below. Comment 2: Have the changes the CAO would mandate in Renton been evaluated against the requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)?Has the effect of increasing buffers been weighed against the loss of buildable land by the City? The City's Comprehensive Plan adopted under the Growth Management Act is developed based upon the City's share of regional household and employment projections. The accommodation of growth is primarily addressed in the City's Land Use Element, and other elements generally establish the supporting programs(e.g. housing, economic development)or capital improvements(e.g. transportation,parks,utilities)needed to support the Land Use Element. Therefore,the City prepared a citywide analysis of the effects of the regulations on buildable lands and ability of the City to meet its growth targets in the Environmental Review Committee Report and Decision dated August 17, 2004. The focus of the review was upon the stream buffers since these are proposed to increase, whereas wetland and geologic hazard buffers are not proposed to increase. Since the City's 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes,but not streams outside of wetlands, City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information. The general approach was to 1) determine the area of the stream corridors, 2)calculate the ratio of developed versus undeveloped and redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for single family zones; 3) determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4) determine the change in the number of possible units. It is estimated there would be a 24 unit reduction by removing streams from single-family buildable land acres, which does not alter the conclusions above. Multifamily zones, commercial zones, and mixed use zones were not included in this analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these zones were based on recent achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed which is conservative. Also, these zones allow greater height to express the density/intensity potential. Last, full density credit is given to buffers. ATTACHMENT C Page 6 Comment 3: How many homes will be out of compliance and only allowed to remodel within the current footprint due to increased buffers? As noted under comment 2, the City conducted a citywide review of the effects of increased stream buffers upon buildable lands. An estimate of existing lots that would become nonconforming was not prepared. However, the effect of regulations on sample sites was conducted as described in the memo dated January 26, 2005 "Revised Review Draft--Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments." At a site-specific level, to ensure the City's goals for the management of growth and reasonable uses of property can be accommodated,the regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels. Along Class 1 shorelines governed by the Shoreline Master Program, administrative buffer reductions to 25 feet are allowed for pre- existing legal single-family lots. Along Class 2 to 4 waters administrative reductions to 75 feet as well as lesser buffers via administrative variance are possible for single-family homes on pre- existing lots (process is parallel to wetland regulations). Also, single family structures can be rebuilt"as is,where is"per RMC 4-10-050. Comment 4: Habitat Conservation—Rely on Federal or State Lists —Do not list Heron Rookeries or Raptor Nesting Areas In addition to streams,riparian areas,and wetlands, the City of Renton and its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting other wildlife species. State Classification Guidelines for Critical Areas (WAC 365-190-080)identify several types of wildlife habitats to be addressed in Critical Areas Ordinances: • Areas with which endangered,threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; • Habitats and species of local importance (may consider priority species); • State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Other considerations may include: creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces, and buffer areas around habitats. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)Program. Priority habitats in the City of Renton include wetlands,riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. The lake,rivers, and creeks support anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and other waterfowl. (WDFW 2003; WDFW 1997) ATTACHMENT C Page 7 The City's definition of critical habitat includes presence of Federal or State endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority species',presence of heron rookeries and raptor nesting areas, and Category 1 wetlands. Including heron rookeries and raptor nesting areas appears to be principally based on the requirement to define habitats and species of local importance also noted as important in the classification of Class 2 wetlands (see response to comment 6 below). Based on a review of State species lists, herons are either considered priority (great blue heron) or monitor species (green heron or black crowned night heron). Raptors include birds of prey such as eagles, owls, falcons, and hawks. Some are considered State endangered(e.g. peregrine falcon), Federally or State threatened(e.g. bald eagles), State candidate (e.g. golden eagles or northern goshawk), or State monitor(e.g. osprey). There are other raptors (e.g. sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk for example)that are not on the Federal or State lists. Only minor edits to the City's Habitat Conservation Regulations are proposed in the regulation update dated 1/26/05. The description of critical habitats is moving from Section B to Section K of the Critical Area Regulations. The section is amended in a minor way to focus more on non- salmonid species since the new stream regulations are proposed to address salmonids. There are no specific requirements in the Habitat Conservation regulations. It is a discretionary review process. The City requires a habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and Federal Agency input. The City may condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas. The City may determine either of the following courses is appropriate in addressing the issue of which species to review under its habitat conservation regulations: 1)retain the City's current approach that in addition to special status species addresses herons and raptors as species of local concern; or 2) focus the applicability of the City's habitat conservation regulations on Federal or State endangered, threatened, sensitive,monitor, or priority species which have had some Federal or State review and consideration and which include herons and several raptor species that have been mapped as priority in the City. Under either option, the City would continue to include Category 1 wetlands as a critical habitat. City staff recommends Option 2. K. HABITAT CONSERVATION: 1. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt 1/26/O5 activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below. draft, lines a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the 1964-1974 following criteria: i. The documented presence of non-salmonids (see subsection L.1 and RMC 4-3- 090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations for salmonid species) species 1 Priority species include State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations considered vulnerable; and those species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. • ATTACHMENT C Page 8 proposed or listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ; iii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M.1 of this Section for classification criteria. Comment 5: Continue the Category 3 Wetland Exemption at 5,000 S.F. The City is examining its wetland exemptions as part of the overall approach to wetlands protection including classification, buffers, and mitigation ratios. The City is proposing to retain its class system, its current buffers, and its current allowances for wetland alteration with mitigation(e.g. fill with wetland restoration elsewhere onsite). However, the City is proposing to reduce its exemptions and increase the criteria under which it may be possible to require increased buffers. We note that based on our best available science review of the City's wetland regulations by Parametrix dated June 28, 2004, several scientific studies have demonstrated that some small wetlands can provide important wetland functions. On the other hand, many small wetlands lack the characteristics of those examined in scientific study, and are often highly modified. The City's exemption based on size alone was identified for amendment through the best available science review. The City's intent is to balance wetland protection and the cost and responsibility for critical area code compliance and administration. The focus of the regulations is upon reviewing wetlands that are important to the City at a broader landscape level. Accordingly,the 1/26/05 draft: removes Class 2 wetland exemption(previously at 2,200 square feet),reduces the size of the Class 3 wetland exemption from 5,000 s.f. to 2,200 s.f., and adds criteria. If the wetland exhibited presence of water supporting amphibians, or supported State or Federal listed species the exemption would not apply. Further some form of mitigation for hydrologic and water quality functions and a wetland assessment demonstrating functions and values are preserved would also be required. Additionally, the wetland class definitions are reworded in light of the exemption square footage amendments. Comment 6: Wetland Class and Herons/Raptors— Criteria is unnecessary See response to Comment 4. In consultation with the City's biologists,Andy Kindig and Jim Kelly, criteria for wetlands should focus on wetland dependent species, which would include herons. Osprey could also be a part of the criteria. Therefore the criteria could be reworded as follows: ii. Category 2, High Quality Wetlands: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or • ATTACHMENT C Page 9 1/26/05 (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting treesosprey nests, but are not draft, lines Category 1 wetlands; and/or 2748-2758 (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e. a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel,but with no defined influent channel,but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or (e) Rated as a Category II or III wetland based on an adopted rating system by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Comment 7: Public Notification for Wetland Buffer Reduction The allowance for buffer reductions is made by administrative decision, sometimes in advance of other permits that will be needed to develop the property. Administrative decisions made well in advance of other permit applications may not receive as much public notice currently,yet are integral to development proposals. The proposed requirement for public notification allows for public review of a