HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-04-084,,) I l
PARTIES OF RECORD
CRITICAL AREAS CODE AMNDS 2004
LUA04-084, ERe
Richard Gumpert
IDC
742 1st Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
(party of record)
Dean Radford
King County Journal
600 Washington Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
(party of record)
Tom Malphrus
Friends of the Black River
18713 102nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
(party of record)
Renee Schaefer
PGP Inc.
1325 4th Avenue ste: #500
Seattle, WA 98101
(party of record)
Sandra Lange, Planner
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
(party of record)
Suzann Krom
4715 V2 36th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126-4715
(party of record)
.; Traci L. Shallbetter
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
Attorneys for Barbee Mill Co.
2600 Century Square
1501 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1688
(party of record)
Garrett Huffman
South King County Manager
Master Builders Association
335 116th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
(party of record)
Lowell Anderson
8225 S 128th Street
Seattle, WA 98178
(party of record)
Chad Armour
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
(party of record)
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
10500 NE 8th Street ste: #1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
(party of record)
Richard Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
(party of record)
.IJames C. Hanken
Law Offices of James C. Hanken
999Third Ave. ste: 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
(party of record)
Donna J. Bunten
WA Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(party of record)
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
2115 N 30th ste: #203
Tacoma, WA 98403
(party of record)
Brad Olschefski
6672 156th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98006
(party of record)
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LP
1501 Fourth Avenue ste: #2140
Seattle, WA 98101
(party of record)
Farideh Mastan
13810 SE 42nd Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
(party of record)
Daniel E. Penttila
Fish Biolog ist
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100
LaConner, WA 98257-1100
(party of record)
Matthew Mega
Urban Habitat Program Director,
Seattle Audobon Society
8050 35th Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(party of record)
--------------------------------_. -------------------------------------._----------
~ = = =-=-======~=~=~=~=~=~=====:------.. --
~~~~~~~{~~~~~~~;;~;~~~~~~~;~~~~i
--------
--------_. -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I .#..t.
City of Renton -Water classes
Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
O. Del Rosario
15 October 2003 DRAFT
S(19t11t1S1
PAN
S(lOOtt-Sl -----
Renton City Boundary
PAA Boundary
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Culvert
S(1161hst
_-_-_-ljT:'
o 3000 6000
F"''''''''''t'llCoc"""jmcoc*''", ,"miC*'~
1 : 36000
CODE AMENDMENTS
~
Jones & Stol{es
Lisa Grueter, AICP
Senior Planner
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946
direct 425.893.6428 • fax 425.822.1079
emailigrueter@jsanet.com
www.jonesanclslokes.com
•
•
•
m
Jones & Stol<es DE:, ~lOPMENT PLANNING :',!TY OF RENTON
'.JUL 08 2004
RECEIVED
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 13,2004
To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton;
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
Subject: Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master
Program Regulation Amendments
OVERVIEW
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, andpr~tecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). GMA requires
protection of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas used for potable water, fish and wildlife h(lbitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas; (RCW
36.70A.030). Since the original GMAwas instituted in 1991, GMA has been amended with
respect to critical areas, particularly to require the use of "best available science" in critical area
policies and regulations and' consideration of anadromous fish species., ' ,
Partly in'response to GMA~the City of Renton adopted Critical Area Regulations'between 1989
and 2000. The City regulations currently address: '
• Aquifer Protection Areas
• Geologically Hazardous Areas
• Habitat Conservation Areas'
• Frequently Flooded Areas; and
• Wetlands
The City Critical Area Regulations "reserve" a section to address the protection of streams and
lakes, which otherwise are minimally addressed in the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
regulations (25 foot setback from waterbodies).
Given the status ofthe stream regulations, the focus of the City'S efforts to comply with the
GMA best available science provisions relates to streams, and a series of recommendations by
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
':;'/""" " f\)! ;'j '''', .IJ:":. !. ,.t .1'.I,s
Page 2 of18
July 13, 2004
the consultant team have beenprepared to establish water classifications, buffers, and other
related it~mMHp~~:y:et to document the City's compliance with best available science for the
remaining GMA critical area topics and effectively use the City's resources, more limited scope
reviews and evaluations have been conducted: These limited scope reviews include a best
. available science evaluation of wetland regulations, as well as a comparison of the City's aquifer,
flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations to the State Department of
Community Development's Example Critical. Areas Code. These evaluations are available under
separate cover.
