HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 4067CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE
AMENDED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO FORWARD THE
DOCUMENTS COMPRISING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR APPROVAL.
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58) by a vote of the people in 1971; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies
of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the
Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) provides a timetable that
requires the City to amend its master program by December 1, 2009, and the City received a
grant from the Department of Ecology to support the update process; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a comprehensive public involvement plan that provided
widespread public notice and held periodic public workshop meetings and public hearings with
the Planning Commission between Spring 2008 and Spring 2010 and City Council meetings in
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document
and distributed it for agency and public review and compiled and responded to comments and
issued a final document in March 2010; and
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
WHEREAS, the City developed a series of technical memoranda on specific topics
relevant to the Shoreline Master Program and held a series of public workshops on the
documents and compiled and responded to comments; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Shoreline Master Program in July 2009 and considered
and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised Draft
Shoreline Master Program in October 2009, December 2009, February 2010, March 2010, June
2010 and September 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis in July 2009 and
considered and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised
Cumulative Impacts Analysis in October 2009 and a Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis in March
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Restoration Plan in October 2009 and considered and
responded to government agency and public comments and issued a Final Restoration Plan in
March 2010 with minor corrections in June 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-
Significance on the proposed Shoreline Master Program on May 10, 2010; and
WHEREAS, such modification and integration of the Shoreline Master Program is
intended to protect and provide for the public interest; and
WHEREAS, once the City approves the Shoreline Master Program, it will be sent to the
Washington State Department of Ecology for review and approval, a process which may entail
further changes and amendments to the documents of the Shoreline Master Program; and
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
WHEREAS, upon Department of Ecology approval, the City will adopt the Shoreline
Master Program by ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. This resolution is supported by the following conclusions based on the
adopted findings:
A. The City followed its established public participation program;
B. Revisions are needed to the Shoreline Master Program;
C. All development standards within the attached documents, were reviewed and
found to be in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act; and
D. The amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are intended to provide for
the management of the shorelines of the City by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of the City's 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 generally protecting public rights of navigation
and corollary rights incidental thereto.
E. The Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Shoreline Master Program demonstrates
that the program will make a positive contribution to maintaining and enhancing the ecological
functions of the shorelines in Renton, particularly in reference to near-shore habitat that is
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
critical for an early life-cycle stage for Chinook salmon that are currently listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
F. Projects vested to the regulations and development standards prior to the
adoption of the ordinance are not subject to these standards unless substantial modification of
the project is proposed which result in new application for development of the project.
SECTION III. The City Council approves the Shoreline Master Program, which is
comprised of the documents and proposed amended code provisions attached hereto as
Exhibits A-D, and directs the Department of Community and Economic Development to forward
the following documents to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval:
Exhibit A: Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit B: Shoreline Environment Overlays Map
Exhibit C: Shoreline Restoration Plan
Exhibit D: Amended Code Provisions:
RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations;
RMC 4-8-120C, Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications;
RMC 4-8-120D, Definitions of Terms Use in Submittal Requirements for
Building, Planning, and Public Works Permit Applications;
RMC 4-9-190, Shoreline Permits;
RMC 4-10-095, Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses,
Activities, Structures, and Sites; and
Chapter 4-11 RMC Definitions.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27th day of September 2010.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 27th day of September , 2010.
Denis Law, Mayor
AQ (/d(+.t-
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES:1465:6/30/10:scr
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Exhibit A
Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline Management Goals
The City adopts the goals and principles of the Shoreline Management Act as provided in RCW
90.58.020 and as particularly relevant to Renton.
1. The shoreline jurisdiction is one of the most valuable and fragile of the City's natural
resources. There is appropriate concern throughout the watershed and the greater
Puget Sound Region relating to the utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation
of the shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Ever increasing pressures of additional use are being placed on the shoreline
jurisdiction, which in turn necessitates increased coordination in its management and
development.
3. Much of the shoreline jurisdiction and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private
ownership. Unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned
shorelines is not in the best public interest; therefore, coordinated planning is necessary
in order to protect the public interest associated with the shoreline jurisdiction while
recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest.
4. There is a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly
performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an
uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
5. It is the intent of the City to provide for the management of the shoreline jurisdiction by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. The Shoreline Master
Program is designed to ensure the development in a manner that, while allowing for
limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and
enhance the public interest.
6. The City's shoreline policies are intended to protect 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.
7. In the implementation of the Shoreline Master Program, the public's opportunity to
enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines shall be preserved to the
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state, the county,
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.
Exhibit A-1
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
8. Alterations of the natural condition of the shoreline, 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; industrial and
commercial developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of
the shoreline jurisdiction; and other development that will provide an opportunity for
substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines.
9. Permitted uses in the shorelines zone shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of
the shoreline jurisdiction and any interference with the public's use of the water.
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the
philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural
resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public
interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful
effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our state's shorelines.
Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as
marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial
and industrial uses.
The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act
recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable
and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive
industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research
and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and
chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct.
Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition of
all use of shorelines also could eliminate their human utility and value. Thus, the policy goals of
the Act relate both to utilization and protection of the extremely valuable and vulnerable
shoreline resources of the state. The act calls for the accommodation of "all reasonable and
appropriate uses" consistent with "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" and
consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as
distinguished from the development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, only
one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and
easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert
with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any
public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited
to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects,
and incentive programs.
Exhibit A-2
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration,
and preservation of "fragile" shoreline, "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its
vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the
Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal
consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological
functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial
development permit requirement of the Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and
development that is exempt from the Act's permit requirements. The principle regarding
protection of shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in several ways,
and in the context of related principles.
Local Responsibility
Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary
responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory
requirements of the Act, with the Washington State Department of Ecology acting in a
supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and
regulatory requirements.
As set forth in the provisions of the Act, local governments must fulfill the following basic
requirements:
Use a process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of
current and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines.
Include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological
functions, including:
o Regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will
not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
o Local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation
standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal
limitations on the regulation of private property.
Include goals and policies that provide for restoration of impaired ecological functions
that include identifying existing policies and programs that contribute to planned
restoration goals, as well as any additional policies and programs that local government
will implement to achieve its goals. This Master Program element considers established
or funded non-regulatory policies and the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory
or non-regulatory programs.
Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future
development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered
by the policy goals of the Act, address adverse cumulative impacts, and fairly allocate
the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities.
Development of the Master Program
Exhibit A-3
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) directs all local
governments to develop a Master Program for the management of all shorelines of the state
and associated shore lands that are under the local governments' jurisdictions.
Shoreline management is most effective and efficient when accomplished within the context of
comprehensive planning. The Growth Management Act requires mutual and internal
consistency between the comprehensive plan elements and implementing development
regulations (RCW 36.70A).
This Master Program has been prepared and updated to comply with the requirements of the
Shoreline Management and Growth Management Acts and to formulate guidelines that will
regulate the utilization and development of the shorelines within the City of Renton. As part of
this Master Program, the City of Renton has established administrative provisions, including a
permit system for any substantial development, as well as review provisions to ensure that all
development complies with the policies and regulations of the program.
The City of Renton has conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics,
present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline that provides a
substantial information base for understanding ecological functions and other considerations
for the development of this Master Program update.
The City of Renton, with the involvement of its local citizens, agencies, and interested parties
has developed this Shoreline Master Program to serve as both a planning guide and resource
for specific regulations pertaining to development and use of the shorelines in Renton.
Included is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and
provisions for variances and conditional uses.
The basic intent of this Master Program is to provide for the management of shorelines of the
state within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate
uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote
and enhance the best interests of the general public. This Master Program has further been
composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines and, at the same
time, to recognize and protect the legal property rights of owners consistent with the public
interest. The goals and policies of this Master Program are formulated so as to enhance the
public use and enjoyment of the shorelines. It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State
found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area, and that they are subject to ever
increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management
and development of the shorelines. The Shoreline Master Program is a planned, rational, and
concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the Shorelines of the State
in Renton.
Regulated Shorelines
Overview: Over 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning area are under the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By statutory standards, the Green River
and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance, and comprise
Exhibit A - 4
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
approximately 5.8 miles of the Shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. In addition,
the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines
within the City. These 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are an extremely valuable
resource not only to the City of Renton, but also for the watersheds of which they are part and
for the greater Puget Sound community of which Renton is an integral part.
Shoreline Jurisdiction: In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the
Act:
Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which
includes Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in Renton Municipal
Code (RMC) 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington
b. Green River (The area within the ordinary high water mark of
the Green River is not within the Renton City Limits, but
portions of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are within city
limits.)
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st
Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 32-24-5E WM
c. Black River
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW
43rd Street on the south
e. Lake Desire (in the city's future annexation area)
Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: The jurisdictional area includes:
1. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the
ordinary high water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways,
whichever is greater;
2. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
3. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams,
lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State
Shoreline Management Act.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which make it
valuable, particularly Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake
Washington and the Green River. Preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in
descending order of priority (as established by Chapter 90.58.020 RCW) for Shorelines of
Statewide Significance:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for
Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
Exhibit A-5
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
Development, redevelopment, and use of Lake Washington shall recognize and
protect the statewide interest in terms of providing for benefits to the general public
in terms of:
Preserving and enhancing the natural character and ecological functions of
the shoreline to provide long-term public benefits to fish stocks, many of
which depend on south Lake Washington for a key phase of their lifecycle.
Increasing public access to the shoreline and integrating public access on
individual sites with an integrated non-motorized trail system to allow access
to persons not living or on near the shoreline.
Ensuring that impacts of development are mitigated to ensure the long-term
benefits of a productive environment over short-term economic benefits.
Providing a variety of recreational opportunities for the public in multiple use
development on the shoreline.
Providing high standards for design and aesthetics in the shoreline site and
building design to address the visual character and quality of the range of
public use of the lake and shorelines. Design and review standards shall
achieve high-quality landmark developments that are integrated with the
natural environment, that provide appropriate transition to areas of less
intense development, and integrate building height, bulk, setbacks,
landscaping, and signage into a cohesive whole.
The redevelopment of former industrial areas on the Lake Washington
shoreline will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community
providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to
the region. Multiple use projects will take advantage of the amenities of the
lake while providing opportunities for water-oriented uses, public access
and/ or ecological enhancement.
Geographic Environments: Shorelines are classified into separate geographic areas known as
use environments" based upon current development pattern, biophysical capabilities, and
other factors. Policies, standards, and regulations can be customized by the use environment,
shoreline, and other uses depending on need. Generally, regulated shorelines include the
water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high
water mark for 200 feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all
marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State.
The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation.
The overlay districts in the Renton Shoreline Master Program are classified as zoning overlay
districts and include six districts:
Exhibit A-6
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
1. Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and
preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically
intact as close to their natural state as possible. The natural environment is
intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation.
Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment: A Natural Area designation is
assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply:
The shoreline retains the majority of natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by
the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but
not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline
modifications, structures, and intensive human uses.
Shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and
terrestrial environments, which could be lost or significantly reduced by human
development.
The shoreline represents ecosystems that are of particular scientific and
educational interest.
Shorelines with large areas of relatively undisturbed areas of wetlands.
Shorelines that support specific important wildlife habitat, such as heron
rookeries.
The shoreline is unable to support new development, extractive uses, or physical
modifications or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions.
2. Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District
Objective: The purpose of the Urban Conservancy environment is to protect,
conserve, restore, and manage existing areas with ecological functions of open
space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed
settings, while allowing compatible uses.
Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
Areas of high scenic value.
Areas of open space, floodplain, or other sensitive areas such as wetlands or
geological hazards that should not be more intensively developed.
Areas that retain important ecological functions, including areas, which, even
though they are partially developed, provide valuable wildlife habitat or essential
aquatic habitat functions.
Areas with the potential for ecological restoration.
Areas that cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development.
Areas with unique or fragile features.
3. Shoreline Single Family Residential Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
Exhibit A-7
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are
consistent with this chapter.
Areas to Be Designated: The Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
applied to and characterized by single-family use and zoning.
4. Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for
large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multi-family
residential use and public services. This district provides opportunities for water-
dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions
and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially
access to and along the water's edge.
Areas to Be Designated: The Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District is designated
in areas characterized by: commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning or use, but
not meeting the criteria for conservancy or natural designation.
Management Policies:
Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for high-intensity urban uses
are a limited resource, development opportunities are largely limited to
redevelopment. Existing industrial and commercial uses on the shoreline are not
water-dependent. It is unlikely that the Renton shoreline will provide opportunities
for a commercial port, or other major water-oriented industrial uses. However,
there may be opportunity for some types of water-dependent uses to be integrated
into existing multiple-use developments or redevelopment projects, particularly on
Lake Washington. Opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses are
likely to be oriented to recreation, public enjoyment, transportation, and moorage.
Emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and
particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses.
Non-water-oriented Activities: Non-water-oriented uses should be permitted as part
of development that also include water-oriented use. Non-water-oriented uses
should be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit
opportunities for water-oriented uses, or on sites where there is not direct access to
the shoreline. Non-water-oriented uses allowed in the shoreline should provide
ecological restoration and/or public access along the full length of shoreline
frontage.
Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access
to water in the High Intensity Overlay District. Identifying needs and planning for
the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water is addressed
in Public Access regulations in 4-3-090.E.4.g Table of Public Access Requirements by
Exhibit A-8
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Reach. Public access is one of the primary public benefits that may be necessary to
locate development on the shoreline.
Ecological Restoration: Providing for restoration of ecological functions is one of the
public benefits necessary to locate non-water-oriented development on the
shoreline. Ecological restoration opportunities are limited in Renton due to the
developed nature of much of the shoreline. Generally, new development and
redevelopment should remove and replace shoreline armoring that does not meet
standards of this code, restore native vegetation and wetlands, as well as restore the
aquatic substrate. Public access may be required to be set back from restored areas
with controlled access to the water's edge at locations that are less ecologically
sensitive.
Aesthetics: Aesthetic objectives shall be implemented by appropriate development
siting, building bulk, design standards, screening, landscaping, and maintenance of
natural vegetative buffers.
5. Shoreline Isolated High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective and Areas to be Designated: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay-
Isolated Lands overlay is to provide appropriate regulations for areas that are within
shoreline jurisdiction but are with separate parcels effectively isolated from the
water by intervening elements of the built environment, largely consisting of
railroads and roads or intervening private parcels. In most cases, these areas
function as parallel designations with other designations applied to the area
adjacent to the water.
6. Aquatic Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Aquatic designation is to protect, restore, and
manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Areas to be Designated: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area
waterward of the ordinary high water mark of all streams and rivers, all marine
water bodies, and all lakes, constituting shorelines of the state together with their
underlying lands and their water column; but do not include associated wetlands
and other shorelands shoreward of the ordinary high water mark.
Management Policies: Development within Aquatic Areas shall be consistent with
the following:
Allowed uses are those within the adjacent upland shoreline overlay, limited to
water-dependent use or public access.
New uses and over-water structures are allowed only for water-dependent uses,
single-family residences, public access, or ecological restoration and only when
no net loss of ecological functions will result.
Exhibit A-9
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
The size of new over-water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary
to support the structure's intended use. In order to reduce the impacts of
shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple-
use of over-water facilities is encouraged and may be required.
All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds shall be located and
designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts
to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and
wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.
Shoreline uses and modifications shall be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water quality, minimize alteration of natural conditions and
processes, and result in no net loss of ecological functions
Uses and modification of Public Aquatic Land shall incorporate public access and
ecological enhancement, except where inconsistent with the operation of water-
dependent uses.
Fish and wildlife resource enhancement, including aquaculture related to fish
propagation are allowed and encouraged.
Goals and Policies
Shoreline Uses and Activities Policies
Objective SH-A. Provide for use of the limited water resource consistent with the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act by providing a preference for water-oriented
uses.
Objective SH-B. Provide that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program ensure that new uses, development, and redevelopment
within the shoreline jurisdiction do not cause a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
Objective SH-C. Ensure that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program are consistent with the land use vision of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy SH-1. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned
for:
1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be
evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance
the natural functions of shorelines, including reserving appropriate
areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control
pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public
health.
3. Provide for the following priority in shoreline use and modification of
the shoreline:
a) Water-dependent and associated water-related uses are the
highest priority for shorelines unless protection of the existing
natural resource values of such areas precludes such uses.
Exhibit A-10
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) Water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible
with ecological protection and restoration objectives,
provided that adequate area is reserved for future water-
dependent and water-related uses.
c) Multiple use developments may be allowed if they include and
support water-oriented uses and contribute to the objectives
of the act including ecological protection and restoration
and/or public access.
d) Limit non-water-oriented uses to those locations where access
to the water is not provided or where the non-water-oriented
uses contribute to the objectives of the Act, including
ecological protection and restoration and/or public access.
e) Preserve navigational qualities, and the infrastructure that
supports navigation, to support water-oriented use.
4. Recognize existing single-family residential uses and neighborhood
character and ensure that existing uses, new uses, and alteration of
facilities:
a) Do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
b) Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas.
c) Are provided with adequate public services including water,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater management.
5. Future shoreline subdivision, multi-family developments, and planned
urban developments of more than four units should provide public
benefits, including ecological protection and restoration, and/or
public or community access.
6. New residential developments should provide open space areas at or
near the shoreline through clustering of dwellings.
Policy SH-2. Aesthetic considerations should be integrated with new development,
redevelopment of existing facilities, or for general enhancement of shoreline
areas and should include:
1. Identification and preservation of areas with scenic vistas and areas
where the shoreline has high aesthetic value as seen from both
upland areas, areas across the water, and recreational and other uses
on the water.
2. Appropriate regulations and criteria should ensure that development
provides designs that contribute to the aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline for a substantial number of people and provide the public
with the ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and view
the water and shoreline.
3. Regulations and criteria for building siting, maximum height, setbacks,
screening, architectural controls, sign regulations, designation of view
corridors, and other provisions should ensure that development
minimizes adverse impacts on views of the water from public
Exhibit A-11
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
property or views enjoyed by a substantial number of residences.
Policy SH-3. All shoreline policies, regulations, and development shall recognize and
protect private rights consistent with the public interest and, to the extent
feasible, shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy
of adjacent property owners. Shoreline uses and activities should be
discouraged if they would cause significant noise or odor or unsafe
conditions that would impede the achievement of shoreline use preferences
on the site or on adjacent or abutting sites.
Conservation Policies
Objective SH-D. The resources and amenities of all shorelines and the ecological processes
and functions they provide, such as wetlands, upland and aquatic
vegetation, fish and wildlife species and habitats, as well as scenic vistas and
aesthetics should be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by
present and future generations. Natural shorelines are dynamic with
interdependent geologic and biological relationships. Alteration of this
dynamic system has substantial adverse impacts on geologic and hydraulic
mechanisms important to the function of the water body and can disrupt
elements of the food chain.
Policy SH-4. When necessary, Shoreline modifications should emulate and allow natural
shoreline functions to the extent feasible and where needed utilize
bioengineering or other methods with the least impact on ecological
functions.
Policy SH-5. Native shoreline vegetation should be conserved to maintain shoreline
ecological functions and mitigate the direct, indirect and/or cumulative
impacts of shoreline development, wherever feasible. Important functions of
shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:
Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by
salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
Regulating microclimate in riparian and nearshore areas.
Providing organic inputs necessary for aquatic life, including providing
food in the form of various insects and other benthic macro
invertebrates.
Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and reducing
the occurrence/severity of landslides.
Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment by minimizing
erosion, aiding infiltration, and retaining runoff.
Improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of
nutrients and pollutants.
Providing a source of large woody debris to moderate flows, create
Exhibit A-12
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
hydraulic roughness, form pools, and increase aquatic diversity for
salmonids and other species.
Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and
migration corridors.
Policy SH-6. Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and non-
regulatory means that may include regulation of development within the
shoreline jurisdiction, ecologically sound design, and restoration programs,
including:
1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to
permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable
forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs.
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected,
improved and, when feasible, increased to the fullest extent possible
to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed salmon stocks
and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks.
3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible,
increased.
4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open
space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for
education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if
necessary, for the conservation of these areas.
Policy SH-7. Existing and future activities on all Shorelines of the State regulated by the
City of Renton should be designed to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions.
Policy SH-8. The City of Renton should work with other responsible government agencies
to assure that surface water management in all drainage basins is considered
an integral part of shoreline planning.
1. Soil erosion and sedimentation that adversely affect any shoreline
within the City of Renton should be prevented or controlled.
2. The contamination of existing water courses should be prevented or
controlled.
Policy SH-9 Shoreline stabilization should be developed in a coordinated manner among
affected property owners and public agencies for a whole drift sector (net
shore-drift cell) or reach where feasible, particularly those that cross
jurisdictional boundaries, to address ecological and geo-hydraulic processes,
sediment conveyance and beach management issues. Where erosion
threatens existing development, a comprehensive program for shoreline
management should be established.
Policy SH-10. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value
Exhibit A-13
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
should be identified and protected.
1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site
identification, preservation, and protection.
2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from
intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined.
Policy SH-11. Critical areas in the shoreline should be managed to achieve the planning
objectives of the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and
ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory provisions for critical areas should
protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. In
protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City should
integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including
the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development
regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.
Policy SH-12. The City shall implement the Restoration Plan provided as an adjunct to The
Shoreline Master Program in coordination with other watershed
management agencies and groups, and shall manage public lands and may
acquire key properties and provide for off-site mitigation on city or other
public or private sites.
Policy SH-13. Preservation of natural shoreline areas can best be ensured through public or
non-profit ownership and management. Therefore, where private
development is proposed in areas so designated, the City should require
dedication as necessary.
Policy SH-14. Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that
prevents or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological
condition does not become worse than the current condition. This means
ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development
and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in
so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that should be protected
include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support,
and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be
protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion
and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment
delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic
matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel
formation/maintenance.
Economic Policies
Objective SH-E. Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be recognized
Exhibit A-14
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
and economic uses or activities that are water-oriented should be
encouraged and supported.
Policy SH-15. Shoreline uses should be integrated with the land use vision of the
Comprehensive Plan. Harbor areas in Renton do not have reasonable
commercial accessibility and necessary support facilities such as
transportation and utilities to warrant reservation for commercial ports and
related uses, but may support other water-dependent uses such as a marina
or passenger ferry service. Water-oriented uses should be encouraged in
multiple use development to provide opportunities for substantial numbers
of people to enjoy the shorelines. Multiple uses should prove a significant
public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives
such as providing ecological restoration and/or public access to and along the
water's edge.
Policy SH-16. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline to achieve
the use and other goals of the Act and The Shoreline Master Program,
including:
1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion
of their development along the shoreline.
2. New over-water structures should be limited to water-dependent use
and the length, width, and height of over-water structures should be
limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions.
3. Shoreline developments should be designed to maintain or enhance
aesthetic values and scenic views.
Policy SH-17. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels
may be allowed in appropriate locations within residential, commercial, and
other areas, provided they are located and designed to result in no net loss
of ecological functions.
1. Shared moorage is encouraged over individual single family docks.
2. Commercial docks and marinas should meet all health standards.
Marinas and other economic activities should be required to contain
and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating
activities.
3. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other
vessels should be developed in size and location when it would not
impair unique or fragile areas, or impact federal or state-listed
species.
Policy SH-18. All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of
ecological functions during construction and operation.
Policy SH-19. Festivals and temporary uses providing public benefits such as recreation or
Exhibit A -15
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
public access, and which are compatible with ecological functions, including
water quality, water flow, habitat, or unique and fragile areas, may be
permitted with appropriate review and conditions.
Public Access Policies
Objective SH-F. Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the
natural amenities.
Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the
shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and
visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction
with the following policies.
Policy SH-21. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout
publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's
edge may be restricted to protect shoreline ecological values. Public access
shall be provided over all public aquatic lands leased for private activity,
consistent with compatibility with water-dependent uses.
Policy SH-22. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property
and may be acquired by easement or other means over intervening private
property.
Policy SH-23. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial,
and industrial developments that provide physical and visual
public/community access along the water's edge should be guided by the
policy provided in Policy SH-26 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach.
Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline
ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible
with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural
processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to
which public access is provided, including trail systems.
Policy SH-25. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing commercial,
industrial, multi-family planned unit developments, or subdivisions, and
public facilities, public/community access to and along the water's edge
should be provided if physically feasible.
Policy SH-26. Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided.
Policy SH-27. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking
Exhibit A-16
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way
and may be required on private development.
Policy SH-28. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle
paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than
roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable.
Policy SH-29. Physical or visual access to shorelines should be required as a condition of
approval for open space tax designations pursuant to RCW 84.34.
Policy SH-30. Development and management of public access should recognize the need to
address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should
recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just
compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for
public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall be
provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with
the public.
Exhibit A-17
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach
The following table outlines the policy objectives for maintaining and improving public access within the shoreline. Application of
public access objectives should be considered along with other objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, such as ecological
restoration and priority uses.
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A
Lake Washington
Reach B
Lake Washington
Reach C
From Bellevue city
limits to Renton city
limits
From the city limits to
the Seahawks training
facility
From the Seattle
Seahawks
headquarters and
This developed primarily single-family area currently provides no public
access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the
residential lots; however, views may be limited by topography and
vegetation. Access to the water should be pursued at an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way, including parcels used for utilities and
potential acquisition of parcels, with emphasis on parcels that are not
currently developed because they do not currently have roadway access.
This is primarily a single-family area with one multi-family development
immediately south of the Seahawks Training Center. There is currently no
public access. There is a public trail along 1-405, but it does not have views
of the water. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely, but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the residential
lots (however, views may be limited by topography and vegetation) and
potential acquisition of opportunities for public access to the water.
This reach includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training facility to the north and the Barbee Mill site to
the south. The Quendall Terminals parcel between the Seahawks and
Exhibit A-18
SHORELINE REACH Location
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Public Access Objectives
Lake
Reach D
Washington
Lake Washington
training facility
through the former
Barbee Mill site.
From May Creek to
Mountain View
Avenue
From Mountain View
Barbee Mill sites is a Superfund site contaminated with coal tar and
creosote. There is public access along a portion of the shoreline at the
Seahawks site and adjacent to May Creek at the Barbee Mill site. Public
harbor lands are along about a third of the subdivision water frontage. The
potential for provision of public access from new development will occur
after cleanup of the Superfund site with multi-use development that
should offer shoreline access across the entire property, consistent with
vegetation conservation. Provision of public access from future
redevelopment of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site is possible under the
existing zoning, which allows higher intensity use and provides an
opportunity for continuous public access parallel to the shoreline. Public
access should be provided to shared or commercial docks. Public agency
actions to improve public access should include visual access from a future
trail along the railroad (views may be limited to the northerly and
southerly portion of the reach because of distance to the water and
potential blockage by intervening buildings); enhancement of the May
Creek trail to public streets; access on public aquatic lands; and potential
acquisition of public access to the water.
This reach is a single-family area with no public access except Kennydale
Beach Park. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and
bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and
possible public acquisition of access to the water including an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to the water; and potential
public right of way and potential public acquisition of selected parcels,
including undeveloped parcels with development constraints.
This reach is a single-family area with no existing public access. The
Exhibit A-19
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH
Reach E
Lake Washington
Reach F
Lake Washington
Reach G
Lake Washington
Reach H
Lake Washington
Reach 1
Location
Avenue to Gene
Coulon Park
The less developed
northerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
The more developed
southerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
Southport multiple
use development
Boeing Plant and to
the Cedar River
Public Access Objectives
potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include visual access from public trail
development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and bicycle access
on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and possible public
acquisition of access to the water including an existing undeveloped
railroad right of way adjacent to the water; possible public street ends;
and potential public acquisition of selected parcels.
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park and a
variety of primarily passive recreational facilities, a fishing pier, and a
moorage dock. Public access is one element of park functions that should
be continued and incorporated in future plans and balanced with goals for
providing recreation and improving ecologic functions. Other public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way, and pedestrian
and bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard including addition of
public viewing areas.
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park
together with a variety of passive and active recreational facilities, a boat
launch, over-water facilities, and concession facilities. Public access is one
element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
future plans, as well as balanced with goals for providing recreation and
improving ecologic functions.
Public access is currently provided along the waterfront and should
continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the remainder
of the property. The design should include supporting water-oriented uses
and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
This reach is about one-third state-owned aquatic lands designated as
Harbor Area and managed by the Washington State Department of
Exhibit A-20
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH Location
Lake
Reach J
Washington
Lake
Reach K
Washington
Renton
Airport
Municipal
From the Renton
Municipal Airport to
the Seattle city limits
Public Access Objectives
Natural Resources (DNR) and two-thirds is the Boeing Company's site.
Landward of the inner harbor line, ownership is entirely the Renton Boeing
Plant. Public access in this area includes the Cedar River Boathouse located
on pilings in Lake Washington and accessed from the west from the Cedar
River Trail. The boathouse includes a public fishing area and provides
canoe and kayak rentals, classes, and guided trips. Public access is
currently not feasible on the three acres of state owned aquatic lands
managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped public
access should be provided, balanced with goals for ecological restoration.
Public agency actions to improve public access should include a waterfront
trail, which would connect the public access at the Southport development
to the Cedar River Trail. This action should be implemented when
environmental and security issues can be resolved, as well as public access
to public lands, balanced with the goals of preserving ecological functions.
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the
Will Rogers, Wiley Post Memorial Sea Plane Base. and should be
maintained if the goal of public access is not in conflict with the
aeronautical use of the property.. Public agency actions to improve public
access should include enhancing opportunities for the public to approach
the water's edge from the existing lawn area. Public access may
necessarily be limited by safety and security limitation inherent in the
primary use of the property for aeronautical purposes.
This reach is predominantly single-family area with no existing public
access. Public visual access is provided from Rainier Avenue. The potential
for provision of public access from new development is likely limited to
future redevelopment of a small mobile home park in the easterly portion
of this reach and from redevelopment of existing multi-family uses. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Rainier Avenue as well as enhanced pedestrian facilities or
view points. This effort may include acquisition of several undeveloped
Exhibit A-21
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH Location
May Creek
May Creek A
May Creek B
May Creek C
Public Access Objectives
parcels to provide access to the water's edge, consistent with goals for
preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
May Creek D
From the mouth of the
creek to Lake
Washington Boulevard
From Lake
Washington Boulevard
to 1-405
From 1-405 to NE 36th
Street
From NE 36th Street
to the city limits
This reach is bounded by open space dedicated as part of a subdivision
and includes public access provided by a trail along the creek. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Lake Washington Boulevard including enhanced pedestrian
facilities or view points, improved connections of the May Creek trail to
public streets, and to the potential trail to the east across or under the
railroad right of way and Lake Washington Boulevard.
There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of re-
development, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the
water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include
provisions to cross 1-405 to connect with trail systems to the east.
This reach includes discontinuous public ownership with some private
ownership. At the time of development of private lands, public access
should be provided from a trail parallel to the water together with public
agency actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development
should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of
ecological functions.
This reach is largely King County May Creek Park. Public access is informal
and discontinuous. There are some private holdings along the creek. At
the time of development of private lands, public access should be
provided from a trail parallel to the water coordinated with public agency
actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development should be
set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
Exhibit A-22
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A
Cedar River B
Cedar River C
Mouth to
Avenue
Logan
Logan Avenue to 1-405
bridges
1-405 to the SR 169
A public trail is provided on the east side of the river in the Cedar River
Park. No public access is provided on the west side of the river adjacent to
the municipal airport. Public physical access from a trail parallel to the
water should be provided if the Renton Municipal Airport redevelops in
the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
A public trail is provided on the north side of the river and a variety of
public access is provided on the south side, including small city parks.
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public
lands adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not
separated by public streets should provide active open space and other
facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to
relocate further from the water's edge to allow revegetation should be
considered in the future as part of public park and river maintenance
plans.
A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. Public access
is provided at a public park on the north side immediately east of 1-405.
Public and/or community access along the waterfront should be provided
as private lands on the north side of the river redevelop, considered along
with the goal of restoration of ecological functions. The single-family
residential area on the north side of the river provides no public access.
The potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include additional interpretive trails and trail
linkages through public lands on the south side of the river, if consistent
with ecological functions and public acquisition of access to the water in
existing single-family areas, where appropriate.
Exhibit A-23
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Cedar River D
SR 169 to
boundary
UGA A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. It is generally
at a distance from the water's edge. Most of this reach is under public
ownership or dedicated open space. The primary goal for management of
this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional public access to
the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions.
The small residential area at the east end of the UGA provides no public
access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual
access from the existing trail and possible public acquisition of access to
the water.
GREEN RIVER
Green River
Reach A
The Green/Black River
below the pump
station
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system
to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
Black/Springbrook A
From the City Limits to
Grady Way
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green
River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails are
Exhibit A-24
SHORELINE REACH Location
Springbrook B
Springbrook C
From Grady Way to
SW 16th Street
From SW 16th Street
to the City Limits
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Public Access Objectives
present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur
only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on
the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and
should be retained and possibly enhanced.
A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under 1-405.
Enhancement should be implemented as part of future highway
improvements or other public agency actions.
A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing
Longacres Office Park and extends from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale.
Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking lot
of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this
area, a continuous trail system connecting to the continuous system to the
south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
There is no trail system along the stream from SW 19th Street to the
approximate alignment of SE 23rd Street. A continuous trail system is
provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through the
Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. If future development occurs in the
area of the missing trail link, a trail system connecting to the continuous
system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of
ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public
actions should include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which
may include interim trails or routing on public streets and sidewalks. In
the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor
and adjacent lands, relocation of the trail farther from the stream should
be considered with controlled access to the water's edge.
Lake Desire
A trail system is present in public open space in parks around the lake but there is no trail system adjacent to the lake.
Lake Desire Entire Lake Public access is provided by a WDFW boat launch. There is currently no
formal public access to the water at the natural area at the south end of
Exhibit A-25
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
the lake, nor the County-designated natural area at the north end of the
lake. Interpretive access should be implemented in a manner consistent
with ecological values. Existing single-family residential development
provides no public access. The potential for provision of public access
from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single
family use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs.
Public agency actions to improve public access should include public
acquisition of access to the water where appropriate. Access for
interpretive purposes may be an element of public acquisition of wetlands.
Exhibit A-26
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Recreation Policies
Objective SH-G. Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public should be
encouraged to the extent that the use facilitates the public's ability to reach, touch, and enjoy
the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline.
Policy SH-32. Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged.
1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved in existing parks
and new development, substantial alteration of existing non-single
family development, and intensification of existing uses where
consistent with maintaining ecological functions.
2. A balanced choice of public recreational opportunities should be
provided on Lake Washington as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance
that recognizes and protects the interest of all people of the state as
well as Renton residents. Recreation use includes enjoyment and use
of the water from boating and other activities. Shoreline park and
recreation areas should be increased in size and number and
managed for multiple uses including shoreline recreation and
preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed at locations
where physical and ecological conditions are appropriate.
4. Both passive and active recreational areas should be provided.
Policy SH-33. Recreational boating and fishing should be supported, maintained, and
increased.
Policy SH-34. Public agencies, non-profit groups, and private parties should use
cooperative and innovative techniques to increase and diversify recreational
opportunities including incorporation in development as well as public
purchase of shoreland. Public agencies should establish the intent to acquire
lands by incorporation of such policies in their plans and declaring public
intent.
Policy SH-35. Public land, including city parks and public aquatic lands, should be managed
to provide a balance of public recreation, public access to the water, and
protection and enhancement of ecological functions.
Policy SH-36. Subject to policies providing for no net loss of ecological functions as well as
local, state, and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to
foster recreational aspects.
Policy SH-37. Provision of recreation facilities and use shall be consistent with growth
projections and level-of-service standards established by the comprehensive
plan.
Exhibit A-27
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Circulation Policies
Objective SH-H. Minimize the impacts of motor vehicular traffic and encourage non-
motorized traffic within the shorelines as part of achieving no net loss.
Policy SH-38. Roadways within shorelines should be scenic boulevards, where possible, to
enhance the scenic views of the shoreline and provide opportunities for
public visual access to the shoreline. Existing arterials on the shoreline should
incorporate substantial plantings of street trees or other landscaping and
emphasize enjoyment of the shoreline.
Policy SH-39. Viewpoints, parking, trails and similar improvements should be considered
for transportation system projects in shoreline areas. Bridge abutments
should incorporate stairs or trails to reach streams where appropriate.
Policy SH-40. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline
recreation areas.
Policy SH-41. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance,
operation and security, should be developed.
1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by
pedestrian and bicycle pathways.
2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new
or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines.
3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in
publicly financed transportation systems or rights of way, consistent
with public interest and safety.