City decision to reduce its standard requirements. Comment 8: Low Impact Development The criteria in M.6.f.iii that the buffer averaging be allowed when there are low impact land uses was deemed vague and unnecessary for the review process, and therefore proposed for removal. Allowing buffer averaging based on other criteria that the wetland have variations in ecological sensitivity, that the total area of the standard buffer be contained in an averaged buffer,that the request be based on best available science, and that buffer enhancement is required,were deemed sufficient for the buffer averaging process. An additional criteria that the development meet "low impact development" definitions in order to average buffers is commendable,but not deemed necessary at this time. The remaining criteria will provide assurances that no-net-loss of ecological function is achieved. Comment 9: Increased Wetland Buffers Beyond City's Proposal would Affect Affordable Housing The comments are noted and forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The City is proposing to retain its current standard buffers. Garrett J. Huffman, South King County Manager, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, March 2, 2005: Renton's Best Available Science The commenter's letter will be a part of the record considered as the City's takes action to amend its critical area regulations. Please also see the City's best available science review related to wetlands: • ATTACHMENT C Page 10 ■ "Transmittal of Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations,"Jones& Stokes, July 13, 2004; together with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review"by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004. ■ "Staff Recommended Adjustments to January 26, 2005 Revised Review Draft Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation Amendments"dated March 2, 2005 together with'City of Renton Wetland Rating System—Field Review"by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, March 2, 2005. Jerry Brennan, Oral Comments, March 2, 2005 Comment 1: Will new Lake Washington shoreline buffer make homes nonconforming? The current setback along shorelines of the state(Class 1 shorelines) for single-family dwellings is 25 feet. The proposed regulations would instead include a standard buffer of 100 feet along Class 1 shorelines. The recommended buffer was determined through the consideration of best available science,particularly: Draft"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations,"prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27, 2003. However,recognizing that sites are different along many City shorelines given the history of urbanization in the City, the proposed regulations include administrative provisions to reduce the standard buffers, and the regulations also allow property owners to be assured that existing impervious surfaces and structures can remain. An applicant can request a buffer reduction through an administrative, locally determined process if they meet threshold criteria(extensively vegetated or ability to enhance with vegetation; shoreline priority use; or stream daylighting). If they meet the criteria and provide a supplemental study/mitigation plan as appropriate then the minimum buffer would be 25 feet for a single family dwelling on a pre-existing legal lot where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to reasonably accommodate building pads and off-street parking. Through this process docks can also be permitted with essential 0 feet of setback(since it is a water dependent activity and can only be in the water it is allowed to extend across the water body). It is also possible to request a reduced buffer administratively if there are substantial existing structures that essentially cut off the buffer area from the water body it is intended to protect. There is no specific buffer pre-determined in this case. It would be determined through studies. Furthermore,buffer management criteria address already developed situations. Existing impervious surfaces in a buffer do not have to be removed, but cannot be increased or expanded. Impervious surfaces can be rearranged if it results in an improved environmental situation. No new buildings can be constructed in the required buffer. The regulations are applied at the time that regulated activities are proposed. At that time, the property owner may request a buffer reduction. Last,A damaged or destroyed home can be rebuilt to its original location and dimensions. There is no limit on the value of the improvements to rebuild. The City's regulations allow for legally ATTACHMENT C Page 11 established nonconforming single-family structures(dwellings that met standards when they were built but that do not meet later zoning, critical area, or other development standards)to be rebuilt to the same size, location, and height. Improvements would need to commence within two years of the damage. We note that there is an internal inconsistency in the nonconforming regulations that apply generally throughout the City and those applicable to the Critical Area Regulations in RMC 4-3- 050 and 4-10-090. The nonconforming regulations for critical areas should reference the section that allows for single family homes to be rebuilt"as is where is" in another section of the nonconforming regulations: 4-10-050 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES—GENERAL: 5. Restoration: Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction,repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure to its same size, location, and height when damaged by fire,explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these regulations and subject to the following conditions: a.Legal Nonconforming Structures with Rebuild Approval Permits: Restoration or 1/26/05 reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent(100%) of the latest appraised value draft, lines of the building or structure closest to the time such damage occurred shall be allowed if it 7700-7725 is: (1) a condition of granting the rebuild approval permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-120; and/or(2) necessary to allow the structure to be rebuilt to its condition prior to the damage considering construction costs; and/or(3) required to strengthen or restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority; and/or(4)necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The work shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the latest assessed or appraised value of the building or structure at the time such damage occurred,unless required to strengthen or restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority otherwise any restoration or reconstruction shall conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. c. Single Family Dwellings: Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt to its same size, location, and height on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes. Restoration improvements shall commence within two years of the damage, and shall continue in conformance with approved building or construction permits, otherwise the structure shall lose its restoration authorization and status. 4-10-090 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS—NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES AND STRUCTURES: A legally nonconforming,regulated activity or structure that was in existence or approved or vested prior to the passage of the Critical Area Regulations, RMC 4-3-050, and to which significant economic resources have been committed pursuant to such ATTACHMENT C Page 12 approval but which is not in conformity with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 may be continued; provided, that: 1. No such legal nonconforming activity or structure shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way that infringes further on the critical area that increases the 1/26/05 extent of its nonconformity with this Section without a permit issued pursuant to the draft, lines provisions of RMC 4-3-050; 7826-7842 2. Except for cases of on-going agricultural uses, if a nonconforming activity is discontinued pursuant to RMC 4-10-010C and D060, any resumption of the activity shall conform to this Section; 1Edoi Ate: Code reference should have been changed with amendments passed in 2001.1 3. Except for cases of on-going agricultural use_, if a nonconforming use or activity or structure is destroyed by human activities or an act of God, it shall not be resumed or reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4-10- 050 and 060; jElitor'kNuth: References same sections as item 2 above. Allows for consistent internal interpretation since the code indiates under restoration that"Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction...."1 4. Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as nonconforming activities. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) 4-10-100 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM—NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES,AND STRUCTURES: A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the applicable Shoreline Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program,may be continued provided that: A.Nonconforming Structures: Nonconforming structures shall be governed by RMC 4- 10-050. B. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060. C. Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved. Comment 2: Concern with Schedule and Public Notification Reviewing the City's party of record list, we have confirmed that Mr. Brennan and others listed as parties of record were mailed notices of the March 2, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. Based on the sign in sheet, Mr. Brennan additionally attended the February 2,2005 Planning Commission briefing at which the upcoming public hearing was discussed. We understand from conversations with Mr. Brennan after the public hearing that his concern with the slightly accelerated schedule in comparison to that advertised on the web page in early February is that he would like to vest to current regulations by submitting a complete application for home and dock construction prior to the adoption date. He has retained consultants and is preparing an application now. ATTACHMENT C Page 13 It should be noted that pursuant to WAC 173-26-120 the State of Washington Department of Ecology conducts its own process for approval of Shoreline Master Program amendments, and this is conducted before they take effect in the local jurisdiction. Written comment periods are typically 30 days with DOE's process (it can be less). Then there is a period of time allowed for DOE to provide a letter to the City and time for the City to respond to the comments DOE has collected. Therefore, it is likely that there will be a window of time at least 30 days in length before which the regulations would formally take effect. However, in the meantime through the City's SEPA review process,the City may determine it is appropriate to apply the shoreline buffers to developments as a mitigation measure on a case-by-case basis. ATTACHMENT C Page 14 POST PUBLIC HEARING ORAL COMMENTS, MARCH 7, 2005 Mr. Owen Dennison of AHBL consulting firm in Seattle contacted Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, and then Lisa Grueter of Jones& Stokes. Mr. Dennison noted that some language under the piped stream section could be more clearly stated without changing the intent or requirements. This is considered a housekeeping/editorial change. 