The purpose of this memo is to give an overview of the proposed regulatory amendments by
each critical area topic. "" . "
Aquifer Protection Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton water supply is obtained from four sources:
• The Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer
iii Springbrook Springs
• Maplewood Production Aquifer
• Well5A
These sources are protected by designating aquifer'protection area zones (APA zones) and
restricting land use, limiting and restricting hazardous materials, and establishing construction
activity standards, fill quality reporting, and stormwater management requirements within the' "
zones. Renton's APAzones are defmed as follows:
• Zone 1: The land area situated between a well" or well field owned by the City and the three
hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater trave.l time contour. .
• Zone 1 Modified: The same land area describe a for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting
a high-priority well, well field, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partially
protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are
regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by exemptions.
• Zone 2: The land area situatedbetw~en the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater
travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for 'a well or well field
owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring·
is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an
AP A into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire AP A will be designated as Zone 2.
The City'S Aquifer Protection Area Regulations include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 3 of 18
July 13, 2004
Designation of Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Areas (AP As) as
described above.
Establishing Operating and Closure Permit requirements for facilities in all Zones
Requiring removal of existing facilities in Zone 1 if they store/handle/treatiproduce
hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 gallons .
Performance standards, all AP A Zones
-Requiring secondary containment
-Requiring hazardous materials monitoring and providing standards for release
restrictions, including in Zone 1 added site monitoring and site improvement standards to
protect against hazardous materials release
Limiting application of pesticides and nitrates near wells and springs
Establishing wastewater disposal requirements
Establishing surface water management requirements
Regulating pipelines
Providing constrUction activity standards and fill material requirements
Regulating existing solid waste landfills
• Zone 1 Modified is similar to Zone I except that:
Existingfacilities are not subject to the 500 gallon hazardous material quantity and they
would not have to relocate or reduce inventory
-Existing septic tanks are allowed and new septic tanks would be allowed if City sewers
were not available
-Infiltration of stormwater would be allowed as with Zone 2
-Existing facilities would not be subject to site improvements (e.g. groundwater
monitoring, paving, stormwater management improvements, etc.)
The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in intent, and are tailored to the
City'S critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the aquifer protection zone map in RMC
Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better distinguish between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2
is proposed. A discretionary code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a
I
Page 4 of 18
July 13,2004 •
hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a potential to significantly affect groundwater
quantity or quality. Otherwise, amendments or added regulations are not recommended~
Flood Hazard Areas (CAR)
Floodplain hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplain and floodways, are designated along
the City's major streams including:
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Black River
• Springbrook Creek
Additionally floodplains ofthe Green River extend into the City limits along the western city
limit boundary shared with Tukwila.
The City implements the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain
Management Regulations (RMC 4-3-0501), which allows flood insurance to be sold in the City.
It designates areas of flood hazards and applies construction standards for residential and •
nomesidential development in the flood hazard areas.
It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard regulations with the following'
. adjustments:
• Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates to the Federal/State Model
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, or to address other clarifications, in order to maintain
flood insurance eligibility. These Include:
Definitions need to be added or amended; especially "basement" and "development," to
specifically implement the flood hazard regulations.
RMC 4-3-050.1.3.b.i and ii, Manufactured Homes: Minor revision to indicate that the
foundations be " ... securely anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation
system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement."
RMC 4-3-050.1.3.c, Nomesidential Construction. Subsection c.i needs to be amended as
follows to ensure the City receives credit towards insurance rates: i. Be floodproofed so
,that below one foot above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
RMC 4.-3-050.1.4.b, the last sentence should be amended to match the most recent State
Model: ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does •
•
•
•
Page 5 of 18
July 13, 2004
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a) before the
repair, reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is
being restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with
existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places shaH
not be included may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%).
• Require the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. The primary concern is to regulate mapped flood hazard areas and establish base
flood elevations based on federal studies. However, appropriate situations where the City
could require additional future flood information include: development in unmapped areas or
bridge construction proposals.
Geologic Hazard Areas (CAR)
Geologic risks in the City of Renton include:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine haZards
• Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often
considered to be a landSlide hazard)
To a lesser extent there is a potential for volcanic hazards.