4. Public access provided in private development should be linked to
public pathways.
5. Public access and non-motorized access to shorelines should be
considered when rights of way are being vacated or abandoned.
Policy SH-42 Rail lines within the shoreline should provide opportunities for public access
and circulation:
1. The rail line along the east shore of Lake Washington should be
reserved for use as a public trail if rail use ceases. If rail use
continues, joint trail and rail use should be explored.
2. Rail lines adjacent to the Green River should provide means for
public access across the rail lines to access shorelines and public
trails where this can be accomplished safely through bridges or
undercrossings.
Policy SH-43 Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the
shoreline:
1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of
Exhibit A-28
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
non-motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and
Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the
Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for
low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline.
2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links
together shoreline public access into an interconnected network
including active and passive parks, schools, public and private
open space, native vegetation easements with public access,
utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities.
3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with
upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system
that provides non-motorized access throughout the City.
4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets
should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along
shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River,
the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River.
Policy SH-44. Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access
standards and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious
surfaces, where feasible, and managing surface water runoff to achieve
appropriate water quality.
Policy SH-45. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be encouraged
as they relate to water-dependent uses and should be limited to commercial
and industrial areas.
Shoreline Historical/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources and Activities Policies
Objective SH-I. Provide for protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having
archaeological, historical, cultural, scientific, or educational value.
Policy SH-46. Sites with archaeological, historical, cultural, and scientific or educational
value should be identified and protected or conserved in collaboration with
appropriate tribal, state, federal, and local governments as well as private
parties.
Policy SH-47. Such features may be integrated with other shoreline uses if appropriate to
the character of the resource.
Policy SH-48. Include programs and interpretive areas in recreational facilities in or near
identified shoreline areas with historical, cultural, educational, and scientific
value.
Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement Policies
Objective SH-J. Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired
Exhibit A-29
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of
public and private programs and actions. This Master Program includes a
restoration element that identifies restoration opportunities and facilitates
appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal of
this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions.
Policy SH-49. A cooperative restoration program among local, state, and federal public
agencies; tribes; non-profit organizations; and landowners should be
developed to address shorelines with impaired ecological functions.
Policy SH-50. The restoration plan incorporated by reference into The Shoreline Master
Program is based on:
1. Identification of degraded areas, areas of impaired ecological
functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration.
2. Establishment of overall goals and priorities for restoration of
degraded areas and impaired ecological functions.
3. Identification of existing and ongoing projects and programs that are
being implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented,
which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals.
4. Identification of additional projects and programs needed to achieve
restoration goals.
5. Identification of prospective funding sources for those projects and
programs.
6. Identification of timelines and benchmarks for implementing
restoration projects and programs.
7. Development of strategies to ensure that restoration projects and
programs will be implemented according to plans, periodically
reviewed for effectiveness, and adjusted to meet overall restoration
goals.
Exhibit A-30
NOW],
4
SE 68th St
Exh I I B
b t ���J,; I SE72 clPl
M r
k
V SE
,
pn 6n St
5fflg
7
zwe crente
LW-® �
4m,
IF -I
III -V
�S Ran�v
S Bang St
LW -K LW -G'
eze
8 Leo St
0C
LW_J LW_l
6____Lj
/2 4
J
1.CR-A1
r
LA
ITIV/
Q f
132nd
Ott
19L
LU
MIDBRSC-A
r
S 144th
ILI
_J
A
Area' nlarged
rZ,
atbottom e. _4U0
left. mer ! i 4
S 56th:
. .........
L
�Iv
X'OWay
Straj der Blvd Vth
b
<
BR
a Y1F
MJ kier Blvd 11,L
J
w`S
E5
7yB, Thland br
ML
S 182ndSt
4r 47th St
T_
47t
co)
J
L
92nd SL '9192 d St 55th St
S 196th St
L
K e n t
8th S
X 42
S fird St
<
_J, 20 to It
0-
d
S 06ttILL
L!
LWA
Rd
SE
]SE PI
79� iL
-Ne ft 4V -1--l-
&A
7777
q
�.LE Z,3f 8i
gy
16th Ct t
%
N
SE 75ili P1
ul
Yr
a
Newcastle Go'/C/trb Rd
i /`
N le w, c a s t I e
SE12thSt
A
Ir. i:::.a 1W111;
,KV-,nn�
T;
infib.
..................
N
If.
■
■
1.
oil
lCISH
�,�ilfia ��■iii . m • 1■
mill
MIMI
1wevi
21
NINE
OVA
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009, King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP. The actual extent of shoreline Renton Shoreline Environment Overlays
jurisdiction requires a site-specific evaluation to indentify the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands.
The location of the 20 cfs limit is from USGS (1998.)Floodplain and floodway extent are based on FEMA mapping
and the Lower Green River Mapping Study by King County. Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing
City/regional inventories; additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the imaps and some of the areas
shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria. This map makes no claim as to whether wetlands r ------ Shoreline Environment Designation Shoreline Jurisdiction
are associated with the shoreline or not. This map should not be used as a definitive source on associated Wetlands City Limits
under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Such a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. PAA Boundary Natural BRSC - Black Rive r/Spri ngbrook Creek Reaches
CR - Cedar River Reaches
July 6, 2010 Shoreline High Intensity
Wetlands
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Shoreline isolated High Intensity GR - Green River Reaches
LD - Lake Desire Reaches
1: 24,000 Shoreline Single Family LW - Lake Washington Reaches
Urban Conservancy MC - May Creek Reaches
File Name: H:, CEDIPlannitig, GISlGIS--projectsl,shoreline--mgi77t progratnimxdstshoreline-environment desigiiationstA-shoreline-deSigt7ation-24x36 0710.trixd
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
EXHIBIT C
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Restoration Plan
ir^S- , .' ' *^. 'J**"**"" ' -"'"ffi^i"
Preparedfor
City of Renton
City Hall
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Ife report was funded in part by a Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology
Prepared by
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363
www.parametrix.com
In Association With:
Adolfson Associates, Inc
Maney ARC
March 2010 553-1779-031
CITATION
Parametrix. 2010. City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington.
March 2010.
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE .1-1
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT 1-2
1.3 SHORELINE INVENTORY 1-3
1.3.1 Introduction 1-3
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction 1-3
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed 1-3
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek 1-6
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE 1-8
1.3.6 Built Environment 1-8
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2-1
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2-1
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE
PRIORITIES 2-1
2.2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives 2-2
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects ..2-3
2.3 DUWAMISH/GREEN RTVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES 2-4
2.3.1 Lower Green River 2-4
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek 2-5
2.3.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects 2-6
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS 3-1
3.1 CEDAR RTVER/LAKE WASHINGTON 3-1
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan 3-1
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District 3-1
3.1.3 King County Conservation District 3-3
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs 3-4
3.2 GREEN RIVER /SPRINGBROOK CREEK 3-5
3.2.1 WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan 3-5
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District 3-5
3.2.3 King Conservation District 3-6
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project 3-6
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs 3-6
3.2.6 Black River Watershed Alliance 3-6
3.2.7 Herons Forever 3-7
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS 3-7
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning 3-7
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations 3-8
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan..... 3-8
March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan 3-9
3.3.5 Private Development 3-11
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach 3-11
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES 4-1
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS 4-1
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER 4-1
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities 4-1
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach 4-2
4.3 GREEN/SPRINGBROOK 4-9
4.3.1 Priorities 4-9
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach 4-9
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 5-1
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 5-1
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING 5-3
6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1
7. REFERENCES 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update 1-2
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan 3-2
3-2 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan 3-5
4-1 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach : 4-3
4-2 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach 4-10
5-1 Funding Opportunities 5-2
March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
ACRONYMS
BRWA
DNR
DO
ERP
FCRW
KCD
LOS
LWD
KCFCZD
NPDES
RCW
RM
SMA
SMP
UGA
WAC
WDFW
WSDOT
Black River Watershed Alliance
Department of Natural Resources
dissolved oxygen
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed
King Conservation District
level of service
Large Woody Debris
King County Food Control Zone District
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Revised Code of Washington
River Mile
Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Management Plan
Urban Growth Areas
Washington Administrative Code
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of Transportation
March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE
The City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to activities and uses within
its shoreline zone. Activities which produce adverse impacts on shoreline ecological
functions must have mitigation for those impacts to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. By law, development within the shoreline zone is not required to improve the
affected shoreline beyond the baseline condition at the time the activity takes place. How
then can shoreline ecological functions be improved over time in areas where the baseline
condition is marginally, or even severely, degraded?
Section 173-26-20 l(2)(f) Washington Administrative Code (WAC) of the SMP Guidelines
says:
Master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify
existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and
identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement
to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should
make real and meaningful use of established or funded non-regulatory policies and
programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should
appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non-
regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any
restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations
and mitigation standards.
However, degraded shorelines are not exclusively a result of pre-SMP activities, but also of
unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines also require that "Local
master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate
will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline" (173-26-186(8)(b)(ii)
WAC). While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the SMP
should hold that permit exempt developments must still comply with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) or the local SMP. Because the shoreline environment is also
affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program's jurisdiction
e.g., shoreline areas upstream of the City and otherwise outside of City limits), assembly of
interlocal agreements, forums, programs, and policies can be essential for understanding how
the City fits into the larger watershed framework. Watershed-wide goals and objectives are
critical for the improvement of highly interconnected regional environments.
As indicated by the Guidelines, the following discussion provides a summary of existing or
baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration objectives both regionally and locally,
evaluates ongoing programs and restoration projects, and provides potential restoration
opportunities within the City of Renton. Lastly, implementation of restoration goals and
monitoring development of ecological functions over time will allow the City's Restoration
Plan to meet SMP Guidelines.
This Restoration Plan is also intended to support grant funding of restoration projects by the
City and/or other non-governmental organizations as well as provide the interested public
with contact information for organizations working with the City to enhance the environment.
The difference between the role of regulatory and non-regulatory programs in achieving no
net loss is illustrated in conceptual form in Figure 1-1, below. Generally speaking,
regulations that address development projects are designed to achieve no net loss. However,
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 1-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
there are exceptions to this. For example, non-water-dependent uses are required to provide
public benefit in the form of public access and/or ecological restoration as addressed in WAC
173-26-24l(3)(d). In general, however, restoration activities undertaken by public, private,
and non-profit organizations in accordance with this plan, and other programs are expected to
provide the primary source of improvements to ecological functions.
SMP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function
Higher
o
3
on
2
o
m-
Lower
tt
No ttm ios5 - Current Bsseime
m m
On-going degradation
frarn existing
d«M-lopiwrrt
ShoreBns viotsMons
Avoid and MtHgate
tapacls
SMP Update
Invftnioiv •'•
ElV.-JiOmVu: r« D<.'<i!i}nS!iOn
D £ VM nproen! P ofic t ;-n S.
R 'iCuiiimi.!itk{| At tic IK
outeld-: EMA SKthoiily
C.jj,'i{,S';.vic i- Stf-ri"ijy
C'.muii.inv!- Impai !:s
Key: ft-iiM > 1 ^ 'mps,!*** j Mr ^Mrr,_i,s
Source: Washington Department of Ecology
Figure 1-1. Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT
City of Renton is located within the Lake Washington/Cedar River (Water Resource
Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) and the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 9) watersheds.
WRIA 8 encompasses 692 square miles (Kerwin 2001) and two major subbasins, the
Sammamish River and the Cedar River, both of which flow into Lake Washington. WRIA 8
boundaries follow topographic divides between WRIA 7 (Snohomish River) to the north and
east, and WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish Rivers) and Puget Sound to the south and west (Kerwin
2001). The majority (approximately 86 percent) of WRIA 8 is in the Puget Lowlands
physiographic region. The upper Sammamish drainage lies in the Cascade foothills, while the
upper Cedar River drainage extends through the foothills into the Cascade Mountains. WRIA
8 has a population of about 1.5 million people, the most of any WRIA in the state.
WRIA 9 contains the Green River and its tributaries, including the Duwamish
waterway/estuary, and nearby tributaries draining directly to Puget Sound. WRIA 9 is bound
topographically by WRIA 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) to the north and WRIA 10
Puyallup River) to the south. The Green River watershed is 462 square miles, and the river
1-2 March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
itself stretches 93 miles from its source in the Cascade Mountains through the Cascade
foothills and Puget Lowlands before emptying into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The
population of WRIA 9 is approximately 565,000.
The City accounts for less than three percent of the geographical area and its population
80,708) is less than a half of one percent of the population of about two million within
WRIAs 8 and 9. The City is also located near the lower end of both WRIAs. Hence,
management actions taken within the City limits have a limited effect on overall watershed
conditions. However, actions taken to manage reach-scale processes, such as riparian and
floodplain functions, could have a larger effect on specific ecological processes and
functions, particularly rearing functions of anadromous fish.
The City also lies in the lower portion of May Creek and Springbrook Creek but accounts for
a much larger proportion of the total watershed area. As such, management actions for these
shorelines conducted within the City may have a more substantial effect on overall watershed
conditions and shoreline ecological functions.
1.3 SHORELINE INVENTORY
1.3.1 Introduction
The Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report as part of the City of Renton's SMP will
facilitate the City of Renton's compliance with the State of Washington's SMA and updated
SMP Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and biological conditions in the
shoreline area within City limits, including recommendations for restoration of ecological
functions where they are degraded. A brief summary of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Report relevant to the Restoration Plan is summarized below.
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
The City's jurisdiction includes area in both WRIAs, the Green/Duwamish Watershed or
WRIA 9 and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed or WRIA 8. For
organizational purposes, shorelines in WRIAs 8 and 9 will be broken into two sections for
analysis within this Restoration Plan. In WRIA 8, significant shorelines include Lake
Washington, Cedar River, and May Creek titled as Cedar River/Lake Washington. In WRIA
9, significant shorelines include Green River and Springbrook Creek titled as Green
River/Springbrook Creek.
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of
the state plus their associated "shorelands." Shorelands are defined as:
Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the
provisions of this chapter...Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-
hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its master program as long as such portion
includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two
hundred feet therefrom. (RCW 90.58.030)
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed
The Lake Washington basin covers most of the 692 square miles contained in WRIA 8 and is
populated with approximately 1.4 million people (Kerwin 2001). The City lies at the south
end of Lake Washington and contains approximately 21 square miles, or three percent, of the
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 1-3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
total watershed and less than one-half percent of the total watershed population. Lake
Washington has 80 miles of shoreline, about six of which are within the Renton planning
area, or about eight percent.
The Cedar River Watershed drains an area of 191 square miles, 125 square miles of which lie
upstream of the City of Seattle drinking water diversion. The upper watershed is mostly
second growth forest, but 16 percent of it is climax, old-growth forest. Most impervious
surface in the watershed occurs in its lower, urbanized portions. The Lower Cedar River
basin is primarily (90 percent) within the jurisdictional boundary of King County. The
remaining jurisdictional area is within the cities of Renton (7.8 percent), Maple Valley (2.1
percent), and Kent (0.8 percent; King County 2009).
The May Creek watershed is about 8,960 acres in Renton, Newcastle, and unincorporated
King County, and includes 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands. The portion of the Creek in Renton includes 2.3 stream miles of shoreline
planning area partitioned into four reaches. The Creek is an important salmonid stream and
contains a substantial amount of protected shoreline.
1.3.3.1 Land Use
Land use areas within this section include the Lake Washington basin, Cedar River, and May
Creek Watersheds.
According to King County Assessor's (2008) parcel data, City land-use along the Lake's
shoreline is a mix of residential, industrial, parks, recreation and open space, and vacant areas
with vacant land and low-density residential development representing the dominant land
uses.
Thirteen of the 187 City parcels along the Lake's shoreline are either unmodified or restored
including one single-family residential property on Reach E and Gene Coulon Park on
Reaches F and G. Gene Coulon Park contains a combination of restored shoreline, vegetated
shoreline, and some armored shoreline. Kennydale Beach Park (Reach D) contains a
combination of modified and natural shoreline. The remaining 174 City parcels contain some
level of "hard" armoring. This includes major commercial/industrial parcels (e.g., the Renton
Boeing Plant) and private residential properties with hard armoring, moderate armoring,
natural shoreline, or a combination thereof. Parcels that are completely armored with concrete
bulkheads, rocks, or similar structures comprise 67 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline.
The majority of these parcels occur in Reaches D, E, and K, which are developed for single
or single/multi-family residential use. Losses of wetland and shoreline vegetation in the Lake
is likely attributable to filling and shoreline development (Grassley 2000).
City land-use along the Cedar River shoreline is composed of a mix of residential, parks,
recreation and open space, government/institutional, roadway and undeveloped lands. As a
result of human development within and upstream the city, 64 percent of the lower Cedar
River is modified on at least one bank, a condition which, in conjunction with decreased
flows, has artificially narrowed the river's historic average width of approximately 250 feet to
110 feet. This alteration has resulted in a 56 percent reduction in water surface area,
corresponding to a loss in available instream aquatic habitat (Kerwin 2001). Channelization
and the disconnection of the Cedar River floodplain for flood control have affected storage of
water, sediment, and contaminants, simplifying instream habitat.
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of May Creek are a mix of parks, recreation and open
space, undeveloped lands, and residential. The upper, eastern portion of the basin is
characterized by less dense residential and agricultural development, and includes a
significant portion of the undeveloped parkland on Cougar Mountain. Above May Canyon,
the Creek lies in a formerly dredged, straightened channel at the center of a wide, very low-
l-4 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
gradient valley. The lower, western portion of the basin is inside the Urban Growth Area
UGA; primarily within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Renton and Newcastle) is fairly dense
urban residential development. About 50 percent of the basin is forested, but the amount of
urban development is increasing (Kerwin 2001).
1.3.3.2 Nearshore and Riparian Habitat
Nearshore and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline is severely altered in
nearly every reach, within the City of Renton and outside of the City limits. Residential and
commercial development, including bulkheads, docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards
have adversely modified most of the Lake Washington shoreline habitat. However, many of
these shoreline areas continue to provide shallow water habitat at the toe of bulkheads, and
some locations that do not have bulkheads. Narrow docks perpendicular to the shorelines do
not appear to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook, but the fish appear to migrate
around wider structures where they occur in shallow water (less than three feet deep).
Deeper nearshore habitats with rocky substrates and without vegetation appear to be preferred
by smallmouth and largemouth bass. These bass may also be keying in on overwater
coverage and pilings as ambush habitat. Because there is an abundance of these habitat types
in the shoreline, predation opportunities that would not exist historically are likely increasing
today (Kahler 2000).
Shallow water habitat along these shorelines provides important rearing habitat for juvenile
Chinook as they slowly migrate from the Cedar River and rear along Lake Washington's
shorelines. Those areas closest to the River are most important for this rearing function
because the smallest Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months as
they gradually move away from the river mouth. Although riparian vegetation increases the
refuge and prey production functions for this habitat, the shallow beaches support rearing
juvenile Chinook in the absence of natural riparian vegetation (Tabor 2008).
The continuing cumulative adverse effects of bulkheads and the lack of native vegetation on
near-shore processes important to a variety of aquatic species including substrate character,
interflow, shallow water temperature, and the food web may be reduced in the future by the
recent proposal by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove the sheet-pile
outfall structure and restore the nearshore as part of an aquatic restoration program (DNR
2009) and by expansion of the Cedar River delta.
The Cedar River downstream of 1-405 is an artificial channel created early in the 20th
century, and is completely constrained between levees and revetments. These reaches were
regularly dredged to prevent flooding from their completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s.
Portions of the reaches were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-1970s.
Instream habitat in these reaches is almost entirely riffle, with little habitat complexity. Land-
uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for re-connection with
a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor. Channelization and existing
land-uses also prevent significant large woody debris (LWD) from accumulating in the
channel. Reaches A and B are also very low-gradient and depositional, and the substrates
have high levels of fine sediments.
The reach between 1-405 and SR 169 has a higher degree of function than downstream
reaches although it is partially diked, leveed, and bulkheaded with extensive alternation on
the north side (right bank) from past commercial multi-family and single family development.
The south side (left bank) is almost entirely in public ownership with relatively heavy
riparian vegetation, although there are some flood control revetments on the south side. The
Maplewood residential neighborhood on the north side (right bank) immediately downstream
of SR 169 is subject to shallow flooding in a 100-year event. In addition, an active landslide
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 1-5
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
scarp is located directly across the river from the neighborhood. The occurrence of a major
landslide would block all or a portion of the channel suddenly and could force river flows
across the residential area with potentially devastating results. The King County flood
management plan proposes voluntary buy-out of this area since there is no reliable means to
reduce long term landslide hazard.
The reach upstream of SR 169 is less constrained, allowing for the development of gravel
bars and a very small degree of meandering and channel migration. At present, Reach D has a
significant amount of LWD due to the landslide caused by the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001.
This includes log-jams behind the Ron Regis Park, just upstream of the Elliott Spawning
Channel. Most of the left bank of Reach C is deciduous forest, and the portion of Reach D
adjacent to the golf course and Ron Regis Park is deciduous forest. These forested areas are
generally at least 200 feet in width.
The Cedar River and May Creek delta provides a large amount of rapidly-developing, natural
shallow water habitat in Lake Washington. In the past, the mouth of the River was
periodically dredged for flood control. The City has no plans to dredge the delta in the future
for flood control (Straka 2008). However, some dredging for the Municipal Airport float
plane dock is proposed in order to restore water depths. Dredging at the mouth of May Creek
was previously performed to accommodate log storage for the Barbee Mill sawmill. The
natural processes at the delta have not yet developed any areas of sufficient elevation to
support riparian vegetation, but they have created a large amount of shallow water habitat
where young Chinook first enter the lake. Further natural expansion of the delta is likely to
eventually prove a very productive complex of shallow aquatic habitat, wetlands, and uplands
that together will provide for the transition between the river and lake environment that is
critical to a number of species, including salmon. The May Creek Basin Action Plan supports
enhancement of that delta in the policy:
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits.
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek
1.3.4.1 Shoreline Inventory
The Green River Watershed covers an area of 566 square miles, a small portion of which falls
within Renton's jurisdiction. At approximately river mile (RM) 11, the Green River passes to
the west of the City of Renton. None of the river channel lies within City limits, but some
floodway and jurisdictional shoreline as well as significant portions of tributary basins such as
the Black River/Springbrook Creek are located within City limits. Springbrook Creek is the
largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed area of about 15,763 acres
24.6 square miles). The creek is 12 miles long including 3.5 miles within the City.
1.3.4.2 Land Use
The lower Green River Subwatershed contains a mix of agricultural, industrial, commercial,
parks/recreation/open space, roadways, and residential land uses (WRIA 9). Levees and/or
revetments have been constructed along the majority of the Green River to increase bank
strength and reduce flooding. Flows within the Green River have been significantly modified
after the construction of Howard A. Hansen Dam and installation of water diversions. These
1-6 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
modifications have considerably reduced the severity of floods that historically covered much
of the valley bottom. Current conditions of the Lower Green River levee and revetment
system is a growing source of concern for King County and jurisdictions involved, as many
of the levees are aging and would not meet current standards for either flood conveyance or
stability.
Springbrook Creek is the largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed
area of about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles). The basin is composed of two distinct
physical settings. In the eastern half of the subbasin, rolling hills rise to elevations of about
525 feet above the valley floor. The western half of the basin is virtually flat.
All of Springbrook Creek in the City was extensively modified and straightened for
agricultural drainage in the 1920s by King County Drainage District No. 1, which owns the
Springbrook Creek right-of-way. The channel area from the Black River Pump Station,
including Forebay area up to the Oakesdale bridge crossing just upstream of Southwest 16th
Street, was improved in the 1980s and 1990s for flood control by the City in cooperation with
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service; Straka
2008).
The pump station prevents high flows in the Green River from backing up into Springbrook
Creek, reducing the risk of flooding. The pump station is a barrier to salmonids upstream and
downstream during certain seasons, and is in need of replacement to avoid obstructing fish
passage (Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
Instream habitat in the Springbrook Creek shoreline is extremely uniform and virtually
identical across reaches. The Black River Basin plan (City of Renton 1993) notes that under
present conditions the lack of suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing capacity due
to degraded water quality, especially high temperatures during warm summer months,
provides little usable fish habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). These limiting conditions
remain today. The stream is constrained and channelized throughout the shoreline. The
stream gradient is very flat, sinuosity is very low, and the stream has been almost completely
straightened in Reach C, reducing channel surface area (usable habitat) thereby limiting
habitat creation.
Reach A has been impounded by the Black River flood control structure, and much of the
reach is contained in a large pond that is prone to increased temperature and corresponding
low dissolved oxygen (DO). Temperature may present a barrier for migrating salmonids.
Impaired temperature and DO have degraded salmonid rearing and, in upstream reaches, have
inhibited incubation. The Black River Pumping Station can act as a barrier to migration of
juvenile and adult salmonids due to inadequate screening, fishway design, and operation
schedule (Kerwin and Nelson 2001). The riparian corridor in this reach is primarily forested
and more than 250-feet-wide on either bank. However, invasive reed canarygrass is also
dominant in areas, particularly on the river's left shoreline where public access and a trail
system exist.
The Black River lagoon is a large, open water and forested wetland. Another wetland
complex can be found downstream surrounding the Springbrook and Panther Creek
confluence. A wetland area has been preserved as part of the Longacres Business Park. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City implemented a joint,
multi-site wetland mitigation bank that includes 130 acres of wetland restoration,
rehabilitation, and enhancement (WSDOT 2008).
March 2010 553-1779-031 1-7
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE
Lake Desire is comprised of mixed and deciduous forest interspersed with residential lots.
Along the north and southeast reaches of the lake's shoreline are natural areas; the entire
shoreline has medium-high ecological function for LWD quality.
Biological function is affected by residential development along the Lake Desire shoreline,
but significant areas of open space exist along the north and southeast lakeshore. These areas
provide important habitat and other ecological functions enhanced by their place in a larger
network of natural areas. Contiguous parks and protected areas include Lake Desire Natural
Area, McGarvey Park Open Space, and Petrovisky Park. These conditions help the Lake
Desire shoreline sustain a high level of ecological function
Lake Desire is fed by two small tributaries, one each on the western and northern shoreline
see Map 3 a). Both streams are rated in City critical areas regulations as ephemeral and non-
salmonid bearing. The northern tributary flows past a wetland just upstream of its mouth. The
northern wetland and stream delta are a unique hemlock-forested peatland, a highly sensitive
Category I wetland (Lower Cedar River #15 in the King County Wetland Inventory) that is
one of few remaining in the urbanizing Puget Sound lowlands (King Co. 1993). An area of
hydric soil to the south of the Lake may be evidence of a historical wetland. Other wetlands
may occur in the area that have not yet been identified or mapped.
No priority habitats are found within the Lake Desire shoreline, nor is the Lake accessible to
anadromous salmonids (see Map 5a). Lake Desire has historically been stocked with non-
native rainbow trout, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and largemouth bass, which all still
inhabit the Lake.
Lake Desire-Spring Lake Park serves as a wildlife corridor between the two lakes.
Contiguous natural upland areas ring Lake Desire to the east, north, and west, but residential
development along the lakeshore presents a barrier to wildlife movement to and from the
lake.
Nearshore habitat is impacted seasonally by increased phosphorus loads that cause algal
blooms. In addition, the invasive Eurasian milfoil has established itself in the Lake. Both
conditions alter natural habitat conditions and limit access to important shallow-water habitat.
1.3.6 Built Environment
1.3.6.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of Lake Desire are a mix of low density residential (59
percent) and undeveloped lands (35 percent). Existing land-use was assessed using 2008 King
County Assessor's parcel data.
Planned Land-Use
The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning land-use designations in the Lake Desire
shoreline planning area are low density residential (City of Renton 2008).
March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
In response to the challenges facing the Sound, in 2007 the Legislature created the Puget
Sound Partnership to reverse Puget Sound's decline and restore it to health by 2020. This
agency replaced the Puget Sound Action Team created in 1996, to protect and restore Puget
Sound and its spectacular diversity of life now and for future generations. The Partnership has
developed the following priorities in its Action Plan:
Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain
Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost-
effective approach to ecosystem health.
Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget
Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at
an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage.
Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of the Partnership's efforts have
focused on cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient
resources have been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our
rivers, beaches, and species.
Priority D: Work together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding
are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region.
Many of the programs and laws now used to regulate or support activities in
Puget Sound were established on a piecemeal basis to address individual
problems. Strategies that will help to address problems more effectively at an
ecosystem scale include improved coordination of land use planning, water
supply, ecosystem protection, transportation, and species recovery plans. The
Action Agenda calls for the reform of environmental regulatory programs as
well as improvements to the capacity of local partners to implement actions
and compliance efforts across Puget Sound.
Priority E: Build an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management
system.
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Near-Term
Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation, Lake Washington suffers from "[ajltered
trophic interactions (predation, competition), degradation of riparian shoreline conditions,
altered hydrology, invasive plant species, poor water quality (phosphorus, alkalinity, pH),
and] poor sediment quality" (WRIA 8 Steering Committee 2002). The WRIA 8 Action
Agenda established four "ecosystem objectives," which are intended to guide development
and prioritization of restoration actions and strategies. The objectives are as follows:
a. "Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat characteristics
favorable to salmon.
b. Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and maintain
functional corridors linking these habitats.
March 2010 553-1779-031 2-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
c. Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality refuge habitats to serve as centers
of population expansion.
d. Maintain connectivity between high-quality habitats to allow for population expansion
into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover."
2.2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives
Results from the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan as well as the Cedar River
Basin Plan supports lower Cedar River and Lake Washington basin goals and objectives.
These objectives aim to:
2.2.1.1 Lake Washington
Increase native vegetation quality, width, and diversity in protected riparian corridors
adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration pathways for fish and
wildlife, along with food, nest sites, shade, and organic debris.
Decrease frequency and impact of overwater and in-water structures through
minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials such as grated decking.
Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation along lake
shorelines.
Protect and Restore water quality within tributary streams.
Where feasible, improve riparian health along shorelines by removing bulkheads and
using bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to improve
aquatic conditions.
Reconnect and rehabilitate small creek mouths along lake banks as juvenile rearing
areas.
2.2.1.2 Cedar River
Flood Damage Reduction
Modify Levees and Revetments in selected areas to reduce public maintenance costs,
restore natural flood storage and help reduce flood damage system-wide.
Re-establish Channel Capacity of the Renton Reach to 100-year flood discharge in
order to reduce flood damages.
Voluntary Flood Buyouts of Residences at locations along the mainstem to reduce
flood damage and danger to residents where the most hazardous flood flows occur.
o Provide Technical Assistance and Limited Financial Assistance to help floodplain
residents and responsible agencies reduce flood damages in the less hazardous areas
and improve flood emergency communications.
Aquatic Habitat
Purchase Critical Habitat Sites as part of the King County Open Space Program.
Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
2-2 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Water Quality and Groundwater Protection
Purchase Critical Habitat Sites at 13 mainstem and 11 tributary sites as part of the
King County Open Space Program.
Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
Promote Forest Retention using incentives for landowners to keep their land in forest
uses such as tax relief and increased technical assistance.
Protect Steep Ravines and Slopes of the Cedar River to prevent erosive runoff from
new development through a combination of infiltration and enhanced
retention/detention facilities.
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects
Fifteen potential projects roughly within Renton's Jurisdiction are identified in the Final Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish/ Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
The following are Conservation Plan site-specific Protection and Restoration projects for
Lake Washington and the Cedar River respectively:
C266 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
Restoration of DNR Property as part of City's Sam Chisham Trail project. Remove
a portion of flume (along lakeside), create shallow water habitat, protect existing
cove, and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along cove.
C267 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
restoration between mouth of Cedar River and Gene Coulon Park; explore options
with private property owners to remove bulkheads, restore shallow water habitat, and
riparian vegetation.
C268 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach J, Cedar River
Reach A): Explore lowering/modifying Cedar River Delta to create more shallow
water habitat, reduce bird predation for juvenile salmon by cutting trees lower.
C269 Section 1, South Lake Washington west of Cedar River Mouth (Reach K): Explore
options with homeowners to remove bulkheads, conversion of nearshore habitat to
shallow beach and restore riparian vegetation. Reduce number of docks by using
community docks.
C270 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach K, D, B-A):
Explore opportunities to restore small creek mouths; remove bulkheads and reduce
number of docks by developing community docks throughout section 1.
C264 Section 1, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach G): Enhance
mouth of Lower John's Creek; enhance lower channel to reduce predator habitat,
restore riparian vegetation, and protect water quality and quantity from stormwater
flows.
C265 Section 1, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach F): Enhance
mouth of Kennydale Creek, remove silt, and facilitate recruitment of sand and
gravel. Protect existing shallow water delta.
C203, C204 Logan St. Bridge to 1-405 (Cedar River Reach B, RM 1-1.6): Explore options
to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river and for any needed restoration
plantings on the right bank. If redevelopment occurs in this reach of river, explore
possibility of setting back levees and restoring riparian buffer.
March 2010 553-1779-031 2-3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
C206 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Riparian restoration on right bank of
industrial use area likely to be redeveloped in the near future, improve riparian
habitat via easement purchase for buffer and removing bank hardening.
C207 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): There is multifamily residential use
on the right bank of the river; explore opportunities to remove impervious surface
area and bank hardening on site, restore riparian buffer.
C208 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Maplewood neighborhood flood
buyouts and floodplain restoration, explore options to restore floodplain.
C211 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): The Cedar River
Basin Plan includes a potential project to restore a side channel on the right bank of
the river on property owned by Maplewood Height Home Owners Association and
the City across from the golf course and downstream the landslide. Channel
restoration should include a flow-through channel reconnected to the Cedar at upper
end for juvenile Chinook benefit.
C212 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): Conifer under-
planting within reach, particularly in Ron Regis Park near slide area.
C213, C214 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.7): Protect
existing riparian habitat and extensive LWD in reach. Explore using LWD and levee
setback to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to public lands associated
with Ron Regis Park while protecting natural habitat forming processes. Project
study should include lower Madsen Creek.
2.3 DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to land use changes which
have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon habitat, major engineering changes to
shoreline environments, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and
industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides
WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2002). The WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda established
three high priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery:
Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River watershed
and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves several
types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat, restoring degraded
habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water quality and flows.
Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles) to and
from the Upper Green River subwatershed."
2.3.1 Lower Green River
The following habitat management strategies for the Lower Green River subwatershed,
including Renton, are also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit
for a King (Steering Committee 2005):
In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and
revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
2-4 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river.
Rehabilitation includes:
Installation of LWD
Control of invasive weeds and replanting of native vegetation
Introduction of spawning gravel in the Green River Mainstem
Protect and restore side channels, off-channel wetlands, tributary mouths, and pools
that provide shelter and habitat complexity for young salmon.
Protect and restore natural sediment movement by reconnecting sediment sources to
the river.
Modify the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage.
Although the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term
Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in
ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures
those processes and functions that benefit all fish and wildlife.
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek
Key findings and identified habitat limiting factors in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Report-Part II (Kerwin 2000) include:
Historically, it is believed that these creeks were important areas of refugia to
anadromous salmonids that reared year round in the Green River basin.
Water quality is degraded throughout much of this subbasin.
There is no functioning riparian habitat throughout the lower reaches of Mill and
Springbrook Creeks. The absence of this habitat contributes to the lack of stream
channel diversity, complexity, and ultimately successful salmonid rearing capabilities.
The Black River Pump Station is a partial fish passage barrier and does not meet
current fish screening criteria. Adult salmonids that migrate upstream of this structure
cannot migrate back into the mainstem Green River because of facility design.
There are several known barriers to adult salmonid fish passage in Springbrook, Mill,
and Garrison Creeks. Some of these barriers are seasonal and/or dependent on annual
precipitation patterns.
Degraded water quality throughout the lower reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks
adversely impact adult Chinook and coho reproductive success along with coho,
cutthroat, and steelhead juvenile survival.
March 2010 553-1779-031 2-5
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
2.3.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects
Restoration goals and objectives from the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan support lower Green
River subwatershed areas in proximity to or within City shorelines. These goals aim to:
Improve the health of the Green River, Springbrook Creek and additional tributary
streams by identifying hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent
feasible with bioengineered stabilization solutions.
Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and erosion
control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline processes. Where
levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set back due to infrastructure
considerations, maintain and repair them using design approaches that maximize the
use of native vegetation and LWD.
Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing LWD
recruitment potential through plantings of trees, particularly conifers, in the riparian
corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs.
Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
Specific projects identified include:
LG 17 Fort Dent Levee (RM 11.4-11.7): Without affecting existing soccer fields, setback
the Fort Dent Levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench.