5.Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements: a. Buffers and Setbacks: i.Minimum Stream/Lake Buffer Widths: The minimum width of the required buffers shall be based upon the water body class. (a) Class 2: 100 feet (b) Class 3: 75 feet (c) Class 4: 35 feet ii. Piped or Culverted Streams: • Building structures over a natural stream located in an underground pipe or culvert except as may be granted by a variance in RMC 4-9- 250 is prohibited. Transportation or utility crossings or other alterations pursuant to Section L8 are allowed. Pavement over a pre- 1/26/05 existing piped stream is allowed. Relocation of the piped stream draft,lines system around structures is allowed. If structure locations are 2328 to proposed to be changed or the piped stream is being relocated around 2339 and buildings, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of existing piped stream lines 4297 to systems will be required for any development project site that contains 4305 a piped stream to ensure it is sized to convey the 100-year runoff level from the total upstream tributary area based on future land use conditions-f noff from the total , pstream.ributa y • No buffers are required along segments of piped or culverted streams. The City shall require easements and setbacks from pipes or culverts consistent with stormwater requirements in RMC 4-6-030 and the adopted drainage manual. ' 'Ito, '' 1 ir iii -, Stream buffers Going from the current 25 feet to 100 feet is a 400% increase too much at one time...consider going to 50-foot buffer. This is still a one time 100% increase in buffer; you can always revisit increasing the buffer again. If you must increase to 100 feet consider buffer averaging so the net buffer remains the same. This would allow for flexibility of design of subdivision. Allow for increased buffer setback (restrictions) to be conveyed and recorded with owner's permission to adjacent separate parcels. This would allow flexibility in design of subdivisions and at the same time protect the critical area by not allowing future development on property adjacent to critical areas. For example §ay you had one side of a stream that could be developed...allow for the other +de which may be a separate parcel to have the restrictive covenants of the Steam buffer be conveyed and recorded so as to prohibit future development. 'This would have the same net effect for protection of the critical area. Where buffers are increased allow for smaller lot size, or increased density so that development is more concentrated. Consider administratively allowing for higher zoning density for example allow for R-8 to go to as high as R-16. Consider zero lot lines setbacks to allow for clustered town homes on the same lot. • a:: all t Famr De - ;--------�,..��ntul,Clinic;Inc, K ' reg.M Faweett;.D.:D.s i - - Sabra.S. •Faw •rett,.D.D.S: RO:Box 1029 • 33609 Redmond-fall City.toad . Fall City,WA'5'8024 .. , : 42.5422-7011 1 -7)n t ` , may . `� (j4 j t C fry OF RENTON RECEIVED BUILDING DIVISION HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation David L Halinen, P.E. Bellevue Place/ Bank of America Bldg. (425)454-8272 davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Fax(425)646-3467 Bellevue, Washington 98004 March 2, 2005 HAND-DELIVERED City of Renton Planning Commission 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Critical Areas Ordinance Amendments and Shoreline Master Program Regulations Amendments 2 Public Hearing Testimony On Behalf of My Client AnMarCo Dear Commissioners: On behalf of my client AnMarCo,the owner of the former Stoneway Concrete batch plant site at 1915 Maple Valley Highway, I am writing to request that, for clarification, draft proposed RMC 4-3-090J.4.d.iii(c)(which is set forth on lines 4383 and 4384 of page 120 of the City's January 26, 2005 draft Amendments) be revised to read as follows: The proposal includes priority uses pursuant to RCW 90.58.020(as interpreted in the adopted Renton Shoreline Master Program) which cannot be accommodated reasonably using standard buffers/setbacks Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. David L. Ha nen cc: AnMarCo Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Lisa Grueter,Jones& Stokes C:\CF12293\006\Shoreline\Planning Commission.LTI.doc fir\ s March 2, 2005 NEM MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION of King and Snohomish Counties The Honorable Ray Giometti, Chair Planning Commission City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance Draft Dear Chairman Giometti: On behalf of the more than 3,700 members of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties(MBA), I am writing you concerning Renton's draft Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)update and the concerns and recommendations the MBA has with the city's proposal. The MBA has taken the time to review Renton's draft CAO, is providing comments to the Planning Commission for consideration and is interested in working with the city to adopt the most functional and effective regulations for development while fully protecting the environment from potential adverse affects. In its current form,the draft CAO is similar to the city's current sensitive areas ordinance,which the MBA finds sufficient for protection of critical areas inside the city limits,however if the city intends to adopt the draft CAO,the MBA requests the following questions be answered and changes be considered: 1. Has the city done any studies on the effect the CAO will have on? If not,why not? 2. Have the changes the CAO would mandate in Renton been evaluated against the requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)? 3. Has the effect of increasing buffers been weighed against the loss of buildable land by the city? 4. Also,how many homes will be out of compliance and only allowed to remodel within the current footprint due to the increased buffers? K. HABITAT CONSERVATION: 1.(a.)ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or is not necessary. Using lists developed and adopted by Federal and State governments, specifically species listed as threatened, endangered, and sensitive, as well as state listed priority species is sufficient to protect heron rookeries and raptor nesting areas. ABA of King and Snohomish Counties 335 116thAvenue SE Bellevue,Washington 98004 425.451.7920 '800.522.2209 _ 4.25 646 5.98.5._vonsunasterhuikiersinfo.som.__ r � Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 2 The city's definition is too broad and includes species that have no business being protected, thus the definition should be eliminated rather than include all herons and/or raptors. M. WETLANDS 1. In Renton's draft CAO, the minimum area for a category 3 wetland changed from 5,000 to 2,200. What justification is Renton using to make this change? The MBA believes the minimum square footage of a wetland should continue to be 5,000 square feet. M. WETLANDS 1.(a.)ii. As listed above, the presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas is unnecessary. M. WETLANDS 6.(e.)iv. Why is public notification necessary? M. WETLANDS 6.(f.)iii. The MBA can provide assistance in the definition of low impact development through the Association's Built Green Program. i One of the most difficult challenges facing the City of Renton is the need to accommodate the City's share of the projected population increase, which has been allocated to the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act. lithe City increases wetland and stream buffers,providing necessary new housing needed to meet the City's GMA population targets will become more difficult. Even assuming that there is some scientific justification for larger wetland buffers than those currently imposed by the City, such increases would conflict with the City's ongoing efforts to implement other goals of the Growth Management Act. The larger King County area, including the City of Renton, already has a severe shortage of affordable housing, a fact documented in detail in the 2004 King County Growth Report and numerous other studies of housing prices. The MBA is committed to making the Growth Management Act work and believes in working with local communities to address growth concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and should you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me at(425)460-8236 or ghuffmannu mbaks.com. Si erely, Garrett J. Huffman South King County Manager a NEN March 2, 2oos MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION of King and Snohomish Counties The Honorable Ray Giometti, Chair Planning Commission City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Renton's Best Available Science Dear Chairman Giometti: The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties(MBA) is the largest local homebuilder's association in the United States,comprising over 3,800 companies with more than 60,000 employees. Its builder members construct or remodel more than 95 percent of the homes in King and Snohomish counties. On behalf of that membership, I am writing you concerning Renton's proposed Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO) currently under consideration with the City Council and Planning Commission. What is "best available science"? It is the position of the MBA that"best available science"does not necessarily support larger buffers than those currently imposed by the city of Renton. I am aware that the Department of Ecology(DOE)has suggested that wetland buffers of up to 300 feet are needed to comply with"best available science,"and DOE's Model Critical Areas Ordinance would impose such buffers,but the scientific literature does not support this view. The Department of Ecology has prepared a voluminous Best Available Science Report, which is a compilation of studies on a host of critical area issues,including buffers. That report indicates, at Vol. 1,p. 5-20,that"the physical characteristics of buffers—slope, soils,vegetation, and width—determine how well buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human development and provide the habitat needed by wildlife species that use wetlands." The report further states: "The majority of research on buffers tends to focus on the processes that buffers provide to filter sediment or take up nutrients (i.e., their influence on water quality). Far fewer studies look at the influence of a buffer's physical characteristics on attenuating surface water flow rates, except as it relates to water quality. The long-term effectiveness of buffers in providing such mechanical and biological