The adopted Geologic Hazard regulations:
• Classify hazards using .criteria. BaS~d upon· a report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the
City of Renton in 1991, the regulations include criteria for landslide hazards, erosion hazards,
seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Maps of these hazards are to be used as references.
"
• Address exemptions within Geologic Hazard areas.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports for properties with slopes 25% or greater, and
Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards. Independent peer review of geotechnical
reports may be required Jor properties with High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine,
or High Coal Mine Hazards. For any of the hazards, conditions of approval may include
modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project size/configuration, or seasonal
constraints on development.
I
Page 6 of 18
July 13,2004 •
• Address slopes between 25-40% that do not have identified erosion or landslide
hazards, by requiring peer review of geotechnical reports, erosion control plans, and weekly
erosion control inspections. The regulations would also authorize conditions of approval
which may include modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project
size/configuration, seasonal constraints on development, vegetation stabilization, sequencing
or phasing of construction, clearing and grading limits, and other measures. These same
potential conditions of approval apply to lands with Medium and High Landslide Hazards
and High Erosion Hazards. .
• Restrict development on slopes over 40%. Exceptions include man~made slopes (e.g. from
legal mining operations) pursuant to a modification, a single family dwelling on a lot of
record pursuant to a variance, public utilities needed to protect slope stability, and public
road widening where alternative locations are infeasible. Modifications may be allowed such
as allowing 411 at the base of a 40% slope. Aswith other modifications, report submittal, and
review criteria would apply. .
• Restrict the creation oflots having a predominant 40%+ slope.
• Require a buffer of 50 feet from a Very High Landslide Hazard Area, which may be
increased or decreased administratively based upon a geotechnical report.
• Provide a revi~w process for Coal Mine Hazards. The regulations require a report to
document potential Coal Mine Hazards, authorize conditions of approval, and indicate
requirements for mitigation during construction.
• Establish detailed report preparation requirements for each potential hazard located on a
site.
The regulations are comparable to the State Example Code. Minor improvements to the City's
adopted geologic hazard regulations are proposed below.
• To strengthen the City'S general performance standards, the following review criteria are
proposed to be added:
-The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties
beyond pre~development conditions;
The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas.
The criteria would also state that the development must be safely accommodated,
summarizing other geologic hazard standards in the City's code.
• The regulations would newly address volcanic hazards. The risk is generally low, and could
•
include inundation due to lahar sedimentation or ashfall (tephra) The proposed regulations •
would require critical facility proposals (e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green
• Page 7 of 18
July 13,2004
River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to demonstrate adequate engineering
,standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and an evacuation and emergency management
plan.
Habitat Conservation Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton and its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting wildlife
species. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and
sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program. Priority habitats in the City of Renton include
wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. The lake, rivers, and creeks support
anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and
other waterfowl.
The City's Habitat Conservation Regulations address:
• Criteria defining "critical habitat." Critical habitat includes: species that are listed as
endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority by Federal or State agencies; heron
rookeries or raptor nesting' areas, Category 1 wetlands; and shorelines designated as Natural
or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program.
• • Habitat assess~ents. Reports are required, and peer review may be required.
•
, ' ,
• Native,Growth Protection Areas. Critical habitats are to, be placed in Native Growth
Protection Areas.
• Disturbance. If a critical habitat area is to be altered, impacts are to be avoided, minimized
or compensated. Mitigation may be required based upon submitted reports, or information
from State or Federal agencies. '
The City regulations ,provide a comparabl~ review process for habitat conservation areas in
comparison to the State Example Code. Potential minor measures to enhance the City's
regulations are suggested -to .reference State standards for bald eagles, and to clarify that
activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat conservation areas may be regulated.
Also, amendments for streams would remove "shorelines designated as Natural or Conservancy
in the Shoreline Master Program" as habitat conservation areas since streams and shorelines
would have a separate proposed set ofregulations including buffers, and amendments clarify that
Habitat Conservation regulations apply to non-salmonid species, while stream regulations
address primarily salmonid species.
Streams and Lakes (CAR and SMP)
The proposed major regulatory changes are to add stream and lake buffer requirements to the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Renton Shoreline Master Program. In both sets of
Page 8 of18
July 13, 2004 •
regulations, the regulations address the following key concepts (attached flow charts demonstrate
the regulatory approach):
• Classification: A five-level stream typing system based on whether the water is salmonid-
bearing, and water body flow characteristics. Among the salmonid-bearing classes, the
differentiation is based on whether the water body is a major watercourse versus a tributary.