Plant native riparian vegetation and add LWD along toe of slope and on the created
bench. Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water
habitat during juvenile migration.
LG 18 Black River Marsh (RM 11): Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable
native vegetation at the Black River confluence with the Green/Duwamish. Project
would remove 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement of LWD along banklines.
LG 19 Lower Springbrook Reach (RM 1): Rehabilitate riparian areas for rearing and off-
channel refuge on Springbrook Creek. Approximately 4,500 feet of Springbrook
would be improved with riparian plantings, LWD, pool construction, channel branch
excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a two-stage (low- and
high-flow) channel.
In addition, a number of potential restoration efforts for the Black River/Springbrook Creek
watershed were identified.
2-6 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS
3.1 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan
The City is one of 27 members of the WRIA 8 forum, which funded and developed the Final
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic
and site-specific actions to address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Lake
Washington/Cedar River Watershed (WRIA 8 2005). Site-specific restoration sites and
objectives of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan are identified within the
Potential Sites Section 2.2.2 of the Restoration Plan.
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007, the King County Council established the King County Food Control Zone District
KCFCZD) which included transfer of the assets of the previously-existing 10 individual
flood control zone districts to the new countywide district and established a countywide tax
assessment.
Current plans call for spending between $179 million and $335 million to implement the
recommendations included in the recently adopted Flood Hazard Management Plan (King
County 2007). These plans and projects include the installation of setback levees and
inclusion of habitat features as part of the overall flood control project. The plan was adopted
by the King County Council January 16, 2007.
Within the Flood Hazard Management Plan lies the Action Plan to address flood risk
reduction needs as well as allocating grant funds. Basin-specific areas within King County
are categorized based on requiring "status quo" for work that can be achieved with the current
funding or "enhanced funding" for high priority needs that will require additional funding
sources. A full list of Cedar River proposed actions and cost estimates can be seen below at
Table 3-1 (KCFHMP 2007).
March 2010 553-1779-031 3-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Project
Start Date
Estimated
10-Year Cost
Cedar River Residential
Flood Hazard Mitigation
Analysis
Cedar River Channel
Migration Zone Study
and Mapping.
Cedar Rapids Levee
Setback
Jan Road-Rutlege
Johnson Levee
Setbacks
Dorre Don Meanders -
Phase 1 Flood Hazard
Analysis
Maplewood Acquisition
and Levee Setback
Phase 1
Renton - Cedar River
Bridge Flood Reduction
Project
Cedar Grove Mobile
Home Park Acquisition
Project
Rainbow Bend Levee
Setback and Floodplain
Reconnection
Cedar River Early Action
Residential Flood
Hazard Mitigation
Herzman Levee Setback
Floodplain
Reconnection
Cedar River Gravel
Removal Project
Lower Lions Club
Determine best alternative(s) for reducing 2008 $175,000
risks to homes in areas subject to flood
hazards including both repetitive loss and
proposed project areas. Emphasis will be on
residential neighborhoods with extensive flood
hazard areas. Supports recommendations
ERA-1 through 4.
Prepare channel migration zone study and 2009 $30,000
maps for the Cedar River.
Setback levee to improve flood conveyance 2009 $137,000
and restore habitat. Complete project design,
permits, and construction. Funding will cover
project management and non reimbursable
grant expenses associated with this grant
funded project. Total project cost is estimated
at $1,500,000.
Remove portions of both levees that protect 2009 $955,000
only open space. Segments of existing levees
constrict conveyance and direct erosive flood
flows into the Cedar River Trail and State
Route 169.
Purchase flood-prone properties in lower 2009 $175,000
Dorre Don area and, where possible, modify
levees to improve flood conveyance and
protect residential area.
Evaluate hazard reduction options in 2009 $116,446
neighborhood at risk of flooding due to
landslide and rapid channel change
Reconstruct one of five bridges to an elevation 2014 $667,395
above the new floodplain (protects major
public infrastructure).
Purchase mobile home park and provide 2008 $4,349,000
relocation assistance to the residents in this
area of major flood hazards.
Setback or remove levee to improve flood 2009 $1,733,000
conveyance and storage through this reach
and to restore floodplain functions.
Purchase or otherwise mitigate flood risks to 2009 $2,811,000
nine repetitive loss properties not addressed
by other projects in this basin. Supports
recommendations ERA-1 and 4.
Setback levee to reduce erosive forces on the 2008 $1,023,000
Cedar River Trail and State Route 169.
Riparian enhancement, both sides of reach, 2010 $6,039,877
Facilitate instream pool structure, habitat
diversity and floodplain connections in reach.
Purchase and remove flood-prone homes. 2011 $1,485,671
3-2 March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan (continued)
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Project Estimated
Start Date 10-Year Cost
Lower Jones Road Purchase the homes and property, set back 2012 $4,408,000
Setback Project road, and associated revetment.
Maplewood Acquisition Reduce flooding risks in neighborhood at risk 2013 $10,528,784
and Levee Setback of flooding due to landslide and rapid channel
Phase 2 change.
Getchman Levee Setback the levee to improve river's flood - $2,670,000
Setback and Floodplain conveyance, flood storage, and its interaction
Reconnection with lower Taylor Creek, while maintaining
protection for Maxwell Road. Most of the
acquisitions for this project are already
completed or are underway.
Rhode Levee Setback Purchase homes along path of fastest, - $3,518,000
and Home Buyouts deepest flood flow, and set back the levee to
lower localized velocities and depths.
3.1.3 King County Conservation District
Between the years of 1999 and 2005, total grant money offered by the King Conservation
District (KCD) totaled about $5 million for 64 projects and actions KCD funding doubled in
2006 due to an increase in the KCD assessment from $5 per parcel to $10 per parcel. In 2006
and 2007, KCD grants for habitat restoration within WRIA 8 totaled approximately $1.4
million annually and funded 15 actions each year (King County 2009). Between 1994 and
2007, the City has received $45,978 in KCD Member Jurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant
Program Grants within the City-wide reaches of Cedar River, Lake Washington, and May
Creek for the May Creek Basin Action Plan which was completed in 2001.
High priority projects and programs for WRIA 8 KCD funding are found in the Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan and Potential Sites Section 6.2 for Cedar River and Lake
Washington Shorelines within the City.
WRIA 8 projects in-progress or completed projects funded in part by KCD Grants include:
The Cedar Rapids - Ricardi Reach Floodplain Acquisition (C224) includes 15 acres
for restoration project (C222) work and levee removal. The area is between RM 7.2-
7.4 of the Cedar River mainstem and was completed 12/31/2007.
Rainbow Bend Acquisition allows funds from the 2007 KCD Grant Cycle to purchase
20 acres of floodplain at a cost of $1.1 million along the Lower Cedar River. The area
includes most natural existing riverine and riparian habitat downstream from Maple
Valley.
The Cedar River Habitat Restoration Stewardship (2007) provides funds for planting
projects and stewardship of restoration sites such as the Lions Club side-channel
project.
Lower Cedar Acquisition allows funds to purchase up to 20 acres of floodplain along
the Lower Cedar River (RM 9 - 15.1) in 2008.
For a map and list of further habitat work projects made possible in part by King
Conservation District grants in WRIA 8, go to: http://hws.ekosystem.us/
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 3.3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.1.4.1 Renton Community Services Department
The Volunteer Program within the City's Community Services Department operates within
many City departments and several restoration-specific regional groups. Within the City,
park and recreation volunteer opportunities are available for a variety of groups based on size,
commitment, and interest. Habitat restoration volunteer park projects in the past 1-2 years
include:
Cedar River Trail invasive plant removal, replanting with trees and shrubs, and litter
clean-up (2008-09);
Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park shoreline litter clean up and invasive plant
removal (2008);
Fish Ladder/Cedar River tree planting (2008); and
Black River Riparian Forest invasive plant removal and path restoration (2008-09).
Upcoming park restoration projects in need of volunteers can be found on the spotlight
opportunities webpage: http://rentonwa.gov/working/default.aspx?id=568.
3.1.4.2 Salmon Watchers Program
The Salmon Watchers Program provides opportunities for citizens to be involved in the care
of salmon-bearing streams. During the salmon run season between September and January,
volunteers record the number of salmon they witness at a selected location and the date and
time of their site visits. The program serves to increase public awareness of the plight of the
salmon, and indicates where habitat enhancement may be valuable. Volunteers will be
trained at several locations on distinguishing the various species of salmon and trout; training
is provided by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility and the King County Water and Land
Resources Division.
Within Renton, volunteers can select from sites along the Cedar River and May Creek that
are optimal for salmon watching. The specific locations will be safe and easily accessible.
For more on the Salmon Watchers Program and volunteer opportunities, please visit the
Salmon Watcher Web Site of King County Water and Land Resources:
http://www.kingcountv.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/salmon-and-trout/salmon-
watchers.aspx
3.1.4.3 Cedar River Naturalist Program
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed (FCRW) is the non-profit whose mission is to inspire
conservation and protection of a healthy Cedar River Watershed through restoration,
education, and stewardship. FCRW leads the Cedar River Naturalist Program and has been
active in recruiting volunteers, hosting restoration work parties within the watershed, and
raising funds to help build the Cedar River Watershed Education Center. Along with
restoration events, FCRW programs include:
The Cedar River Watershed Report works in collaboration with local schools,
governments, the media, and non-profit groups to engage high school leaders in a
progress evaluation towards sustainability in the Cedar River Watershed.
The Cedar River Salmon Journey stations volunteer naturalists at sites along the
Cedar River to educate visitors about the journey made by salmon from the ocean,
through the Ballard Locks, into Lake Washington, and on up the River to spawn.
More information and volunteer opportunities can be found at: www.cedarriver.org
3-4 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
3.2 GREEN RIVER /SPRINGBROOK CREEK
3.2.1 WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan
The importance of the Green/Duwamish Watershed as an ecosystem within the Puget Sound
has resulted in considerable focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the
federal listing of Chinook and bull trout as endangered species, watershed planning in the
region (e.g., WRIA 9) has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 2005). The
plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic and site specific actions to address
restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Green River watershed.
The City was one of 16 members of the WRIA 9 Forum, which participated in financing and
developing the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. The City's
Shoreline Master Program update relies on the science included in the WRIA 9 Salmon
Habitat Plan and related documents, and incorporates recommended projects and actions
from the WRIA 9 documents.
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007 the King County Council established the KCFCZD which included transfer of the
assets of the previously-existing ten individual flood control zone districts to the new
countywide district and established a countywide tax assessment.
Within the lower Green River Basin, KCFCZD sponsors levee improvement projects with
local partnerships (KCFHMP 2007). A start list of Green River proposed actions and cost
estimates from 2007-2016 generated by the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management
Plan includes five projects listed in Table 3-2:
Table 3-2. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for Green River, City of Renton Vicinity (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Estimated
10-Year
Cost
Pump Station Operation Maintain and Operate three pump stations including the $2,100,000
Black River pump station
Green River Flood Study Complete flood study and corresponding Federal $1,000,000
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for the Green River between RM 5 - 45.
Nursing Home Levee Rehabilitate levees to reduce the risk of flooding in the $2,438,000
Project Lower Green River.
Salmon Habitat Provide financial support to and participate in Salmon $1,000,000
Recovery Cost Share Recovery Funding Board and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Ecosystem Recovery Project habitat projects.
Green River Flood Provide program management and administration to Green $1,000,000
Control Zone District River Flood Control Zone District projects, programs, and
Program Management other related activities.
March 2010 553-1779-031 3-5
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
3.2.3 King Conservation District
The KCD is a non-regulatory natural resources assistance agency founded in 1949. The
District promotes conservation through demonstration projects, educational events, providing
technical assistance, and, in some cases, providing or pointing the way to funds that may be
available for projects.
The WRIA 9 Forum allocates approximately $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential
technical assessments (KCD 2009). Since 2005, high priority sites for WRIA 9 KCD funding
were identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan and Strategic Assessment report.
Between the years of 1994-2007, the City of Renton has been awarded a total of $86,076 in
KCD Member lurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant Program Grants for six projects within
the City-wide reaches of Green River and Black River/Springbrook Creek. These projects
include the Wetland Mitigation, Springbrook Creek, Future Stream Enhancement Project for
1994 ($5,456) and 1995 ($5,565); the Springbrook Creek Channel Improvement and Wetland
Mitigation Project ($11,549.19); the Black River Riparian Forest Buffer Enhancement Plan
3,552); the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project ($55,085); and the Black River
Channel Native Plant Restoration Project PI & PII ($4,869).
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
A couple of the projects listed in the WRIA 9 Recommended Programs were originally
identified by the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP), a cooperative effort
between 17 local governments, Indian Tribes, the State of Washington, NOAA Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and various
other organizations and private citizens.
The ERP generated a list of 45 projects, 29 of which were ultimately incorporated into the
Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King which received nearly $2
million in funding. As of 2005, ERP implementation funds of nearly $2 million were
provided by the federal government under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Of the 29 projects incorporated in the Salmon Habitat Plan, three are found in the Lower
Green River and Springbrook Creek areas specific to the City of Renton. These projects
listed numerically (LG-#) in the Plan include Fort Dent levee setback (LG-17), Black River
Marsh riparian rehabilitation (LG-18), and Lower Springbrook Reach (LG-18); see full
description at Potential Restoration Sites Section 6.1.2.
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.2.5.1 Renton Community Services Department
See Section 3.1.4.1 for information about the Volunteer Program within the City's
Community Service Department.
3.2.6 Black River Watershed Alliance
The Black River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) is an organization which coordinates a variety
of restoration projects within the Black River and Springbrook Creek Watersheds. Past
projects include: native plant restoration on the downstream and upstream sides of the Black
River Pump Station as part of the Black River Channel Native Plant Restoration Project,
Black River Riparian Forest wildlife monitoring, free class and group presentations, free
school and group field trips through the forest, booths at open houses and events, and
participation in the King County Clean Stream Car Wash Program (Renton 2007).
3-6 March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Restoration work done by Black River Watershed Alliance has received support through
grants from King County matched by the City with KCD funds. With the help of volunteers,
BRWA aims to:
Protect and enhance the Black River Watershed for wildlife habitat, water and air
quality, and for its historic value to indigenous people.
e Develop community awareness of the Black River Watershed through
educational field trips and presentations, and restoration projects.
Foster community stewardship of the Black River.
Work cooperatively with other groups interested in protecting the Black River.
Provide an opportunity for the community to connect with nature.
More information at: http://www.blackriverwatershedalliance.com/
3.2.7 Herons Forever
Herons Forever is a non-profit organization. The Black River heron colony is one of the
largest in Washington State with over 50 active nests. Herons Forever is a non-profit
organization which strives to build local support to preserve, protect, and enhance the Black
River Riparian Forest for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enjoyment of citizens. Herons Forever
sets up volunteer work parties to help restore Blue Heron habitat through invasive plants and
litter removal and has helped secure public funds to purchase nearly 60 acres of private land
buffering heron nest sites by 1996.
More information at: http ://www.heronsforever.org/
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning
Stormwater discharge from throughout the city eventually enters surface water and enters the
Lake Washington/Cedar River or Green River watersheds.
On March 31, 2008, Ecology approved the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II permit. The NPDES Phase II permit is required to cover the City's
stormwater discharges into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit,
the City must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach;
detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (spills, illegal dumping,
wastewater); management and regulation of construction site runoff; management and
regulation of runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction; and pollution
prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Currently, Renton has approved use of the 2009 King County Stormwater Permit Design
Manual along with city amendments to implement NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit deadlines given by the Department of Ecology in 2007. Based on the implementation
of the City's Storm Water Management Plan, new developments which create more than
5,000 square feet of new impervious surface trigger drainage review including off-site
analyses, erosion and runoff control, and conveyance system design. This will help mitigate
any further water quality degradation done to salmon bearing waters such as May Creek and
Cedar River as well as nearshore riparian habitat of Springbrook Creek and Lake
Washington.
March 2010 553-1779-031 3-7
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Implementing NPDES Phase II flow control and surface water design standards will aid in
the City's ability mitigate pollution from municipal stormwater systems into the City's
streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands.
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations
The City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations are found in Renton Municipal Code Section
4-3-050 of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. The City adopted a
revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in 2004, consistent with other requirements of the
Growth Management Act update. The updated regulations are based on "best available
science," and provide a high level of protection to critical areas in the City, particularly for
streams and wetlands.
The regulations affect lands outside of Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction and address:
Geologically hazardous areas
Frequently flooded areas
Critical aquifer recharge areas
Wetlands
Habitat conservation areas, including streams and lakes and areas associated with
priority species
Provisions in the regulations generally:
Provide for the general prohibition of alteration in those critical areas with ecological
importance such as wetlands, streams, lakes, marine shorelines, and wildlife habitat
areas.
Restrict the range of allowed uses.
Provide for buffers to either protect human health and safety (in the case of
Geological Hazards) or protect ecological functions.
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan
The City of Renton's objective under this policy framework is to provide a high quality
comprehensive park, recreation, open space, and trails system to meet short- and long-term
needs of current and future Renton residents. The following policies concerning natural
resources protection and restoration include:
Policy P-17. Encourage private donations of properties where public access is anticipated or
planned and where consistent with the Long Range Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan.
Policy P-41. Steward the City's open space network to protect the City's natural character
and sustain its urban forest resources.
Policy P-57. Develop inventories and management plans for open space and natural areas.
Policy P-58. Provide funds for native vegetation and other habitat enhancements to
encourage appropriate wildlife on existing open space lands where consistent with the
recreational use of the area.
March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Policy P-59. Acquire open space that has the following features:
a. Can fill a gap or connect the existing open space network
b. Is environmentally sensitive or unique
c. Provides wildlife habitat
d. Can protect natural resource areas
e. Is archeologically significant
f. Provides relief from urban development
Policy P-60. Increase public awareness of, and appreciation for, specific natural features
through education and interpretive programs.
Policy P-67. Linkages should be provided with surrounding communities within major
regional corridors such as the Cedar River, Green River, the Lake Washington Loop, and the
Soos Creek Trail.
Policy P-109. Partner with non-profit agencies, King County, the State of Washington, the
Federal government and other public and private service providers to meet the cultural,
recreational, social, and environmental programs and space needs of the City.
Policy P-116. Coordinate with other governmental agencies and private organizations to
provide a connected open space system for the City and surrounding region.
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan
3.3.4.1 Surface Water Utility
A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-
site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance
Renton Municipal Code Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns,
maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within
public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management
purposes.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard in Renton
The Surface Water Utility LOS is intended to accomplish the following:
Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall
duration and intensity to protect public safety, property, and convenience of areas
within City;
Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and
groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies;
Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water
runoff to pre-developed level; and
Provide protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
Capital Facilities and Funding Plan. 2007-2012
Surface Water Utility developments include: Cedar River Basin, Springbrook Creek Wetland
and Habitat Mitigation Bank, Storm System Improvement and Replacement, Springbrook
Creek Improvements, and Green River Ecosystem Restoration. Budgeting costs for these
items between the years of 2007-2012 will be $8,835,000 (CFP 2008).
March 2010 553-1779-031 . 3-9
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
3.3.4.2 Parks
Parks and open space areas within the City provide ways for the public to interact with the
natural environment. Adjacent and within sensitive shorelines, open space natural areas serve
to protect existing habitat from effects of the built environment. Park and open space areas
must continue to grow to match City growth as well as mitigate development impacts to
wildlife habitat within sensitive shoreline areas.
The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The
LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas is only 5.35 acres/1,000, which reduces the
2007 overall Planning Area LOS to 12.26 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and
open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing
boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved Potential Annexation Areas (CFP 2008).
Acquisitions
Two Park types within Renton's Capital Facilities Plan cater toward open space protection
and restoration:
1. Open Space Areas, defined as general open space, trail systems, and other
undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep
hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive
area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily
wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas.
Open Space Areas applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
May Creek Greenway (29.82 acres), Honey Creek Greenway (35.73 acres), May
Creek/McAskill (10 acres), and Cedar River Natural Area (237 acres).
Open Space Areas applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes: the
Black River Riparian Forest (92 acres), Panther Creek Wetlands (73 acres),
Renton Wetlands (125 acres), and Cleveland Property (23.66 acres), Springbrook
Watershed (38 acres).
The majority of this park type is wetlands, steep slopes or land otherwise not suitable
for recreational development.
2. Linear Parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that
generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a
street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of
open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this
type of area.
The Linear Parks applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
the Cedar River Trail (4.5 miles), Honey Creek Trail (1 mile), and Lake
Washington Blvd (1.5 miles).
The Linear Parks applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes the
Springbrook trail spanning a length of two miles.
Opportunities exist for additional linear parks along utility corridors.
Management of Existing Parks
The city policies for management of parks provide for meeting multiple goals including both
recreational use and ecological stewardship.
3-10 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Opportunities for incremental changes in park management to sustain more productive
shoreline resources include measures such as shifting activity areas such as picnic areas
further from the water's edge, relocating lawn areas further from the waters edge and planting
and maintaining native vegetation buffers along the water. The management of waterfront
park lands represents a challenge in balancing competing goals of the Shorelme Management
Act of increasing public recreational use of the shoreline and protecting and enhancing
ecological processes.
3.3.5 Private Development
Many shoreline properties have the potential for improvement of ecological functions
through:
Management of shoreline vegetation to emphasize native species to reduce
potential water quality impacts from chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides), contribute to temperature attenuation and provide food-cycle
functions;
Reduction or modification of shoreline armoring;
Reduction of overwater cover and in-water structures or reducing shading; and
Reductions in impervious surface coverage and/or water quality treatment of
runoff prior to discharge into surface waters.
The SMP includes requirements for removing bulkheads and similar hard shoreline structure
when properties are redeveloped, including partial compliance at lower levels of
redevelopment. The City could also explore administrative incentives for restoration, such as
waiving some or all permit fees or providing more rapid review.
Multiple contiguous properties may be restored through grant resources that would address
restoration more effectively than through lot-by-lot redevelopment.
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach
Voluntary actions by shoreline property owners are an essential element of the restoration
strategy and have the potential to affect a greater extent of the property than the limited
number of properties expected to redevelop in the future. The Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
includes a range of "Outreach and Education Actions" with a range of target audiences from
the general public, to shoreline property owners in general, to lakeshore property owners
specifically, to businesses, to youth, and others.
The City also can work with other local jurisdictions to establish a Shore Stewards program
for Lake Washington, the Cedar River, and Springbrook Creek within the existing King
County. Shore Steward programs provide a forum for waterfront and stream-side property
owners to share ideas, information and resources and sets up guidelines for shoreline
residents to preserve and enhance the shoreline environment.
March2010 553-1779-031 3-11
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS
The Renton SMP Restoration Plan is intended to be coordinated with other existing plans in
the area, but provide additional potential project focused on opportunities identified in the
SMP Inventory/Characterization.
The SMP Restoration Plan Goals are:
Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 8 to implement the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
Use the scientific foundation and the identification of opportunities and
constraints in the SMP Inventory/Characterization together with other watershed,
fish, and flood control plans as a resource to identify restoration strategies and
projects.
Use the comprehensive list of projects and other actions consistent with the
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, and the King County Flood Management
Plan as sources of potential site-specific projects.
Coordinate land use decisions, particularly mitigation required of development
projects, with the comprehensive list of project actions for coordinated
implementation of the most effective restoration strategy.
Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property
owners, in addition to agency funded and project related actions as well as
resource friendly daily actions such as vegetation selection and management,
pesticide/herbicide use, car washing and other activities.
Provide for management of City-owned parks and other facilities to provide for
ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control and other goals.
Seek funding for restoration actions and programs from a variety of sources and
by working with other WRIA 8 stakeholders to seek federal, state, grant and
other funding opportunities.
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities
Restoration of Renton's shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with site-specific
limitations. The WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Strategy and the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan lists an array of actions on potential restoration sites listed above that
watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next decade. Chinook Conservation
Strategy priorities for Lower Cedar River and South Lake Washington intend to:
Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing high-
quality habitat.
Protect, reconnect, and/or restore off-channel habitat and shallow, mainstem
habitat.
Protect and, where feasible, restore floodplain connectivity throughout the Cedar
River subarea.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 4-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Remove bank hardening and remove or setback existing structures in the
floodplain to prevent additional bank hardening.
Protect and restore in-stream channel complexity and functional riparian
conditions.
Ensure the adequate and continual supply of suitable spawning substrate
throughout the system.
Reduce forest road runoff and fine sediments entering the mainstem and its
tributaries.
Protect and maintain flows in the mainstem and tributaries to provide suitable
rearing, spawning, and migratory habitats for all salmon species.
Enhance existing habitats: This action will improve the functioning of the
existing aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats which presently exist
along the Cedar River and at tributary mouths entering Lake Washington. These
actions could include the removal of non-native invasive vegetation, installation
of native riparian vegetation, and installation of LWD below ordinary high water
mark.
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
Tables 4-1 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map 1.
4-2 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington Reach A From Bellevue city limits to
Renton city limits
Lake Washington Reach B
Lake Washington Reach C
From the city limits to the
Seahawks training facility
From the Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training
facility through the former
Barbee Mill site.
Lake Washington Reach D From May Creek to Mountain
View Avenue
This developed single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing adverse impacts shall be through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water and may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on
the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation.
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and
to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting
change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A.
Some opportunities may be present at the Puget Sound Energy submerged cable crossing in this reach if it is
replaced in the future.
This area provides some riparian vegetation at the Seahawks facility from previous redevelopment activity.
There is a large vacant parcel with complex wetlands and some riparian vegetation in the center portion of the
site that would require buffer preservation and enhancement upon redevelopment. The site is currently a
superfund site and it will be important to integrate the policies and standards of the SMP as part of any cleanup
program.
Adjacent to the Barbee Mill subdivision there is a narrow replanted vegetation area on public aquatic land that
has been withdrawn from leasing in recognition of the ecological restoration activities that have taken place.
A portion of the frontage to the south is bulkheaded single family lots with pending dock applications.
In the long term over 20 to 50 years, May Creek delta formation will lead to additional riparian area and shallow
wetlands where riparian vegetation will provide multiple benefits to aquatic and terrestrial species.
The May Creek Basin Management Plan addresses the delta in the following:"
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance
May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility
study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could
reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic
benefits."
The (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan includes Project C277 Restoration of mouth of May Creek.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued. This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
improvements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks as property redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
March 2010 553-1779-031 4-3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Washington Reach E
Lake Washington Reach F
Lake Washington Reach G
Lake Washington Reach H
Lake Washington Reach
from Mountain View Avenue
to Gene Coulon Park
The less developed northerly
portion of Gene Coulon Park
The more developed
southerly portion of Gene
Coulon Park
Southport mixed-use
development
Boeing Plant and to the Cedar
River
encouraged through education programs.
Some opportunities may be present on short sections of shoreline presently part of the railroad right of way that
may be acquired by King County.
The City of Renton Parks Department has opportunities to naturalize the Kennydale Park water frontage through
softer shoreline protection in conjunction with beach restoration and provision of shoreline native riparian
vegetation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
improvements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks as property redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
encouraged through education programs.
This public park provides numerous opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation s implemented
as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Kennydale Creek is enhancement Project C265 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This is the more active portion of the park with more hard surface, a boat launch ramp, over-water walkways, a
swimming beach and water-oriented restaurant and recreational uses.
Despite the amount of alteration, there are productive shoreline areas that provide opportunities for
enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing park management. This
must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Johns Creek is enhancement Project C264 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This site has received preliminary approvals for mixed use development. Buffers for vegetation management
are not addressed in existing approvals and opportunities for public access along the waterfront and supporting
water oriented uses are the designated priority.
Enhancement of the near-shore area, including modification of the shore protection installed in the 1950s
through 1970s should be a priority of both private development and public projects.
The delta of Johns Creek also contributes sediment to this area which may contribute to restoration of some
nearshore functions through natural processes.
Options to work with private property owners to remove bulkheads and restore shallow water habitat is project
C267 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan.
This reach of about 2,500 linear feet is about evenly divided between a vegetated area which is managed by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as public aquatic lands and the Boeing Renton Plant.
Shoreline restoration of the DNR site to remove a portion of the existing flume create shallow water habitat,
4-4 March 2010 553-1779-031
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Washington Reach J Renton Municipal Airport
Lake Washington Reach K From the Renton Municipal
Airport to the Seattle city
limits
protect existing cove, and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along shore is project C266 in the WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan. Implementation of this program should ensure preservation
of deep water areas in the adjacent Southport Development to meet the City's SMP goals for accommodating
water dependent uses.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued. This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation and is
generally consistent with the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which
calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
This reach of about 650 feet is currently entirely armored with vertical bulkheads. The airport is currently
pursuing reconfiguration and dredging for the seaplane dock. As part of this program they are proposing to use
dredged materials to create one or more "habitat islands" that will provide both riparian and shallow aquatic
habitat and also be located to direct siltation within the Cedar River Delta to reduce the needed frequency of
maintenance dredging.
Enhanced riparian vegetation may be provided on the habitat island(s) and adjacent to bullheaded areas with
the maintenance of trees so they do not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a substantial bird
roosting area that could interfere with aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished
by periodic thinning to remove more mature growth.
This reach of about a mile is almost entirely a developed single family neighborhood with about 600 feet of multi-
family development and a trailer park. This area is designated by Renton as a future area of Commercial,
Office, Residential (COR) use which provides for high intensity use. Redevelopment of this area will provide
opportunities for restoration through native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water as well as possible
reconfiguration or elimination of over-water structures.
In the single-family area there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects although several
undeveloped areas have the potential for acquisition for a combination of public access, preservation and
enhancement.
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C269 calls for working with homeowners to
remove bulkheads, convert of nearshore habitat to shallow beach, restore riparian vegetation and reduce the
number of docks by using community docks.
May Creek
May Creek A From the mouth of the creek
to Lake Washington Blvd.
Restoration of the delta at the mouth of May Creek is addressed in Lake Washington Reach C.
Vegetation in the May Creek corridor was set aside as an open space area and enhanced as part of the recent
Barbee Mill subdivision. Monitoring and enforcement of vegetation establishment standards will be needed to
March 2010 553-1779-031 4-5
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
May Creek B From Lake Washington Blvd
to I-405
May Creek C From I-405 to NE 36th Street
ensure successful maturation of the vegetation .
This is a relatively intact reach with mature native riparian vegetation. Preservation of a buffer can be expected
with future residential development.
Planting of conifers within the buffer area in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 to
supplement the existing deciduous trees will establish a mix of vegetation and over the longer term establish of
forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure,
Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for an existing deficit and promote natural channel
processes.
This section of May Creek is largely owned by Renton and King County and maintained as open space. There
are several private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some
places.
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
May Creek D From NE 36th Street to the
city limits
This section of May Creek is largely part of the King County and maintained as open space. There are several
private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some places, installed
bank protection and is some cases bridged the stream for access.
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space. Properties that are acquired should be programmed for removal of bank
stabilization, removal of bridges and replanting.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Mouth to Logan Avenue This reach of the Cedar River is bounded by the City of Renton Cedar River Trails park on the east and the
Municipal Airport on the west.
Within the park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of
ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to
the shoreline.
Enhanced riparian vegetation may be provided adjacent to the airport with the maintenance of trees so they do
4-6 March 2010 553-1779-031
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Cedar River B Logan Avenue to I-405 bridge
Cedar River C l-405totheSR169
not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a substantial bird roosting area that could interfere with
aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished by periodic thinning to remove more
mature growth.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park management, balanced with
needs of flood control levees and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Replacement of the North Boeing Bridge should be explored. This bridge is an obstruction to flood water.
Replacement of the bridge with one that is not an obstruction may reduce the amount of dredging needed for
flood control.
Flood control dredging of the river should be coordinated with mitigation projects, including possible
enhancement of the delta through habitat islands.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of flood control management programs
that may be integrated with and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Vegetation management and public access should be addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to
additional flood management activities.
The existing public walkway near the water should be considered for relocation to the top of the bank and the
streambank revegetated with native species.
Within the city owned land, including the senior center, the park maintenance facility, Jones Park and Liberty
Park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing
park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the
shoreline.
Exploring options to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river is Project C 203 in the WRIA 8 Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
Project C 210 notes that Renton's three riverside parks (Liberty, Cedar River Park, NARCO property) are going
through re-master planning and suggests pursing opportunities to move some of more active recreation uses to
protect habitat with more passive recreational uses along the water.
Within the city owned land, including the Cedar River Park on the north site (right bank) and public open space
on the south side (left bank) opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented
as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation and removal or replacement of bank armoring can be expected to be
implemented upon redevelopment of private property on the north shore.
In the Maplewood neighborhood downstream of SR 169 the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
Recovery Plan Project C208 calls for possible flood buyouts in this neighborhood and pursuit of opportunities to
restore the floodplain as well as options for bioengineering and softening bank hardening. The King County
Flood Management Plan calls for voluntary buy-out of this area because more than half the neighborhood would
be inundated by shallow flooding in a 100-year event and an active landslide scarp poses risk of a major
landslide that could block all or a portion of the channel, and could potentially redirect the flow of the river into
the residential area.
March 2010 553-1779-031 4-7
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Cedar River D SR 169 to UGA boundary
In the single-family areas there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
This reach of a little more than a mile is largely in public ownership. The few residential parcels are designated
for voluntary buy-outs in the King County Flood Management Plan. There are several mitigation projects in this
area including rearing channels constructed by King County, Renton and the Corps of Engineers, although some
have been damaged by recent floods. This reach should be the subject of a comprehensive restoration plan.
The WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan calls for Project C212 to provides for conifer
interplanting in forested riparian areas within reach, while noting concern raised that under natural conditions
forested riparian areas in the lower Cedar River may have been primarily deciduous; Project C213 calls for
existing riparian habitat, instream habitat conditions and extensive LWD in reach; Project C214 4 1 proposes a
study of options to protect habitat in this reach and reduce flooding and erosion in Ron Regis Park: including
exploration of LWD installation and levee setbacks to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to Ron Regis
Park while allowing natural habitat forming processes
4-8 March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
4.3 GREEN/SPRINGBROOK
4.3.1 Priorities
Proposed Actions by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan include projects to protect, restore, rehabilitate, or substitute habitat or the
processes that create habitat.
The Plan recommends an array of projects such as the potential restoration sites listed above
that watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next 10 years. Lower Green River and
Springbrook Creek, in accordance with the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan proposed actions
intend to:
Protect existing processes and habitats that are working well;
Restore processes and habitats that can be returned to good conditions;
Rehabilitate damaged processes and habitats that can be sustained with on-going
efforts; and
Substitute processes and habitats that are lost.
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
Tables 4-2 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map 1.
March2010 553-1779-031 4-9
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Black River Reach A The Black River/Springbrook to Grady Way There are opportunities to provide native vegetation buffers at such time as private
property downstream of Monster Road redevelops.
Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged in areas of railroad
right of way not devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of railroad facilities may
require specific vegetation preservation and enhancement programs.
The retrofitting or reconstruction of the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage
is a long term goal identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Report but is likely to be very expensive.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project LG 18 calls for rehabilitation of riparian areas in
the Black River Marsh by and removing fill from the left bank of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement of LWD along banks.
Black/Springbrook B From Grady Way to SW 16th Street
Springbrook D From SW 16th Street to City Limits.
This section of the stream is bridged by Grady Way and I-405.
Improvements to the stream channel and riparian vegetation should be implemented in
conjunction with road improvement and maintenance programs.
Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district channels in
conjunction with management plans including adjustments to channel dimensions to
assure continued flood capacity with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by
vegetation. Vegetation management should retain a continuous trail system that may be
relocated further from the stream edge.
When adjacent land redeveloped vegetated buffers should be provided that will integrate
with re-vegetation of the stream channel.
Additional plans should be pursued for wetland rehabilitation including relocating existing
flood control levees to be outside of adjacent wetlands to allow more natural floodplain
characteristics.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project calls for rehabilitation of areas for rearing and
off-channel refuge on Springbrook Creek including riparian plantings, LWD, pool
construction, channel branch excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a
2-stage (low- and high-flow) channel.
Lake Desire For the entire lake, implement phosphorus controls including phosphorus treatment from
new development runoff, lake aeration and encouraging replacement of ornamental
vegetation with native vegetation requiring less fertilizer and therefore producing less
phosphorus in runoff.
Lake Desire A 17408 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to 18228 West
Lake Desire Dr. SE
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing
adverse impacts shall through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the
water may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
4-10 March 2010 553-1779-031
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Desire B
Lake Desire C
Lake Desire D
18228 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to the Natural Area
at the south end of the Lake
Natural Area at the south end of the Lake
From the Natural Area to 17346 West Lake Desire
Dr. SE
protection incorporating vegetation.