processes is not well documented in the literature and may represent a critical need for future research." It is clear from reviewing the studies cited in the DOE Best 6vAigle h gges am rt that there is very little agreement among scientists on howl gel I11III ��Aulterspeeds to be in evue,Washington 98004 `425.451.7920 '800.522.2209 ;425.646S48.5 wwWmasterbuildersinfo com. _. Now Novi Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Pagc 2 order to provide protection for a wetland or stream. One study indicates that a buffer as small as seven feet would remove 60 percent of all sediment,but an 82-foot wide buffer was required to remove 80 percent of the sediment. Yet another indicates that 85 percent of the sediment is removed with a buffer of only 30 feet. Clearly, the experts do not agree on some very basic scientific issues. More importantly, all of the studies indicate quite clearly that most of the benefit of the buffer happens in a relatively narrow area and that adding extra width to the buffers has very little beneficial effect. As noted above, the DOE report cites one study indicating a buffer of only seven feet would remove 60 percent of sediment transported by stormwater,but a buffer of 82 feet would be needed to remove 80 percent of the sediment. A different study cited in the same report concluded that a 100-foot buffer removed 90 percent of the sediment but the buffer would need to be doubled in size to remove just an additional 5 percent(95 percent)of sediment. These studies illustrate several important facts: • The scientific literature is not consistent. The results obtained in various studies are significantly different,undoubtedly due to differences in climate, soil characteristics,terrain and a host of other factors,which were not studied, and which are not addressed by fixed-width buffers. • Large increases in buffer widths do not create significant improvement in wetland and stream functions and values because there is a diminishing return on increases in buffer widths as most of the benefit of a buffer occurs close to the wetland or stream, and increases in buffer width do not provide a corresponding increase in benefit. • Simply increasing buffer widths is not the only way to protect wetland and stream functions and values. Sediment transport can be controlled by proper construction techniques, modern stormwater control systems, such as those required by the City's Stormwater Management Manual (SWM), and various best management practices routinely required by Renton for various activities. • There is no standard for what constitutes an acceptable level of sediment control for purposes of wetland and stream protection. Sediments naturally occur in wetlands and streams, so it is clear that 100 percent removal of sediments is not possible, even in a pristine environment. What percentage removal occurs naturally? If a buffer removes 50 percent of the sediment, which has the potential to reach a wetland or stream, is that adequate to protect its functions? Is 80 percent removal adequate? If the erosion control measures required by the City's surface water management regulations remove most of the sediments before they ever reach the buffer area,how much additional protection is needed from a buffer, and how wide does the buffer need to be to provide this extra protection? No one knows the answers to these key questions yet they are the ultimate questions when determining how wide a buffer is necessary. The MBA is concerned that Renton's"best available science,"which was obtained from DOE's Best Available Science Report, could be used to impose a restriction on Renton Planning Commission • March 2,2005 P age 3 development activities when, in fact, the scientific literature is inconclusive and contradictory at best for determining what buffers are most proper. The Planning Commission is urged to proceed cautiously when considering any proposal adopting larger buffers, which will impose unfounded restrictions on development and property rights. Careful Review of Best Available Science Report is Essential! No matter what the source of BAS the city of Renton elects to use, the Master Builders Association urges the City to be very skeptical and careful when considering the information provided. As a review of the DOE and King County Best Available Science Reports will quickly indicate,both heavily rely on a series of studies from other states and jurisdictions(including Maryland,Virginia,Vermont,Arizona, Iowa, Georgia,and North Carolina). Those areas of the country bear no reasonable resemblance to the city of Renton because of different climates, different soil characteristics, different topography, and different vegetation. Moreover,there was no attempt in either report to determine whether the sites evaluated were developed under similar regulatory schemes as those existing in Washington or King County. It is widely recognized that local land use laws in the State of Washington, including rules imposed pursuant to SEPA and the Growth Management Act,have created some of the most stringent land use and environmental control standards in the United States. A study from some distant state on buffer impacts has no relevance to the city of Renton,unless one can demonstrate that the sites studied in those states are physically similar to conditions in Renton and were developed with stormwater control regulations and development policies comparable to those already applied in the City. Another striking failure of completeness in the DOE and King County Best Available Science Report is the fact neither agency included two major wetland studies that were undertaken in King County which evaluated the"before"and"after"situations in wetlands located in developments subject to current regulations which are roughly comparable to the City's existing critical area rules. These studies were conducted as the result of conditions imposed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) on the developments. Copies of the King County studies are attached to this letter as Attachments 1 and 2. Although they are highly technical, the bottom line is that both reports conclude that no change in water quality or other wetland features occurred after development pursuant to current wetland and stormwater regulations. This is the"best" available science—it is local information based on local conditions (climate,topography, soils, etc.) and current regulations. This"best"available science indicates that there is no justification for increasing buffers. The City Council should evaluate the need for dramatic changes in City regulations based on local conditions and local information,not studies from places like Arizona,North Carolina and Iowa. • Under what circumstances can the City adopt critical area regulations that purportedly depart from"best available science?" f, As you are aware,the City is required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130, to review its Critical Areas Ordinance and, if necessary, update it by December 1, 2004. As part of this process, the City is required to "include the best *NNW Nue Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 4 available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas." The MBA is aware there is substantial confusion about whether local jurisdictions are required to adopt critical area regulations that somehow comply with"best available science." This issue has been addressed and resolved by the Washington State Court of Appeals in WEAN v. Island County,No. 50736-2-I(6/7/2004). In that case, the Court held: The City is correct when it asserts that,under the GMA, it is required to balance the various goals of GMA set forth in RCW 36.70A.020. It is also true that when balancing those goals in the process of adopting a plan or development regulation under GMA,a local jurisdiction must consider BAS regarding protection of critical areas. This does not mean that the local government is required to adopt regulations that are consistent with BAS because such a rule would interfere with the local agency's ability to consider the other goals of GMA and adopt an appropriate balance between all the GMA goals. However, if a local government elects to adopt a critical area requirement that is outside the range that BAS alone would support, the local agency must provide findings explaining the reasons for its departure from BAS and identifying the other goals of GMA which it is implementing by making such a choice. Quite clearly, the City has the authority to adopt critical area requirements,including buffer requirements for wetlands and streams that are not consistent with best available science, if the City finds that the rules suggested by science alone will interfere with the City's ability to comply with other goals of the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.020, establishes thirteen GMA goals. Of these, several are particularly relevant to an analysis of BAS and the proposed critical areas ordinance: • Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; • Reduce sprawl:Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; • Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans; • Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock; • Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 5 • Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses,recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services, and public facilities; • Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions; • Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. The WEAN decision makes it clear that the City can depart from Best Available Science, if it fords that it is necessary to do so in order to comply with any one or more of these GMA goals. It is necessary, as the Court indicates, to identify the goals, which the City is implementing by choosing to deviate from BAS and to provide reasons for the departure. Thus,the crucial question is not whether the city of Renton can adopt rules that may be different from those suggested by Best Available Science,but whether,under the facts and circumstances,there is a legitimate reason to do so. Although the WEAN decision applies to all of the many proposed changes to critical areas rules which the City is currently considering, this letter is focused primarily on wetland and stream buffers. _ •: What evidence exists to support adoption of wetland and stream buffers not consistent with "Best Available Science?" The Buildable Lands Inventory: As the Planning Commission and City Council are aware,King County, in coordination with all the cities in King County,completed a Buildable Lands Inventory in 2003. Some people have claimed the Buildable Lands Inventory proves there is an adequate supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the • Urban Growth Area(UGA)(including all the cities and unincorporated King County's • portion of the UGA), even if large increases in critical area buffers are adopted. This claim is inconsistent with the Buildable Land Inventory itself,which carefully