Among non-salmonid bearing waters, the distinctions are pereruiial versus intermittent flows,
__ and artificial channels. A process i1i induded to help classify unclassified streams. As laid
out in the regulations Class 1 stre~s are consistent with designated Shorelines of the State
(as well as consistent with mapped Chinook presence) and therefore are addressed in Renton
Shoreline regulations (see below). Class 2 to 4 water bodies, salmonid bearing andnon--
salmonid bearing, receive the most attention in the Critical Area Regulations. Class 5 water
bodies are maiunade streams and are not regulated. The attached map identifies the draft
water class map.
• Inner and Outer Buffer Zones: As a result of Best Available Science review, the proposed
stream/lake buffers would increase from 25 feet (required in Tree CuttinglLand Clearing
Regulations today) to a range of35 to 100 feet depending on stream class and salmonid use.
To allow for some changing environmental conditions and functions in an-area, such as that
riparian fullctions diminish with distance or to recogniz~ existing w-ban development, the '
concept of "inner versus outer zones" is proposed. The "outer buffers" standard refers to •
standard un-enhanced buffer widths. "Inner buffers" refers to the possibility of reducing the
standard buffer width with enhancement (range of:f5 to 75 feet). Standards for _
redevelopment are also included, i.e. recognizing that a natural buffer may not be possible on
an already highly urbanized site in which case the buffers function as setbacks, and standards
indicate no addition of impervious surfaces is allowed although they may be rearranged.
• Defined Rules versus Variable Rules Meeting EnvironmentalObjectives: Two
regulatory approaches would be incorporated - a Standard path where if a water body is
classified and buffer standards or other regulations are met, development may proceed-or
an Alternative path, either where conditions may not be well known requiring more in depth
review and analysis of appropriate standards or where an applicant wants to vary a standard
but the City needs to be assured that ecological functions are protected. This is translated
into' activities that may proceed according to standard criteria with standard report/analysis
requirements versus those that must provide supplemental analysisiinitigation plans and
respond to discretionary criteria.
• General Principles -Avoidance and No-Net-Loss of Function: The-regulations promote:
, a) avoidance of the stream/lake and associated buffer and b) no-net-Ioss of ecological
functions if avoidance is not possible (or development already exists within the new, larger
buffers).
Specific to'the Shoreline Master Program Regulations, other amendments include: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 9 of 18
July 13, 2004
SMP Sections E to I: Inthe Renton SMP Regulations, amendments to sections describing
Shoreline Use Environments are incorporated as noted in Section 3 of this Project Narrative.
Essentially, these amendments address the map environments and use allowances applicable
to the Black River and eastern extent of Cedar River in the City primarily to address text/map
conflicts and an unclassified annexed area.
SMP Section J: Renton SMP Section J provides for general standards applicable to all
development. It is in this location that shoreline buffers/setbacks are added. Approaches to
the buffer/setbacks are also provided similar to those described above. To address the use
priorities of the Shoreline Management Act while addressing shoreline protection, the ability
to reduce buffers/setbacks requires an evaluation, and the potential reductions vary according
to use priority.
SMP Section K: Following from Use Environment amendments (sections E to 1) as well as
review of model ordinances, some amendments to development standards for trails, roads
and utilities are included and are similar to the stream/lake standards included in the Critical
Areas Regulations.
• SMP Nonconforming Uses: When nonconforming use and development standards (for
"grandfathered" uses or buildings) do not exist in a local government's Shoreline Master
Program, the. definitions and standards of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-
080 apply, and .these address continuation of nonconforming structures, nonconforming uses,
replacement after acts of God, and other provisions. Renton's SMP has not contained
nonconforming regulations and to this date would have been subject to the State WAC
requirements which are more strict in terms of procedure (e.g. requirements for a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit in some cases) than the City's standard nonconforming regulations.
However, it is important that the City have some consistency in its nonconforming standards.
Renton's Title 4, Chapter 10 contains the City of Renton's nonconforming structure and use
standards that generally apply in the City, and it is proposed that the City's Shoreline Master
Program incorporate these.
Wetlands (CAR) .