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with
native vegetation and to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a
roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
Shoreline vegetation enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat launching site
balancing values of riparian vegetation with public access.
Same as Reach A.
Existing shoreline vegetation in this publicly owned natural area should be preserved with
some accommodation for interpretive access to the water s as part of park management
plans, subject to the primary objective of protecting ecological functions.
Same as reach A for developed single family lots.
For the Urban Conservancy area at the top of the lake, private lots should be targeted for
acquisition and preservation.
March 2010 553-1779-031 4-11
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
As noted in the Shoreline Inventory section of this report, the City's shoreline area is
occupied by industrial, commercial, multi- and single-family residences, and
parks/recreation/open space areas. To ensure that restoration goals are being achieved, it is
important for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan and to adapt to changing
conditions. Under WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f)(vi), the development of a jurisdiction's SMP
must, "Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs
will be implemented...in meeting the overall restoration goals." To remain consistent with
restoration framework and guidance for SMP development, project implementation and
monitoring will survey available funding sources, project timelines and benchmarks, and
document progress of restoration projects.
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Achievements of present restoration projects and restoration plaiming processes are made
evident through existing partnerships with agencies and organizations. Restoration efforts are
implemented because local citizens, non-governmental organizations, tribes, the City, state,
and federal resource agencies form partnerships to collaborate and problem solve, sharing the
responsibility of each project. For projects near or within City-limits, the greatest likelihood
of funding would result from continued participation in the WRIA 8 and 9 forums as well as
partnering with King County and state and federal agencies. A list of potential funding
sources can be found in Table 5-1 below.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 54
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities
Organization Grant/Funding Information
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Basinwide Restoration New Starts
General Investigation
Bruce Sexauer
P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98134
206) 764-6959
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Nell Fuller
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
503)231-2014 NelLFuller@fws.gov
Cost-share assistance for fish and wildlife projects, flood management,
general restoration of riparian areas. Chief funder of the Green-Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Funds and assists in the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Grants Program and several fish passage programs including a barrier
culvert removal or replacement program.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10: Pacific Northwest
Grant Administration Unit
Bob Philips Philips.bob@epa.gov
Funds projects ranging from protecting the natural environment, including
wetlands, restoration, and stewardship work related to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Washington State Department of
Ecology
www.ecy.way.gov/programs/wq/plants/
grants/index.htm
Funding sources including low-interest loans and grants for improving
Washington state water quality as well as prevention and control of non-
native aquatic plants.
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
http://wdfw.wa.gov/volunter/vol-7.htm
Grants for financial assistance for private landowners taking action to
restore habitat and help preserve threatened species. Local stewardship
programs which participate in repairing fish and wildlife habitat.
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
SRFB) http://www.rco.wa.gov/
Grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board range from $10,000 to
900,000 in years past for organizations in 28 counties. In 2008, two
WRIA 8 projects including Lower Cedar River Acquisition received
481,507 in grant funding and three WRIA 9 projects received $363,725.
King County Flood Control District
http://www.kingcountyfloodcontrol.org
Current plans to spend $335 million to implement 2006 Flood Hazard
Management. Plans for levee setback and removal for Cedar and Green
River, flood buyouts in progress for Cedar floodplain areas.
King Conservation District
http://www.kingcd.org/pro_gra.htm
WRIA 8 Steering Committee allocates roughly $1.3 million in KCD
Grants annually since 2006. 67% or $890,000 of the annual budget in 2007
going to Site-Specific restoration and protection projects along lower and
middle Cedar River reaches.
WRIA 9 Forum receives $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects identified in the watershed
Habitat plan and Strategic Assessment.
King County Dept of Natural Resources
and Parks
Ken Pritchard
Grant Exchange Coordinator
206) 296-8265
ken.pritchard@kingcounty.gov
Community Salmon Fund
est. by National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF)and Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)
King County Water Quality Grant Fund. Grants of up to $60,000 are
available for restoration and protection of watersheds, streams, rivers,
lakes, and tidewater.
Habitat protection and restoration project grants of up to $75,000
consistent with local salmon habitat plans. The program focuses on
smaller community based restoration projects to support salmon recovery
on private property in cooperation with businesses and landowners. Grants
5-2 March 2010 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities (continued)
Organization Grant/Funding Information
requests in the $10,000-$20,000 range are strongly encouraged.
Ducks Unlimited Matching funds for habitat restoration and enhancement projects, helps
Matching Aid to Restore Habitat develop and preserve waterfowl habitat.
MARSH)
916) 852-2000 conserve@ducks.org
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING
As a long-range policy plan, the SMP guidelines include the goal that local master
programs "...include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the
overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area" (WAC 173-26-201(c)).
To establish the SMP benchmark for implementation effectiveness, the legislature provided a
timeframe for jurisdiction amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012
amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment
schedule requiring that "Local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs
at least once every seven years after the applicable dates... [and] if necessary, revise their
master programs (RCW 90.58.080 (4))."
The 7-year period starts once the City of Renton amends its SMP on or before December 1,
2009 (RCW 90.58.080 (4)(H)). While the review period is taking place, an ongoing
assessment of project successes and limitations must still occur as restoration projects are
planned and implemented within the City. A restoration framework developed in part by
Palmer et al (2005) provides several tasks for assessing restoration actions and revising the
planning process to meet restoration goals. The following actions include:
Adaptively manage restoration projects;
Summarize restoration progress including grant applications and funds secured;
Monitor post-restoration conditions;
Revise the planning process to reflect changes in objectives and policy re-evaluation;
and
Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities.
To document progress toward restoration goals regionally within WRIAs 8 and 9 and locally
within the City, annual assessments should occur to determine how well restoration criteria
are met and how effectively the goals of this restoration plan are achieved. Although
implementation may be resource- and time-intensive, its overall impact is significant due to
the potential amount of affected shorelines. With grant aid available to projects of various
scales, the improvement of ecological function outweighs the direct cost of shoreline
protection or restoration, making it increasingly feasible to carry out implementation.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 5.3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
6. CONCLUSIONS
As part of the Shoreline Master Program update process, the purpose of the Restoration Plan
is to help improve shoreline function over time (WAC 173-26-20 l(2)(f)). This restoration
plan gives the City of Renton a framework with which to pursue ecosystem functioning
within both the Green/Duwamish River and Lake Washington/Cedar River Watersheds. In
time, restoration actions outlined in this document will be implemented and results under the
guise of the City's Restoration Plan within the Shoreline Master Program will be under way.
March 2010 553-1779-031 6-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
7. REFERENCES
Chrzastowski, M. 1983. Historical changes to Lake Washington and route of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigation, Open-File Report, WRI 81-1182.
Renton, City of. 2004. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 1, 2004.
Renton, City of. 2005. Impervious Surface Geographic Information System Data.
Renton, City of. 2008. City of Renton Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 5387,
adopted June 9, 2008.
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2009. Salmon Recovery Board, WRIA
8 Application, South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration (#3)
Kahler, T. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial
Structures on ESA-listed Salmonids in Lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. Prepared
by the Watershed Company.
Kerwin, J., 2008 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WPJA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA. P 4.
http://www.govlink.Org/watersheds/8/reports/DOE-Grant-Report2008.pdf (accessed July 14,
2009).
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. S. (Eds). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9
and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources, http://salmon.scc.wa.gov
King County 1993 Cedar River Current and Future Conditions. Report. King County
Department of Public Works,. Surface Water Management Division,
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: Volumes I, II and
III. July 2005. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/planning/chinook-conservation-
plan.aspx (accessed July 14, 2009).
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA
9).August 2005
http://www.govlink.Org/watersheds/9/planimplementation/HabitatPlan.aspx#download
accessed July 14, 2009).
King, County of 2007, King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, Shoreline Master Program, Appendix E: Technical Appendix Contains:
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: Methodology and Results May 2007
King, County of, Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District
KCFCZD), 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 7-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/floodmg/documents/flood-
hazard-management-plan.aspx\
King County Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District (KCFCZD)
2007 Cedar Sammamish Basin Teclmical Committee Meeting Wednesday April 25, 2007
http://your.kingcountv.gov/dnrp/wlr/flood/flood-control-zone-district/cedar-
sammamislT/btc-meeting-summarv/070425-cedar-meeting.pdf
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008c. Lake Desire. Management Plan
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/desire.htm. Accessed on May 5, 2008.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2007. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for
Shoreline Protection Alternatives in Lake Washington, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112.December 13, 2007
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2009 Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation, Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of
Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112. April 20, 2009 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf
Puget Sound Biological Review Team (PSBRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget
Sound Steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle
Green River, Washington: 2000 Data Report. Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington.
Renton, City of, and King County. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan.
Renton, Washington. 107 pgs.
http://vour.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/1998/kcr726/FINAL-May-Creek-Basin-Plan-4-
16-Ol.pdf
Renton, City of 2003, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
prepared by Parametrix Inc., September 2, 2003, Renton, WA
Straka, Ron. 2008 City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, Personal
communication, September 2008
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B Footen, and L.
Park. 2004. Predation ofjuvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of
the Lake Washington basin. Unpublished report, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,
Washington. 86 p.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/westwafwo/fisheries/Publications/FP224.pd
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2003. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2001 Report. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
7-2 October 2009 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2003 and 2004 Report. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008.1-405 Springbrook Creek
Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Proiects/i405/Springbrook/. Accessed on July 22, 2008.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 7-3
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Exhibit D
Amended Renton Municipal Code Provisions
The current section 4-3-090 will be deleted entirely and replaced with the following language:
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS:
A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program consists of the following elements:
1. The Shoreline Management Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
2. This Section RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations which are subject to
review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW
90.58.090.
3. RMC Chapter 4-11 Definitions which are subject to review and approval by the
Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they
relate to Section RMC 4-3-090 or are defined by RCW 90.58.030.
4. RMC Section 4-9-190 Shoreline Permits which are subject to review and approval by the
Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they
relate to specific procedural mandates of RCW 90.58.
5. RMC Section 4-10-095 Shoreline Non-Conforming Uses, Activities Structures and Sites
which are subject to review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology
pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they relate to specific procedural mandates of
RCW 90.58.
Exhibit D -1
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
6. The Shoreline Restoration Element of the Shoreline Master Plan, of which one printed
copy in book form has heretofore been filed and is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and
made available for examination by the general public, shall not be considered to contain
regulations but shall be utilized as a guideline for capital improvements planning by the City and
other jurisdictions undertaking ecological restoration activities within Shoreline Management
Act jurisdiction.
7. The Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, of which one printed copy has heretofore
been filed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the
general public, and another printed copy of which is available at the Department of Community
and Economic Development. An electronic copy may also be posted online at the City's website
www.rentonwa.gov.
B. REGULATED SHORELINES:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which includes
Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in RMC 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington;
b. Green River (The area within the ordinary high water mark of the Green River is not
within the Renton City Limits, but portions of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are within city
limits).
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River;
Exhibit D-2
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st Street in the southeast
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM;
c. Black River;
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south;
e. Lake Desire (in the City's potential annexation area at the time of adoption of the
Shoreline Master Program).
3. The jurisdictional area includes:
a. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high
water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater;
b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal
waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act.
C. SHORELINES OVERLAY DISTRICTS:
1. Natural Environment Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Natural Environment Overlay District: The objectives and
criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment
Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6, and shall include that portion of the north bank of the Black
River lying west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District:
Exhibit D - 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a. Designation of the Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District: The
objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment
Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
That portion of the Lake Washington shoreline within Gene Coulon Park
extending from 100 feet north of the northerly end of the northernmost
driveway to the northerly end of the park.
May Creek east of Lake Washington, including the open space area within the
Barbee Mill site.
That portion of the south bank of the Cedar River extending from 350 feet east
of 1-405 right of way to SR 169.
The Cedar River, extending from SR 169 to the easterly limit of the Urban Growth
Area.
That portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street
on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the creek in the vicinity of SW
38th Street abutting the City's Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be designated
conservancy.
Per WAC 176-26-211(2)(e) all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not
designated within the Shoreline Master Program are automatically assigned to
be in the Urban Conservancy Overlay District until the shoreline can be
Exhibit D-4
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
redesignated through a Shoreline Master Program amendment approved by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
3. Single-Family Residential Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Single-Family Residential Overlay: The objectives and criteria for
the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment
Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include those shoreline areas with residential
zoning and use located on Lake Washington, the Cedar River and Lake Desire. Publicly owned
park and open space areas with residential zoning shall be excluded.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for
the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment
Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation generally north of
May Creek.
Exhibit D - 5
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
The southerly portion of Gene Coulon Park, generally south of and including the
over-water walkway, concession areas, parking areas, boat launch areas, and the
swimming beach.
The Urban Center North- 1 (UC-N1), Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2), and
Industrial- Heavy zoned (IH) areas along the south shoreline of Lake Washington,
the Municipal Airport, and adjacent COR designated areas.
The Cedar River from the mouth to 1-405.
The north side of the Cedar River east of 1-405 within areas of COR zoning
designation.
Areas of Springbrook Creek not in Natural or Urban Conservancy overlays.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations, which
allows land uses in RMC 4-2 in this overlay district, subject to the preference for water-
dependent and water-oriented uses. Uses adjacent to the water's edge and within buffer areas
are reserved for water-oriented development, public/community access, and/or ecological
restoration.
5. Shoreline High Intensity - Isolated Lands - Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity - Isolated Lands - Overlay District: The objectives
and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment
Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
Exhibit D-6
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Areas within shoreline jurisdiction of the Green River but isolated by the
intervening railroad right-of-way.
ii. Areas immediately north of the Cedar River (right bank) and north of Riverside
Drive between Williams Avenue South and Bronson Way North.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Allowed uses are detailed in RMC 4-3-090E.1
Shoreline Use Table. The shoreline regulations that apply within this overlay are the land use
regulations of Title IV, Development Regulations of the Renton Municipal Code, subject to the
permit and procedural requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. In most cases, the
performance standards in this section do not apply to development or uses in this overlay.
6. Aquatic Shoreline Overlay District
a. Designation of the Aquatic Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area waterward of the
ordinary high water mark of all streams and rivers, all marine water bodies, and all lakes,
constituting shorelines of the state together with their underlying lands and their water
column; but do not include associated wetlands and other shorelands shoreward of the
ordinary high water mark. This designation is not found on the Shoreline Environment Map,
but shall be assigned based on the description above.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations. Water-
dependent uses and a limited range of water-oriented uses are allowed in the Aquatic Overlay,
subject to provision of shoreline ecological enhancement and public access.
Exhibit D - 7
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
D. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Applicability: This section shall apply to all use and development activities within the
shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits.
Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title 4 Development Regulations, Chapter 4 City-wide
Property Development Standards (RMC 4.4) contain regulations and standards governing site
development of property city-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such
provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards
set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the
Shoreline Master Program shall prevail.
2. Environmental Effects:
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
i. No net loss required. Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a
manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions
and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to
minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW
90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited
to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance.
Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion
and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport,
Exhibit D-8
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen
removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance.
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological
functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and
mitigated on- or off-site.
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or
approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient
mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation
shall occur in the following prioritized order:
a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action, or moving the action.
b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment.
d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking
appropriate corrective measures.
Exhibit D-9
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the
proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program
and the Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide
sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions.
c. Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall be
regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations, adopted
by reference except for the provisions excluded in Subsection 2, below. Said provisions shall
apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a
shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no
development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land
divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline
Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally
construed together with the Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency
between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most
restrictive provisions shall prevail.
a) Aquifer protection areas.
b) Areas of special flood hazard.
c) Sensitive slopes, twenty-five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%), and
protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater.
d) Landslide hazard areas.
Exhibit D -10
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
e) High erosion hazards.
f) High seismic hazards.
g) Coal mine hazards.
h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2
through 5 only.
ii. Inapplicable Critical Area Regulations: The following provisions of RMC 4-3-050
Critical Area Regulations shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction:
a) RMC 4-3-050-N Alternates, Modifications and Variances, Subsections 1 and 3
Variances, and
b) RMC 4-9-250 Variances, Waivers, Modifications and Alternatives.
c) Wetlands, including shoreline associated wetlands, unless specified below,
iii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas:
Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy shall be considered Class 1 Fish
Habitat Conservation Areas. Regulations for fish habitat conservation areas Class 1 Streams and
Lakes are contained within the development standards and use standards of the Shoreline
Master Program, including but not limited to RMC 4-3-090. F.l Vegetation Conservation, which
establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies and specific provisions for use and for
shoreline modification in sections 4-3-090E and 4-3-090F. There shall be no modification of the
required setback and buffer for non-water dependent uses in Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation
areas without an approved shoreline conditional use permit.
Exhibit D-11
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Alternate Mitigation Approaches: To provide for flexibility in the administration
of the ecological protection provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, alternative mitigation
approaches may be applied for as provided in RMC 4-3-050-N Alternates, Modifications and
Variances, Subsection 2. Modifications within shoreline jurisdiction may be approved for those
critical areas regulated by that section as a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where such
approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over
the standard provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are scientifically supported by
specific studies performed by qualified professionals.
d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter,
all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State Wetland Identification and
Delineation Manual, (Ecology Publication 96-94) regardless of any formal identification are
hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter.
ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect
the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria
provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised
August 2004 (Ecology Publication #04-06-025). These categories are generally defined as
follows:
a) Category I Wetlands: Category I wetlands are those wetlands of exceptional
value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood and storm water, and/or providing
habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of 70 points or more. These are
Exhibit D -12
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for
critical, threatened or endangered species, and/or have other attributes that are very difficult
or impossible to replace if altered.
b) Category II Wetlands: Category II wetlands have significant value based on
their function as indicated by a rating system score of between 51 and 69 points. They do not
meet the criteria for Category I rating but occur infrequently and have qualities that are difficult
to replace if altered.
c) Category III Wetlands: Category III wetlands have important resource value
as indicated by a rating system score of between 30 and 50 points.
d) Category IV Wetlands: Category IV wetlands are wetlands of limited resource
value as indicated by a rating system score of less than 30 points. They typically have vegetation
of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are isolated or disconnected from
other aquatic systems or high quality upland habitats.
iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study
shall be required.
iv. Wetland Buffers:
a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated
activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as
compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required
for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured
from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are
functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other
Exhibit D-13
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer
functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to
provide buffer functions.
b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this chapter
presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the
wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the director may
increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal
for buffer reduction or buffer averaging.
c) Minimum Buffer Width:
Wetland Category
Category IV
Category III
Category II
Category 1
Low Wildlife Function
less than 20 points)
50
75
100
125
Moderate Wildlife
Function
20 - 28 points)
Buffer Width (feet)
50
125
150
150
High Wildlife Function
29 or more points)
501
150 1
225
225
1. Habitat scores over 26 points would be very rare for Category III wetlands and almost impossible for Category IV wetlands that have a total rating
of 30 or less.
d) Buffer Requirements for Wetland Mitigation Banks: Where wetland
mitigation sites or wetland banks have been approved, required buffers shall be as specified in
the mitigation site or wetland bank approval.
ej Increased Buffer for Steep Slopes: Where lands within the wetland buffer
have an average continuous slope of 20 percent to 35 percent, and the required buffer width is
less than 100 feet, the buffer shall extend to a 30 percent greater dimension. In all cases, where
slopes within the buffers exceed 35 percent, the buffer shall extend 25 feet beyond the top of
the bank of the sloping area or to the end of the buffer associated with a geological hazard if
one is present, whichever is greater.
Exhibit D-14
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be regulated regardless
of size, provided that the director shall assure that preservation of isolated wetlands and
associated buffers of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of combined wetland and
buffer shall maintain effective wetland functions, or be mitigated as provided below.
a) Wetlands and associated buffers of one thousand (1,000) square feet or less
may be displaced when the wetland meets all of the following criteria, as documented in a
wetland mitigation plan:
1) The wetland is not associated with a riparian corridor;
2) The wetland is not part of a wetland mosaic, or collection of small
wetlands that are hydrologically related to one another;
3) The wetland does not contain habitat identified as essential for local
populations of priority species identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;
4) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection x,
below.
b) Category 3 and 4 wetlands and buffers between 1,000 and 4,000 square feet
may be displaced provided that all of the following criteria are documented in a wetland
mitigation plan:
1) The wetland does not score 20 points or greater for habitat in the 2004
Western Washington Rating System;
2) The wetland is depressional and is recharged only by precipitation,
interflow or groundwater and adjacent development cannot assure a source of recharge to
maintain its hydrologic character through stormwater infiltration, or other means;
Exhibit D-15
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
3) The wetlands does not have a potential to reduce flooding or erosion or
has the potential to maintain or improve water quality as evidenced by a score of at least 10
points on the applicable criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington;
4) The total area of the combined wetland and buffer is 10,000 square feet
or less and:
A) It does not achieve a score of at least 20 points on the Habitat
Functions criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington; and
B) The wetland and buffer is not connected to a larger open space
complex which may include, but is not limited to a stream buffer, a buffer associated with a
geological hazard, or other designated open space buffer sufficient to allow movement of
terrestrial wildlife to and from the wetland and buffer complex without interruption by roads,
paved areas or buildings within 50 feet.
5) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection x,
below.
vi. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The director may average wetland buffer widths on a
case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates through a wetland study to the
satisfaction of the director that all the following criteria are met:
a) The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded
emergent component or a "dual-rated" wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower
rated area;
Exhibit D-16
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or
more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less
sensitive portion;
c) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally parallel to
the wetland edge;
d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width,
vii. Reasonable Use: Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel
may be permitted when all of the following are met:
a) There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be
accomplished without buffer averaging;
b) The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions
and values as demonstrated by a wetland assessment study;
c) The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally parallel to the
wetland edge;
d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width
except where the director finds that there is an existing feature such as a roadway that limits
buffer dimension, or an essential element of a proposed development such as access that must
be accommodated for reasonable use and requires a smaller buffer.
viii. Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed: The director may increase the width of the
standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis, based on a critical area study, when a larger
Exhibit D -17
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
buffer is required to protect critical habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050.K, or such increase is
necessary to:
a) Protect the function and value of that wetland from proximity impacts of
adjacent land use, including noise, light and other disturbance, not sufficiently limited by
buffers provided above;
b) To maintain viable populations of priority species of fish and wildlife; or
c) Protect wetlands or other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other
hazards.
ix. Allowed activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and activities
may be allowed in wetlands or buffer areas by the reviewing official subject to the priorities,
protection, and mitigation requirements of this section:
a) Utilities: Utility lines and facilities providing local delivery service, not
including facilities such as electrical substations, water and sewage pumping stations, water
storage tanks, petroleum products pipelines and not including transformers or other facilities
containing hazardous substances, may be located in Category I, II, III, and IV wetlands and their
buffers and/or Category I wetland buffers if the following criteria are met:
1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland
buffer based on analysis of system needs, available technology and alternative routes. Location
within a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a location within a wetlands;
2) The utility line is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a
manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
Exhibit D -18
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum
necessary to install the utility line, which may include boring, and the area is restored following
utility installation;
4) Buried utility lines shall be constructed in a manner that prevents adverse
impacts to subsurface drainage. This may include the use of trench plugs or other devices as
needed to maintain hydrology;
5) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with
subsection x, below.
b) Roadways, Railways, and Bridges: Public and private roadways and railroad
facilities,.including bridge construction and culvert installation, if the following criteria are met:
1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland
buffer based on analysis of system needs, available technology and alternative routes. Location
within a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a location within a wetland;
2) Facilities parallel to the wetland edge are located as far from the wetland
edge as possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum
necessary, which may include placement on elevated structures as an alternative to fill, where
feasible;
4) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with
subsection x, below.
c) Access to Private Development Sites: Access to private development sites
may be permitted to cross Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers, pursuant to the
Exhibit D -19
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
criteria in B above, provided that alternative access shall be pursued to the maximum extent
feasible, including through the provisions of RCW 8.24. Exceptions or deviations from technical
standards for width or other dimensions, and specific construction standards to minimize
impacts may be specified, including placement on elevated structures as an alternative to fill, if
feasible.
d) Existing Facilities: Maintenance, repair, or operation of existing structures,
facilities, or improved areas, including minor modification of existing serviceable structures
within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions, and
subject to the provisions for non-conforming use and facilities in RMC 4-10.
e) Stormwater Facilities: Stormwater conveyance or discharge facilities such as
dispersion trenches, level spreaders, and outfalls may be permitted within a Category I, II, III, or
IV wetland buffer on a case by case basis if the following are met:
1) Due to topographic or other physical constraints, there are no feasible
locations for these facilities to discharge to surface water through existing systems or outside
the buffer. Locations and designs that infiltrate water shall be preferred over a design that
crosses the buffer;
2) The discharge is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a
manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation and avoids long term rill or channel
erosion.
f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational
activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer
including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive
Exhibit D - 20
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within a Category II, III, or IV wetlands or
their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
1) Trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or
pervious material, including boardwalks;
2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer
area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for
interpretive purposes;
3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in manner that
minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be
placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill;
4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection x, below.
x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands
and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland
function and values in accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7and this section. Compensatory
mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alternation and shall re-establish, create,
rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values.
a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the
prioritized order provided for in RMC 4-3-090D.2.a.ili.
b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation
requirements shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in
Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle
District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation
Exhibit D- 21
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, WA, except in cases when this code
provides differing standards.
c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the
following order of preference:
i. Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
ii. Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural
and/or historic functions.
iii. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting
primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species.
iv. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands.
v. Preserving Category I or II wetlands that are under imminent threat,
provided that preservation shall only be allowed in combination with other forms of mitigation
and when the director determines that the overall mitigation package fully replaces the
functions and values lost due to development.
d) Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory mitigation for
wetland alterations shall be based on the wetland category and the type of mitigation activity
proposed. The replacement ratio shall be determined according to the ratios provided in the
table below. The created, re-established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at a
minimum provide a level of function equivalent to the wetland being altered and shall be
located in an appropriate landscape setting.
Exhibit D - 22
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Wetland
Category
Category IV
Category III
Category II
Category 1
Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio*
Creation
1.5:1
2:1
3:1
6:1
Re-
establishment
1.5:1
2.1
3.1
6:1
Re-
habilitation
2:1
3:1
4:1
8:1
Enhancement
Only
3:1
4:1
6:1
Not allowed
Ratio is the replacement area: impact area.
e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland
buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts
shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures
and impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures.
f) Special Requirements for Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks shall not be
subject to the replacement ratios outlined in the replacement ratio table above, but shall be
determined as part of the mitigation banking agreement and certification process.
g) Buffer Requirements for Replacement Wetlands: Replacement wetlands
established pursuant to these mitigation provisions shall have adequate buffers to ensure their
protection and sustainability. The buffer shall be based on the category in subsection c.ii,
above, provided that the director shall have the authority to approve a smaller buffer when
existing site constraints (such as a road) prohibit attainment of the standard buffer.
h) Adjustment of Ratios: The reviewing official shall have the authority to
adjust these ratios when a combination of mitigation approaches is proposed. In such cases, the
area of altered wetland shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio through re-establishment or creation,
Exhibit D - 23
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
and the remainder of the area needed to meet the ratio can be replaced by enhancement at a
2:1 ratio. For example, impacts to 1 acre of a Category II wetland requiring a 3:1 ratio for
creation can be compensated by creating 1 acre and enhancing 4 acres (instead of the
additional 2 acres of creation that would otherwise be required).
i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the
location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of
success, provided that mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the
same watershed sub-basin as the permitted alteration.
j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off-site shall be permanently
protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions
and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or
other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E.4.
k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate
season based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible after the
permitted alteration.
I) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be
prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050-M.16. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be
monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but
generally not for a period less than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the
first year and annually for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent
reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and
contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The director shall have the authority to
Exhibit D - 24
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
modify or extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten
10) years when any of the following conditions apply:
i. The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the
mitigation plan;
ii.The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and
values of the impacted critical area;
iii. The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which
require longer time for establishment.
xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent
development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and shall include:
a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area
outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented whenever feasible to
provide a rear yard of at least 20 feet between the buffer area and buildings;
b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to
limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas;
c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far from the wetland and
buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots and loading areas, mechanical or ventilating
equipment shall be located on sides of buildings away from the wetland, or separated by noise
attenuating walls;
d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetlands shall be limited by locating
areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary, or limiting light mounting
Exhibit D - 25
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
heights to a maximum 4 of feet. Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the
side of buildings facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below;
e) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the maximum extent
feasible, to provide groundwater interflow recharge to wetlands and/or water bodies and to
limit overland flow and erosion;
f) Surface or piped storm water should be routed to existing conveyances or to
other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where storm water is routed to wetlands,
system design shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum
extent feasible;
g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from
entering the buffer, and to prevent washing of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the
buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed 15%, a 10 foot wide swale to intercept runoff or
other effective interception facility approved by the director shall be provided at the edge of
the buffer;
h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including
limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within 25 feet of the buffer.
xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer
conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all buffer areas,
to include:
a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and
understory; if existing tree cover is less than a density of 20 trees per acre, planting shall be
required consisting of seedlings at a density of 300 stems per acre or the equivalent;
Exhibit D - 26
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) Provide a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the
buffer. If existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent development from
within the buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent to two rows of 3' high stock of native
evergreens at a triangular spacing of 15 feet, or three rows of gallon containers at a triangular
spacing of 8 feet. Fencing may be required if needed to block headlights or other sources of
light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen;
c) Provide a plan for control of invasive weeds, and remove existing invasive
species;
d) Provide for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five
5) years, except this provision may be waived for single family residential lots at the discretion
of the reviewing official.
e. Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management
facilities including water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in
accordance with the current stormwater management standards. Water quality treatment
facilities shall be provided for moderate alteration of non-conforming structures, uses and sites
as provided for in RMC 4-10-095.
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for
control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines
through approved temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or administrative conditions.
iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize
interference with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine directly onto
Exhibit D-27
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
the water. Exterior lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices such that glare or direct
illumination does not extend into water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches
to ensure that lights are extinguished when not in use.
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects
a. General: Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed and operated
to allow the public's visual access to the water and shoreline and maintain shoreline scenic and
aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural features, such as shoreforms and vegetative
cover.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and criteria shall
apply to developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi-
family and/or multi-lot developments are proposed, primary structures shall provide for view
corridors between buildings where views of the shoreline are available from public right-of-way
or trails.
ii. Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a height of no more than
35 feet above average finished grade level except at specific locations specified in Shoreline
Bulk Standards Table RMC 4-3-090.D.7.
iii. Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential or
Park Uses: All new or expanded commercial development adjacent to residential use and public
parks shall provide 15 ft. setbacks from adjacent properties to attenuate proximity impacts
such as noise, light and glare, and may address scale and aesthetic impacts. Fencing or
landscape areas may be required to provide a visual screen.
Exhibit D - 28
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed and
operated so as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby properties used for non-
commercial purposes, and to prevent hazards for public traffic. Methods of controlling spillover
light include, but are not limited to, limits on the height of light structure, limits on light levels
of fixtures, light shields, and screening.
v. Reflected Lights to be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water
shall employ materials that limit reflected light.
vi. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical
equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs, to
the maximum extent feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be incorporated into
architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent with building exterior
materials that obstructs views of such equipment.
vii. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to be Minimized: Facilities not
incorporated into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires, lights, and other free-standing
structures shall be designed to minimize visual prominence.
viii. Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located within
shoreline vegetated buffers shall not exceed 4 feet in width; provided that, where ADA
requirements apply, such facilities may be increased to 6 feet in width. Stairways shall conform
to the existing topography to the extent feasible.
ix. Other Design Standards: Any other design standards included in community
plans or regulations adopted by the City shall be incorporated.
Exhibit D - 29
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and
other structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided
or mitigated.
d. Design Requirements: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns,
and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be in conformance with urban design and
other standards contained in RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations, and other applicable
provisions of RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, as well as specific policies and standards
of the Shoreline Master Program.
e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC 4-4-095 concerning screening of
mechanical equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall apply within shorelines with
the additional criteria that the provisions for bringing structures or sites into conformance shall
occur for minor alteration or renovation as provided in RMC 4-9-190.
4. Public Access
a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access
to shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would either
generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing legal access
opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the
Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline
reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access
Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for public access, including off-site
facilities designated in the table Public Access Requirements by Reach in RMC 4-3-090D.4T.
Exhibit D - 30
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the following
development, subject to the criteria in subsection d.
i. Water-dependent uses and developments that increase public use of the
shorelines and public aquatic lands, or that would impair existing legal access opportunities, or
that utilize public harbor lands or aquatic lands, or that are developed with public funding or
other public resources.
ii. Non-water-dependent development and uses shall provide community and/or
public access consistent with the specific use standards in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations unless
ecological restoration is provided.
iii. Developments of more than ten (10) single-family residential lots or single-family
dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel are
required to provide public access. Developments of more than four (4), but less than ten (10)
single-family residential lots or single-family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a
proposal or a contiguously owned parcel are required to provide community access.
iv. Development of any non-single family residential development or use consistent
with the specific use standards in RMC 4-3-090E.9 Residential Development.
v. Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single-family residential use
of the shoreline, including docks accessory to single-family residential use.
vi. Publicly financed or subsidized flood control or shoreline stabilization shall not
restrict public access to the shoreline and shall include provisions for new public access to the
maximum extent feasible.
Exhibit D-31
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vii. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights of way
shall not be diminished by any public or private development or use (RCW 35.79.035 and RCW
36.87.130).
c. Criteria for Modification of Public Access Requirements: The requirements for
public access may be modified as a Shoreline Conditional Use for any application in which the
following criteria are demonstrated to be met in addition to the general criteria for a shoreline
conditional use permit. In cases where a Substantial Development Permit is not required, use
of this waiver or modification may take place only through a shoreline variance. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met. As a condition of
modification of access requirements, contribution to an off-site public access site shall be
required.
i. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that cannot be
prevented by any practical means.
ii. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the
application of alternative design features or other solutions.
iii. The cost of providing the access, or mitigating the impacts of public access, is
unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term development and operational cost over
the life-span of the proposed development.
iv. Significant environmental impacts will result from the public access that cannot
be mitigated.
v. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and
the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated.
Exhibit D-32
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vi. Prior to determining that public access is not required, all reasonable
alternatives must be pursued, including but not limited to:
a) Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours
of use;
b) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-
way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and
c) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing
platforms that may be physically separated from the water's edge, but only if access adjacent to
the water is precluded.
d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following
location and design criteria:
i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites
where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian
walkway parallel to the ordinary high water mark of the property. The walkway shall be
buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may
provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where
appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive
ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials
and limited to 4 to 6 feet in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.
ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space: Public access on
sites or portions of sites not including vegetated open space shall be not less than ten (10)
percent of the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square
Exhibit D - 33
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
feet, whichever is greater, on developments including non-water-dependent uses. For water-
dependent uses, the amount and location may be varied in accordance with the criteria in
Subsection 4-3-090.F.3. Public access facilities shall extend along the entire water frontage,
unless such facilities interfere with the functions of water-dependent uses. The minimum
width of public access facilities shall be 10 feet and shall be constructed of materials consistent
with the design of the development provided that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle &
Trails Master Plan shall be developed in accordance with the standards of that plan.
iii. Access Requirements for Overwater Structures: Public access on over-water
structures on public aquatic lands, except for docks serving a single-family residence, shall be
provided and may include common use of walkway areas. Moorage facilities serving five (5) or
more vessels shall provide a publicly accessible area of at least 10 feet at or near the end of the
structure. Public marinas serving 20 or more vessels may restrict access to specific moorage
areas for security purposes as long as an area of at least 10 percent of the over-water structure
is available for public access and an area of at least 20 square feet is provided at or near the
end of the structure. Public access areas may be used in common by other users, but may not
include adjacent moorage that obstructs public access to the edge of the water or obstructs
views of the water.
iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where city trail or transportation plans and
development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections i, ii, or iii,
above, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection
and enhancement of ecological functions shall prevail.
Exhibit D-34
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public
access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline
Management Element, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach and in
subsection f- Table of Public Access Requirements by Reach (RMC 4-3-090D.4.f):
a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in
applying these provisions to individual development sites.
b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in
planning and implementing public projects.
vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for off-site public
access and may assess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of their public
access requirements. Such a fund and charges may be part of or coordinated with park impact
fees. Off-site public access shall be developed in accordance with the reach policies for public
access.
e. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the
following design and other features.
i. Relation to other facilities:
a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public
areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include
provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible.
b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within 400 feet of a public
street, on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments
required to provide more than 20 parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to
Exhibit D-35
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
the required parking for the development at a ratio of one (1) space per 1,000 square feet of
public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space per 5,000 square feet of public
access area for more than three (3) spaces. Parking for public access shall include the parking
spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public
access area is handicapped accessible.
c) Planned Trails To Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's
transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline and
non-shoreline areas of a site.
ii. Design:
a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with
opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water and the
shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the
shoreline's edge as feasible, provided that public access does not adversely affect sensitive
ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions.
b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by
avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open
spaces or by screening or other separation techniques.
iii. Use and Maintenance:
a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be
fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity or in
accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation through a monetary
performance assurance.