disclaimed such a conclusion: The scope of the work mandated by the Buildable Lands amendment does not include all the factors that determine the pace or cost of development. This report does not analyze infrastructure availability or capacity;housing affordability; market feasibility or current market availability of land; or the actual rate of future development or which specific parcels will develop. • Moreover,the Buildable Lands Inventory did not consider the loss of land attributable to existing critical area buffers, let alone the impact of expanding those buffers. The Report specifically admitted that it needed to be re-done if critical area rules changed: `rear `ore ♦ Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 6 Future updates to the land supply inventory may need to re-analyze the impact of critical areas [on land supply] in response to several potential updates to the regulatory regime. Development restrictions associated with these [updates] will have an impact on the developable land supply, and further work likely will be necessary to identify the extent to which they further encumber potentially developable parcels of land. Since the Buildable Lands Inventory failed to consider the fact that significant areas of both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA have been unavailable for development for years and will remain so due to existing critical area buffer requirements, lack of traffic concurrency, lack of water and sewer availability and other regulatory and physical constraints,the Inventory cannot be used to support claims there is adequate buildable land in the UGA or removing a large area from production by imposing dramatic increases in buffer requirements will not impact the supply of buildable land. Since the issuance of the Buildable Lands Inventory, one further development casts additional doubt on the dependability of that report. The Inventory assumes that approximately 80 percent of the parcels in the County,which are"under-developed,"will be re-developed within the horizon year(2012) of the current GMA planning cycle. Under-developed parcels are those that contain some development,but are currently used at densities which are significantly lower than the density allowed by current zoning, theoretically making them prime candidates for redevelopment at higher density. However,the King County Housing Partnership recently sent a letter of inquiry to 280 property owners with land listed as vacant or underdeveloped in an effort to locate a site for a new affordable housing infill project. Only one of the 280 landowners indicated a willingness to sell. This level of interest is obviously inconsistent with the assumption in • the Inventory that the vast majority of owners of under-developed land will be willing to sell their property by the year 2012. The Buildable Lands Inventory assumption regarding redevelopment rates is not supported by land availability information in the real world. Under these circumstances,reliance on the Buildable Lands Inventory to support increases in buffers that reduce buildable land supplies is unjustified. Impact on Housing Affordability: As noted above, one of the goals of the Growth Management Act is: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of the state,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, • and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." No one can credibly claim that the entire King County area, including the city of Renton, does not already face a serious crisis regarding the availability of affordable housing. • The average price of a single-family home in King County in 2000 was $289,000. In 2001,the same price rose to $294,000; and in 2002,the average price increased to $302,000. From the recently released 2004 King County Annual Growth Report, the average home price in King County in 2003 settled back to $298,000. Even though the average price slipped under$300,000,the typical first-time home buyer, earning 80 percent of median income, still faced a gap of$69,000 in 2003,which means the median i • Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Pagel priced home cost 35%more than the first time home buyer could afford. Unfortunately, buffer increases will only exacerbate and add to the affordability crisis. Even small increases in housing cost severely affect those families who are at the margin of being able to afford a home. U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that for every$1000 price increase in the housing stock in the Seattle metropolitan area, approximately 2,000 families at the low end of the economic scale are priced out of the market. Land use regulations, which decrease the supply of buildable land inherently drive the cost of housing up simply due to the law of supply and demand. Given the fact affordable housing is already unavailable, great caution must be exercised by elected officials before any more pressure on the supply of buildable land is created. Analysis of Impact of Increasing Wetland Buffers: During the review process on King County's draft CAO, the County completed a very limited evaluation of the potential impact of increasing wetland buffers in the urban growth area. This analysis, a copy of which is attachment 3 to this letter, only considered the impact on buildable land inventory of increasing the buffer for Class 1 wetlands in the UGA from 100 to 300 feet and increasing a few isolated stream buffers to 165 feet. That analysis showed a decrease in buildable acreage of 22.5 percent(from 740.94 acres to 574.06 acres)and a 14.8 percent decrease(from 1716 to 1462)in the number of permitted housing units in the areas affected by these changes. The most important aspect of this limited County analysis is what it did NOT examine— the impact of increasing buffers for Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands. Class 1 wetlands,which the County study did consider, are relatively rare. Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands are extremely commonplace, to the point that it is actually unusual to find a potential development site that does not have such wetlands. Like King County,Renton does have 3-4 Category 1 wetlands,but Renton, like King County,has many more Category 2 and 3 wetlands in the City. Like it or not, if Renton were to increase buffers, the effect will consume buildable lands, affect affordable housing and eliminate the potential for new homes. MBA Analysis of Class 2 and 3 Wetland Buffer Increases. Because the County did not attempt to analyze the effects of a proposal to increase buffers on Class 2, 3 and 4 wetlands,the MBA conducted such an analysis by randomly selecting several existing developments with Class 2 and 3 wetlands for which comprehensive wetland delineations had been completed. The results of that analysis are summarized as follows: The Trossachs example: The first site selected for review was the Trossachs project located in the City of Sammamish. The site was selected because it contains several Class 2 and 3 wetlands scattered over a fairly large site,which is a very typical pattern for such wetlands in the greater King County area. The project was developed pursuant to existing wetland regulations,which required buffers ranging from 25 to 50 feet for Class 2 and 3 wetlands. Attachment 4 to this letter is a map of the Trossachs project, as built. The dark green areas on Attachment 4 are wetlands and the light green areas are the buffers on those wetlands,which comply with buffer requirements of 25 feet for Class 3 wetlands and 50 feet for Class 2 wetlands. The dashed redlines indicate the location of Nor, New • Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 8 buffers that would be applied if 100-foot buffers for Class 3 and 200-foot buffers for Class 2 wetlands were imposed. The net effect of imposing the proposed new buffers on the project would be a loss of 125 buildable acres and a loss of approximately 500 homes. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 40 percent in the number of houses on the site. The Beaver Crest example: Because the Trossachs site was a typical site with several . wetlands scattered across the site, a second site, known as Beaver Crest, also located in the city of Sammamish, was selected because it contains a large area which does not have any wetlands but does contain one large Class 2 wetland that bisects the site. Although it is relatively unusual to find a site with such a large area without Class 2 and 3 wetlands, this project was selected as a contrast to the Trossachs example. Attachment 5 to this letter is a map of the Beaver Crest site,prepared in the same manner as the Trossachs example. In this case, application of the proposed increased buffers would result in the loss of approximately 90 units, about 20 percent of the total units in the project. The Hammer Property: Because the Trossachs and Beaver Crest sites are relatively large, a third smaller site was selected which is affected by just one Class 2 wetland that is located primarily off site,but includes a small area of wetland on one edge of the property. Attachment 6 includes copies of two layouts for the plat on this property. The first map shows the lot layout based on a 50-foot buffer on the Class 2 wetland. This layout would allow 27 lots,plus a future development tract for eight additional lots. The • second map shows the layout for the plat if a 200-foot buffer is imposed as proposed by some interest groups. The revised project would yield only 12 lots and the future development tract is reduced to a single lot. This is a loss of 22 total lots, or a 63 percent reduction in the number of housing units. Of all of these projects, the Hammer property is the best example of the typical project p P Y P YP� that will occur in the future in the city of Renton. Large sites like Trossachs and Beaver Crest are difficult, if not impossible, to find in the City due to fact that most properties of this size have already been developed. New developments are now almost all infill projects on five-to ten-acre sites. (The Hammer site is eight acres.) The Hammer property is also typical of most infill sites—there is a single wetland on the site, which occupies less than one acre of the site. Under current wetland standards, 2.1 acres of the Hammer site would be protected as wetland and a fifty foot wetland buffer, leaving about 75 percent of the site usable. If the same site was developed with increased buffers, 5.5 acres would be set aside and only 2.5 acres or slightly over 30 percent of the site would remain to develop. Theoretical application to a 5-acre parcel. Comparison of the amount of lost housing units in the three projects listed above suggested that the impact of imposing larger buffers was more severe on smaller, infill sites. (Beaver Crest lost 20 percent of its units and Trossachs lost 40 percent,but the smaller Hammer property lost 63 percent.) A further review of the impact of larger buffers on small lots is included in Attachment 7, which contains two