In 1991, the City inventoried and identified approximately 367 acres of wetlands within the City
limits. Within Renton's sphere of influence, approximately 1,067 acres of wetlands were
identified. Wetland types found in Renton and its sphere of influence include bogs, emergent
marshes, shrub/scrub, forested and old growth wetlands. Most of the wetlands are adjacent to
rivers and streams although other smaller concentrations are found elsewhere. Most are located
in the "Valley" area of Renton inside the City limits. Wetland inventories have been updated in
some portions of the City, such as through the City'S 1997 Eastside Green River Wastershed
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
The City's wetland regulations classify wetlands, require wetland assessments, provide buffer
standards, and establish wetland mitigation standards including replacement ratios.
Page 10 of18
July 13, 2004 •
A best available science review of Renton's wetland regulations found that the City's wetland
regulations are supported by current best available science for wetlands in Washington State.
Several amendments are proposed to improve or better document the City's decision-making
process; including:
• Exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands should be modified -those that provide
functions sh<?uld not be exempt.
• Exemptions for ongoing agriculture, vegetation management, stormwater management
facilities in buffers, and trails and open space facilities in buffers should be amended to
ensure deminimus impacts.
• A measure to enhance the City's classification system could be to reference or translate the
State Department of Ecology's rating system to the City's (meaning identify how the State's
four-way system translates to the City's three-way class system). However, at present, the
City's wetland class system was found to be sound. .
• Wetland classification criteria relying on the County's 1991 inventory should be deleted.
Vague terms in the classification system should be amended (e.g. plant associations of
infrequent occurrence and headwaters).
• Wetland assessments should be required for proposals within 300 feet of a wetland rather
than 100 feet. This is because in some cases the City may wish to expand wetland buffers
beyond standard requirements. .
• The City's standard buffers were found to meet best available science. It was recommended
buffer size determinations (particularly buffer reductions, buffer averaging, modifications,
variances'and similar) should document how best available science is met. ·A particular
reference/method is suggested: The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the
Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000.
• Since the City's buffer averaging criteria include science based provisions (e.g. variation in
wetland sensitivity), it was recommended that reasonable use be removed as a criterion for
buffer averaging.
• Review criteria to expand buffers should be amended to remove vague terms.
• Definitions of restoration,creation, and enhancement as well as protection/maintenance
should be revised to be consistent with State and Federal agencies. _
• Enhancement criteria should be amended to allow some desirable changes in functions.
• Off-site mitigation may be more desirable than on-site mitigation, and some criteria are .
, proposed for amendment.
•
•
•
•
•
Critical Area Review Procedures
Page 11 of18
. July 13,2004
Either in the City'S Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) or in administrative sections such
as 4-1, 4-8, and 4-9, Renton's regulations provide comprehensive critical areas procedures, such
as defining regulation purposes, applicability and exemptions, submittal requirements, general
performance standards, review criteria~ variances and exceptions, and enforcement.
The City's procedures provide for structured review of development applications and
determination of appropriate conditions. -.
To meet Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rules that direct the City to consider best
available science where variations to regulations are proposed, to address common performance
standards in addition to buffets, and to clarify the application of regulations, some amendments
are proposed:
• The City should include best available science review criteria for administrative buffer
reductions, administrative modifications, and administrative and Hearing Examiner
vanances.
• Submittal requirements for projects that could impact critical areas and propose mitigation
plans, or those that propose buffer reductions, should demonstrate that best available science
was used in determining the reduced st,andard and/or in developing mitigat~(m plans.
• The City regulations do not specifically require a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement, although the critical area regulations do provide staff latitude to apply
conditions, and SEP A provides another review and mitigation process. There may be
instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback to ensure
long-term maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness. A general
standard allowing the City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback is included. It
would be discretionary;
• It is recommended that the City clarify that applicants are responsible for other permits
.outside of the Critical Area Regulations.
Other
As part of'incorporatingstream and buffer protection requirements and other critical area
amendments, consistency amendments are needed to the City'S Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
Regulations, permit submittal requirements, State Environmental Policy Act review,
Nonconforming Uses, Variance procedures, and Definitions .