Exhibit D- 36
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be
maintained over the life of the use or development. Future actions by successors in interest or
other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required public access areas and
associated improvements.
c) Public Access Must be Legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private
land shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an easement, or as a
dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior to
the time of building occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first.
d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall
be the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or non-profit agency
through a formal recorded agreement.
e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public 24
hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline
permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial permit
approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use.
f) Signage Required: The standard state-approved logo or other approved signs
that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be installed and maintained
by the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at
the nearest connection to an off-site public right of way.
Exhibit D-37
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
4-3-090. D.4.f Public Access Requirements by Reach
The following table identifies the performance standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by
the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A and B
Lake Washington
Reach C
Lake Washington
Reach D and E
Lake Washington
Reach F and G
Lake Washington
Reach H
Lake Washington
Reach 1
Lake Washington
Reach J
Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
occurs consistent with standards of this section.
The potential for provision of public access from new development will occur after cleanup of
the Superfund site with multi-use development, which shall include shoreline access across the
entire property, with controlled access to the water's edge, consistent with requirements for
vegetation conservation and ecological restoration and provisions for water-dependent use,
consistent with standards of this section. Provision of public access from future redevelopment
of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site shall include a continuous public access trail parallel to the
shoreline with controlled public access balanced with provisions for ecological restoration, as
well as to shared or commercial docks, consistent with standards of this section.
Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
occurs consistent with standards of this section.
Public access is one element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
future plans and balanced with goals for recreation and improving ecologic functions.
Public access should continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the balance of
the property consistent with standards of this section. Development should include supporting
water-oriented uses and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of upland state-owned aquatic lands
managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped, public access should be
provided parallel to the shoreline along the entire property, consistent with standards of this
section, together with goals for ecological restoration and water-dependent and water-oriented
use.
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the Will Rogers, Wiley
Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be maintained if such access is not in conflict with the
aeronautical use of the property.
Exhibit D-38
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH
Lake Washington
Reach K
Public Access
If redevelopment of non-single-family use occurs, public access shall consist of a public
pedestrian walkway parallel to the shoreline along the entire property frontage with controlled
access to the water's edge, consistent with standards of this section and requirements for
vegetation conservation and ecological restoration. Public access shall be provided when lots are
subdivided consistent with standards of this section.
May Creek
May Creek A
May Creek B
May Creek C and D
If development occurs adjacent to the streamside, open space standards for vegetation
conservation and public access shall be met consistent with standards of this section.
At the time of re-development, public access should be provided consistent with standards of
this section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public
access to the water consistent with standards of this section, and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
At the time of development of private lands, public access should be provided consistent with
standards of this section from a trail parallel to the water consistent with trails on public land.
All trail development should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water and consistent with standards of this section and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A
Cedar River B
Cedar River C
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided if the Renton
Municipal Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands adjacent to the
river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated by public streets should provide active
open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the
water's edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part of public park and
river maintenance plans.
Public/community access along the waterfront should be provided as private lands on the north
side of the river redevelop, considered along with the goal of restoration of ecological functions.
Public or community access shall be provided when residential development occurs consistent
with standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Exhibit D-39
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE REACH
Cedar River D
Green River Reach A
Black
River/Springbrook A
Springbrook B
Springbrook C
Public Access
The primary goal for management of this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional
public access to the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions. Public
access shall be provided when residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards of this
section.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail
rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. Expansion of public
access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if
consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream
adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to
connect to the Lake to Sound trail.
Enhancement of the trail system on the WSDOT right of way that crosses under 1-405 should be
implemented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions.
If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting to the existing
trails system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
Lake Desire
Lake Desire
If the existing boat launch area is altered in the future, public access other than boating facilities
should include a viewing area. There is currently no formal public access to the water at the
Natural Area at the south end of the lake or the County designated Natural Area at the north end
of the lake. Interpretive access should be implemented consistent with standards of this section
and goals for preservation and restoration of ecological values. Public access shall be provided
when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development occurs consistent with standards
of this section.
Exhibit D-40
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
5. Building and Development Location- Shoreline Orientation
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related,
and water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and
use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of
the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect
riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological,
historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values.
b. Design and Performance Standards
i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner
that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions
provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany
development proposals, provided that an individual single-family residence on a parcel less
than 20,000 square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include
the following general information:
a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear
designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other
features.
b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other
features, together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline
ecological functions.
Exhibit D-41
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in
sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing,
grading, and alteration of topography and natural features.
b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the
use of under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights of way
wherever feasible.
d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural
shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited
instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-
dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological
functions will result.
iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does
not require a shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such
development is required to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or developments or unless
otherwise allowed in a High Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses
and/or developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs
and storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and
landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer
to the water is reasonably necessary.
Exhibit D - 42
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
v. Navigation and Recreation to be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive
other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-related recreation shall be
preserved.
6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
a. Detailed Cultural Assessments may be Required: The City will work with tribal,
state, federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical,
cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting
such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required
in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural
resources.
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable
historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of
application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation
groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a
development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site
assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and
ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or
artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be
Exhibit D-43
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the
reviewing official. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes.
The reviewing official shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may
provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate
agencies.
e. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are encouraged to
provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose
of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property.
7. Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height
a. Shoreline Bulk Standards: This table establishes the minimum required dimensional
requirements for development including all structures and substantial alteration of natural
topography. Additional standards may be established in Section RMC 4-3-090E, Shoreline Use
Policies and Regulations and Section RMC4-3-090F, Shoreline Modification.
Exhibit D - 44
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Table 4-3-090. D.7a Shoreline Bulk Standards
re
3
Z
C
ro .
0
zz
u
c
ro
U
c
o
u
uo
c
0)
c
53
o E
ro
LL.
J
in
c
0)
J
c
x
fl
c01
c
00
X
TJ
u
ro
O
u
V
3
Setbacks and Buffers
Structure Setback from Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM)-
Minimum1
Water-dependent Use
Water-related or Water
Enjoyment Use
Non-Water-oriented Use
Front Yard/ Side Yard, and Rear
Yard Setbacks
Vegetation Conservation Buffer
100 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
None2
100 ft.3
100 ft.3
None2
100 ft. 4
100 ft.5
None
None
None
Governed by underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 except in cases where specific
shoreline performance standards provide otherwise. Variance from the front
and side yard standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the
established setback from OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard
variance criteria are met.
100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 3 100 ft. 4'5 None
Building Height- Maximum
In water
Within 100 feet of OHWM
More than 100 feet from OHWM
Not
allowed
Not
allowed
15 ft.
Not
allowed
Not
allowed
35 ft.
35 ft.6
35 ft.7
35 ft.7
35 ft.6
35 ft.8
35 ft.8
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2 9
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2 9
35 ft.6
Exhibit D-45
X
3-
o
I
4N.
K
o 5-
P> TO
i
M
3
P*
1
ro
01
X
3
c
3
c
3
Q.
ro
3'
TO
INI
O
3
3'
TO
3'
33
S
n
r+
3"
0)
3
O
O
ro
ro
0
3
O
x £
S
cr
c
3
ro
3'
TO
r-
O
O
O
ro
ai
00
ro
0
CO
c
K
3'
OQ
V)
3
0
ro
Un
N?
h-1
Ui
N?
ON
00
u-i
ON
0
0 <
ro
3ro
CD
0 <
ro
3
ro
Q.
a-
N, N
O
3
TO
5"
za
S
n
0
0
1
ro
ro
r+
O
OX
s
s0)
X
3'
c
3
c
3
Q_
ro
3"
TO
I—
O
r*
O
O
ro
a>
OQ
ro -+
1
O
1
03
C
E
3°
OQ
in
3^
3*
UI
Np
ON
UI
s?
IN>
M
l/i
N? ON
Z
O
3
ro
C7)
O <
ro
3
ro
cr
K
1 0
3'
TO
5"
73
S
O
O
X
s
1
0)
X
3'
3
01
0"
ro
a.
c
3
Q.
ro
3'
TO
3
a
ro ^ <,
o*
C
1/1
ro
0)
i-h
3;
3'
O
O
1>
ro
ro
r*
O
h
2
O
I-1
O
NP
ON
en
O
Np
l->
U-l
0
N?
ON
h*
G)
O <
ro
3
ro
a.
cr
p» N
1 O
M 3
3'
TO
5'
73
2
r>
03
c
roT
i
ro
a-ai
0
7T
O)
0"
s
ro
Q.
c
3
ro
3'
TO
3
a
ro
0'
c
m >
ro
0)
r*
ZT
5'
3"
ro
z
0
un
0?
O
Oi
S?
O
UI
NP
O
7)
O <
ro
3ro
a.
a-
n
0
ro
O)
OQ
ro
to
ai
3
a.
ai
a.
Ji M
O
10 5-
TO
5'
73
K
n
r>
ro
O
03
C
3'
OQ
l->
Ui
roro
M
ai
ro
ro
I-1
UI
roro
a> c/i
amebove
OI
in
c CD
3 O
Q- <
ro ro ~! -1
ro
TO
D-
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Shoreline Single
Family
High Intensity
33
m
on
O
H
O
2
O
High Intensity
Isolated
Aquatic
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
1. Architectural features of buildings, such as eaves or balconies, and other building elements above the first floor may
project a maximum of five feet (5') into the buffer/setback area as established in this table, or as modified by RMC 4-
3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
2. Setback shall be the maximum determined by the specific needs of the Water-dependent Use and shall not apply to a
structure housing any other use.
3. Building setback and buffer may be based on lot depth as provided in RMC 4-3-090.F.I.e.
4. Water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation Conservation Buffer is
varied in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation. Buildings shall be no closer than 50 feet, except as consistent
with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
5. Non-water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation Conservation
Buffer is varied in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation. Buildings shall be no closer than 75 feet, except as
consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
6. Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use, except as consistent with a
Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Exhibit D-47
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
7. If the maximum allowed height in the underlying zoning is less than the maximum allowed height in the Shoreline
Overlay, a non-shoreline variance from the standard in RMC 4-2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, must be obtained from the
Reviewing Official to allow any height over the amount allowed in the underlying zone.
8. Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use. Height up to that established
in RMC 4-2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, may be allowed for non water-dependent uses in the following reaches:
Lake Washington Reaches C, H, I, and J; Cedar River Reaches A, B, and C; Black River Reach A; and Springbrook Creek
Reaches B, C, and D:
1) For buildings landward of 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM, the maximum building height shall be defined by a maximum
allowable building height envelope that shall:
a. Begin along a line lying parallel to and 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM at a height of either 35' (35 ft.) or one half
the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone, whichever is greater; and
b. Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from the beginning height either (i)
until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 is reached (from which line
the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning), or (ii) to the
end of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
2) For buildings allowed waterward of 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM through a modified setback, the maximum building
height shall be as follows:
Exhibit D-48
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a. Between the modified setback line and the line lying parallel to and 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM, the maximum
building height shall be defined by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall:
i. Begin at a height of 35' (35 ft.) along the line of the modified setback; and
ii. Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from the beginning height
either until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 is reached
from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying
zoning) or to the line lying parallel to and 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM, whichever comes first; and
b. Landward of 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM, the applicant shall have the option of choosing the maximum building
height defined by either:
i. Using the maximum allowable building height envelope described in (1), above; or
ii. Having the maximum allowable building height envelope described in (2)a, above, continue an upward,
landward transition at a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from the envelope's height along a line lying parallel
to and 100' (100 ft.) from OHWM either until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2 is reached (from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum
height allowed in the underlying zoning), or to the end of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
Exhibit D - 49
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
9. Height is governed by the underlying standards in RMC 4-2, provided that if a property is separated from OHWM by an
intervening parcel in separate ownership and the distance from OHWM is less than 100 feet, the height adjacent to the intervening
parcel in separate ownership and the distance from OHWM is less than 100 feet, the height adjacent to the intervening parcel is limited
to an increase over the maximum allowed use of the intervening parcel at a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal.
10. Up to 5% impervious surface is allowed in Vegetation Conservation buffers/setbacks for access to the shoreline, or a
pathway up to 6 feet (6') wide, whichever is greater. In addition, for projects that provide public access and the opportunity for
substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shoreline, up to 25% impervious surface is allowed, provided that no more than 5%
impervious surface is allowed closer than 25' (25 ft.) from OHWM.
11. In cases where the depth of the Vegetation Conservation buffer/setback is modified in accordance with RMC 4-3-
090F.1 Vegetation Conservation, that portion of the first 100 feet from OHWM upon which development is to be located is permitted a
maximum of 50% impervious surface, unless a different standard is stated below:
Lake Washington Reaches H and I - Up to 75% impervious surface, except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved
prior to the adoption of this Section.
Lake Washington Reach J - No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach A - No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B and C - No limit to impervious surface.
Exhibit D-50
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Cedar River Reach D - No more than 5% impervious surface.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D - No more than 65% impervious surface.
12. No building coverage is allowed in Vegetation Conservation buffers. If the buffer depth is modified in accordance with
RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation, that portion of the first 100 feet from OHWM upon which development is to be located shall
be permitted the following coverage:
Lake Washington High Intensity Overlay District- Up to 50% building coverage, except as consistent with a Master Site
Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Cedar River Reach A - Up to 20% for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B - No limit on building coverage
Cedar River Reach C - Up to 65% building coverage, or up to 75% if parking is provided within a building or parking garage
parking stall may not be located within 100' (100 ft.) of OHWM).
Cedar River Reach D - No more than 5% building coverage
Green River A - Up to 50% building coverage
Springbrook Creek Reach A - No more than 5% building coverage
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D - Up to 50% building coverage
Exhibit D-51
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. City-wide Development Standards: Table RMC 4-3-090.D.7 replaces the standards
of the underlying zone in RMC 4-2for those specific standards enumerated. All other standards
of the Renton development regulations, flood control regulations, subdivision regulations,
health regulations, and other adopted regulatory provisions apply within shoreline jurisdiction.
In the event the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program conflict with provisions of other
city regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail.
c. Measurement
i. Horizontal measurement shall be measured outward on a plane and in the
direction that results in the greatest dimension from property lines, or from other features
specified.
ii. Height is measured consistent with the definition of "Building Height" in RMC 4-
11-020.
d. Activities Exempt from Buffers and Setbacks: The following development activities
are not subject to buffers and setbacks, provided that they are constructed and maintained in a
manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and provided further
that they comply with all the applicable regulations in RMC Title 4:
i. Water-Dependent Development: Those portions of approved water-dependent
development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark of streams,
rivers, lakes, ponds, marine shorelines, associated wetlands, and/or within their associated
buffers.
ii. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities, including stormwater outfalls and
conveyance pipes.
Exhibit D-52
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Modifications Necessary for Agency Compliance: Modifications to existing
development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency,
when otherwise consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, provided that the reviewing
official determines that:
a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the
purpose for which it is intended;
b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified
dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and
c) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non-conforming
development and uses.
iv. Necessary Access: Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must
cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-dependent development subject
to development standards in Section E- Use Regulations.
v. Stairs and Walkways: Stairs and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18
inches in height above grade, except for railings.
vi. Essential Public Facilities: An essential public facility or public utility where the
reviewing official determines that:
a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the
purpose for which it is intended; and
b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified
dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible.
Exhibit D - 53
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vii. Shared Moorage: Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks
when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents
and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for
ingress and egress to the facility.
viii. Flood Storage: Approved compensating flood storage areas.
8. Private Property Rights: Regulation of private property to implement any Program goals
such as public access and protection of ecological functions must be consistent with all relevant
constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution,
applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328, 43.21C.060,
and 82.02.020. The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to make findings concerning
public access regarding nexus and proportionality on any shoreline permit.
9. Treaty Rights: Rights reserved or otherwise held by Indian Tribes pursuant to Treaties,
Executive Orders, or Statues, including right to hunt, fish, gather, and the right to reserved water, shall
not be impaired or limited by any action taken or authorized by the City under its Shoreline Master
Program, and all rights shall be accommodated.
E. USE REGULATIONS:
1. Shoreline Use Table:
Uses specified in the table below are subject to the use and development standards elsewhere in
this section and the policies of the Shoreline Master Program.
Exhibit D- 54
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
KEY: X= Prohibited, P= Permitted, AD= Administrative Conditional Use Permfl
Natural Urban
Conservancy
Single-
Family
Residential
Aquatic
H= Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit
High Intensity High Intensity
Isolated
RESOURCE
Aquaculture
Mining
Preservation and
Enhancement of
Natural Features or
Ecological Processes
Low intensity Scientific,
Cultural, Historic, or
Educational use
Fish and wildlife
resource enhancement
P1
X
P1
P1
P1
P1
X
P
P
P
X
X
P
P
P
P
X
p8
p8
p8
P
X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
X
X
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
RESIDENTIAL
Detached dwellings
Attached dwellings
Accessory Dwelling
Units
Group Homes 1
Group Homes II (for six
or fewer residents)
Group Homes II (for
seven or more
residents)
Adult Family Home
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P4
X
AD
X
X
X
X
P5
X
AD
X
P
H
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
CIVIC USES
K-12 Educational
Institution (public or
private)
Roads (not providing
X
X
X
X
P
H
X
X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
Exhibit D-55
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
direct access to
permitted or
conditional uses)
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
COMMERCIAL USES
Home occupations
Adult Day Care 1
Adult DayCare II
X
X
X
P
X
X
AD
AD
H
X
X
X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
RECREATION
Parks, neighborhood
Parks,
regional/community
Passive Recreation
Public hiking and
bicycle trails, including
overwater trails
Active Recreation
Boat launches
Mooring Piles
Boat moorage
Boat lifts
Boat houses
Golf courses
Marinas
H1
H1
H1
H1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H6
H6
P
P1
P2
P
P
P
X
X
H2
X
P
AD5
P
P
P
X
P
P
P7
X
H
AD6
p8
p8
p8
p8
p8
p8
p8
p8
p8
X
X
p8
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
INDUSTRIAL
Exhibit D-56
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Industrial Use X X X H8 Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
UTILITIES
Structures for
Floodway
Management, including
drainage or storage
and pumping facilities
Local service utilities
H1
X
p
P3
p
p3
p8
p8
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
ACCESSORY USES
Parking areas
Roads
Bed and Breakfast
House
Sea Plane Moorage
Helipads
USES NOT SPECIFIED
X
X
X
X
X
X
p3
p3
X
X
X
X
P3
P3
AD
P
P
H9
X
X
X
P8
p8
H8
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the underlying
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this
overlay district, subject to the preference
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the
underlying zoning that require an
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner
H) conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline
conditional use permit.
H9
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district.
X
Exhibit D-57
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Table Notes
1. Provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area.
2. Use is allowed, but structures shall not be placed within the shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Allowed only to serve approved or conditional uses, but should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction if feasible.
4. Limited to existing lots, or clustered subdivisions that retain sensitive areas.
5. Includes uses customarily incidental to and subordinate to the primary use, and located on the same lot.
6. Existing use is permitted, but new use is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit.
7. Allowed as accessory to a residential dock provided that: all lifts are placed as far waterward as feasible and safe; platform lifts are fully grated.
8. Only allowed if the use is water-dependent.
9. If the unspecified use is prohibited in the underlying zoning it is also prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
Exhibit D-58
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
2. Aquaculture:
a. No Net Loss Required: Aquaculture shall not be permitted in areas where it would
result in a net loss of ecological functions and shall be designed and located so as not to spread
disease to native aquatic life, or establish new non-native species which cause significant
ecological impacts.
b. Aesthetics: Aquaculture facilities shall not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities
of the shoreline.
c. Structure Requirements: All structures over or in the water shall meet the following
restrictions:
i. They shall be securely fastened to the shore.
ii. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the natural systems
of the waterway including, for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic
plant life.
iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as
swimming and/or boating.
iv. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if
potential conflicts exist.
3. Boat Launching Ramps:
a. Boat Launching Ramps Shall be Public: Any new boat launching ramp shall be
public, except those related to a marina, water-dependent use, or providing for hand launching
of small boats with no provisions for vehicles or motorized facilities
Exhibit D - 59
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. No Net Loss Required: Choice of sites for boat launching ramps shall ensure no net
loss of ecological functions through assessment of the shoreline conditions and impacts of
alteration of those conditions, as well as the disturbance resulting from the volume of boat
users.
c. Consideration of Impacts on Adjacent Uses: Launch ramps location shall consider
impacts on adjacent uses including:
i. Traffic generation and the adequacy of public streets to service,
ii. Impacts on adjacent uses, including noise, light, and glare,
iii. Hours of operation may be restricted to assure compatibility,
iv. Potential impacts on aquatic habitat, including impacts of disturbance by boats
using the facility.
d. Water and Shore Characteristics:
i. Water depth shall be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats without
maintenance dredging.
ii. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for
ramp activity.
e. Topography: The proposed area shall not present major geological or topographical
obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Site adaptation such as dredging shall be
minimized.
f. Design to Ensure Minimal Impact: The ramp shall be designed so as to allow for
ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface.
Exhibit D - 60
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
g. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or
other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used.
The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions:
i. Soil characteristics
ii. Erosion
iii. Water currents
iv. Waterfront conditions
v. Usage of the ramp
vi. Durability
vii. Avoidance of contamination of the water
h. Shore Facilities Required:
i. Adequate on-shore parking and maneuvering areas shall be provided based on
projected demand. Provision shall be made to limit use to available parking to prevent spillover
outside designated parking areas.
ii. Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the
appropriate City department.
4. Commercial and Community Services
a. Use preference and priorities: New commercial and community services
developments are subject to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: Water-dependent commercial and community service
uses shall be given preference over water-related and water-enjoyment commercial and
community service uses. Prior to approval of water-dependent uses, the Reviewing Official shall
Exhibit D-61
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
review a proposal for design, layout, and operation of the use and shall make specific findings
that the use qualifies as a water-dependent use. Water-dependent commercial and community
service uses shall provide public access in a manner that will not interfere with the water-
dependent aspects of the use. The portion of a site not required for water-oriented use may
include multiple use, approved non-water-oriented uses, ecological restoration, and public
access. All uses shall provide public access in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.D4.f Table of Public
Access Requirements by Reach. On Lake Washington, multiple use development that
incorporates water-dependent use within 100 feet of the OHWM may not include non-water-
oriented uses at the ground level.
ii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related commercial and community service uses
shall not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a
water-related commercial or community service use, review of the design, layout, and
operation of the use shall confirm that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront
location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses,
and/or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more
convenient. On Lake Washington, allowed water-related commercial and community service
uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a state-wide interest, including
increasing public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iii. Water-Enjoyment Uses: Water-enjoyment commercial and community service
uses shall not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent or water-related uses or if
they occupy space designated for water-dependent or water-related use identified in a
substantial development permit or other approval. Prior to approval of water-enjoyment uses,
Exhibit D-62
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
review of the design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use facilitates
public access to the shoreline as, or the use provides for aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline
for substantial number of people as a primary characteristic of the use. The ground floor of the
use must be ordinarily 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. On
Lake Washington, allowed water-enjoyment commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of
whether the use facilitates a state-wide interest, including increasing public access and public
recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented commercial and community
service uses may be permitted where:
a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private
property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use
is precluded, provided that such conditions were lawfully established prior to the effective date
of the Shoreline Master Program, or established with the approval of the City; or
b) Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited (i.e. all shoreline
rivers and creeks), the commercial or community service use provides a significant public
benefit such as providing public access and/or ecological restoration; or
c) The use is part of a multiple use project that provides significant public
benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act such as:
1) Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and upland
environments that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards for the
specific reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation and in accordance with
Exhibit D-63
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
the Restoration Element of this plan or other plans and policies including the WRIA 8 Salmon
Restoration Plans; or
2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration
and associated buffers shall be provided as public access. Community access may be allowed
subject to the provisions of RMC 4-3-0904-3-090E.9 Residential Development.
b. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of
water-dependent commercial uses that require over-water facilities or for public recreation and
public access facilities. Non-water-dependent commercial uses shall not be allowed over water
except in limited instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in support of water-
dependent uses.
c. Setbacks: Public access adjacent to the water may be located within the required
setback, subject to the standards for impervious surface I RMC 4-3-090.D.7.a. Setbacks for non-
water-oriented commercial buildings and shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the
ordinary high water mark; provided this requirement may be modified in accordance with RMC
4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation.
d. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: All new or expanded commercial and community
services developments shall take into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline and compatibility with adjacent uses as provided in RMC 4-3-090. D.3, Use
Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects and RMC 4-3-090.D.5, Facility Arrangement- Shoreline
Orientation.
5. Industrial Use:
Exhibit D - 64
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a. Use Preferences and Priorities: Industrial developments shall be permitted subject
to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: New industrial uses in new structures within the
required setback of the shoreline must be water-dependent.
ii. Existing Non Water-Dependent Uses: Existing non water-dependent uses may
be retained and expanded, subject to provisions for nonconforming uses activities and sites,
provided that expansion of structures within the required setback between the building and the
water shall be prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the impacts of the expansion can be
mitigated through on-site measures such as buffer enhancement or low impact stormwater
development. Changes in use are limited to existing structures.
iii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related industrial uses may not be approved if they
displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a water-related industrial use,
review of the design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use has a
functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use provides a necessary service
supportive of the water-dependent uses, and/or the proximity of the use to its customers
makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Allowed water-related commercial
uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a public interest, including
increasing public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented industrial uses may be permitted
where:
a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private
property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use
Exhibit D - 65
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
is precluded, provided that such conditions were lawfully established prior to the effective date
of the Shoreline Master Program; or
b) On a site that abuts the water's edge where navigability is severely limited
i.e. all shoreline rivers and creeks) and where the use provides significant public benefit with
respect to the objectives of the Act by:
1) Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and upland
environments that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards for the
specific reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation and in accordance with
the Restoration Element of this plan and other plans and policies including the WRIA 8 and 9
Salmon Restoration Plans; or
2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration
and associated buffers shall be provided as public access in accordance with RMC 4-3-090. D.4
Public Access.
b. Clustering of Non-water-oriented Uses: Any new use of facility or expansion of
existing facilities shall minimize and cluster those water-dependent and water-related portions
of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water-
dependent.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of
water-dependent industrial uses that require over-water facilities. Any over-water structure is
water-dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is subject to Shoreline
Conditional Use approval.
Exhibit D - 66
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
d. Materials Storage: New industrial development may not introduce exterior storage
of materials outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a Shoreline
Conditional Use subject to the additional criteria that exterior storage is essential to the use.
e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall demonstrate that no spill or
discharge to surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstrate in the permit
application a specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants
associated with the industrial use and activity.
f. Offshore Log Storage: Offshore log storage shall only be allowed only to serve a
processing use and shall be located where water depth is sufficient without dredging, where
water circulation is adequate to disperse polluting wastes and where they will not provide
habitat for salmonid predators.
g. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: New or expanded industrial developments shall take
into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with
adjacent uses as provided in RMC 4-3-090D.3 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects and 4-3-
090D.5 Facility Arrangement-Shoreline Orientation.
6. Marinas:
a. Applicability: The standards specified for marinas shall be applied to all
development as described below:
i. Joint use single-family docks serving four or more residences,
ii. Any dock allowed for multi-family uses.
iii. Docks serving all other multiple use facilities including large boat launches and
mooring buoy fields.
Exhibit D-67
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. Lake Washington: Marinas on Lake Washington shall be permitted only when:
i. Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that they will not result in
a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic
processes including delta formation, or adversely affect native and anadromous fish.
ii. Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability.
iii. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the size and character
of moorage facilities provided in accordance with the parking standards in RMC 4-4-080F.
Parking areas not associated with loading areas shall be sited as far as feasible from the water's
edge and outside of vegetated buffers described in RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation.
iv. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage
facilities provided.
v. The location of the moorage facilities is adequately served by public roads.
c. Location Criteria:
i. Marinas shall not be located near beaches commonly used for swimming unless
no alternative location exists, and mitigation is provided to minimize impacts to such areas and
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
ii. Marinas and accessory uses shall be located only where adequate utility services
are available, or where they can be provided concurrent with the development.
iii. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be designed so that lawfully
existing or planned public shoreline access is not unnecessarily blocked, obstructed, nor made
dangerous.
d. Design Requirements:
Exhibit D - 68
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Marinas shall be designed to result in no net loss of ecological functions.
ii. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many water-
dependent recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of the proposal.
Features for such access could include, but are not limited to: docks and piers, pedestrian
bridges to offshore structures, fishing platforms, artificial pocket beaches, and underwater
diving and viewing platforms.
iii. Dry upland boat storage is preferred for permanent moorage in order to protect
shoreline ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space, and minimize consumption of
public water surface areas unless:
a) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or
b) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to
ecological functions; or
c) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the
shoreline.
iv. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be located and designed with
the minimum necessary shoreline stabilization.
v. Public access shall be required in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.D.4 Public
Access.
vi. Piers and docks shall meet standards in RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks.
vii. New covered moorage for boat storage is prohibited. Covered over-water
structures may be permitted only where vessel construction or repair work is to be the primary
activity and covered work areas are demonstrated to be the minimum necessary over water
Exhibit D - 69
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
structures. When feasible any covered overwater structures shall incorporate windows,
skylights, or other materials to allow sufficient light to reach the water's surface.
e. Operation Requirements:
i. Marinas and other commercial boating activities shall be equipped with facilities
to manage wastes, including:
a) Marinas with a capacity of 100 or more boats, or further than one (1) mile
from such facilities, shall provide pump-out, holding, and/or treatment facilities for sewage
contained on boats or vessels.
b) Discharge of solid waste or sewage into a water body is prohibited. Marinas
and boat launch ramps shall have adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities in
compliance with applicable health regulations.
c) Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the
operator at locations convenient to users.
d) Disposal or discarding of fish or shellfish cleaning wastes, scrap fish, viscera,
or unused bait into water or in other than designated garbage receptacles near a marina or
launch ramp is prohibited.
e) Public notice of all regulations pertaining to handling and disposal of waste,
sewage, fuel, oil or toxic materials shall be reviewed and approved and posted where all users
may easily read them.
ii. Fail safe facilities and procedures for receiving, storing, dispensing, and disposing
of oil or hazardous products, as well as a spill response plan for oil and other products, shall be
required of new marinas and expansion or substantial alteration of existing marinas. Handling
Exhibit D-70
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
of fuels, chemicals, or other toxic materials must be in compliance with all applicable federal
and state water quality laws as well as health, safety, and engineering requirements. Rules for
spill prevention and response, including reporting requirements, shall be posted on site.
7. Piers and Docks:
a. General Criteria for Use and Approval of All New or Expanded Piers and Docks:
i. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use
and enjoyment of the water surface and shoreline, nor create a hazard to navigation.
ii. The dock or pier shall not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of
adjacent docks and/or piers.
iii. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in
those areas where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational
boaters and fishermen will not be created.
iv. The expansion of existing piers and docks is preferred over the construction of
new.
v. The responsibility rests on the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need
for the proposed pier or dock in his/her application for a permit, except for a dock accessory to
a single-family residence on an existing lot.
vi. All piers and docks shall result in no net loss of ecological functions. Docks,
piers, and mooring buoys, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall avoid, or
if that is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions
such that no net loss of ecological functions results.
Exhibit D - 71
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vii. Over-water construction not required for moorage purposes is regulated as a
recreation use.
viii. New or expanded piers and docks allowed for water-dependent uses shall be
consistent with the following criteria:
a) Water-dependent uses shall specify the specific need for over-water location
and shall be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed
water-dependent use.
b) Water-related, water-enjoyment and multiple uses may be allowed as part of
a dock or pier to serve as water-dependent use structures where they are clearly auxiliary to
and in support of water-dependent uses, provided the minimum size requirement needed to
meet the water-dependent use is not violated.
c) Public access is required over all docks utilizing public aquatic lands that
serve water-dependent uses, water-enjoyment uses and multiple uses, provided it does not
preclude the water-dependent use.
d) The dock or pier length shall not extend beyond a length necessary to
provide reasonable and safe moorage.
b. Additional Criteria for New or Expanded Residential Docks:
i. Single-Family Docks:
a) Single-Family Joint Use Docks: A pier or dock which is constructed for private
recreation moorage associated with a single-family residence, for private joint use by two or
more single-family waterfront property owners, or a community pier or dock in new waterfront
single-family subdivision, is considered a water-dependent use provided that it is designed and
Exhibit D-72
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
used only as a facility to access watercraft owned by the occupants, and to incidental use by
temporary guests. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by non-residents of
piers or docks accessory to residences.
b) Individual Single-Family Docks: The approval of a new dock or pier or a
modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following
criteria have been met:
1) A new dock providing for private recreational moorage for an individual
lot may not be permitted in subdivisions approved on or before January 28,1993, unless shared
moorage is not available, and there is no homeowners association or other corporate entity
capable of developing shared moorage.
2) A new dock shall not be allowed for an individual lot in cases where a
joint use dock has been constructed to serve the subject lot.
3) Prior to approval of a new dock for private recreational moorage for an
individual lot, the owner should demonstrate that adjacent owners have been contacted and
they have declined to develop or utilize a shared dock. Such information should be provided in
the project narrative at the time of permit submittal.
4) A new dock should be approved only in cases where use of a mooring
buoy is demonstrated to be impractical for reducing over water coverage.
ii. Multi-Family Docks: Multi-family residential use in not considered a water-
dependent use under the Shoreline Management Act and moorage for multi-family residential
use shall be provided only when the following criteria are met:
Exhibit D - 73
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a) The dock provides public benefits in the form of shoreline ecological
enhancement in the form of vegetation conservation buffer enhancement in accordance with
section RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation and/or public access in accordance with
section RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access;
b) Moorage at the proposed dock shall be limited to residents of the
apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built;
c) Multi-family moorage serving more than four vessels meet the criteria for
the approval of marinas is section RMC 4-3-090.E.6 Marinas.
iii. Shared Docks Required for New Development: Shared moorage shall be
provided for all new residential developments of more than two (2) single-family dwelling units.
New subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual docks.
A site for shared moorage shall be owned in undivided interest by property owners within the
subdivision. Shared moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision
for community access and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of
the facility. If shared moorage is provided, the applicant/proponent shall file at the time of plat
recordation a legally enforceable joint use agreement. Approval shall be subject to the
following criteria:
a) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be limited to the amount of
moorage needed to serve lots with water frontage. Shared moorage use by upland property
owners shall be reviewed as a marina.
b) As few shared docks as possible shall be developed. Development of more
than one dock shall include documentation that a single dock would not accommodate the
Exhibit D - 74
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
need or that adverse impacts on ecological functions would result from the size of dock
required.
c) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys for some or all
moorage needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow tender access to mooring buoys.
d) Public access shall be provided over all shared docks utilizing public aquatic
lands that accommodate five (5) or more vessels.
c. Design Criteria - General:
i. Pier Type: All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that
floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an
ecosystem, where scenic values are high and where one or more of the following conditions
exist:
a) Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling.
b) A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling.
c) Bottom conditions that render it not feasible to install piling.
ii. Construction and Maintenance: All piers and docks shall be constructed and
maintained in a safe and sound condition.
iii. Approach: Approaches to piers and docks shall consist of ramps or other
structures that span the entire foreshore to the point of intersection with stable upland soils.