diagrams showing the impact of the existing and new buffers on a hypothetical 5-acre lot. The upper diagram on Attachment 7 shows a 5-acre lot with a 1-acre, Class 2 wetland in the corner of the property. Under current regulations(a 50-foot buffer), 3.47 acres of the c • Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 9 site would be available for development. With typical zoning allowing four units per acre, a development of 10 to 12 houses could occur on the buildable area of the site. If the buffer is increased to 200 feet,only 1.18 acres are buildable. However, even this "buildable"area has serious problems because it is a narrow strip of property 58 feet wide along two edges of the property. After construction of some form of an access road and the associated stormwater control facility,it is doubtful that more than one or two homes could be built on this property if a buffer requirement of 200 feet is adopted The lower diagram on Attachment 7 illustrates an even more serious problem. Again,the diagram shows a 5-acre lot with a 1-acre, Class 2 wetland,but in this case the wetland is in the middle of the lot. In this example, current regulations imposing a 50-foot buffer would leave 2.82 buildable acres on the site, ample room for six to eight homes. Application of a 200-foot buffer leaves the entire site unbuildable because the buffer zone would extend beyond the property boundaries on all sides of the site! Although the diagrams in Attachment 7 are hypothetical,they represent very realistic development scenarios. A significant number of existing underdeveloped lots in the City are five acres or less in size. The presence of even a single wetland on these sites can be a serious restriction even under current regulations. Imposition of large buffer requirements, such as those proposed by groups advocating that"Best Available Science" requires significant buffer increases,will render enormous numbers of these lots literally unbuildable. One of the most difficult challenges facing the city of Renton is the need to accommodate the City's share of the projected population increase,which has been allocated to the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act. If the City significantly increases wetland and stream buffers, it will become more difficult to provide the amount of new housing needed to meet the City's GMA population targets. The obvious negative impact of this on housing cost and supply must be avoided. Recommendations and Conclusion: The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties recommends that the City Council take the following actions regarding wetland buffers: Adopt the following findings regarding BAS: • There is no consensus as to what constitutes"Best Available Science" regarding wetland protection and wetland buffers in particular. Many critical questions have not been researched, and the results of the studies,which have been completed, are often contradictory and incomplete. Many of the studies • cited in the report on"Best Available Science"were conducted in distant states,which have different climates,different soils,different topography, and different regulatory requirements regarding wetlands and storm water control. The relevance of these studies to the city of Renton's conditions is dubious at best. Local studies of wetland impacts indicate that current City wetland and stormwater standards adequately protect wetland functions and values. • Even assuming that there is some scientific justification for larger wetland buffers than those currently imposed by the City, such increases would • ..r Renton Planning Commission March 2,2005 Page 10 conflict with the City's ongoing efforts to implement other goals of the Growth Management Act. • The larger King County area, including the city of Renton,already has a severe shortage of affordable housing, a fact documented in detail in the 2004 King County Annual Growth Report and numerous other studies of housing prices. • Implementation of larger buffers on wetlands will have a significant negative impact on the supply of buildable land. Analyses of the impact of increasing buffers indicate detrimental effects to the buildable land inventory. Therefore, do not adopt increases in buffers for wetlands, streams or other critical areas and retain the current sensitive areas regulations currently in use by the City. The MBA is committed to making the Growth Management Act work and believes in working with local communities to address growth concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on"Best Available Science." I strongly urge the City Council take a flexible approach to the proposed CAO to help meet the goals of GMA. I am available to assist the City in any manner necessary or to address any questions that arise, so should you have any concerns,please feel free to contact me at(425)460-8236 or ghuffman@mbaks.com. Thank you. S' cerely,40E ' • jj Garrett J. Huffman South King County Manager Attachments with hard copy f CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21st day of March, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time of a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration proposal for the purpose of meeting Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act, and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection, including Comprehensive Plan policy amendments; Shoreline Master Program policy, map, and regulation amendments; and Title IV code amendments, with amendments that address streams/rivers/lakes as well as refinements to other critical area sections, variance and permit procedures, and other interrelated codes (See www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/cao or call 425-430-6575 for further description and information.) All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6502. 66 7141,w J Walt"`-) Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published King County Journal March 11, 2005 Account No. 50640 3/10/2005 Notice sent to 215 Parties of Record, per attached labels. D. Evans cc: Rebecca Lind Jam and Smudge Free Printing E'"nid r � www.avery.com ® Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® �C� �- 1-800-GO-AVERY a AVERY®5160 3 •d'-f Nor Tom Malphrus Suzann Krom Lowell Anderson 4819 49th Ave. SW Friends of the Black River �, 18713 102°d Avenue SE 8225 S. 128th Seattle,WA 98 1 1 6-4322 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98178 Garret Huffman David Halinen Campbell Mathewson South King County Manager Halinen Law Offices,P.S. CenturyPacific,L.P. Master Builders Association of King and 10500 NE 8th Street 1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2140 Snohomish Counties Seattle,WA 98101 335- 116th Avenue SE Suite 1900 Bellevue,WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98004 PGP Inc. Farideh Mastan ATTN: Renee Schaefer Chad Armour 13810 SE 42nd Place 1325-4th Avenue 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Suite 500 Bellevue,WA 98006 Seattle,WA 98101 Richard A. Gumpert Brad Olschefski Jerry Brennan Independent Development Company 6672- 156th Avenue 3405 Lake Washington Blvd. 10933 84th Place N.E. Bellevue,WA 98006 Renton,WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98034 Dean Radford Sandra Lange,Planner Richard Robohm King County Journal WA DOE-Shorelands&Environ. Wetland Specialist 600 Washington Ave. S 32190 160th Ave SE WA DOE NW Regional Office th Kent,WA 98032 Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 32190 160 Ave SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 Daniel E. Penttila Donna J. Bunten James C. Hanken WDFW Habitat Program WA Dept. of Ecology Law Offices of James C.Hanken PO Box 1100 PO Box 47600 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210 LaConner,WA 98257-110 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 Seattle,WA 98104 Matthew Mega,AICP Traci L. Shallbetter Kristina Cerise Seattle Audubon Society Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Buck&Gordon 8050 35th Avenue NE 1501 Fourth Avenue 2025 1st Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle,WA 98115 Seattle,WA 98101-1688 Seattle,WA 98121 Betty Rencor Jim Hanson Department of Ecology Greg Fawcett,D.D.S 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Shorelands&Environmental Assistance PO Box 1029 Mt.Vernon,WA 98274 32190 160th Ave SE Fall City,WA 98024 Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 Larry Phillips & Dwight Pelz Metro King Co. Council 516 Third Ave. , Rm. 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 A213AV-09-008-L 609LS tliege6 ai zasiii;n ®091S®AZ13At/ C:\ wortiane•MMM MEMOapidea a6etpes a;a a6e.unogriue uo!ssajdwl Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ® www.avery.comEM AVERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® i- 7' 4vse =_0 1-800-GO-AVERY te-ax- Bill Rozeboom Barak Gale Jerry Holmes NW Hydraulic Consultants 6522 42nd Avenue NE 408 Index Place NE 16300 Christianson Rd., Ste. 350 Seattle, WA 98115 Renton, WA 98056 Tukwila, WA 98188 Anil Butail Scott Dinkelman Angela Romig Geotechnical Engineer Earth Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80 305 Kensington Avenue S 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kent, WA 98030 Bellevue, WA 98005 Hal Grubb Dyanne Sheldon Sally Neary Barghausen Consulting Engineers 5031 University Way NE 1190 Union Avenue NE 18215 72nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98126 Renton, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032 Ed McCarthy, Ph.D. Emmett Pritchard Dr. Ken Raedeke 9957 171st Avenue SE Raedeke Associates Raedeke Associates Renton, WA 98059 5711 NE 63rd Street 5711 NE 63rd Street Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98115 Theresa Dusek Patricia Thompson Elaine Raysten Barghausen Consulting Engineers Department of Fish and Wildlife 18215 72nd Avenue South 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 318 Stevens Ave. SW Kent, WA 98032 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Renton, WA 98055 Ivana Halvorsen Patricia Sumption Kevin L. Jones,P.E. Barghausen Consulting Engineers 10510 11th Avenue NE The Transpo Group 18215 72nd Avenue South Seattle,WA 98125 11730 118th Ave NE, Suite 600 Kent,WA 98032 Kirkland,WA 98034 Brenda Buchanan Becky Stanley Matt Mega 10840 14th Avenue S. 4108 48th Avenue S Seattle Audubon Society Seattle,WA 98125 Seattle,WA 98125 8050 35th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Irene Potter Michael Hamilton Donna Kostka 39th 20418 NE 2151 Street 2420 30th Avenue W 6724 St. W Sammamish,WA 98074 Seattle,WA 98199 Tacoma, WA 98466 AV3AV-O9-008-1. 