Page 12 of 18
July 13, 2004 •
EXAMPLE SITES -STREAM/LAKE AND SHORELINE REGULATIONS
As we have prepared the draft stream/lake and shoreline regulations, the proposed water body
buffers were discussed in context with several development examples. The purpose was to
review the net effect of the proposed regulations and to keep in mind the principles of GMA and
SMA,which include managing growth while responding to sensitive environmental conditions,
recognizing use preferences along shorelines, and, respecting private property rights. The results
ofthe example project review are shown in the Table below. Attached also are aerial photos of
the various locations.
EXAMPLE SITES ,
POTENTIAL WATER CLASS AND MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARIES
SITE WATER BODY CLASS EFFECT OF PROPOSED
Using Proposed System . REGULATIONS
55 Williams -Multifamily I
(Cedar River -Shoreline ofthe State) • The standard buffer width of 100
feet would eliminate much of the
building at its present height and
configuration.
• Reduced buffer standards are
-possible and would ultimately be
equal to the zone setbacks because
other property (City-trail)
intervenes between development
and Cedar River. .
" • If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function wouJd need to be
demonstrated. For other future
cases along the Cedar where lots
abut the Cedar, the potential
reduced setback would be 50 feet.
Bristol @ Southport 1
(Lake Washington -Shoreline of the • The standard buffer width of 100 State/Statewide Significance) feet would eliminate some of the
, building at its present height and
configuration.
• If the built development were
, proposed under the proposed
regulations, no-m:t-Ioss of
shoreline ecological function
would need to be demonstrated to
allow for reduced buffers/setbacks.
Reduced buffer standards are
•
•
• SITE WA TER BODY CLASS
Using Proposed System
Lake Washington Trail and Habitat 1
Enhancement Project (Cedar River -Shoreline of the State) •
•
• ..
--
•
•
. Page 13 of 18
. July 13, 2004
EFFECT OF PROPOSED
REGULA TlONS
possible to 50 feet for water
enjoyment uses such as the current
development. Except for a comer
of one mixed-use building (at the
northeast comer near Gene Coulon
Park), which is setback at 35 feet,
the 50-foot setback would match
the majority setback of other
portions of development. Existing
developed areas can retain
impervious surfaces. Averaged
buffers/setbacks are possible.
The standard buffer would not
allow the trail (100 foot buffer).
If the development were proposed
under the proposed regUlations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated. Reduced buffer
standards as low as 0 would allow
for the trail connections to water in
regulations; existing developed
areas can retain impervious
surfaces. .
Over-water trails are allowed per
standards already existing in SMP .
Page 14 of 18
July 13,2004 •
SITE. WATER BODY CLASS EFFECT OF PROPOSED
Usine Proposed System REGULATIONS
Honey Creek Estates II (PIN 344900-2
0160 "" (January 23rd Stream Class List as a • Most of required 100' buffer falls Class 2 stream that is fish-bearing; in steep slope area of 30-39% WRIA0285) where development is unlikely.
• Lot 16 would be particularly
impacted and may not have enough
developable area if it were
proposed under the regulations ..
• It may be possible that clustering
on R-8 zoned portions of the
property could result in an added
lot to replace another that would be
· "lost" due to the regulations. A
· future policy discussion ofR-8 lot
width standards as a result of
clustering may be appropriate.
. . • Additional impervious surface
would not be able to be added in
the buffer area.
• If the development were proposed • under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated in order to reduce or
average buffer widths.
13221 SE 12810 Street: Vicinity of 4
NE 4th/ Union. Commercial Short (Applicant report characterizes as • The 35-foot buffer largely falls Plat Near Post Office: intermittent without direct fish within the abutting wetland area, habitat; appears to be upstream meaning no impact to site plan segment of Maplewood Creek. developable area. WRIA0302) · . Where there is no abutting wetland,
and only stream, the stream buffer
would be 10 feet wider than current
25-foot standard. Based on the
stream's location, there is little
effect on the developable area on
the site plan .
• . If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
, . . net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
· demonstrated. •
•
•
•
55 Williams -
Page 15 of 18
. July 13, 2004
I
. Bristol @ Southport
Portion of Lake W Trail and Habitat Enhancement ect
Page 16 of 18
July 13, 2004 •
•
••
•
•
•
Page 17 ofl8
july 13, 2004
Honey Creek Estates II (PIN 344900-0160; also includes un highlighted boundary of PIN
1023059099 to
.. ~ .~Page 18 of18
July 13, 2004 •
13221 SE 12Sth Street: Vic of NE 4th/ Union. Commercial Short Plat" Near Post Office
•
•
-r! i
III
S ...