Limited fill or excavation may be allowed landward of the OHWM to match the upland with the
elevation of the pier or dock.
iv. Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or
the repair and maintenance of existing docks shall use materials that will not adversely affect
Exhibit D - 75
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Materials used for submerged
portions of a pier or dock, decking, and other components that may come in contact with water
shall be approved by applicable state agencies for use in water to avoid discharge of pollutants
from wave splash, rain or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other
similarly toxic materials is prohibited. Pilings shall be constructed of untreated materials, such
as untreated wood, approved plastic composites, concrete or steel.
v. Pilings: Pile spacing shall be the maximum feasible to minimize shading and
avoid a "wall" effect that would block or baffle wave patterns, currents, littoral drift, or
movement of aquatic life forms, or result in structure damage from driftwood impact or
entrapment. The first piling set shall be spaced at the maximum distance feasible to minimize
shading and shall be no less than 18 feet. Pilings beyond the first set of piles shall minimize the
size of the piles and maximize the spacing between piling to the extent allowed by site-specific
engineering or design considerations.
vi. Minimization of Nearshore Impacts: In order to minimize impacts on nearshore
areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level:
a) The width of piers, docks, and floats shall be the minimum necessary to serve
the proposed use.
b) Ramps shall span as much of the nearshore as feasible.
c) Dock surfaces shall be designed to allow light penetration.
d) Lights shall avoid illuminating the water surface. Lighting facilities shall be
limited to the minimum extent necessary to locate the pier or dock at night for docks serving
residential uses. Lighting to serve water-dependent uses shall be the minimum required to
Exhibit D-76
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
accommodate the use and may not be used when the water-dependent aspects of the use are
not in operation.
vii. Covered Moorage: Covered moorage is not allowed on any moorage facility
unless translucent materials are used that allow light penetration through the canopy, or
through the roof of legal, pre-existing boat houses. Temporary vessel covers must be attached
to the vessel. New boat houses are not allowed.
viii. Seaplane Moorage: Seaplane moorage may be accommodated at any dock that
meets the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Other Agency Requirements: If deviation from the design standards specified in
RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks is approved by another agency with permitting authority, it
shall be approved without a variance, subject to all conditions and requirements of the
approved agency permit.
d. Design Standards:
Single-Family Joint Use and
Community Docks
Commercial and
Industrial Docks-
Water-dependent
Uses
Non-water-
dependent uses
WHEN ALLOWED:
Maximum of
one pier or
dock per
developed
waterfront lot
or ownership.
A joint use dock
may be
constructed for
two or more
contiguous water
front properties
and may be located
on a side property
line, or straddling a
side property line,
common to both
properties or be
provided with an
Water- dependent
commercial and
industrial uses may
develop docks and
piers to the extent
that they are
required for water-
dependent use.
Public access shall
be provided in
accordance with
RMC 4-3-090.D.4
Public Access.
Docks are not
allowed unless they
provide public
access or public
water recreation
use. Such docks
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures
for recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
Exhibit D - 77
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
access easement
for all lots served.1
Joint use docks or
piers serving more
than four
residences shall be
regulated as
marinas.
090E.8 Recreation.
LENGTH-MAXIMUM
Docks and
Piers
Minimum
needed to
provide
moorage for a
single-family
residence, a
maximum of
one ell and
two fingers.
Maximum: 80
ft. from
OHWM.2
Minimum needed
to provide
moorage for the
single-family
residences or
community being
served. Maximum:
80 ft. from OHWM.
2
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Maximum: 120 ft.
from OHWM.2
Facilities adjacent
to a designated
harbor area: The
dock or pier may
extend to the lesser
of:
a) The General
standard,
above; or
b) The inner
harbor line
or such
point
beyond the
inner harbor
line as is
allowed by
formal
authorizatio
n by the
Washington
State
Department
of Natural
Resources
DNR) or
other
Docks are not
allowed unless they
provide public
access or public
water recreation
use. Such docks
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures
for recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Exhibit D-78
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Ells and
Fingers
Floats
26 ft.
20 ft.
26 ft.
20 ft.
agency with
jurisdiction.
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
WIDTH
Docks and
Piers
Ells and
Floats
Fingers
Ramp
connecting
6 ft.4
6 ft.4
2 ft.
3 ft. for
walkway, 4 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft.
2 ft.
3 ft. for walkway,
4 ft. total
Maximum walkway:
8 ft., but 12 ft. if
vehicular access is
required for the
approved use.3
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Minimum needed
to serve specific
Docks are not
allowed unless they
provide public
access or public
water recreation
use. Such docks
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures
for recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Exhibit D - 79
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a pier/dock
to a float
total vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
PILINGS- MAXIMUMS
Mooring
Piles
2 piles, up to
12 in. in
diameter,
installed
within 24 ft. of
a dock or pier
and out of the
nearshore
area.
4 piles, up to 12 in.
in diameter,
installed within 24
ft. of a dock or pier
and out of the
nearshore area.
Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Docks are not
allowed unless they
provide public
access or public
water recreation
use. Such docks
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures
for recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
SETBACKS- MINIMUMS
Side
Setback
No portion of a
pier or dock
may lie closer
than 5 ft. to an
adjacent
property line
and may not
interfere with
navigation.
No portion of a
pier or dock may
lie closer than 5 ft.
to an adjacent
property line and
may not interfere
with navigation.
No portion of a pier
or dock may lie
closer than 30 ft. to
an adjacent
property line.
Docks are not
allowed unless they
provide public
access or public
water recreation
use. Such docks
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures
for recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Table Notes:
1. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be executed and recorded with the
King County Assessor's Office prior to the issuance of permits. A copy of the recorded
agreement shall be provided to the City. Such documents shall specify ownership
rights and maintenance provisions, including: specifying the parcels to which the
agreement shall apply; providing that the dock shall be owned jointly by the
participating parcels and that the ownership shall run with the land; providing for
easements to access the dock from each lot served and provide for access for
maintenance; providing apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses;
Exhibit D - 80
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
and providing a means for resolution of disputes, including arbitration and filing of
liens and assessments.
2. Maximum length is 80' (80 ft.) unless a depth of 10' (10 ft.) cannot be obtained. In
such circumstances the dock may be extended until the water depth reaches a point
of 10' (10 ft.) in depth at ordinary low water.
3. Additional width may be allowed to accommodate public access in addition to the
water- dependent use.
e. Maintenance and Repair of Docks: Existing docks or piers that do not comply with
these regulations may be repaired in accordance with the criteria below.
i. When the repair and/or replacement of the surface area exceeds thirty percent
30%) of the surface area of the dock/pier, light penetrating materials must be used for all
replacement decking. For floating docks, light penetrating materials shall be used where
feasible, and as long as the structural integrity of the dock is maintained.
ii. When the repair involves replacement of the surfacing materials only, there is no
requirement to bring the dock/pier into conformance with dimensional standards of this
section.
iii. When the repair/replacement involves the replacement of more than 50% of the
pilings, or more, the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
For floating docks, when the repair/replacement involves replacement of more than 50% of the
total supporting structure (including floats, pilings, or cross-bars), the entire structure shall be
replaced in compliance with these regulations.
iv. When the existing dock/pier is moved or expanded or the shape reconfigured,
the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
f. Buoy and Float Regulations:
Exhibit D-81
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Buoys Preferred: The use of buoys for moorage is preferable to piers, docks, or
floats and buoys may be sited under a Shoreline Exemption instead of a Substantial
Development Permit, provided they do not exceed the cost threshold.
ii. Floats: Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions:
a) The float is served by a dock attached to the shore for use of only a tender.
The dock shall be the minimum length to allow access to a tender and may not exceed a length
of 40 feet.
b) Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small
watercraft.
c) Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size.
A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred
and fifty (150) square feet per residence. Floats for public use shall be sized in order to provide
for the specific intended use and shall be limited to the minimum size necessary.
d) A single-family residence may only have one (1) float.
e) Floats shall not be located a distance of more than eighty (80) feet beyond
the ordinary high water mark, except public recreation floats.
g. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions
i. Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may
be submitted as a shoreline variance application, unless otherwise specified.
ii. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed subject to
findings that a variance request compiles with:
a) The general criteria for shoreline variance approval in RMC 4-9-190F.4.
Exhibit D-82
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) The additional criteria that the allowed dock or pier cannot reasonably
provide the purpose for which it is intended without specific dimensions to serve specific
aspects of a water-dependent use.
c) Meets the general criteria for all new and expanded piers and docks in
subsection RMC4-3-090E.7.a.
8. Recreation:
a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-site mitigation.
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses
and are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be
appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment.
iv. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing
wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the public in
accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4).
b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must
bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the
shoreline.
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading
should be located on the shoreline.
ii. Water-related recreation as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located
near the shoreline.
Exhibit D-83
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Non-water-related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational
facilities with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with
extensive impervious surfaces shall observe vegetation management standards providing for
native vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures for recreation use shall be allowed
only when:
i. They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the
shorelines of the state.
ii. They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity,
especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas.
iii. They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they
provide limited opportunities to approach the water's edge in areas where public access is set
back to protect sensitive ecological features at the water's edge.
iv. No net loss of ecological functions will result.
d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline
only when the following criteria are considered:
i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and
ecology of the shoreline are protected.
ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs
and in consideration of natural features.
iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of
demands of the local community.
Exhibit D- 84
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses
and uses are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental
impact on the adjoining property.
vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the
designed public use.
vii. Effects on private property are consistent with all relevant constitutional and
other legal limitations on regulation or acquisition of private property.
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a
balance between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of
the shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process
that provides for a balance of these elements.
e. Private Recreation
i. Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from public aquatic
lands are prohibited. Private recreation uses that utilize public aquatic lands shall provide
public access in accordance with criteria in RMC 4-3-090.D.4 Public Access.
ii. Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the
following standards are met:
a) There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-site.
b) There is reasonable public access provided to the shoreline at no fee for sites
providing recreational uses that are fee supported, including access along the water's edge
Exhibit D - 85
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
where appropriate. In the case of Lake Washington, significant public access shall be provided
in accordance with public access criteria in RMC 4-3-090.D.4 Public Access.
c) The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent
parcels and uses.
d) Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated
from pedestrian paths are provided.
e) Recreational uses are encouraged in multiple use commercial development.
9. Residential development:
a. Single-family Priority Use and Other Residential Uses: Single-family residences are a
priority on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020). All other
residential uses are subject to the preference for water-oriented use and must provide for
meeting the requirements for ecological restoration and/or public access.
b. General Criteria: Residential developments shall be allowed only when:
i. Density and other characteristics of the development are consistent with the
Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
ii. Residential structures shall provide setbacks and buffers as provided in Section
RMC 4-3-090.D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation
Conservation.
c. Public Access Required: Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety, or
environmental concerns, new single-family residential developments, including subdivision of
land for ten (10) or more parcels, shall provide public access in accordance with Section RMC 4-
3-090.D.4 Public Access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental
Exhibit D-86
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
concerns, new multi-family developments shall provide a significant public benefit such as
providing public access and/or ecological restoration along the water's edge. For such
proposed development, a community access plan may be used to satisfy the public access
requirement if the following written findings are made by the Reviewing Official:
i. The community access plan allows for a substantial number of people to enjoy
the shoreline; and
ii. The balance of the waterfront not devoted to public and/or community access
shall be devoted to ecological restoration.
d. Shoreline Stabilization Prohibited: New residential development shall not require
new shoreline stabilization. Developable portions of lots shall not be subject to flooding or
require structural flood hazard reduction measures within a channel migration zone or
floodway to support intended development during the life of the development or use. Prior to
approval, geotechnical analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics shall demonstrate that
new shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to support intended
development during the life of the development or use.
e. Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions for critical areas
including avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard
areas, riparian and marine shoreline erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable development
standards. Setbacks from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures during the life of the
structure (100 years).
f. Vegetation Conservation: All new residential lots shall meet vegetation
conservation provisions in RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation, including the full required
Exhibit D - 87
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
buffer area together with replanting and control of invasive species within buffers to ensure
establishment and continuation of a vegetation community characteristic of a native climax
community. Each lot must be able to support intended development without encroachment on
vegetation conservation areas, except for public trains and other uses allowed within such
areas. Areas within vegetation conservation areas shall be placed in common or public
ownership when feasible.
g. New Private Docks Restricted: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on
new private docks on the face of the plat. An area reserved for shared moorage may be
designated if it meets all requirements of the Shoreline Master Program including
demonstration that public and private marinas and other boating facilities are not sufficient to
meet the moorage needs of the subdivision.
h. Floating Residences Prohibited: Floating residences are prohibited.
10. Transportation
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to
achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent
feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
i. Located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction; and as far from the land/water
interface. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options
that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further
from the land/water interface.
ii. Located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or
cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
Exhibit D-88
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of
groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life
of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in
such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in
submittal materials.
v. Avoid the need for shoreline protection.
vi. Provide for passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by
providing bridges with the longest span feasible and when bridges are not feasible, providing
culverts and other features that provide for these functions
vii. Designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but
not limited to: utilities, view point, public access, or trails.
b. Roads
i. New public or private roads and driveways shall be located inland from the
land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
a) Perpendicular water crossings are required for access to authorized uses
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; or
b) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian and non-motorized use and
provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy shoreline areas, and are
consistent with policies and regulations for ecological protection.
ii. Road locations shall be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in order
that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary.
Exhibit D - 89
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. RCW 36.87.130 prohibits vacation of any right of way that abuts a freshwater
except for port, recreational, educational or industrial purposes. Therefore, development,
abandonment, or alteration of undeveloped road ends within Shoreline Master Program
jurisdiction is prohibited unless an alternate use is approved in accordance with the Shoreline
Master Program.
c. Railroads: New or expanded railroads shall be located inland from the land/water
interface and out of the shoreline where feasible. Expansion of the number of rails on an
existing right of way shall be accompanied by meeting the vegetation conservation provisions
for moderate expansion of non-conforming uses in RMC 4-10-095 Non-conforming Uses,
Activities, and Sites.
d. Trails
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed,
and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological
functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration
in the design of shoreline trails.
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent
property owners including privacy and noise.
iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or
other water bodies.
b) For interpretive facilities.
Exhibit D-90
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of
at grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface and
groundwater movement.
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with
narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of
the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with
higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas.
e. Parking
i. When Allowed: Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall
be allowed only as necessary to serve an authorized primary use.
ii. Public Parking:
a) In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be
provided at frequent locations on public streets, at shoreline viewpoints, and at trailheads.
b) Public parking facilities shall be located as far as feasible from the shoreline
unless parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved recreation and public
access. In general, only handicapped parking should be located near the land/water interface
with most other parking located within walking distance and outside of Vegetation
Conservation buffers provided in RMC 4-3-090.F.l. Vegetation Conservation
c) Public parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize
adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view.
iii. Private Parking:
Exhibit D-91
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a) Private parking facilities should be located away from the shoreline unless
parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved uses and/or developments.
When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, parking shall be located inland away from the
land/water interface and landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved
uses.
b) Surface parking areas shall be located and designed to minimize visual
impacts as viewed from the shoreline and from views of the shoreline from upland properties.
c) Parking structures shall be located outside of shoreline Vegetation
Conservation buffers and behind or within the first row of buildings between the water and the
developed portions of a site and designed such that the frontage visible from the shoreline
accommodates other uses and parked cars are not visible from that frontage.
d) Parking lot design, landscaping and lighting shall be governed by the
provisions of RMC Chapter 4-4 and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
f. Aviation:
i. Prohibited Near Natural or Urban Conservancy Areas: Aviation facilities are
prohibited within 200 feet of a Natural or Urban Conservancy Shoreline Overlay District
ii. Airports:
a) A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline; however,
an airport already located within a shoreline shall be permitted.
b) Upgrades of facilities to meet FAA requirements or improvements in
technology shall be permitted.
Exhibit D-92
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c) Facilities to serve seaplanes may be included as an accessory use in any
existing airport.
d) Helipads may be included as an accessory use in any existing airport.
e) Aviation-related manufacturing shall be permitted in an airport.
f) New or upgraded airport facilities shall be designed and operated such that:
1) All facilities that are non-water-dependent shall be located outside of
shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or
developments such as parking, hangars, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs,
and storage of materials shall be located as far from the land/water interface as feasible. The
minimum setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline
and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the
water's edge.
2) New or upgraded airport facilities shall minimize impacts on shoreline
ecological functions, including control of pollutant discharge. The standards for water quality
and criteria for application shall be those in current stormwater control regulations.
3) New facilities dispensing fuel or facilities associated with use of
hazardous materials shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
iii. Seaplanes:
a) Private:
1) Operation of a single private seaplane on waters where FAA has
designated a Seaplane Landing Area is not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program.
2) Moorage of a seaplane is addressed in RMC 4-3-090.E.7 Piers and Docks.
Exhibit D-93
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) Commercial: New commercial seaplane facilities, including docks and
storage area bases may be allowed in industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous
to residential areas, and provided they meet standards in RMC 4-3-090.E.7 Piers and Docks.
iv. Helicopter Landing Facilities:
a) Private: Establishment of a helipad on a single-family residential lot is
allowed subject to the standards of RMC 4-2-080.A.111 adopted by this reference.
b) Commercial: New commercial heliports, including those accessory to
allowed uses are allowed by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, subject to the standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
v. New Seaplane Facilities and Heliports- Criteria for Approval:
a) Review shall include consideration of location approval in terms of
compatibility with affected uses including short and long-term noise impacts, impacts on
habitat areas of endangered or threatened species, environmentally critical and sensitive
habitats, and migration routes.
1) On adjacent parcels
2) On overflight areas
b) Conditions may be imposed to mitigate impacts within the shoreline and also
non-shoreline overflight and related impacts.
11. Utilities:
a. Criteria for All Utilities
i. Local utility services needed to serve water-dependent and other permitted uses
in the shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection and visual compatibility.
Exhibit D-94
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
ii. Regional utility systems shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, to the
extent feasible, except for elements that are water-dependent and crossings of water bodies
and other elements of shorelands by linear facilities.
iii. New public or private utilities shall be located inland from the land/water
interface, preferably out of shoreline jurisdiction, unless:
a) Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or
b) Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses consistent with the
Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cables and other facilities on land running
roughly parallel to the shoreline shall be located as far from the water's edge as feasible and
preferably outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other facilities on
aquatic lands running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may require periodic maintenance
that would disrupt shoreline ecological functions shall be discouraged except where no other
feasible alternative exists. When permitted, provisions shall assure that the facilities do not
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or significant impacts to other shoreline
resources and values.
vi. Utilities shall be located in existing rights of way and corridors, whenever
reasonably feasible.
vii. Utilities serving new development shall be located underground, wherever
reasonably feasible.
Exhibit D - 95
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
viii. Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or located in other
existing facilities, if reasonably feasible. If new installations are required to cross water bodies
or wetlands they should avoid disturbing banks and streambeds and shall be designed to avoid
the need for shoreline stabilization. Crossings shall be tunneled or bored where reasonably
feasible. Installations shall be deep enough to avoid failures or need for protection due to
exposure due to stream bed mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration. Underwater utilities
shall be placed in a sleeve if reasonably feasible to avoid the need for excavation in the event
the need for maintenance or replacement.
ix. In areas where utility installations would be anticipated to significantly alter
natural ground water flows, a barrier or conduit to impede changes to natural flow
characteristics shall be provided.
x. Excavated materials from construction of utilities shall be disposed of outside of
the Vegetation Conservation Buffer except if utilized for ecological restoration and shall be
specified in submittal materials.
xi. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic, archaeological or
cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate adverse impacts where
unavoidable.
xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to result in no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions with appropriate on- and off-site mitigation including
compensatory mitigation.
Exhibit D - 96
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
xiii.AII utility development shall be consistent with and coordinated with all local
government and state planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose plans to
meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth.
xiv. Site planning and rights of way for utility development should provide for
compatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other appropriate use
whenever possible. Utility right of way acquisition should be coordinated with transportation
and recreation planning.
xv. Vegetation Conservation
a) Native vegetation shall be maintained whenever reasonably feasible.
b) When utility projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed
area shall be restored as nearly as possible to the original condition
c) All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of
service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs.
xvi. A structure or other facility enclosing a, telephone exchange, sewage pumping
or other facility, an electrical substation, or other above ground public utility is built in the
shoreline area, the facility shall be:
a) Housed in a building that shall conform architecturally with the surrounding
buildings and area or with the type of building that will develop as provided by the zoning
district and applicable design standards.
b) An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does
not conform with the standards above, shall be sight-screened in accordance RMC4-4-095 with
Exhibit D - 97
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to form an
effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years.
c) An unhoused installation of a potentially hazardous nature, such as an
electrical distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight (8)-foot-high open wire fence,
or masonry wall. Such installations shall be sight-screened in accordance RMC 4-4-095 with
evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to form an
effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (5) years.
b. Special Considerations for Pipelines:
iii. Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of
adjacent water courses and shorelines.
iv. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of aquatic life nor shall
water quality standards be violated.
v. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled
shutoff valves at each side of the water crossing.
vi. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance
with the regulations of the Washington State Transportation Commission and subject to review
by the City Public Works Department.
c. Major Utilities - Specifications:
i. Electrical Installations:
a) Overhead High Voltage Power Lines
1) Overhead electrical transmission lines of 55 kV and greater voltage within
the shoreline shall be relocated to a route outside of the shoreline, where feasible when:
Exhibit D - 98
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Such facilities are upgraded to a higher voltage.
Additional lines are placed within the corridor.
2) Structure of overhead power lines shall be single-pole type with
insulators and other facilities in as compact a configuration as feasible.
b) Underwater electrical transmission lines shall be located and designed to:
1) Utilize existing transportation or utility corridors where feasible.
2) Avoid adverse impacts to navigation.
3) Be posted with warning signs.
c) Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall
be:
1) Located outside of the shoreline, where feasible, and may be located
within a shoreland location only when the applicant proves no other site out of the shoreland
area exists.
2) Located as far as feasible from the land-water interface.
3) Screened as required by in the criteria for all utilities, above.
ii. Communications: This section applies to telephone exchanges including radar
transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, wireless
communication facilities and any other facility for the transmission of communication signals.
a) Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only
when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area.
b) All structures shall meet the screening requirements in the criteria for all
utilities, above.
Exhibit D-99
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c) If approved within the shoreline, such installations shall reduce aesthetic
impacts by locations as far as possible from residential, recreational, and commercial activities.
d) Cellular communication facilities may be located in the shoreline only when
mounted on buildings and screened by architectural features compatible with the design of the
building.
iii. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground
projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in the shoreland or a shoreline, the
disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration. Underground utility installations
shall be permitted only when the finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such
areas.
iv. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian public
access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public.
Where utility rights of way are located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies
shall be encouraged to provide said rights of way as parking or other public use areas for the
adjacent public use area. As a condition of location of new utilities within the shoreline, the
City may require provision of pedestrian public access.
v. All-inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than one (1) major
utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a single utility right of way is
strongly encouraged. It would be desirable to include railroad lines within this right of way also.
d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications
Exhibit D -100
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Electrical distribution: New electrical distribution lines within the shoreline shall
be placed underground, provided that distribution lines that cross water or other critical areas
may be allowed to be placed above ground if:
a) There is no feasible alternative route.
b) Underground installation would substantially disrupt ecological functions and
processes of water bodies and wetlands; horizontal drilling or similar technology that does not
disturb the surface is not feasible.
c) Visual impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
d) If overhead facilities require that native trees and other vegetation cannot be
maintained in a Vegetation Conservation buffer as provided in Section RMC 4-3-090.F.1
Vegetation Conservation, compensatory mitigation shall be provided on or off-site.
ii. Waterlines:
a) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlands or other critical areas
unless there is no reasonably feasible alternative route.
b) Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works
Department in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines.
iii. Sanitary Sewer:
a) The use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. Self-contained outhouses may
be allowed for temporary, seasonal, or special events.
b) All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic
tanks or other on-site sewage disposal systems.
Exhibit D-101
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c) Sewage trunk lines, interceptors, pump stations, treatment plants, and other
components that are not water-dependent shall be located away from shorelines unless:
1) Alternative locations, including alternative technology, are demonstrated
to be infeasible.
2) The facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
3) The facilities do not result in significant impacts to other shoreline
resources and values such as parks and recreation facilities, public access and archaeological,
historic, and cultural resources, and aesthetic resources.
d) Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer
system.
e) During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be
allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed.
f) All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton
Public Works Department.
iv. Stormwater Management:
a) The City will work with private property owners, and other jurisdictions to
maintain, enhance and restore natural drainage systems to protect water quality, reduce
flooding, reduce public costs and prevent associated environmental degradation to contribute
to the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
b) All new development shall meet current storm water management
requirements for detention and treatment.
Exhibit D -102
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c) Individual single-family residences may be subject to water quality
management requirements to ensure the quality of adjacent water bodies.
d) Storm water ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as far from the water's
edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservation buffers.
e) The location design and construction of storm water outfalls shall limit
impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, state, and federal
requirements. Infiltration of storm water shall be preferred, where reasonably feasible.
f) Storm water management may include a low impact development storm
water conveyance system in the vegetation buffer, if the system is designed to mimic the
function and appearance of a natural shoreline system and complies with all other
requirements and standards of RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
v. Solid Waste Facilities:
a) Facilities for processing, storage, and disposal of solid waste are not normally
water-dependent. Components that are not water-dependent shall not be permitted on
shorelines.
b) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies has the potential for
severe adverse effects upon ecological functions, property values, public health, natural
resources, and local aesthetic values and shall not be permitted.
c) Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as an
accessory use to a primary permitted use, or for litter control.
F. Shoreline Modification:
1. Vegetation Conservation:
Exhibit D -103
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in
this section, water bodies defined as Shorelines shall have a minimum 100-foot vegetation
management buffer measured from the ordinary high water mark of the regulated shoreline of
the state. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured perpendicular to the
ordinary high water mark from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the
stream.
b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The reviewing official may apply
the following vegetation buffers provided for in Table RMC 4-3-090F.1.I Vegetation
Conservation Standards by Reach as an alternative to the Standard Vegetation Conservation
Buffer for sites for development that implement water-oriented use and public access as
provided in the table for each reach.
c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single-Family Lots
i. Modified Requirements Based on Lot Depth: The Reviewing Official shall apply
the following vegetation buffers and building setbacks for existing single-family residences and
existing single-family lots consisting of property under contiguous ownership without a
variance. Lot depth shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark in a perpendicular
direction to the edge of the contiguously owned parcel or to an easement containing existing
physical improvements for road access for two or more lots.
Lot Depth
Greater than 130 feet
100 feet, up to 130 feet
Less than 100 feet
Building Setback
45 feet
35 feet
25 feet
Vegetated Buffer
20 feet
15 feet
10 feet
ii. Setback Modifications for Site Improvements: Existing single-family residences
Exhibit D -104
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
on existing single-family lots subject to the setback standards in 4-3-090F.l.c.i may reduce their
setback by making one or more of the site improvements listed below. In no case shall the
setback be reduced to less than 25 ft. The reduced setback and site improvement shall be
recorded in a covenant approved by the City Attorney. The site improvement shall be
maintained by the property owner.
a) The setback shall be reduced by five feet (5') for every 250 sq.ft. of existing
impervious surface removed.
b) The setback shall be reduced for properties that agree to reduce future
impervious coverage to a standard lower than the standard in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk
Standards. The reductions shall be five feet (5') for every 250 sq.ft. of future impervious
surface coverage that is limited, and recorded as a maximum impervious coverage standard (in
percent), rounded down to the nearest whole number.
c) Properties that replace existing rigid shoreline stabilization with preferred
alternatives under RMC 4-3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy shall
qualify for a setback reduction that correlates with the degree in improvement in ecological
function and value that is expected to result from the change, as reported in a standard
stream/lake study.
d) Properties that propose projects to improve habitat functions and values
shall qualify for a setback reduction that correlated with the degree in improvement in
ecological function and value that is expected to result from the project, as reported in a
standard stream/lake study.
Exhibit D-105
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Modifications for Narrow Lots: For such lots with a lot width of less than 60 feet,
setbacks and buffers may be reduced by ten (10) percent, but no less than:
a) Building setback: 25 feet
b) Vegetated buffer: 15 feet
iv. Other Setbacks May be Reduced: Modification from the front and side yard
standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the established setback from
OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard variance criteria are met in RMC 4-9-250B
Variances.
d. Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width
i. Reviewing Official May Reduce: Based upon an applicant's request, the
Reviewing official may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where the
applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsections below. Buffer
enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity, and
proposed land development characteristics.
ii. Water-dependent Uses:
a) Areas approved for water-dependent use or public access may be excluded
from vegetated buffer if the approval is granted through review of a Substantial Development
Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Variance, provided that the area excluded is the minimum
needed to provide for the water-dependent use or public access.
b) Access to private docks through a vegetated buffer may be provided by a
corridor up to six (6) feet wide.
Exhibit D -106
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Specific vegetated buffers
specified for areas enumerated in Table RMC 4-3-090.F.l.I, Vegetation Conservation Standards
by Reach, may be applied in accordance with those provisions.
iv. Buffer and Setback Reduction Standards: Based upon an applicant's request,
and the acceptance of a Standard Stream or Lake Study, the Reviewing Official may approve a
reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks by up to 50 percent (50%) if within the High
Intensity Overlay or by up to 25 percent (25%) in all other Shoreline Overlays except when the
buffer widths/setbacks are established by subsection 4-3-090.F.l.c Alternative Vegetated Buffer
Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single-Family lots, above- where the applicant can
demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria in the subsections below:
a) The proposal complies with either of the following two criteria:
1) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer is already extensively
vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-
native invasive species cover; or
2) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer can be enhanced with
native vegetation and removal of non-native species; and
b) The proposed project, with width reduction, will result in no net loss of
ecological functions as consistent with subsection RMC 4-3-090D.2.a No Net Loss of Ecological
Fucntions; and
c) Reduction of the buffer/setback shall not create the need for rigid shoreline
stabilization as described in subsections (4) and (5) of RMC 4-3-090F.4.iii Shoreline Stabilization
Alternatives Hierarchy; and
Exhibit D -107
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
d) The reduction shall not create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to
other property in the vicinity.
e) Review Procedures:
1) Buffer reductions in the High Intensity Overlay shall be approved by the
Reviewing Official as part of a Substantial Development Permit. Buffer reductions in all other
Shoreline Overlays shall be processed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to
RMC 4-9-1901 Variances and Conditional Uses.
2) Written findings shall be made to demonstrate that the buffer reduction
substantially implements the criteria of this section.
v. Buffer Reductions for the Conversion on Non-Conforming Uses: Based upon an
applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the reviewing
official may approve a reduction in the standard buffer in a case where an existing non-
conforming site is not re-developed and the proposal includes removal of existing over-water
structures or removal or reconstruction of shoreline protection structures or other restoration
of shorelines or buffer areas in a manner that meets the standards of the Shoreline Master
Program, to a vegetated buffer a minimum 10 feet from existing buildings or impervious surface
such as parking areas and driveways in current use to serve the non-conforming buildings or
uses.
e. Increased Buffer Widths: Vegetated buffers may be increased by the reviewing
official as required or allowed by the criteria, below.
i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the stream/lake area is in an area of
high blow-down potential as determined by a qualified professional, the buffer width may be
Exhibit D -108
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
expanded up to an additional fifty (50) feet on the windward side, when determined
appropriate to site circumstances and ecological function by the Reviewing Official.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High Landslide Areas: When
the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area
or buffer, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or
the very high landslide hazard buffer,
f. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Standard
Stream or Lake Study, the Reviewing Official may approve buffer width averaging.
ii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
a) The water body and associated riparian area contains variations in ecological
sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated
riparian area;
b) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian
ecological function;
c) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging;
d) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 feet;
e) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available
science as described in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
Exhibit D -109
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
g. Buffer Enhancement: Buffer Enhancement as a separate action may be proposed
on any property and may be implemented without full compliance with the standards of this
Section, provided that the project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation
and provides documentation that the enhanced buffer area will maintain or improve the
functional attributes of the buffer. Any change to existing non-conforming facilities or use on a
site shall meet the provisions for non-conforming sites.
h. Exemption Criteria: As determined by the Reviewing official, for development
proposed on sites separated from the shoreline by intervening, and lawfully created public
roads, railroads, other off-site substantial existing improvements, or an intervening parcel
under separate ownership, the requirements of this code for a vegetation buffer may be
waived. For the purposes of this section, the intervening lots/parcels, roads, or other
substantial improvements shall be found to:
i. Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or
width; and
ii. Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most ecological functions from the
subject upland property to the water body.
i. Vegetation Management: Vegetation adjacent to water bodies in the Shoreline
shall be managed to provide the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with
these standards.
i. Streams and lakes and with Vegetation Conservation Buffer areas that are largely
undisturbed native vegetation, shall be retained except where the buffer is to be enhanced or
Exhibit D -110
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
where alteration is allowed in conformance with this Section for a specific development
proposal.
ii. In the absence of a development proposal, existing, lawfully established
landscaping and gardens within a Vegetation Conservation Buffer, may be maintained in its
existing condition including but not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and
invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting
of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and
appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code, provided this does not
apply to areas previously established as native growth protection areas, mitigation sites, or
other areas protected via conservation easements or similar restrictive covenants.
iii. Removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species may be allowed without
permit review in any Vegetation Conservation Buffer area provided that removal consists of
physical uprooting or chemical treatment of individual plants or shallow excavation of no more
than 1,000 square feet of dense infestations.
iv. New development or redevelopment of non conforming uses shall develop and
implement a vegetation management plan that complies with the standards of this code.
Unless otherwise provided, a vegetation management plan shall preserve, enhance or establish
native vegetation within the specified vegetation buffer. If a low impact development storm
water system is proposed in accordance with RMC 4-3-090E.ll.d.iv(6), it must be included in
the vegetation management plan. When required, vegetation management plans shall be
prepared by a qualified professional, provided that the reviewing official may establish
prescriptive standards for vegetation conservation and management as an alternative to
Exhibit D-111
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
requiring a specific plan for a development. Vegetation management plans shall describe
actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions
equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the extent possible. Required vegetation
shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development. For private development a
conservation easement or similar recorded legal restriction shall be recorded to ensure
preservation of the vegetation conservation and management area.
v. The reviewing official may approve, in cases of redevelopment or alteration of
existing single family residential lots, a vegetation management plan that does not include large
native trees, if such trees would block more than 30 percent of existing water views allowed
from the existing residence on a lot. Native vegetation consisting of groundcover, shrubs and
small trees shall be provided to provide as many of the vegetation functions feasible. This
provision shall not apply to new lots created by subdivision or other means,
j. Documentation:
i. For application of provisions of Section RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation
Conservation applicable to existing single family residences and lots determinations and
evidence shall be included in the application file.
ii. For all development requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
findings and determinations regarding the application of increased or reduced buffer width
shall be included as specific findings in the permit.
iii. For development not requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
approval of a reduced buffer width shall be require review as a shoreline variance by the Land
Exhibit D -112
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Use Hearing Examiner per RMC 4-9-190. The setback provisions of the zoning district for the use
must also be met unless a variance to the zoning code is achieved.
k. Off-site Vegetation Conservation Fund: The city shall provide a fund for off-site
provision of areas for Vegetation Conservation. The Reviewing Official shall assess charges to
new development that has been granted a shoreline variance because the Vegetation
Conservation Buffer requirement under RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as
modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation cannot be met on site. The
Reviewing Official shall also assess charges to existing development subject to major alteration
in which on-site shoreline stabilization mitigation, if required, is infeasible according to RMC 4-
10-095f Partial and Full Compliance, Alterations of an Existing Structure or Site. Credit shall be
given for areas of vegetation buffer on the shoreline provided by development. Expenditures
from such a fund for provision of areas where the functions of shoreline vegetation
conservation would be provided shall be in accordance with the Restoration Plan or other
watershed and aquatic habitat conservation plans and shall be spent within the WRIA in which
the assessed property is located.
Exhibit D -113
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Table 4-3-090.F.1.I. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Standards by Reach
The following table identifies the performance standards for maintenance and restoration of the vegetation conservation buffer and
shall be applied if required by the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A and B
Lake Washington
Reach C
Lake Washington
Reach D and E
Lake Washington
Reach F
Lake Washington
Reach G
Lake Washington
Reach H
Lake Washington
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
If areas redevelop, the full 100 foot buffer of native vegetation shall be provided, except
where water-dependent uses are located.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
management, balanced with opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to
the shoreline. The city may fund shoreline enhancement through fees paid for off-site
mitigation from development elsewhere on Lake Washington.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
management, while recognizing that in this portion of the park is oriented primarily to
opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline including over
water structures, supporting concessions, boat launch and public beach facilities.
Buffers for vegetation management are not required in this reach. This site has an
approved Master Site Plan that includes significant public access. Opportunities for
public access along the waterfront and the development of water-oriented uses are the
designated priorities for this reach.
The area of vegetation on public aquatic lands should be enhanced in the short term.
Exhibit D-114
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Reach 1
Lake Washington
Reach J
Lake Washington
Reach K
Upon redevelopment, vegetation buffers shall be extended into the site adjacent to
vegetated areas along the shoreline. Vegetation restoration shall be balanced with
public access and water-oriented use on the balance of the site. Public access shall not
impact any restored lands on this site.