00915 31V1dW31®AJeAV esil 0091 S e J3Ad 0 wor daane• ftwa 11111111111111 6upuud aaid a6pnws pue wer Jam and Smudge Free Printing MIIMIN www.avery.com o AVERY®5160® Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® y A276.77 ,4 1-800-GO-AVERY ff 6 k. Mark Orsen Tom Malp s Connie Troyer 3900 SSt"Ave SW SE ,�,- 316 Earlington Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Rent , WA 98056 t�a'" ' Renton, WA 98055 Elaine Raysten Paul J. Hanchette John D. Bontrager 318 Stevens Ave SW 360 Stevens Ave SW 360 Stevens Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Richard and Gladys Anarde Elizabeth Edelman M. Briere 717 SW 3rd Place 705 SW 3rd Place 208 SW 3rd Place Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Laura&Jonas Squire W.A. Cappelletti Saye A. Kinnay 210 Thomas Ave SW 324 Thomas Ave SW 1001 SW 3rd Place Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Phil and Linda Schlamp Mary M. White Orlando Dollente, Sr. 977 SW 3rd Place 912 SW 3rd Place 930 SW 3rd Place Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Clara E. Grover Marilyn J. Campbell Marshall Trove 9916 SW 3rd Place 4653 S 168th 316 Earlington Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98188 Renton, WA 98055 Sue Bucher Kathleen E. Prather Carolyn Jones 525 SW Langston Rd. 278 Thomas Ave SW 330 Earlington Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 David Mann Zanetta Fontes Attorney at Law Assistant City Attorney 1424 Fourth Ave., Ste. 1015 P.O.Box 626 Seattle,WA 98101 Renton,WA 98057 A213AV-09-008-I. ®09LS wege6 al zasHRO ®091.S®A213Ad 0 woritaane•nnn+uv► MEM apidea a6eypas a 2a a6e.ianogi;ue uoisseadwl Jam Free Printing monni www.avery.com J AVERYO 5160® Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® ®. 1-800-GO-AVERY Andrew McCormick Linda Barnes Hisako Leatherman 10208 NE 23rd Street 18823 SE 216th Street 833 SW Sunset Blvd. E-26 Bellevue, wa 98004 Renton, wa 98058 Renton, wa 98055 A. Reno Dorrine A. Carrel Lauren McCorskey 4232 NE 10th 15425 6th Ave SW #5 1421 58th Way SE Renton, wa 98059 Burien, wa 98166 Auburn, wa Carol J. Nelson Lisa Dekker Ted Barnes 728 N 79th Street 10534 19th Ave NE 18302 W Spring Lake Drive SE Seattle, wa 98103 Seattle, WA 98125 Renton, wa 98058 Doug &Theresa McLean James Butrynski Irana Hawkins 7004 S 130th Street 7009 S 130th Street 7009 S 130th Street Seattle, wa 98178 Seattle, wa 98178 Seattle, WA 98178 Megan Lyden Laurie A. Clapp Eve Irvine 222 Lake Hills Blvd. 800 S 216th #1 9040 Burke Ave N Bellevue, wa 98008 Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle, wa 98103 Eric Olsen Tina Cohen Cathea Stanley 2721 - 144th Street SW 8318 26th Ave NW 20120 15th Ave S Lynnwood, WA 98037 Seattle, wa 98117 SeaTac, wa 98198 Dean Schwickerath J. V. Bonham Stuart Jenner 231 N Sand Creek Road PO Box 1007 200 SW 178th Street McCleary, wa 98557 Centrailia, wa 98531 Normandy Park, wa 98166 Sandra Kahler and Family Martyn Stewart Noleen Stewart 6230 33rd Ave NE 5510 266th Ave NE 5510 266th Ave NE Seattle, wa 98115 Redmond, WA 98053 Redmond, wa 98053 SR 900 LLC Quarry Industrial Park, LLC Steve Eastman 9125 10th Ave S. 9125 10th Ave S. 317 Powell Ave SW Seattle, wa 98108 Seattle, wa 98108 Renton, wa 98055 Bonnie L. Scott Len Elliott David S. Mann 30014 312th Way SE 2006 Riverview Drive NE Gendler & Mann, LLP Seattle, wa 98051 Auburn, wa 98002 1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 1015 Seattle, wa 98101 ® Ab3AV-O9-008-L ®09LS 31V1dW3J.®4Ganb asn ®0915 A?J3AV/ CA woyAiane•nnivon MEM 6ul;uud aaJJ wef Jam Free Printing A&A4,-, n �`-ri www.avery.com Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® _, „t 2r -� 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® I_aA •!J'/-ee%;Z Constanse Garves Gabriel Gutierez Anna Watt 4103 NE 11th 4101 NE 10th 1024 Vashon Ave NE Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA D. Henry Scott & Rena Fisher Katherine Girt 1190 Union Ave NE B-11 4333 NE 10th Place 1190 Union Ave NE # B-6 Renton, wa 98059 Renton, wa 98059 Renton, wa 98059 Sherrine Rakish Christine Pernula Myrna Puhich 4216 NE 10th Place 4530 NE 24th Street 424 Langston Place Renton, wa 98059 Renton, wa 98059 Renton, wa 98055 Matthew Mega Debra Russell Lori Craw Seattle Audobon Society 3116 Morris Ave S 14414 14th Ave SW 8050 35th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, wa 98166 Seattle, wa 98115 Thais Bock John Lynch Shelia Harwood 29620 10th Place S 6425 Clover Blossom Lane NE John L Scott, Auburn Office Federal Way, wa 98003 Bremerton, wa 98311 914 'D' Street NE #102 s Auburn, wa 98002 Jay and Sandy Lynch Rick Osh Michael Marsh 6425 Clover Blossom Lane NE 1190 Union Ave NE E8 3434 14th Ave W Bremerton, wa 98311 Renton, wa 98059 Seattle, wa 98119 Donna Kostka Jane L. & Ronald M. Paige Heron Habitat Helpers Cornelia Remy 245 Lake Hills Blvd. 13406 SE Fairwood Blvd. Bellevue wa 98008 2420 30th Ave. W Renton, WA 98058 Seattle, wa 98199 John & Cyd Wallace Christie Hammond Nancy L. Hannah 327 N 82nd Street 109 E Roanoke Street 7526 27th Ave NE Seattle, wa 98103 Seattle, wa 98102 Seattle, wa 98115 Rena Hamburger Todd Pollard Glenn Withey and Charles Price 23600 Marine View Dr. 18418 127th Ave. SE PO Box 77321 Des Moines, wa 98198 Renton, wa 98058 Seattle, wa 98177 Kathy Andrich Erin Riley Judy Barei 25739 135th Ave SE #39 130 Main Ave S #420 2719 Morris Ave S Kent, wa 98042 Renton, wa 98055 Rento, WA 98055 A213AV-09-008-I. ®0915 31V1d1A131®k GAV asn ®09L5 ®AU3AV 0 wonciaAe•n MM ® 6ultupd 90a3 wet' Jam Free Printing www.avery.com Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® Tom Malp rus Janet Dowd Greta Taber 18713 2nd Avenue SE 4721 South Dakota Street 23314 60th Place South Ren n, WA 98055 64,14 Seattle, wa 98118 Kent, WA 98032 Patricia Sunny Walter Mary P. Marsh Donna E. Frisk 12525 206th Place SE 7605 South 128th Street 22328 10th Ave. S Issaquah, WA 98027 Seattle, WA 98178 Des Moines, WA 98198 Peter & Naomi Rimbos John Carr Georgia Conti 19711 241st Ave SE 23025 17th Avenue South 5106 SW Waite Street Maple Valley, WA 98038-8926 Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle, WA 98116 Diane & Mike Stone Pam Cahn Bill Wilson 24211 NE 27th Place PMB 3365 3715 SW Barton Street Sammamish, WA 98074 10002 Aurora Ave N #36 Seattle, WA 98126 Seattle, WA 98133 Ted Mallory Roger Hudson Sue Chickman 7524 S 135th Street Earth Ministry Olympic Peninsula Audubon Seattle, WA 98178 6512 23rd Ave NW, Suite 317 Society Seattle, WA 98117 PO Box 502 • Sequim, WA 98382 Amy Davis Terri Taylor Adele Freeland 7511 37th Ave NE 2123 NE 81st Rainier Audubon Society Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98115 5150 SW 326th Place Federal Way, WA 98023 Amy Gulick Tom Riley Irene Potter 44521 SE 166th Street 3020 A 31st Ave W. 6724 39t t W North Bend, WA 98045 Seattle, WA 98199 Tacom , WA 98466 �' Laura Korsgaard Mona Korsgaard Hannah Korsgaard 1555 Anacortes Ave NE, B206 1555 Anacortes Ave NE, B206 1555 Anacortes Ave NE, B206 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Marc Becraft Shirley Humann Christy Anderson 22822 117th Place SE 13408 SE 172nd Place 14901 SE 43rd Street Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98058 Bellevue, WA 98006 Katherine Kreilkamp John Watson Sharon Mathers 5208 21st Ave NE 4145 2nd Ave NW 8052 12th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98105 Seattle, WA 98107 Seattle, WA 98117 Aa3AV-09-008-I. ® 00915 31110131®MOAV esil ®091S ®A2113Ad 0 woyLIeAe•MMM ® 6ug.uud aaa3 wei Jam Free Printing iiiim www.avery.com �/�1 AVERY® 5160® Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY Janet Jones Susan Titus Lesa Keller 14830 SE 170th ST 5227 41st Ave SW 15335 SE 179th Street Renton, WA 98058 Seattle, WA 98136 Renton, WA 98058 Dennis & Shirley Goll Rosemary Unterseher Ci Yan Huang 4124 NE 10th Street 4110 S 114th Street 833 SW Sunset Blvd F-32 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98168 Renton, WA 98055 Maria Baldivino Rana Kassel Richard Thomasy 1105 SW 3rd Place 4528 242nd Ave. SE 4528 242nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Issaquah, WA 98029 Issaquah, WA 98029 Dorothy Flower Lorie Merlino Mary Bosshart 814 N 2nd Street #A 2671 Belvidere Ave SW 14220 Military Road S Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98126 Seattle, WA 98168 Allan F. Forrest Brooke Alford Bill Wollaston 14510 SE 167th Street 4724 S 122nd Street 4724 S 122nd Street Renton, WA 98058 Tukwila, WA 98178 Tukwila, WA 98178 Vernetta Stewart Nancy I. Wilson Ted Cooper 614 NW 49th Street 2861 SW 171st Street 15220 SE 18th Street Seattle, WA 98107 Burien, WA 98166 Bellevue, WA 98007 Gail Pross Donna & Dennis Neuzil Melissa Ewbank 176 - 141st PI. NE 2307 94th Ave. NE 14414 - 40th Ave. W Bellevue, WA 98007 Bellevue, WA 98004 Lynwood, WA 98037 Linda & Robert Gresky Nick Kuzovich Nicholas P. Kuzovich 10202 - 39th Ave. SE 15195 Sunwood RV 13 415 4th Ave. N Seattle, WA 98146 Tukwila, WA 98188 Algona, WA 98001 Larry Phillips & Dwight Pelz David L. Hali en Randall E. Post Metro Kinc C . Council Halinen L Offices 212 9th Ave. N Rm 1200 Courthouse 10500 8th St. #1900 „p ' Algona, WA 98001 516 Thir Ave. (all1 Y Belle ue, WA 98004 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Hamilton 20418 NE 21st Street Sammamish, WA 98074 A2l3AV-09-008-1 ®09L5 3JV1dW31®band as0 ®0965 ®A213/�tl ® woriGanennnnnn 6up.ulad aaaj wer Jam Free Printing wwwaverycom Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY � Ate ®5160® Mary Cadigan Michael D. Clarke Karen Roll 12134 SE 44th Place 16627 NE 92nd Street 21829 NE 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 Redmond, WA 98052 Sammamish, WA 98074 Gary Blanchard Melinda Bronsdon Diane Weinstein 3441 47th Ave SW 12229 NE 64th Street 24116 SE 45th Place Seattle, WA 98116 Kirkland, WA 98033 Issaquah, WA 98029 Becky Stanley Suzanne Krom Kate Stenberg Beck 48th Ave South Herons Forever Qualicroft Environmental Services 4108Seattle, WA 98118 4715 1/2 36th Ave SW 23022 SE 48th Street Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Sammamish, WA 98075 Grace & 011ie Oliver Carolyn Fisk John W. Williams 15618 NE 56th Way 22328 10th Ave S 11515 NE 186th Circle Redmond, WA 98052 Des Moines, WA 98055 Battle Ground, WA 98604 Tia Johnson Carrol Riddell Diane Johnson 519 Hoquiam Ave NE 8318 - 226th St. SW 3042 Garlough Ave SW Renton, WA 98059 Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98116 Jeremy Hickling Mark Levensky Karen Anthony 527 Renton Ave. S. 3514 N.E. 57th ST 5523 S. 231st PL Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98105 Kent, WA 98032 Jan Hickling Dianne Clancy Patricia M. Conner 527 Renton Ave. S. 446 S. 306th ST 498 S. 55th ST Renton, WA 98055 Federal Way, WA 98003 Renton, WA 98178 Carol Fugitt Jessica Bonebright David Averill P. O. Box 109 15165 62nd Ave S. 1701 34th Ave Buckley, WA 98321 Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98122 Rob York Judith M. Redding Colleen Fox 20805 74th Ave Court E. 14639 NE 35th ST Oliver M. Hazen H.S. 1Spanaway, WA 98387 Bellevue, WA 98007 Rent R Hoquiam Ave NE Renton, WA 98059-4399 Jayshika Ramrakha Sharon Mathers Dierdra Lacher Oliver M. Hazen H.S. 8052 12th Ave. NW 13606 139th Ave SE 1101 Hoquiam Ave NE Seattle, WA 98117 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059-4399 0 AN3AV-O9-008-6 ®091S 31V1dW31®IGaAV nil eons ®AU3AVwOYLIane•MMM ® 61.1i;wad 99a3 wer CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21st day of March, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time of a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration proposal for the purpose of meeting Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act, and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection, including Comprehensive Plan policy amendments; Shoreline Master Program policy, map, and regulation amendments; and Title IV code amendments, with amendments that address streams/rivers/lakes as well as refinements to other critical area sections, variance and permit procedures, and other interrelated codes (See www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/cao or call 425-430-6575 for further description and information.) All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6502. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published King County Journal March 11, 2005 Account No. 50640 r March 7,2005 "'"' Renton City Council Minutes Page 74 MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Finance Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the hiring of a new Municipal Court: Probation Probation Officer at Step D of the salary range. The start date will be March 1, Hire at Step D 2005. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning& Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee recommending a public hearing be set on 3/21/2005 to consider the Critical Planning: Critical Areas Areas Ordinance. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, Ordinance -1; ,0 COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Law presented a report regarding junk vehicles Development Services: or abandonment of vehicles. The Committee recommended concurrence in the Abandoned &Junk Vehicles, staff recommendation to approve amendments to Chapter 1,Abandoned City Code Amend Vehicles, of Title VI(Police Regulations) of City Code. The proposed amendments are part of the review of City ordinances to assist in the nuisance abatement efforts of the City. The proposed ordinance adds definitions, makes clarifications to avoid problems with State law, and criminalizes violation of the junk vehicle portion of the ordinance. The criminalization of the junk vehicle portion of the ordinance is necessary to allow staff to obtain search warrants to go upon properties to establish all of the details necessary to prove that a vehicle is a junk vehicle. The Committee recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for ordinance.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3740 A resolution was read setting a public hearing on 4/4/2005 to vacate a portion Vacation: N 14th St,Pool of N. 14th St.,east of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Gene Coulon Memorial Brothers Construction,VAC- Beach Park(Pool Brothers Construction,LLC; VAC-05-001). MOVED BY 05-001 LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 3/14/2005 for second and final reading: Development Services: An ordinance was read amending Chapter 6-1, Abandoned Vehicles, of Title VI Abandoned &Junk Vehicles, (Police Regulations)of City Code by outlawing junk vehicles on private real City Code Amend property, revising abatement procedures, adding definitions,declaring certain violations a misdemeanor,establishing a procedure for handling the abandonment of vehicles or junk vehicles from public property, and providing a statement of legislative purpose. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/14/2005. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: 4 APPROVED BY 1. CETV COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ate 3-7-aO0S COMMITTEEE REPORT March 7, 2005 Critical Areas Ordinance (Referred October 18, 2004) The Planning and Development Committee recommends a public hearing be set on March 21, 2005,to consider the Critical Areas ordinance. Dan Clawson, Chair XL. IA) Denis W. Law, Vice-Chair tate,62'- Marcie Palmer, Member cc Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind tt+ttttt `ttt 0 ix1 f0 ^y, N. Uhi .— tg, Ili M F V O O Li cz, 3‘ il W�1tt ui LU "0Er °O WY � CCCC M U"i f� ,W J : 7�= an K0 II , n U �ac "� CZCe.s `-L9�to VIH O. Zi r- as. t Li if) 1 Fyn ae c l cu €� Fu`a i ut a s s.t 1� �� 0) L'O�Z i tadH ifo crc C6 0 rttl3 tS LiL Y - ,40S3 _• Z Q r U ct n oo a ' ii t3 •_N11) co 00 LW N d01 z ey 0 � U di m w 414 CZ: W H u 0 _ '� WO c E o o > V i va 2. V O Q 03 U " �' eN 0 0 CA en v en 0 11 o • ______-,m,........................maimiainimeimenammL, 10 ILO i itikt- Ilr oat ..-± -:-1 .7...--: N. .— 1 :...(r) ,._. 0 4._. Pr 1 : . 0 ,.. . _ N • -47 C3 a. 0-. 7-i f\. : ali " a 0 li lit ,.., .c trwarp,.. tr -:*1. ... "414,...• raj r, -.0C 4110 4 it:LC).r.: c6 It it it I 72 0 LI 3 et ;.— zaa N: LIZ 0 0 14 -"--- Z -i— ,.., *lc PI'. in 44 42 CO , ZDLI ul - . iniLll fp L':'. ,ego, , eac -.- IIimP mar mi= m 4: Lo ..i.z. .,.:* u) 1— LI,1 0 li Q at a,.. LI 0 2 .:* H ..V13 ISali ?" >e, • ')403344 ts':Z Z 0 f a 1 ..- 0 F-. gr4 , c . !el it1 on; IN r" ca W co> rt ci 73 u) o 40 110 10 io) 0.4 ct '—" 1 7,' __ = 1 7 4 1 i al , . cv cu 4.,) ef C i 41 1 - -8'4: 4 ...a •.- ... : . ccres cd C e 4= = __ ..\. C 1 rx . 4—...:.,. cz, 0J '--.) , I : i '2... m cl, Izi ct cr CI UN'-) S 1 (.., U I— A = "-- Vr...., C4 Pr) •1 i 44*' 'Atilt*•41:ik*it NI° 1,01 I 0 1 Mt hi \ ei I ; --. .... 1-1 ....... Pi .— 0 I 441 In is, r'- 1/1"01.4, zsr — no N6 40.04 it:g° I. lk -L. ..t 1 ZQ2: 1,,.. •••::: ir Irt) not Z "': C• (.1 4 . 4ets 06 M 41—1 1111 1—' I •=r. -..-i 611 Liu IA 77, Ct. (3 -,---' 113 istiii Id as - v.., H -CZ 40S3Eld ,..z X s ....... H 0 ..— z ill ,..-, 0-,z, ....ei ! •01 Cm• p.„, 1 r....Z • P- I 40 I :11w cci 0 00 0, tz4 i lat'cu tce i f il 61 CT i 0 0^1 Fatif 4.4 = I 41 Z 1 trf , 4 110 I , , g ! :a ill : 40 gi g. .., •...) I 1 , v‘. ... ...) , (IL. 5 , &-. ‘..r• . E* ›, -2. . 0.4 cri i.. . ...... Cid o ,E cc .._., = = — ( -- 1 2 cl, tr, ,z7.-, ‘7....) : i , tr, i ,- -....., , w 11 ','-=,) , . 4101 'llelil'*t#!* Lii 0 \1 re. La t3 a rmt /JO 0:3-e.. 111140 e* --...- sn ri 0lao o as Z4w o DuQ A ue L. 0 V131slm y z as3v4 N v _ > � > � mo a-, co CD °'m :f CC > isis > c (i) ura (0 0 .. go > ("1 c i go Ucoc4 F. z 7. i (n CT i o :c U c o 0 U S JZ. h U >4 3 0. o O - J . .) I ram- =% iI o _--........,................................I...„ ipit,".********* °'.%1•1 I i D, N, , ROI .:ce, -I. -.— N., 1 i....,-- t'rt a .1- 0 4-Z.- 1%. o c ir.14 ft I I Iri tt to "..:1W V. z S.... . tio:4,01iVati I El pl! ,‘'4,, 1 ^ri Cr ir I wita it -FE: QL13 ea zoo: to # -1—H47 r f I P ca .-- CC CS , ...... , 4=i 11 0 0 U _ :R. ... ,— Z DILI 10 — 0 D 13 e.; — LILI cod 0 1—og el ff:_:. 01 LIZZ 61 t-: tk D cri -,6 u) ..:— .._ 0 :.. a od CIL. LI C.) V10 ISnEi C.) kz.:44 H 1- -.L.: .440S3tid CM (4—I 0 H 0 t el Z ca / ..— 74 Lr) .--, bo ()..-, a) W C i cip 5 ! .., ... — .., .„4 to r:4 VI W rS "Z. .11) t8 c3 r21 g., 0 * ,..; *z."2, c4-1 PQ ial . 1 4 1, 4) c o , of) EN rID w = fi :a al- , s' • 4.... .; -. ... . © . • 4) . . /....s, 0 • C 0 5 cc 114 4.• ' • 0 C4 r rn co) • ,,CCt 0 Ca..) ........, ct ,s • (i--) = 0 _c M ci 0 cr) —...., , kr) .......) , i ; • •" . .***4, w M u+ il "IN W 1 - 4 el / O u- �' 4h rt t� a N O .1 .i = a Ll1 CDC il O a �^ u. W LU CC fil, es �1i1 •"... K V (Y A� 'It' l.J w©Q 0 PI' ttik �\ a�. •� iil u ark '6 r, fl ; o ata t� _. f- - �� Ll oAft Z L!W to AC ,I.. CO F ZaLuiz ca tag .^.!-� " su e ..Ile0c. pia 1S H '40S3tid H.x U z a Met N ^4., 0 6* oo a.) rn fd C ( Q " o ,, > u N irl co = z E 61 a) a.„z O V ZNin o� o zU W� s o y _ 0 O a ^ . 4 1.1 CG O+ svNV -ci ...,:z ...y.) (4-- U S a 1h11%1@1W RR!!!R Q L0 Lis rii4 O N L]Oa li CMa W si ir co —se 'swot +Sep �J al [L��fl 0,� F Q: Q U hi0 ri Q Q O ca at t a a R, a u2z 04 H3t D i ri its -- in LI f '$13 ISEW x 'UOS3tt4 '-E ii 41 3 c 04 do 0 0o i.fi 0,4 0 � 3 ,;lam ti ,-, W o !.f_ q N 01 C.) M to Z i..d O U o N o s U ao Zw 4, o C `� A ›., . .... ›.+ 3,1 CC U3 ill b a CI ail N . q,v*sr L ) C? 0 _ Iii NLi: +� rJin i1 a QO tn ob W W 1 :rib 1-1 V W JdoQ �. ce J Q 0 00 Qit it U XQ C =/i VUas Tii ?` v IF. w W 0 o ZA1;i1 in d1 u`t- i tEi _ 4 0D LqE !V iii 1111112 c Ce , _ f} W tL7 0�, { .L., V! Li 131SU( ." x — fl c= s `i Q (11 E Nr xZ E 0 o a L: it V1 0 00 U � U o w ° 1x o N b -Z.* _— r"� W V 0 It N WO W LU .-i 0. O u' V w — 0 0p �("j N O N Q ct y e. .. if-..,..._(-) - ti • 1 =f . wCT ii •...-----•:: --... g 09 — a� ���jjj _• : W 2, Is:: F, Z — - 'T� o ,� = O v, �r� 04 q _ E-+ o R N e ')g in NE 414 III t in re) 0 2 -o 5 in X W n tx ly 1 O E. y 1: b r. yg M O Z . : / .'; -= ''N N Q d' N d 3 r r' •\ 11 tn a b e li n _ Q r., �O o0 G �QJ '�I O O Pmq Q ci t U, .` t- 1 O 4"\, '� M Q h >, g h \ W H W >1 3 t\ _ q � qH 1s' oo 4.4 o,141 j i'l � o g1.eccv 0 d 11 9 a We z g - R I r Ira .. f, ".. -L_ v.) v, u Sire nitro/ 4 i W — t 0 = Zs Li o c�v �O -Z m yam • , p C.) U W rn • ,., i = F. rn rE i 0 CZg3 FT-1 � o = 404 x VCS ,�s 0 CCS o - 40 cz 1 3 N E* '_' ..i T ZS ;� i ' i 4. in •r I N G V` l"dgg EL A� en 'xan id i ' fi O O W N a - W b C ‘o T wa "' Wes' N 4 W a � a o 0 W b ; h Cl 141 V tiNN ; le.., % a o In co IS CC � ' 4.1 q- C '� g ra ._, '7. .' W ss 0 S� O 11 eN e) coUto k L.T. yto - o W� - d N 1 WYnto ' 11 oaZ u. o� e--I 0cc i y „ O ' PA ON i � C/) 2 4g .. 4111) w o F '� = 0 " G� q = i c' Mn 5 'cv o<3 in x� - a. Y.N ❑ill Rl p C 3 Cr) e d Y V1 W ) sad O � V � N � a iiq cc 0 v eg RI „ r� w a y w y o U cn O U. d N f 0 _ 'i•� — re —� W O ry0. j0.� pp i Ts'�t 1 } V = CA >" 4. - 3 in Q Hin Z l� rr� m ,,^^ 5 aol N V/ U o� a s°evl g M 4 A 4 : • .. ) ,.., ,., ,. ' .i. ;; c i _ 0 . ,-.,. 2 ! .. ,, . 4 40 C OrT, J v 3 4 cU N. i .i hob <1.- o Op f:4 g E., a 4.4 o 1p0%1 L,4-A 1. (1::-14L1\ , Et,...._,.', ,.,z, .., ,.. ,, o„,, :.,.......".__ Q � 91 wa `uh o ,-,v.•)-) co tie 2. M •_ 11 O 2 rjlh, .......... -r J AZi c :fin 4 y W _ U — o LL __ ti tl`J r-i V Cr Lei m. 'Z I- � Ir.i � � rYin g 3 a oo W 3 � - CA Q ; c o N a w � z — ao = x o = � �' E„ '� _ � z 0 �1/ 17 Y/ Q� oN m L.O. - en2s� it. Hn N ly V h W ' CI F. [ . 0 C.::)d h C `o b h in H C.) O` N cn N. ti ry a A O ,f; o. , N I s N ON u1 ` ' Wv1. rWV T NN a g "� a 0 a VI W c � O a � " N Z v.ct v 4 0 b K ra ,-..... ± t...) 1 m �„ co Li' a) O a) (0 LL a-- rillangliffaillaffillifiligialliglibillgralla ."�.0 co m . e a„ lU CO °' z U'� i n U in U m *' r='i o O LL o a_ E e CZ0M ruu7 i._ a D n. is'! _ _ L� CO V� og tt .7� fi(. r-i W t.�t CIO s.s:.\ . Q `�' o� a c ..... V 43 DJ I 0 ca ® x¢ 4°• 03 z _i_ risz 2� s_ ;:, mc, - o •- F '(} I I-mo H HOx L. 0eN o o4-0 J 7h2 1 ` M 0 M o,x"• to tn ._ f0il {n 0 d': U g _. }� O c l� „'` t y L. w ° 1 3 _ 0 4.4 o° �,�',N OFF g Q ,, —- 6e � Ott Ti C g ,.„ ••• ':: ..9z, , ) )r, -:" OOS Y \ ' 7 L (t vo Lt'S€ WLIOd Sd 33In1:13S 1V1SOd 'S'fl NW '16'4,0004 7Z ri L. W = O LC) g - et 44 ^-, pp V N h O - C I IL r-i 0 LK Fey W rn 00 U =_ >, �; - - = Q n I E.: i ›'"' CN - 30 o a 3 N - w � z = : Y)IS- 4. (..� cip^� = p ^ z CD - & rniat III A U �44 III i c.t+:. d enm-y fL r.`� in t. U 'C rn U M O M 4i .O m g a a C� � o � o ,i �+ p a � a h0a o crft G 141 e J g _,..., z, . ri2 __, Q R .., ,.. - 3. <� 3 0 I Zjoi Z U 0 c u. 4 ccvv wD O W >� _ �L U. r--i U � 0. g f[ _y 0 _ q _ W 'U. . ,,•-_.- cr, .- • a i _ O _ _ Qd � 3 z = V) Q — O '''CT...1 I E* E" if) z C4 CD Q "— 0 off] w — FYi m & Ezo as 'n .. En ,� y , 0 3 (p M o . 9 i . a.-,,x tri o O OU '� b 0.. RaO 0. w8 s , w � � �, o ro U hal 6 - 5. , o 0 IQ CI 0. J ral — r Cs J o W I 0 Z o