Enhanced riparian vegetation shall be provided in a manner consistent with maintaining
aviation safety as part of airport management.
Redevelopment of multi-family sites shall provide vegetation buffers at the full standard,
with possible employment of provisions for averaging or reduction. Single-family
development in this reach provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the
shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be implemented through
providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation.
May Creek
May Creek A and B
May Creek C and D
Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with development of this
property.
Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with existing
private lots, subject to buffer standards related to lot depth, together with replacement
of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Cedar River
Cedar River A
Cedar River B
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
management, balanced with needs of flood control levees and opportunities to provide
public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of flood control
management programs that may be integrated with opportunities to provide public
visual and physical access to the shoreline. Vegetation management and public access
should be addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to issuance of
shoreline permits for additional flood management activities. This developed single-
family area shall implement vegetation management based on the standards related to
lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation as provided for alternation of non-conforming uses,
Exhibit D-115
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Cedar River C
Cedar River D
structures, and sites.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of management
of public parks. Full standard native vegetation buffers should be maintained on the
public open space on the south side of the river, subject to existing trail corridors and
other provisions for public access. Enhancement of native riparian vegetation within the
standard or modified buffers shall be provided upon redevelopment of the north shore,
except in areas where public/community access is provided. The vegetation
conservation buffer may be designed to incorporate floodplain management features
including floodplain compensatory storage.
Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with existing
private lots subject to buffer standards related to lot depth together with replacement
of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Green River
Green River
Reach A
Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with redevelopment of this
property in this reach, balanced with provisions for public access. Vegetation
conservation within railroad rights of way shall not be required within areas necessary
for railway operation. Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged
in areas of railroad right of way not devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of
railroad facilities may require specific vegetation preservation and enhancement
programs, consistent with the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
Black
River/Springbrook A
Springbrook B
Springbrook C and D
Public open space that exceeds buffer standards should be maintained and native
vegetation enhanced. Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land, recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of adjacent land,
recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district channels
in conjunction with management plans including adjustments to channel dimensions to
assure continued flood capacity with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by
vegetation. Full standard vegetated buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land presuming re-vegetation of the stream channel. Vegetation management
Exhibit D-116
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
should retain a continuous trail system that may be relocated further from the stream
edge.
Lake Desire
Lake Desire This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts should be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Shoreline vegetation
enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat launching site balancing values of
riparian vegetation with public access. Existing shoreline vegetation in the publicly
owned natural areas should be preserved with some accommodation for interpretive
access to the water as a part of park management plans, subject to the primary objective
of protecting ecological functions.
Exhibit D-117
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
2. Landfill and Excavation:
a. General Provisions: Landfill and excavation shall only be permitted in conjunction
with an approved use or development and allowed with assurance of no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions. Excavation below the ordinary high water mark is considered "dredging"
and is addressed in a separate section.
b. Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations below OHWM: Landfills and
excavations shall generally be prohibited below the ordinary high water mark, except for the
following activities, and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of ecological
functions as documented in appropriate technical studies:
i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an approved
ecological restoration activity;
ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation facilities and
utilities currently located within shoreline jurisdiction, when alternatives or less impacting
approaches are not feasible;
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or public access; when
alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible and provided that filling and/or
excavation are limited to the minimum needed to accommodate the facility;
v. Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved shoreline
protection facilities, or the repair of existing shoreline protection facilities;
vi. Approved flood control projects;
Exhibit D-118
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including vegetation
restoration;
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of
Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or otherwise authorized by the
Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after
review of the proposed fill for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline
Master Program; and
c. Review Standards: All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in terms of all of
the following standards:
i. The overall value to the public of the results of the fill or excavation site as
opposed to the value of the shoreline in its existing state as well as evaluation of alternatives to
fill that would achieve some or all of the objectives of the proposal.
ii. Effects on ecological functions including, but not limited to functions of the,
substrate of streams and lakes and affects on aquatic organisms, including the food chain,
effects on vegetation functions, effects on local currents and erosion and deposition patterns,
effects on surface and subsurface drainage, and effects on flood waters.
iii. Whether shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect materials placed or
removed and whether such stabilization meets the policies and standards of the Shoreline
Master Program.
Exhibit D-119
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Whether the landfill or excavation will adversely alter the normal flow of
floodwater, including obstructions of flood overflow channels or swales, after taking into
account any compensating flood storage provided by the proposal.
v. Whether public or tribal rights to the use and enjoyment of the shoreline and its
resources and amenities is impaired.
d. Performance Standards: Performance standards for fill and excavation include:
i. Disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized and revegetated, to avoid or
minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial work and over time. Natural
and self-sustaining control methods are preferred over structures.
ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with
existing topography.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: All fill and excavation waterward of the OHWM
not associated with ecological restoration, flood control or approved shoreline stabilization
shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
3. Dredging:
a. General: Dredging and dredge material disposal, when permitted, shall be done in a
manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts and impacts which cannot be
avoided should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
b. Dredging Limited: Dredging is permitted only in cases where the proposal, including
any necessary mitigation, will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and is
limited to the following:
Exhibit D -120
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and
basins where necessary to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational
uses. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be restricted to
maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width.
ii. For flood control purposes, when part of a publicly adopted flood control plan.
iii. For restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions benefiting
water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat and approved by applicable local, state and
federal agencies.
iv. For development of approved water-dependent uses provided there are no
feasible alternatives.
v. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and
maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided
access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided.
vi. Maintenance dredging for access to existing legally established boat moorage
slips including public and commercial moorage and moorage accessory to single family
residences, provided that dredging shall be limited to maintaining the previously dredged
and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. Dredging shall be disallowed to maintain
depths of existing private moorage where it results in a net loss of ecological functions.
vii. Minor trenching to allow the installation of necessary underground pipes or
cables if no alternative, including boring, is feasible, and:
a) Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are avoided to the maximum extent
possible.
Exhibit D-121
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate, extent,
or opportunity of channel migration.
c) Appropriate best management practices are employed to prevent water
quality impacts or other environmental degradation.
viii. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan approved under
authority of the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or pursuant to other authorization by the
Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after
review of the proposed materials for compliance with the policies and standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water
quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas.
c. Dredging Prohibited: Dredging shall be prohibited in the following cases:
i. Dredging shall not be performed within the deltas of the Cedar River and May
Creek except for purposes of ecological restoration, for public flood control projects, for water-
dependent public facilities, or for limited maintenance dredging in conformance with this
section.
ii. Dredging is prohibited solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction
material. Dredging which is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection b,
above, is prohibited.
iii. Dredging for new moorage is prohibited.
Exhibit D -122
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Dredging may not be performed to maintain facilities established for water-
dependent uses in cases where the primary use is discontinued unless the facility meets all
standards for a new water-dependent use.
v. Dredging of public aquatic lands is prohibited unless approval is granted from the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
d. Review Criteria
i. New development, including the development of associate piers and docks,
should be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new
and maintenance dredging. Where alternatives such as the utilization of shallow access to
mooring buoys is feasible, such measures shall be used.
ii. All proposed dredging operations shall be designed by an appropriate State
licensed professional engineer. A stamped engineering report and an assessment of potential
impacts on ecological functions shall be prepared by qualified consultants shall be submitted to
the Renton Planning Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit.
iii. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of
the proposed dredging operation.
iv. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate that:
a) There will be no net loss of ecological functions including but not limited to
adverse effect on aquatic species including fish migration.
b) There will be no adverse impact on recreational areas or public recreation
enjoyment of the water.
v. Adjacent bank protection:
Exhibit D -123
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be
disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose
and carry out practices to protect the banks.
b) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the
dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of
restoration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation.
vi. Avoidance of Adverse Effects: The responsibility rests with the applicant to
demonstrate the proposed dredging will avoid conditions that may adversely affect adjacent
properties including:
a) Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
b) Damage property in or near the area.
c) Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or
near the area.
d) Endanger public safety in or near the area.
vii. The applicant shall demonstrate control of contamination and pollution to water,
air, and ground through specific operation and mitigation plans.
viii. Disposal of Dredge Material: The applicant shall demonstrate that the disposal of
dredged material will not result in net loss of ecological functions or adverse impacts to
properties adjacent to the disposal site.
a) The applicant shall provide plans for the location and method of disposing of
all dredged material.
Exhibit D -124
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b) Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake, stream, or marine water
except if approved as habitat enhancement or other beneficial environmental mitigation as part
of ecological restoration, a contamination remediation project approved by appropriate State
and/or Federal agencies, or is approved in accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis evaluation procedures for managing in-water-disposal of dredged material by
applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10
Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits, and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval.
c) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area that
would result in the clearing of native vegetation. Temporary stockpiling of dredged material is
limited to 180 days.
d) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant
shall propose and carry out a method of disposal that complies will all regulatory requirements.
e) Permanent land disposal shall demonstrate that:
1) Shoreline ecological functions will be preserved, including protection of
surface and ground water.
2) Erosion, sedimentation, floodwaters or runoff will not increase adverse
impacts to shoreline ecological functions or property.
3) Sites will be adequately screened from view of local residents or
passersby on public right-of-ways.
4) The site is not located within a Channel Migration Zone.
Exhibit D -125
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: Dredging shall require a Shoreline Conditional
Use unless associated with existing water-dependent uses, habitat enhancement; a remedial
action plan approved under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Model Toxics Control Act, or public recreation
facilities or uses.
4. Shoreline Stabilization:
a. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures:
i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization
should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New development on steep
slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to
be necessary during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.
ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline
stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to approve new water-
dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent uses that would require shoreline
stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and
shoreline areas should not be allowed.
iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization
measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, non-structural methods such as
vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering have been determined
infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of
preference:
Exhibit D -126
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building
setbacks, and relocate structures.
b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures
such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms,
or vegetative stabilization.
c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described
below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line.
d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexibly defense works,
as described above.
e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete.
iv. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization
measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of the following
situations:
a) To protect existing primary structures:
1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an
existing primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is
conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger
from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves within three years, or where waiting until
the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on
ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself,
without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical
analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the
Exhibit D -127
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause
of shoreline instability at the site in question.
2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection a.iii
above.
3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone (CMZ)
require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington licensed geologist with engineering geology
or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic
assessments. Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the erosion
rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the measure does not
interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting in natural
conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions
associated with the stream.
b) New Development: In support of new development when all five of the
conditions listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis:
1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of
vegetation and drainage.
2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from
the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible
or not sufficient.
Exhibit D -128
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is
demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural
processes, such as currents, and waves.
4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii, above.
5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
6) The proposed new development is not located in a channel migration
zone (CMZ).
c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the
restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to
Chapter 70.105D RCW when all three of the conditions below apply and are documented by a
geotechnical analysis:
1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii, above.
d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor area
when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a geotechnical report:
Exhibit D-129
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site
drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii above.
v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this section
that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the
necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report
on the urgency associated with the specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate
the need and effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential
damage to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of other
agencies with jurisdiction.
vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on
streams should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural stream
processes. The reviewing official shall review the proposed design for consistency with state
guidelines for stream bank protection as it relates to local physical conditions and meet all
applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master Program, subject to the following:
a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and
downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential
of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches upstream or down, and assure that the
Exhibit D -130
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
physical integrity of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely
affected, and that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or
valuable shoreline resources.
b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel
bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose offish or wildlife habitat
enhancement or restoration.
c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated
wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such features would not
adversely affect ecological functions.
d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend
of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and existing structures.
e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank
protection guidelines.
f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore
ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of
stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-
water structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological
functions that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss.
b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any
structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the following
design criteria shall apply:
Exhibit D-131
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed
by a qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to ensure
that installation meets all design parameters.
ii. General Requirements: Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum
necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft
approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary
structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions.
iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Ensure that publicly financed or
subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do not restrict appropriate public access to the
shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible
uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-
26-221(4). Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements
into the project.
iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be
permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with other
appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or private recreation
and Indian treaty rights.
v. Aesthetic Qualities to be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline stabilization
measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
vi. Public Access to be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access
should be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization
structures for public or quasi-public developments whenever safely compatible with the
Exhibit D-132
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
primary purpose. Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to
decrease long term public use of the shoreline.
c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline stabilization structures
not in compliance with this code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the
applicable criteria below:
i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be
repaired as long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization function for a legally
established land use, but shall be subject to the provisions below if the land use for which the
shoreline stabilization structure was constructed is abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-
conforming Uses, or changed to a new use.
ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size of existing
shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to
serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-conforming Uses, discontinued, or
changed to a new use may be retained or replaced with a similar structure if:
a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis to
protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves; and
b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation to
the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in subsection a.iii, above, shows
that a more preferred level of shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing
shoreline stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives 1-3 of the hierarchy
Exhibit D-133
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
in subsection a.iii would be infeasible then the existing shoreline stabilization structures could
be retained or replaced with a similar structure.
iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting Residences:
Replacement walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-
water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992,
and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement
structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure.
v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft shoreline
stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be
permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Replenishment of substrate materials
to maintain the specifications of the permitted design may be allowed as maintenance.
vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical
habitats would occur by leaving an existing structure that is being replaced, the structure shall
be removed as part of the replacement measure.
5. Flood Control:
a. Permitted Flood Control Projects: Flood control works shall be permitted when it is
demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluations that:
i. They are necessary to protect health/safety and/or existing development;
ii. Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and
iii. Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard
management plan that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.
Exhibit D-134
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. Prohibited Flood Control Projects: New or expanding development or uses in the
shoreline, including subdivision of land, that would likely require new structural flood control
works within a stream, channel migration zone, or floodway shall not be allowed.
c. Long Term Compatibility: New or expanded flood control works and in stream
structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with appropriate multiple uses of
stream resources over the long term, especially in shorelines of statewide significance.
d. Criteria for Allowing Flood Control Projects: New flood control works should only be
allowed in the shoreline if they are necessary to protect existing development and where non-
structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible.
e. Native Vegetation: Flood control works should incorporate native vegetation to the
extent feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance, improve
ecological functions, and provide more flexibility for long term shoreline management.
f. Consideration of Alternatives: To minimize flood damages and to maintain natural
resources associated with streams, overflow corridors and other alternatives to traditional bank
levees, revetments and/or dams shall be considered. Setback levees and similar measures
should be employed where they will result in lower flood peaks and velocities, and more
effective conservation of resources than with high bank levees. On Cedar River Reach D, setting
back existing levees to provide for enhance natural stream processes may be pursued when
adequate provisions are made for protecting existing public and private uses.
g. Public Access Required: Flood control works shall provide access to public shorelines
whenever possible, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable public
health and safety hazards, security problems, unmitigatable ecological impacts, unavoidable
Exhibit D -135
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. At a minimum, flood control works should
not decrease public access or use potential of shorelines.
6. Stream Alteration:
a. Definition of Stream Alteration: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the
flow of a river, stream or creek.
b. Alterations to be Minimized: Stream alteration shall be minimized, and when
allowed should change natural stream processes as little as possible.
c. Allowed if No Feasible Alternative: Unless otherwise prohibited by subsections RMC
4-3-090E.10 Transportation and RMC 4-3-090E.il Utilities, stream alteration may be allowed
for transportation and utility crossings and in-stream structures only where there is no feasible
alternative.
d. Allowed for Flood Hazard Reduction: Stream alteration may be permitted if it is part
of a public flood hazard reduction program or a habitat enhancement project approved by
appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.
e. Prohibited Alterations: Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the
developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land
is prohibited.
f. Detriment to Adjacent Parcels Prohibited: Stream alteration is prohibited if it would
be significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels.
g. Applicant's Responsibility: The applicant has the sole responsibility to demonstrate
the necessity of the proposal and compliance with the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program.
Exhibit D-136
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
h. Professional Design Required: All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by
an appropriately state-licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted with a
supplemental lake/stream study to the Planning Division as part of the application.
i. Impacts to Aquatic Life to be Minimized: The design timing and the methods
employed will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life Including minimizing erosion,
sedimentation and other pollution during and after construction.
j. Flow Levels to Be Maintained: The project must be designed so that the low flow is
maintained and fish escapement is provided for.
k. Conditional use required in a CMZ: Stream alterations within a channel migration
zone require a shoreline conditional use permit.
Exhibit D -137
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
RMC 4-8-120C Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications
Note: only the portions of this table that are subject to changes are being shown.
TABLE 4-8-120C
Submittal Requirements
10% Notice of Intent to Annex
60% Petition to Annex
Affidavit of Installation of
Public Information Sign
Applicant Agreement
Statement (for wireless
communication facilities)
Applicant's Confirmation of
Condition Compliance
Application Fee per RMC 4-1-
170
Assessment Information
Authorization for Abatement
Binding Site Plan Map
Business License Application
for Home Occupation
Calculations, Survey
Colored Display Maps
Construction Mitigation
Description
Draft Deed for Any Proposed
Dedication of Land for Public
Purposes
Draft Homeowners'
Association Documents, if
applicable
Draft Restrictive Covenants, if
any
Drainage Control Plan
Drainage Report
Shoreline
Exemption
Shoreline
Substantial
Development
Permit
X
1
5
5
4
Shoreline
Conditional
Use Permit
X
1
5
5
4
Shoreline
Variance
X
1
5
5
4
Exhibit D -138
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Elevations, Architectural
Elevations, Grading
Environmental Checklist
Existing Covenants (recorded
copy)
Existing Easements (recorded
copy)
Final Plat Plan
Flood Hazard Data, if
applicable
Floor Plans
Geotechnical Report
Grading Plan, Conceptual
Grading Plan, Detailed
Habitat Data Report
Hazardous Materials
Management Statement
Inventory of Existing Sites (for
wireless communication
facilities)
Justification for the
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, and, if
applicable, Rezone
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
nonconforming structure)
Justification of the Rebuild
Approval Permit
nonconforming use)
Justification for Conditional
Permit Request
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
nonconforming structure)
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
nonconforming use)
King County Assessor's Map
Indicating Site
Landscape Plan, conceptual
Landscape Plan, Detailed
Lease Agreement Draft (for
12
4
12
5
5
12
5
5
12
12
5
12
4
12
5
5
12
5
5
12
12
12
5
12
12
5
5
12
5
5
12
12
5
Exhibit D-139
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
wireless communication
facilities)
Legal Description
Letter Describing Proposed
Home Occupation
Letter from Property Owner
Letter to Examiner/Council
Stating Reason(s) for Appeal
perRMC4-8-110C3
Letter Explaining Which
Comprehensive Plan
Text/Policies Should be
Changed and Why
Letter of Understanding,
Geologic Risk
List of Affected Property
Owners within Annexation
Area Boundary
List of Surrounding Property
Owners
Lot Line Adjustment Map
Mailing Labels for Property
Owners
Map of Existing Site Conditions
Map of View Area (for wireless
communication facilities only)
Master Application Form
Master Plan
Mobile Home Park Plan
Monument Cards (one per
monument)
Neighborhood Detail Map
Nonconformity Relationship
and Compatibility Narrative
Parking, Lot Coverage, and
Landscaping Analysis
Photo Simulations (for
wireless communication
facilities only)
Plan Reductions (PMTs)
Postage
Plat Certificate
Pre-application Meeting
4
4
4
1
12
5
2
2
12
12
5
1
X
5
12
5
2
2
12
12
5
1
X
5
12
5
2
2
12
12
5
1
X
5
Exhibit D -140
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Summary, if any
Preliminary Plat Plan
Project Narrative
Project Sequencing Plan
Proposal (non-project, e.g.,
draft ordinance, plan, or
policy)
Proposal Summary (non-
project)
Public Works Approval Letter
Routine Vegetation
Management Application
Form
Screening Detail,
Refuse/Recycling
Service Area Map (for wireless
communication facilities only)
Short Plat Plan
Short Plat Plan, Final
Site Plan
Site Plan, Shoreline Permit
Site Plan, Single Family
Siting Process Report for Use
permits for SCTF
Source Statement, Fill
Material, Aquifer Protection
Areas
Statement for Addressing
Basis for Alternate and/or
Modification
Statement Addressing the
Basis for the Shoreline Permit
Exemption Request
Statement Addressing the
PUD's Relationship to the City
Comprehensive Plan
Stream/Lake Study (8)
Survey
Title Report or Plat Certificate
Topography Map (5' contours)
Traffic Study
Tree Removal/Vegetation
Clearing Plan
4
4
4
42-4
12
12
12
5
12
5
12
5
4
12
12
12
5
12
5
12
5
4
12
12
12
5
12
5
12
4
Exhibit D -141
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Urban Design District Review
Packet
Utilities Plan, Generalized
Vegetation Management Plan
Shoreline)
Wetlands Delineation Map
Wetland Mitigation Plan-
Preliminary
Wetland Mitigation Plan- Final
Wetlands Assessment
12
3
3
3
5
5
12
3
3
3
5
5
12
3
3
3
5
12
3
3
3
Table 4-8-120C Legend
Note: Only note 8 from the legend is included in this draft because the other notes are not
applicable to shoreline permits
8. A standard stream or lake study is required for any application proposal. A supplemental
stream or lake study is also required if an unclassified stream is involved, or if there are
proposed alterations of the water body or buffer, as identified in the standard stream or lake
study. If substantial impacts to the existing vegetation within the buffer required by RMC 4-3-
090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
Conservation are identified in the standard stream or lake study, a supplement al stream or lake
study may be required by the Reviewing Official. A stream or lake mitigation plan will be
required prior to final approval for any plans or permits that result in mitigation identified in
thp siinnlpmpntal strpam nr lakp studv. the
Exhibit D -142
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
RMC 4-8-120D Definitions of Terms Use in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning, and
Public Works Permit Applications
RMC 4-8-120D.5 Definitions E:
Elevations, Architectural: A twenty four inch by thirty six inch (24" x 36") fully dimensioned
architectural elevation plan drawn at a scale of one-fourth inch equals one foot (1/4"=1') or
one-eight inch equals one foot (1/8"=1')( or other size or scale approved by the Building
Official) clearly indicating the information required by the "Permits" section of the currently
adopted International Building Code and chapter 19.27 RCW (State Building Code Act,
Statewide amendments), including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Existing and proposed ground elevations,
b. Existing average grade level underneath proposed structure,
c. Height of existing and proposed structures showing finished rooftop elevations
based upon site elevations for proposed structures and any existing/abutting structures,
d. Building materials and colors including roof, walls, any wireless communication
facilities, and enclosures,
e. Fence or retaining wall materials, colors, and architectural design,
f. Architectural design of on-site lighting fixtures, and
g. Cross-section of roof showing location and height of rooftop equipment (include air
conditioner, compressors, etc.) and proposed screening.
h. Required for the Urban Design Overlay District review packet:
i. Identify building elevations by street name and orientation, i.e., Burnett Ave.
west) elevation.
Exhibit D -143
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
ii. Show the location of rooflines, doors and widow openings.
iii. Indicated typical detailing around doors, windows and balconies indicating
finishes, color and reflectivity of glazing.
iv. Indentify offsets in walls intended to meet the minimum requirements for
building modulation indicating the amount of offset.
v. Show on each elevation any rooftop elements such as mechanical and elevator
penthouses that protrude above the parapet or penetrate the roof and would be visible from
other buildings of the same height.
vi. Photographs of proposed materials from manufacturers' catalogues. A materials
board showing actual materials and colors reference on the architectural elevations is
recommended.
i. Required for shoreline permits:
i. Include measurements of the existing and proposed elevations of the stream,
river, or lake bottom in relationship to the proposed structure, if the proposed structure is
located fully or partially in, or over, the water.
ii. Projects exceeding 35 ft. in height must demonstrate compliance with the height
requirement in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a.
RMC 4-8-120D.7 Definitions G:
Geotechnical Report: A study prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
practices and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington which
includes soils and slope stability analysis, boring and test pit logs, and recommendations on
slope setbacks, foundation design, retaining wall design, material selection, and all other
Exhibit D -144
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
pertinent elements. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the
report shall be reviewed and approved by a geologist. Further recommendations, additions or
exceptions to the original report based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data
shall be signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer who
reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical
report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications,
express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical
report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. If
the site contains a geologic hazard regulated by the critical areas regulations or is within a
regulated shoreline, the preparation and content requirements of RMC 4-8-120D, Table 18 shall
also apply. If the site is within a channel migration zone, within shoreline jurisdiction, the
geotechnical report shall also include a geomorphic assessment by a Washington licensed
geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in
conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments.
Table 18- Geotechnical Report- Detailed Requirements
REPORT PREPARATION/CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS
1. Characterize soils, geology and
drainage.
2. Describe and depict all natural and
manmade features within on
hundred fifty fee (150') of the site
00
UJ
Q.
O
l
oo
Q.
LU
LU
H
00
X
X
2
Q
LU
i
UJ
Q
i
00
Q
z <
i
X
X
X
X
LU
Q
j
00
a
z <
i
X
X
X
D
X
DC
LU
i
LU
a
i
OO
a
z <
i
X
X
z
o
oo
O
cc
LU
X
3
X
X
X
u
oo
LU
OO
X
X
2
a
LU
i
LU
z
o
u
X
X
X
C3
X
1
LU
z
l
o
u
X
X
00
Q
cc
SI <
X
u
z <
u
l
o >
X
X
LU
z
1
LU
OC
O
X
oo
X
X
Exhibit D -145
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
boundary.
3. Identify any areas that have
previously been disturbed or
degraded by human activity or
natural processes.
4. Characterize ground water conditions
including the presence of any public
or private wells within one-quarter
1/4) mile of the site.
5. Provide a site evaluation review of
available information regarding the
site.
6. Conduct a surface reconnaissance of
the site and adjacent areas.
7. Conduct a subsurface exploration of
soils and hydrologic conditions.
8. Provide a slope stability analysis.
9. Address principles of erosion control
in proposal design including:
Plan the development to fit the
topography, drainage patterns,
soils and natural vegetation on
site;
Minimize the extent of the area
exposed at one time and the
duration of the exposure;
Stabilize and protect disturbed
areas as soon as possible;
Keep runoff velocities low;
Protect disturbed areas from
stormwater runoff;
Retain the sediment within the
site area;
Design a thorough maintenance
and follow-up inspection
program to ensure erosion
control practices are effective.
10. Provide an evaluation of site
response and liquefaction potential
relative to the proposed
development.
11. Conduct sufficient subsurface
exploration to provide a site
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exhibit D -146
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
coefficient (S) for use in the
International Building Code to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
12. Calculate tilts and strains, and
determine appropriate design values
for the building site.
13. Review available geologic hazard
maps, mine maps, mine hazard
maps, and air photographs to
identify any subsidence features or
mine hazards including, but not
limited to, surface depressions,
sinkholes, mine shafts, mine entries,
coal mine waste dumps, and any
indication of combustion in
underground workings or coal mine
waste dumps that are present on or
within one hundred feet (100') of the
property.
14. Inspect, review and document any
possible mine openings and
potential trough subsidence, and any
known hazards previously
documented or identified.
15. Utilize test pits to investigate coal
mine waste dumps and other
shallow hazards such as slope entry
portals and shaft collar areas. Drilling
is required for coal mine workings or
other hazards that cannot be
adequately investigated by surface
investigations.
16. Provide an analysis of proposed
clearing, grading and construction
activities including construction
scheduling. Analyze potential direct
and indirect on-site and off-site
impacts from development.
17. Propose mitigation measures, such
as any special construction
techniques, monitoring or inspection
programs, erosion or sedimentation
programs during and after
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Exhibit D -147
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
construction, surface water
management controls, buffers,
remediation, stabilization, etc.
18. Critical facilities on sites containing
areas susceptible to inundation due
to volcanic hazards shall require an
evacuation and emergency
management plan. The applicant for
critical facilities shall evaluate the
risk of inundation or flooding
resulting from mudflows originating
on Mount Rainier in a geotechnical
report, and identify any engineering
or other mitigation measures as
appropriate.
19. Address factors specific to the site,
or to the proposed shoreline
modification, as required in RMC 4-
3-090 Shoreline Master Program
Regulations
X
X
RMC 4-8-120D.12 Definitions L:
Landscaping Plan, Conceptual: A fully dimensioned plan, prepared by a landscape architect
registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified
professional, drawn at the same scale as the project site plan (or other scale approved by the
Reviewing Official), clearly indicating the following:
a. Date, graphic scale, and north arrow,
b. Location of proposed buildings, parking areas, access and existing buildings to
remain,
c. Names and locations of abutting streets and public improvements, including
easements,
d. Existing and proposed contours at five foot (5') intervals or less,
Exhibit D -148
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
e. Location, size, and purpose of planting areas, including those required in RMC 4-
4-070, Landscaping, and those required in RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
f. Location and height for proposed berming,
g. Location and elevations for any proposed landscape-related structures such as
arbors, gazebos, fencing, etc.,
h. Location, size, spacing and names of existing and proposed shrubs, trees, ground
covers, and decorative rockery or like landscape improvements in relationship to proposed and
existing utilities, and
i. The location, size and species of all protected trees on site. Protected trees shall
have the approximate drip line shown (see RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing
Regulations).
RMC 4-8-120D.19 Definitions S:
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure compensation for
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 one inch equals twenty
feet (1" =20') (unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director):
i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundred feet
100') 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 4-3-050Llb (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field);
Exhibit D -149
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Stream or Lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map
in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090 or as determined through a supplemental stream or lake
study approved by the Administrator (if unclassified, see "Supplemental Stream or Lake
Study");
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and
its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are less than ten percent
105), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater;
v. One hundred (100) year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including one
hundred feet (100') 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 one hundred feet (100') upstream and
downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten
inches (10") average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100') of the OHWM;
ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures,
roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installation in relation to
the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s);-a«4
x. Location of site access, ingress and egress;
Exhibit D -150
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
xi. Indication Location of where all proposed mitigation or remediation measures
have taken place on the site;
xii. Separate indication of aroas whoro rovogotation is to take place and areas whoro
vegetation is anticipated to bo removed; and
xiii.Any other aroas of impact with clear indication of typo and extent of impact
indicated on site plan.
b. Mitigation narrative: Mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper that includes the
following elements:
i. Description of existing conditions on tho sito and associated water rosourco
baseline information) Description of the mitigation plan, which includes a summary of
mitigation proposal required in the supplement stream or lake study;
ii. Rosource(s) and functional values to bo restored, croatod, or enhanced on the
mitigation sito(s) Performance standards with specific criteria provided for evaluating whether
or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved; and
iii. Documentation of coordination with appropriate local, regional, special district,
state, and federal regulatory agoncios Documentation of coordination with appropriate local,
regional, special district, state, and federal regulatory agencies.
iv. Construction schedule;
VT—Operations and maintonanco practices for protection and maintonanco of tho
s+tef
vi. Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to bo achiovod by
mitigation;
Exhibit D-151
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
vii. Monitoring and evaluation procodures, including minimum monitoring standards
and timelines (i.o., annual, somi annual, quarterly);
viii. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation;
ix. Cost ostimatos for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating
surety device;
XT—Discussion of complianco with criteria or conditions allowing for the proposed
stream/lako alteration or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of conformity
to applicable mitigation plan approval criteria; and
xi. A roviow of tho bost available science supporting tho proposed request for a
roducod standard and/or tho mothod of impact mitigation; a description of tho report author's
experience to date in restoring or crating the typo of critical aroa proposed; and an analysis of
tho likelihood of succoss of tho compensation project.
c. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan: The plan shall be on 8.5" x 11" paper that
includes the following elements:
i. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the
site;
IL. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring standards
and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly);
ILL. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation.
d_, Surety device must be filed with the City of Renton.
RMC 4-8-120D.19 Definitions S:
Exhibit D -152
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Stream or Lake Study, Standard: A report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist
unless otherwise determined by the Administrator, and include the following information:
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch equals twenty
feet (l'=20') (unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director):
i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundred feet
100') 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 4-3-050Llb (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field);
iii. Stream or Lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map
in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see "Supplemental Stream or Lake Study"
below);
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and
its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are less than ten percent
105), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater;
v. One hundred (100) year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including one
hundred feet (100') 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 one hundred feet (100') upstream and
Exhibit D-153
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten
inches (10") average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100') of the OHWM;
ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures,
roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installation in relation to
the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s); and
x. Location of site access, ingress and egress.
b. Grading Plan: A gradating plan prepared in accordance with RMC 4-8-120D7, and
showing contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are less than ten percent (10%), and of
five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater;
c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report on 8.5" x 11" paper shall
be prepared to accompany the site plan and describes:
i. The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class
Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090;
ii. The vegetative cover of the site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian
area, wetland areas, and flood hazard areas extending one hundred feet (100') upstream and
downstream from the property line, including the impacts of the proposal on the identified
vegetation;
iii. The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake and existing
riparian area and the impacts of the proposal on the identified ecological functions;
iv. Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area including, but
not limited to, salmonids, mammals, and bird nesting, breeding, and feeding/foraging areas,
includingthe impacts of the proposal on the identified fish and wild life;
Exhibit D -154
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
v. Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11-200, and vegetation; and
vi. For shorelines regulated under RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program, the
study shall demonstrate if the proposal meets the criteria of no net loss of ecological functions
as described in RMC 4-3-090D2. If the proposal requires mitigation for substantial impacts to
the existing vegetation buffer in order to demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions, a
supplemental stream or lake study may be required by the Reviewing Official.
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental:
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-
050L1 and a rationale for the proposed rating.
b. Alterations to Stroam/Lako and/or Buffer(s): Analysis of Alternatives: A
supplemental report on 8.5" x 11" paper prepared by a qualified biologist shall evaluate
alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria for justification.
The following alternatives shall be analyzed, including justification of the feasibility of each
alternative:
i. Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake, or buffer by not taking a certain
action, by not taking parts of an action, or by moving the action;
ii. Minimize any stream, lake, or buffer impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by
taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce the impacts;
iii. Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts; Rectifying the impacts by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected area;
Exhibit D -155
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iv. Restore any stream, lake or buffor area impacted or lost temporarily Reducing or
eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations over the
life of the action;
v. Enhance degraded stream or lako habitat to compensate for lost functions and
vafues-Com pen sate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts by replacing, enhancing, or providing
similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the impact and taking appropriate
corrective measures.
c. Impact Evaluations
i. An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a qualified
biologist, to include:
a) Identification, by characteristics and quantity, of resources (stream, lake) and
corresponding functional values found on the site;
b) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modification, or alternative
methods of development to determine which options(s) reduce(s) the impacts on the identified
resource(s) and function 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;
e) For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, evaluation of how the preferred
alternative achieves the standard of no net loss of ecological functions under RMC 4-3-090D2.
Exhibit D -156
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
ii. For a violation, the impact evaluations 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.
d. Mitigation Proposal shall include the following:
i. Site Plan, at a scale approved by the City, containing all the elements of the site
plan required in the standard stream and lake study, and the following:
a) Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation measures will take
place on the site;
b) Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take place and areas
where vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and
c) Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact
indicated on site plan.
ii. Mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper addressing all of the following:
a) Resource(s) and functional values to be restored, created, or enhanced on
the mitigation site(s);
b) Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to be achieved
by mitigation;
c) Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for the
proposed stream/lake alteration or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of
conformity to applicable mitigation plan approval criteria;
Exhibit D -157
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
d) 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; and
e) Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of
calculating surety device.
iii. For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, discussion of how the proposed plans
meet or exceed the standard of no net loss of ecological functions under RMC 4-3-090D2;
iv. Proposed construction schedule.
RMC 4-8-120D.22 Definitions V:
Vegetation Management Plan: A plan prepared by a qualified professional that details how
to preserve, maintain, enhance, or establish native vegetation within a Vegetation Conservation
Buffer required by the Shoreline Master Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090. The plan shall
describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological
functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the greatest extent possible. It
shall also specify what is necessary to maintain the required vegetation over the life of the use
and/or development, consistent with the provisions of RMC 4-3-090F.1.J, Vegetation
Management.
Exhibit D -158
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
RMC 4-3-190 Shoreline Permits:
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS:
A. PURPOSE (RESERVED)
The purpose of this section is to ensure consistency with the State Shoreline Management
Act and with the City's Shoreline Master Program.
B. APPLICABILITY (RESERVED)SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL:
1. Development Compliance: All uses and developments within the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with
the Shoreline Master Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1),
regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or
shoreline conditional use permit is required. The reviewing official shall assure compliance with
the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program for all permits and approvals processed by the
City.
2. Shoreline Overlay: Shoreline regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to
Development Regulations, including but not limited to zoning, environmental regulations,
development standards, subdivision regulations, and other regulations established by the City.
a. Allowed uses shall be limited by the general polices and specific regulations
regarding use preferences for water-dependent and water-oriented uses. Allowed uses may be
specified and limited in specific shoreline permits. In the case of non-conforming development,
the use provisions of this code shall be applied to any change of use, including occupancy
permits.
Exhibit D -159
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. In the event of any conflict between Shoreline policies and regulations and any other
regulations of the City, Shoreline policies and regulations shall prevail unless other regulations
provide greater protection of the shoreline natural environment and aquatic habitat
c. All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full
effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master
Program policies, found in the City's Comprehensive Plan, establish intent for the shoreline
regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code
173-26 and 173-27.
3. Substantial Development Permit: A substantial development permit shall be required for
all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt
pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). An exemption from obtaining a shoreline substantial
development permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act, the Shoreline Master
Program, or from any other regulatory requirements.
a. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the
precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the
substantial development permit process.
b. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt is on the
applicant/proponent of the exempt development action.
c. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a
substantial development permit is required for the entire project.
4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: A development or use that is listed as a shoreline
conditional use pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program or is an unlisted use, must obtain a
Exhibit D -160
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
conditional use permit even if the development or use does not require a substantial
development permit.
5. Shoreline Variance: When an activity or development is proposed that does not comply
with the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the Program, such development
or use shall only be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance even if the development or
use does not require a substantial development permit.
6. Land Division: In the case of land divisions, such as short subdivisions, long plats and
planned unit developments, the reviewing official shall document compliance with bulk and
dimensional standards as well as policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program and
attach appropriate conditions and/or mitigating measures to such approvals to ensure the
design, development activities and future use associated with such land division(s) are
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
7. Approval Criteria: In order to be approved, the reviewing official must find that a
proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline
designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and
dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area
designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and
substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to
these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Reviewing Official that the
Exhibit D -161
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline
Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding
shorelines of statewide significance, and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline
Master Program shall be also be adhered to.
8. Written Findings Required: All permits or statements of exemption issued for
development or use within shoreline jurisdiction shall include written findings prepared by the
Reviewing official, including compliance with bulk and dimensional standards and policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. The Reviewing official may attach conditions to
the approval of exempt developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the
project with the Act and the Program.
9. Building Permit Compliance: For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the
Building Official shall not issue a building permit for such development until compliance with
the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a shoreline substantial development
permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired.
Any permit issued by the Building Official for such development shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit.
10. Restoration Project Relief: The City may grant relief from Shoreline Master Program
development standards and use regulations when the following apply:
a. A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward shift in the
ordinary high water mark, resulting in the following:
Exhibit D -162
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the
restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
ii. Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required
shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline Master Program; and
iii. Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would preclude or interfere
with use of the property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a
hardship to the project proponent.
b. The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria:
i. The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
ii. After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the
restoration project;
iii. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline
restoration project and consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; and
iv. Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a
development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible
for relief under this section.
c. The application for relief must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for
written approval or disapproval. This review must occur during the department's normal review
of a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no such
permit is required, then the department shall conduct its review when the local government
provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct
the review.
Exhibit D -163
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
i. Except as otherwise provided in Subsection d of this section, the Department of
Ecology shall provide at least 20-days notice to parties that have indicated interest to the
department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the notice on to
their web site.
ii. The department shall act within 30 calendar days of close of the public notice
period, or within 30 days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if additional
public notice is not required.
d. The public notice requirements of Subsection c of this section do not apply if the
relevant shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline Master Program or shoreline
restoration plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as follows:
i. The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable
Shoreline Master Program guidelines; and
ii. The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the Shoreline Master
Program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the Shoreline
Master Program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from shoreline
regulations; and
iii. The Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes policies addressing
the nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied.
C. EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM:
The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this
Master Program and are exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Exhibit D -164
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SSDP). An exemption from an SSDP is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the
Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements.
1. Governor's Certification: Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to
chapter 80.50 RCW.
2. Projects Valued at $5,000 or less: Any development of which the total cost or fair market
value does not exceed two thousand fivo hundred five thousand dollars ($2,500.00 $5,000.00),
if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state.
3. Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or
developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements.
a. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or
cessation from a lawfully established condition.
b. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and
external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except
where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment.
c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such
replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the
replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development
including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance
and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or
environment.
Exhibit D -165
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
4. Construction of tho normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences. A
normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural dovolopmont
installed at or near, and parallel to, tho ordinary high water mark for the solo purpose of
protecting an existing single family residence and appurtonant structures from loss or damage
by erosion. A normal protoctivo bulkhead is not oxompt if it is constructod for tho purpose of
creating additional dry land. Additional construction requirement s aro found in WAC 173 27
010(2)(c).
5T4. Emergency Construction: Emergency construction necessary to protect property from
damage by the elements.
a. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or
the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full
compliance with the Shoreline Master Program.
b. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent
protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are
deemed to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of
the emergency situation, the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have
been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 17-27 WAC or
this Shoreline Program shall be obtained.
c. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58
RCW and the Shoreline Master Program.
d. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur,
but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
Exhibit D -166
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
6r5. Agricultural Construction or Practices: Construction and practices normal or necessary
for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities
on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures, including, but not
limited to, head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all
processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the
shorelands by leveling or filling, other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not
be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an
enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or
other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock
feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations.
7r6. Construction of Single-Family Residence and Accessory Buildings: Construction on
shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own
use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above
average grade level as defined in WAC 173-27-030 and which meets all requirements of the
State agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed
pursuant to this Section.
a. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by
one (1) family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership
which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark
and the perimeter of a wetland.
Exhibit D -167
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
b. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the
ordinary high water mark.
8r7. Construction of Non-Commercial Docks: Construction of a dock including a community
dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee,
or contract purchaser of single and multi-family residences.
a. This oxcoption applies if oith^H
4.—In salt waters ,tho fair market value of tho dock does not oxcoed two thousand
fivo hundred dollars ($2,500.00).
ii. In fresh waters, the fair markot value of tho dock does not oxcood ton thousand
dollars ($10,000.00); however, if a subsequent construction having a affair market value
oxcooding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) occurs within fivo (5) years of
completion of tho prior construction, the subsequent construction shall bo considered a
substantial development permit.
This exception applies if the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00); however, if subsequent construction having a fair market value
exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) occurs within five (5) years of
completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a
substantial development permit; and
b. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include
recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances.
Exhibit D -168
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
9T8. Construction Authorized by the Coast Guard: Construction or modification, by or under
the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational
aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
JL0r9. Operation, Maintenance, or Construction Related to Irrigation: Operation,
maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that
now exist or are hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary
purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored
groundwater for the irrigation of lands.
JrlrlO. Marking of Property Lines on State-Owned Lands: The marking of property lines or
corners on State-owned lands when such marking does not interfere with the normal public use
of the surface of the water.
42-rll. Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Drainage or Dikes: Operation and
maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8,
1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage
or diking system.
43rl2. Activities Necessary for Permit Application: Site exploration and investigation
activities that are prerequisites to preparation of an application for development authorization
under the Shoreline Master Program, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters.
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including,
but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values.
Exhibit D -169
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of
the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing
before the activity.
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under the Shoreline Master
Program first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to
the Planning Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
14.13. Removal or Control of Aquatic Noxious Weeds: The process of removing or
controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of a
herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a
final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the
Department of Ecology jointly with other State agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
45rl4. Watershed Restoration Projects: Watershed restoration projects as defined below:
a. "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the
sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and
consists of one or more of the following activities:
i. A project that involves less than ten (10) miles of stream reach, in which less
than twenty five (25) cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or
discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to
facilitate additional plantings.
ii. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs
the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of
Exhibit D -170
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of
flowing water.
iii. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or
reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by
all of the citizens of the State, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in
stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred
200) square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream,
b. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by a state
department, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a conservation district, for
which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the
State Environmental Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan generally contains a general
program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-
creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream
segment, drainage area, or watershed.
46rl5. Projects to Improve Fish and Wildlife Passage or Habitat: A public or private project,
the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of
the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as
necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited
to accomplish the intended purpose.
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and
Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW.
Exhibit D-171
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c. The Planning Division has determined that the project is consistent with this Master
Program.
47-rl6. Hazardous Substance Remediation: Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant
to WAC 173-27-040(3).
17. Projects on Lands Not Subject to Shoreline Jurisdiction Prior to Restoration: Actions on
land that otherwise would not be under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act
except for a change in the location of OHWM or other criteria due to a shoreline restoration
project creating a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark that brings the land under the
jurisdiction of the Act.
D. EXEMPTION CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Application Required: Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of
this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section shall make
application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Planning Division in the manner prescribed
by that division.
2. Consistency Required: Any development which occurs within the regulated shorelines of
the state under Renton's jurisdiction, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent
with the intent of the state law.
3. Conditions Authorized: The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted
developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline
Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program.
Exhibit D-172
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
4. Permit Required if Project Not Exempt in Part: If any part of a proposed development is
not eligible for exemption, then a shoreline permit is required for the entire proposed
development project.
E. SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Application: Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from a
shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with the
Development Services Planning Division. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with
the requirements of this Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement
procedures.
2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: No shoreline development shall be
undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial development permit"
from the Planning Division.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees: Fees shall be as
listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. Application for such permits shall be made on
forms and reviewed according to procedures prescribed by the Planning Development Services
division. Application forms may be revised from time-to-time by the Planning Dovolopmont
Services Division without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed
to provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified.
Applications shall bo mado by tho property owner, or his authorized agont, lossoo, contract
purchaser, or othor porson entitled to possession of tho property and, except for applications
filed by or on bohalf of the City or othor governmental agoncios, shall be accompanied by a
Exhibit D -173
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
receipt issued by tho Finance Dopartmont showing payment of tho applicable foos which aro
established by RMC 4 1 170, Land Uso Roviow Foos.
4. Secondary Review By Independent Qualified Professionals: When appropriate due to
the type of critical areas, habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing
Official may require the applicant to prepare or fund analyses or activities conducted by third
party or parties selected by the Reviewing Official and paid for by the applicant. Analyses
and/or activities conducted under this Subsection include, but are not limited to:
a. Evaluation by an independent qualified professional of the applicant's analysis and
the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any
recommendations as appropriate; and
b. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Indian Tribe or other
appropriate agency; and/or
c. Analysis of detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent
or abutting to the site.
5. Public Notice: Three (3) copies of a notice of development application shall be posted
prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred
300) feet thereof. The notice of development application shall also be mailed to property
owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the subject property. The required
contents of the notice of development application are detailed in RMC 4-8-090B, Public Notice
Requirements.
Exhibit D -174
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each such notice of development application shall
include a statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Dovolopmont
SGrvicosPlanning Division with regard to said application may do so in writing to that Division
and persons interested in the DovGlopmont ServicesPlanning Division's action on an application
for a permit may submit their views in writing or notify the Planning Division in writing of their
interest within thirty (30) days from tho last dato of publication of such noticofourteen (14)
days from the date of the notice of application.
7. Special Public Comment Time: Notice of development application for a substantial
development permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140 (ll)(b) or
for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its
appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall include a twenty (20) fourteen (14) day
comment period. Such notification or submission of views to the Dovolopmont SorvicosPlanning
Division shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on the application.
4r8. Review Guidelines: Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional
use permit provisions of this Master Program, no substantial development permit and no other
permit shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of
this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations
adopted by the Department of Ecology there under.
Sr9. Conditional Approval: Should the Planning Division Director or his/her designee find
that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program
and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he/she may deny such application or attach any
Exhibit D-175
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
terms or condition which he/she deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and
objective of this Master Program.
6rl0. Notification of City Departments: It shall be the duty of the Dovolopmont
SorivcosPlanning Division to timely furnish copies of all applications and actions taken by said
division unto such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any
part of the proposed development, including any state or federal agencies and Indian tribes.
F. REVIEW CRITERIA:
1. General: The Planning Division shall review an application for a permit based on the
following:
a. The application.
b. The environmental checklist or environmental impact statement, if one is required.
c. Written comments from interested persons.
d. Information and comments from all affected City departments.
e. Indopondont study by the Developmont Sorvicos Division and tho Policy
Developmont Dopartmont Evidence presented at a public hearing.
f. Evidence presented at a public hoaring should tho Dovolopmont Sorvicos Division
and tho Policy Dovolopmont Dopartmont docido that it would bo in tho public interest to hold a
public hoaring. Tho Dovolopmont Sorvicos Division and tho Policy Developmont Dopartmont
shall havo powers to prescribe rules and regulations for such hearings. No authorization to
undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the Responsible
Official unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the
Exhibit D -176
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master
Program.
2. Additional Information: The Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division may require an
applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the
application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously
been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the City's Environmental
Review committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit,
when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement.
3. Procedural Amendments: In addition to the criteria hereinabove set forth in this Section,
the Planning/Building/Public Works Department of Community and Economic Development
may from time-to-time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become
effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City
Council and the Department of Ecology.
4. Burden of Proof on Applicant: The burden of proving that the proposed substantial
development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall
be on the applicant.
G. BONOS-SURETY DEVICES:
The Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division may require the applicant to post a bond
surety device in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and
conditions imposed by said department on any shoreline permit. Said bond surety device shall
be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be carried
out within the time stipulated and in accordance with RMC 4-1-230 Surety and Bonds.
Exhibit D -177
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
H. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
The Department of Community and Economic Development shall have the final authority to
interpret the Master Program for the City of Renton. Where an application is denied or
changed, per Subsection E6 of this Section, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or
changing a "substantial development permit" to the Shoreline Hearings Board for an open
record appeal in accordance with RMC 4-8-110. See RMC 4-8-110H for appeal procedures to
the Shoreline Hearings Board.
I. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES:
1. Purpose: The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a
manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize
his property in a fair and equitable manner.
2. Authority
a. City Hoaring Examiner: Tho Ronton Land uso hoaring Examiner shall havo authority
to grant conditional uso permits and variances in tho administration of tho Ronton Master
Program. Conditional use permits: conditional use permits shall be processed either by the City
Hearing Examiner or administratively in accordance with the provisions to RMC 4-2-060 Zoning
Use Table, provided that:
i. Additional requirements for conditional use permits may be provided within
shoreline jurisdiction in this section and will prevail over the provisions of RMC 4-2-060.
ii. If an administrative process is not specified, a conditional use permit shall be
processed by the Hearing Examiner.
Exhibit D-178
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
iii. Proposed uses not specified in this Section or in RMC 4-2-060 and not prohibited
may be allowed by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit.
b. Variances: The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant
conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program.
c. b^—State Department of Ecology Decision: Both variances and conditional use
permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for
approval or denial.
d. €r-Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: Conditional permits and variances shall
be deemed to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt by the
Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office unless written communication is
received by the applicant and the City indicating otherwise.
i. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with the State in accordance
with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
ii. Permit validity requirements of Subsection J of this Section shall apply to
conditional use and variance permits.
iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in accordance with
RMC4-8-110H.
3. Intorprotation Maintenance of Permitted Uses Allowed: It shall be recognized that a
lawful use at the time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and
maintenance and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit.
Exhibit D-179
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
4. Variances:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be
granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where,
owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation
and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause
undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties.
b. Decision Criteria: The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his
property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient
reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following:
i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject
property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on
shorelines in the same vicinity.
ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on
shorelines in the same vicinity.
iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this Master Program.
v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to
the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the
variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and
Exhibit D -180
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master
Program.
vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
vii. Proposals that vary the size of the vegetation conservation buffer must provide
for off-site mitigation in accordance RMC4-3-090F.l.k.
5. Conditional Use:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use
permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use
provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the
Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be
expanded to include many uses.
b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after
consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with
other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit may be granted subject to the
Reviewing Official determining compliance with each of the following conditions:
i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master
Program.
iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's
Master Program.
Exhibit D-181
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
J. TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE PERMITS:
1. Applicability and Modification at Time of Approval: arThe time requirements of this
Section shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized
pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized under th+s-the Shoreline Master
Program.
2. Unspecified Time Limits: Where specific provisions are not included to establish time
limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology, the
time limits in Subsections J6 and J8 of this Section apply.
3. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Substantial Developments: br-lf it is determined
that standard time requirements of Subsections J2 and J3 J6 and J8 of this Section should not be
applied, the Dovolopmont Sorviees-Planning Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a
part of action on a substantial development permit upon a finding of good cause, based on the
requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and
provisions of this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143.
4T Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Conditional Uses or Shoreline Variances: If it is
determined that standard time requirements of Subsections J2 and J3 J6 and J8 of this Section
should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the
approval of the Department of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of
action on a conditional use or variance permit. "Good cause" means that the time limits
established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development
on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted, c. Whoro spocific provisions
Exhibit D -182
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
aro not included to establish timo limits on a pormit as part of action on a pormit by tho City or
tho Dopartmont of Ecology, tho timo limits in Subsections J2 and J3 of this Section apply.
5. Extension Requests: d^-Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with
Subsections J2 and J3 J6 and J8 of this Section.
6. Standard Period of Validity: 2. Construction Commencement: a. Unless a different time
period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and Subsection
Jlr-J2 or J3 of this Section, construction activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has
been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of
the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new
permit shall be necessary. However, the Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division may
authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable
factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Division before the expiration
date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department
of Ecology.
7. Certification of Construction Commencement, b-.—Construction activities or
commencement of construction referenced in Subsection 42-a-J6 of this Section means that
construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation
inspections must be approved and completed before the end of the two (2) year period.
3*-8. Time Allowed for Construction Completion: A permit authorizing construction shall
extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit,
unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and Subsections JJr-J2 or
J3 of this Section. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the
Exhibit D -183
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
shoreline permit the Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division shall review the permit and upon
a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period
of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit
extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain the
validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain valid construction
permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes.
4^-9. Effective Date of Filing:
a^For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a
substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit
shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in
Subsections J2 and J3 J6 and J8 of this Section do not include the time during which a use or
activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal
actions, or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the
development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related
administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
k^lO. Notification of City of Other Permits and Legal Actions: It is the responsibility of the
applicant to inform the Development Sorvicos Planning Division of the pendency of other
permit applications filed with agencies other than the City, and of any related administrative or
legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or
approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline
permit or the provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the
effective date of the shoreline permit.
Exhibit D -184
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
11. Permit Processing Time: fc-The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits
specified in tho Typo III and Type Vi review procosos in RMC 4-8-080H by state law. Substantial
development permits for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(ll)(b) or for
the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its
appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty one (21) days of
the last day of the comment period specified in RMC 4-9-190E3.
12. Construction Not Authorized Until Proceedings Completed: 5. Review Period—
Construction Authorization: No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be
authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued
by the City until twenty one (21) days from the date the permit was filed with the Department
of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were
initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance
with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
13. Special Allowance for Construction: b^lf the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is
appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved the
granting of the permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shoreline Hearings Board
decision is filed, construction authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods,
and other provisions of RCW 90.58.140(5)(b).
K. RULINGS TO STATE:
Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this
Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to
the applicant, be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General
Exhibit D-185
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
by the Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW
90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
L TRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT:
If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit
may be transferred to the new owner.
M. ENFORCEMENT:
All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the Dovolopmont Sorvicos
Planning Division. For such purposes, the Director or his duly authorized representative shall
have the power of a police officer.
N. RESCISSION OF PERMITS:
1. Noncompliance with Permit: Any shoreline permit issued under the terms of this Master
Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Dovolopmont Services Planning Division of the
City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit.
2. Notice of Noncompliance: Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall
be initiated by serving written notice of noncompliance on the permittee, which notice shall be
sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the
application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee may have advised the City; or
such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same
manner as service of summons as provided by law.
3. Posting: In addition to such notice, the Dovolopmont Sorvicos Planning Division shall
cause to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one posting shall be at or within
the area described in the permit.
Exhibit D -186
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
4. Public Hearing: Before any such permit can be rescinded, a public hearing shall be held
by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance
with RMC 4-8-090D, Public Notice Requirements.
5. Final Decision: The decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision
of the City on all rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the
Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other
departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City.
For conditional uses or variances, tho Dopartmont of Ecology has thirty (30) days to make a final
docision followed by a twenty ono (21) day appoal period.
O. APPEALS:
See RMC 4-8-110H.
P. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
l._Violations of This Chapter and Penalties: Unless otherwise specified, violations of this
Soction arc misdomoanors subioct to RMC 13 1. Prosecution: Every person violating any of
the provisions of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be
punishable under conviction by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by
imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day's
violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
2. Injunction: The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as
are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State within the City's
jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or
Exhibit D-187
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Section and
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
3. Violators Liable for Damages: Any person subject to the regulatory program of this
Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a
permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property
arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition
prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on
behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this
subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has
been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation, the Court shall make
provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the
expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its
discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.
Q. SHORELINE MORATORIUM:
1. The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and
appropriate to implement the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act.
2. Prior to adopting such moratorium or other interim official controls, the City Council
shall:
a. Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control within 60 days of adoption;
b. Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to, justifications for
the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes; and
Exhibit D -188
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
c. Notify the Department of Ecology of the moratorium or control immediately after its
adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing held.
3. Said moratorium or other official control shall provide that all lawfully existing uses,
structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may
continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded,
under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the
moratorium.
4. Said moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six
months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the
moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or
control may be renewed for two six-month periods if the City Council complies with Subsection
4-9-190.Q.2.a. before each renewal.
5. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed Master Program or
amendment is submitted to the Department of Ecology, the moratorium or control must
remain in effect until the department's final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the
moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken final
action.
Exhibit D -189
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
A new section 4-10-095, Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures
and Sites, shall be added to Chapter 4-10, Legal Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots.
4-10-095 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES, STRUCTURES,
AND SITES:
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, with the exception of docks and piers, which shall be governed by RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers
and Docks, and shoreline stabilization structures, which shall be governed by RMC 4-3-090F.4
Shoreline Stabilization.
B. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060.
C. Nonconforming Site: A lot which does not conform to development regulations on a site
not related to the characteristics of a structure including, but not limited to, the vegetation
conservation, shoreline stabilization, landscaping, parking, fence, driveway, street opening,
pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the district in which it is located due to
changes in Code requirements, condemnation or annexation.
D. Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved.
E. Continuation of Use: The continuation of existing use and activities does not require
prior review or approval. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing legally established
Exhibit D-190
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, or drainage systems,
that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not modify the character, scope, or
size of the original structure or facility or increase the impact to, or encroach further within,
the sensitive area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the
proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation
management performed in accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing
maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or utilities, provided that such management actions
are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the sensitive area, are
not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an
endangered or threatened species.
F. Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an Existing Structure or Site:
The following provisions shall apply to lawfully established uses, buildings and/or structures
and related site development that do not meet the specific standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. Alteration or expansion of existing structures may take place with partial compliance
with the standards of this code, as provided below, provided that the proposed alteration or
expansion will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. In no case shall a structure
with a non-conforming setback from the shoreline be allowed to extend further waterward
than the existing structure.
1. Partial Compliance for Non-Single-Family Development: The following provisions shall
apply to all development except single family:
Alteration of an Existing Structure I Compliance Standard
Exhibit D-191
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Ex
p
a
n
s
io
n
sz
o
ro
i_
CD
4-*
i—
o
c
5
o
cu
L_
aj +-•
CD
4-»
ro
i_
CD
O
o
o
O TO
Expansion or remodel that does not change
the building footprint or increase impervious
surface.
Expansion of building footprint by up to 500
sq.ft. or up to 10% (whichever is less); or
Expansion of impervious surface by up to
1,000 sq. ft. or up to 10% (whichever is less);
or
Remodeling or renovation that equals less
than 30% of the replacement value of the
existing structures or improvements,
excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical
systems and normal repair and maintenance.
Expansion of building footprint by more than
500 sq. ft. or between 10.1-25% (whichever is
less); or
Expansion of impervious surface by more
than 1,000 sq. ft., or between 10.1-25%
whichever is less); or
Remodeling or renovation that equals 30.1-
50% of the replacement value of the existing
structures or improvements, excluding
plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems
and normal repair and maintenance.
Expansion of building footprint by more than
25%; or
Expansion of impervious surface by more
than 25%; or
No site changes required.
Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the shoreline,
consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090.F.l
Vegetation Conservation consisting of
revegetation of a native community of at least
50% of the area between an existing building
and the water's edge, provided that the area
to be revegetated does not exceed 10 feet,
unless a greater area is desired by the
applicant, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by
a qualified professional and approved by the
Reviewing Official that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required* setback and
buffer.
Remove over water structures that do not provide
public access, or do not serve a water-dependent
use.
Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the shoreline,
consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090.F.l
Vegetation Conservation consisting of
revegetation of a native community of at least
80% of the area between an existing building
and the water's edge, or at least 10 feet, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by
a qualified professional and approved by the
Reviewing Official that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required* setback and
buffer.
Remove over water structures that do not provide
public access, or do not serve a water-dependent
use.
Piers and Docks shall be required to replace any
solid decking with light penetrating surfacing
materials.
Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the shoreline,
consisting of either:
Exhibit D-192
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Remodeling or renovation that equals more
than 50% of the replacement value of the
existing structures or improvements,
excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical
systems and normal repair and maintenance.
o Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation
provisions of RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation
Conservation consisting of revegetation of a
native community of the full required* buffer,
or 100% of the area between an existing
building and the water's edge if the full buffer
cannot be planted, or at least 10 feet, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by
a qualified professional and approved by the
Reviewing Official that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required* setback and
buffer.
Remove over water structures that do not provide
public access, or do not serve a water-dependent
use.
Piers and Docks shall be required to replace any
solid decking with light penetrating surfacing
materials.
Developments with existing shoreline stabilization
shall mitigate for the impacts of shoreline
stabilization in one of the following ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not
conforming to, or otherwise permitted by, the
provisions of this code shall be reviewed and
upgraded according to the standards of RMC
4-3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization
Alternatives Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved by
the Reviewing Official that would identify
near shore mitigation to improve shoreline
function or values on-site, or
o If the two alternatives above are infeasible,
then the project proponent shall contribute
to an off-site vegetation conservation fund, in
accordance with RMC4-3-090F.l.k.
The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-
090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
2. Partial Compliance for Single-Family Development: Lawfully constructed single-family
homes built before the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program ({Insert Ordinance Adoption
Date Here}) shall be considered conforming if expansion or replacement is consistent with the
standards below:
Alteration of an Existing Structure | Compliance Standard
Exhibit D-193
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
Al
t
e
r
a
t
io
n
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
c
o
ro
CD
4-<
o
c
5
c
ID
4-»
ro
CD
4-»
CD
4-»
ro
i_
D
T3
O
C
o
4->
ro
CD
4-»
2,
ro
2
Expansion or remodel that
does not change the building
footprint or increase
impervious surface.
Expansion of building footprint
by up to 500 sq.ft. outside of
the required* setback; or
Expansion of impervious
surface by up to 1,000 sq. ft.
outside of the required*
setback.
Expansion of building footprint
within the required* setback in
any amount, or total expansion
of 500 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft.; or
Expansion of impervious
surface within the required*
setback in any amount, or total
expansion of 1,000 sq. ft. to
1,500 sq.ft.
Expansion of building footprint
by more than 1,000 sq.ft., or
Expansion of impervious
surface by more than 1,500
sq.ft.
No site changes required.
No site changes required.
Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions
and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions
of RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation consisting of
revegetation of a native community of at least 80% of the
area between an existing building and the water's edge
provided that the area to be revegetated need not be more
than 25% of the lot depth in feet, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified
professional and approved by the Reviewing Official that
would provide at least equal protection of ecological
functions and processes as the full required* setback and
buffer.
Docks shall be required to replace solid decking with light
penetrating surfacing materials.
Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions
and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either:
o Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of
RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation consisting of
revegetation of a native community of the full required*
buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building
and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified
professional and approved by the Reviewing Official that
would provide at least equal protection of ecological
functions and processes as the full required* setback and
buffer.
Docks shall be required to replace solid decking with light
penetrating surfacing materials.
Developments with existing shoreline stabilization shall
mitigate for the impacts of shoreline stabilization in one of the
following ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming to, or
otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this code shall be 1
reviewed and upgraded according to the standards of RMC :
4-3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives
Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified
professional and approved by the Reviewing Official that
Exhibit D -194
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
would identify near shore mitigation to improve shoreline
function or values on-site, or
If the two alternatives above are infeasible, then the
project proponent shall contribute to an off-site vegetation
conservation fund, in accordance with RMC4-3-090F.l.k.
The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-
090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
Exhibit D-195
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
SHORELINE DEFINITIONS IN RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4-11
4-11-010 DEFINITIONS A:
ACT, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master
Program Regulations, use only.) The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW as
amended.
ACTIVITY: A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or
pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fishing, swimming,
boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities
necessarily require a shoreline location.
AQUACULTURE: The culture of farming of aquatic animals and plants.
4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B:
BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP: A facility with an inclined surface extending into the water which
allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers.
BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose of protecting
the shoreline or harbor area from wave action.
BUFFER, SHORELINES: A parcol or strip of land that is dosignod and designated to
permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent
aquatic, riparian, or wetland site from upland impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to
afford limited public access. Uses and activities within the buffer are extremely limited.
BULKHEAD: A vertical wall constructed of rock, concrete, timber, sheet steel, gabions, or
patent system materials. Rock bulkheads are often termed "vertical rock walls." Seawalls are
similar to bulkheads, but more robustly constructed.
Exhibit D -196
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
BUOY: A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc., to warn of rocks, shoals, etc., or used
for boat moorage.
4-11-030 DEFINITIONS C:
CIRCULATION: The movement of passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a
transportation corridor.
COMMUNITY ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A means of physical approach to and/or along the shoreline available to
the residents, tenants, customers, patrons, guests, and/or other authorized users of a
development. Community access may also include space set aside for outdoor recreation
including: picnic areas, view points, water craft launch facilities, and may also include other
similar features.
CONDITIONAL USE, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
conditional use or is not classified within the applicable Master Program.
CORRIDOR: A strip of land forming a passageway between two (2) otherwise separate parts.
4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D:
DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling;
placing of obstructions; or any other projects of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the
Act at any state of water level.
Exhibit D-197
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
DOCK: A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water.
DREDGING: The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water.
4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F:
FLOOD CONTROL: Any undertaking for the- conveyance, control, storage, and dispersal of
flood waters.
FLOOD, ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR: The maximum flood expected to occur during a one-
hundred (100) year period.
FLOODPLAIN: The area subject to a one hundred (100) year flood.
FLOODWAY: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in
conjunction with the definition of "shoreland," "floodway" means thoso portions of the area as
identified in a Master Program, that either: (i) Has been established in federal emergency
management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps; or (ii) consists of those
portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which
flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity,
although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by
changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover
condition, Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway, the floodway shall not
include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood
control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the
state, or a political subdivision of the state.
4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H:
Exhibit D -198
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
HEARINGS BOARD, SHORELINE: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by the Shoreline
Management Act.
4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L:
LANDFILL: Croation or maintonanco of boach or creation of dry upland area by tho deposit
of sand, soil, gravol or orther materials into shorolino areas. Addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel,
sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area waterward of the ordinary
high water mark, in wetlands, or on shorelands, in a manner that raises the elevation or creates
dry land.
LOCAL SERVICE UTILITIES: Public or private utilities normally servicing a neighborhood or
defined subarea in the City, e.g., telephone exchanges; sanitary sewer; stormwater facilities;
distribution lines, electrical less than fifty five (55) kV, telephone, cable TV, etc.
4-11-130 DEFINITIONS M:
MAJOR SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities which provide services beyond the City's
boundaries, i.e., pipelines, natural gas, water, sewer, petroleum; electrical transmission lines
fifty five (55) kv or greater; and regional sewer or water treatment plants, etc.
MARINA: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A use providing moorage for pleasure craft, which also may include boat launching
facilities, storage, sales, and other related services.
MASTER PROGRAM: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton and the
use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text,
and a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies
enunciated in Section 2 of the Act.
Exhibit D -199
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
MOORAGE: Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but
which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks, pilings, or buoys.
MULTIPLE USE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) The combining of compatible uses within one development, of which tho major use or
activity is wator oriontod. All uses or activities other than the major ono aro directly related
and nocossary to tho major uso or activity, in which water-oriented and non-water-oriented
uses are included.
4-11-140 DEFINITIONS N:
NONCONFORMING SITE: A lot which does not conform to development regulations not
related to the characteristics of a structure but to the facilities provided on a site including but
not limited to, the vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization, landscaping, parking, fence,
driveway, street opening, pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the district in
which it is located due to changes in Code requirements, or annexation.
NON WATER-DEPENDENT USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent.
NON-WATER-ORIENTED USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent, water-related, or
water-enjoyment.
4-11-150 DEFINITIONS O:
OPEN SPACE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by
buildings, paved areas, or other manmade structures.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM): On lakes and streams, that mark found by
examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
Exhibit D - 200
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a
character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition
exists as of the effective date of regulations, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may
change in accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following criteria clarify this
mark on lakes and streams:
A. Lakes. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean
high water.
B. Streams. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of
mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark is found on the banks
forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs.
4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P:
PARTY OF RECORD: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) All persons, agencies or organizations who have submitted written comments in
response to a notice of application; made oral comments in a formal public hearing conducted
on the application; or notified local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final
decision on a permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such notice by mail.
PERMIT, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) Any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or
revision authorized under chapter 90.58 RCW.
PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating
platform extending from the shore over the water. This definition does not include overwater
trails.
Exhibit D-201
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
PUBLIC AQUATIC LANDS: Land managed by the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) located inside the designated inner harbor line.
PUBLIC ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general
public. This may also include visual approach.
PUBLIC INTEREST: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the affairs of
government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not
limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a
use or development.
4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R:
RECREATION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The
recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be
passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. This definition
includes both public and private facilities.
4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S:
SETBACK: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A required open space specified in the Shoreline Master Program, measured horizontally
upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark.
SHORELAND or SHORELAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet
200) in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from ordinary high water mark;
Exhibit D-202
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet (200) from such
floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams, lakes and
tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State Shorelines Management Act. For
purposes of determining jurisdictional area, the boundary will be either two hundred feet (200)
from the ordinary high water mark, or two hundred feet (200) from the floodway, whichever is
greater.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION: Structural and nonstructural methods to address erosion
impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by natural processes, such
as currents, floods, tides, wind, or wave action.
SHORELINES: All of the water areas of the State regulated by the City of Renton, including
reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except:
1. Shorelines of statewide significance.
2. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is
twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments.
3. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such
small lakes.
SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE: Those shorelines described in RCW
90.58.030(2)(e).
SHORELINES OF THE STATE: The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide
significance" regulated by the City of Renton.
Exhibit D - 203
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
STRUCTURE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A combination of material constructed or oroctod on tho ground or water or attached to
something having a location on tho ground or wator. A permanent or temporary edifice or
building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water,
except for vessels.
SUBDIVISION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A parcel of land divided into two (2) or more parcels.
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value
exceeds two thousand fivo hundred dollars ($2,500.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000) or any
development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shoreline
of the State. Exemptions in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and in RMC 4-9-190C are not considered
substantial developments.
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The shoreline management substantial development
permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140).
4-11-220 DEFINITIONS V:
VESSEL: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)
Ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for navigation and
do not interfere with the normal public use of the water.
4-11-230 DEFINITIONS W:
WATER-DEPENDENT USE: 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.
Exhibit D-204
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
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-ENJOYMENT USE: 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, riverwalk developments,
and multiple use commercial/office/residential development; provided that such uses conform
to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the Shoreline Master
Program.
WATER-ORIENTED/NON WATER ORIENTED: "Wator oriontod refers to any combination of
wator-dopondont, wator rolatod, and/or water-onjoymont usos and servos as an all
encompassing definition for priority usos undor tho Shoreline Management Act. "Nonwator
oriented" sorvos to doscribo thoso usos which havo little or no relationship to tho shoreline and
are not considered priority usos undor tho Shoreline Management Act. Examples of nonwator
Exhibit D - 205
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
oriontod usos include professional offices, automobilo salos or repair shops, min-storago
facilities, multi family residential dovolopmont, dopartmont storos and gas stations; those-uses
may bo considorod wator orientod whoro thoro is significant public access. WATER-ORIENTED
USE: "Water-oriented" refers to a use that is water-dependent, water-related, water-
enjoyment, or a combination of such uses.
WATER-RELATED USE: 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.
WETLANDS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
Exhibit D - 206
RESOLUTION NO. 4067
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those
artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to,
irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July
1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or
highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the
conversion of wetlands.
Exhibit D - 207