I u
I -• ..
I I -,
I! ! * -= ..
I -J ..
I -1:
ii I -
--------------------
--------------------
r--------------------
I
I
I
••• J. ••.•••.•
--------------------
• .... II:PrID8Std .............. L.sII ........ CI1SS1 .. rs •
r-----------------------------~---Alternative
Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=========================================t~~$:WbStftN.QtQM==================-=-=-=-=-=-= _ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Renton -Water classes
Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
G. Del Rosario
15 October 2003 DRAFT
Renton City Boundary
PAA Boundary
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Culvert
o 3000 6000
IClcccOOOccca
1 : 36000
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
•
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
. 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
.50
.51
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
[§Clit(fr\Jsl1)10'te: Spell check functions have not been available to this file perhaps due to copy material from the web.
We apologize for any misspellings.]
RMCSECTION
4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: ....................................................................................... 3
A. PURPOSE: ................................................................................................................................... 3
B. APPLICABILITY -CRITICAL AREAS DESIGNATIONS/MAPPING: .......................................... 5
C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: ............. 12
D. ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION: .......................................................................... 32
E. GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ALLOWED ALTERATIONS: ...................... 37
F. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: ............ : ................................................................ 39
G. SURETY DEViCES: .................................................. , ............................................................... 41
H. AQUIFER PROTECTION: ............................. : ............................................................................ 43
I. FLOOD HAZARDS: ..................................................................................................................... 51
.. J. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: ............................................. , ................................................................ 56
K. HABITAT CONSERVATION: ..................................................................................................... 63
L. STREAMS AND LAKES: ...................................................................................................... : .... 64
M. WETLANDS: .............................................................................................................................. 75
N. ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES: ............................................................. 92
O. APPEALS: .................................................................................................................................. 94
P. ASSESSMENT RELIEF -WETLANDS: .................................................................................... 94
Q. MAPS: .................... : ......................................................................................•............................ 94
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS: .......................................................... 98
A. PROGRAM ADOPTED: ................................................................................ : ............................. 98
B. COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: .................................................................................. ~ ............ 98
C. AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: ......................................................... 99
D. PURPOSES AND PRIORITIES: ................................................................................................ 99
E. REGULATED WATER BODIES: .............................................................................................. 100
F. THREE (3) ENVIRONMENTS DESIGNATED BY CITY: ................................................... : ..... 101
G. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: ................................................................................................... 104
H. CONSERVANCY ENViRONMENT: ......................................................................................... 105
I. URBAN ENVIRONMENT: ................................. ~ ........................................................................ 107
J. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL SHORELINE USES: ........................................... 108
K. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS: ............................................................................................ 119
L. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES: ............................................................................... 135
M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: ............................................................................................. 135
N. APPEALS: ............................. : .................................................................................................. 135
4-4-130 TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS: ............................................... 136
4-8-120 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS -SPECIFIC TO APPLICATION TYPE: ........................... 144
4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES: .................................................................. 164
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS: ..................................................................................................... 166
4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: ................................... 178
CHAPTER 10 LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, USES AND LOTS ................................. 189
CHAPTER 11 DEFINITIONS ................. , ............................................................................................... 194
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
51 •
•
I
•
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 2
51
•
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
• 68
69
•
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS:
A. PURPOSE:
1. General: The purposes of this section are to:
a. Manage development activities to protect life, property, and environmental quality; and
b. Assist or further the implementation of the policies of the Growth Management Act, the
State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21 C RCW, and the City Comprehensive Plan,
and its implementing regulations; and
c. Provide City officials with information to evaluate. approve, condition or deny public or
private development proposals with regard to critical area impacts; and
d. Protect the public life, health, safety, welfare, and property by minimizing and
managing the adverse environmental impacts cif development within and abutting critical
areaS7; and
e. Protect the public from:
i. Preventable maintenance and replacement of public facilities needed when critical
area functioning is impaired; and
ii. Unnecessary costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and
iii. Potential litigation on improper construction practices occurring in critical areas .
rEait~gmBm: Generalizes purposes originally under Wetlands below.]
2. Aquifer Protection: The overall purpose of the aquifer protection regulations is to protect
aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous
materials. O'ther specific purposes include:
a. Protect the groundwater resources of the City.
b. Provide a means of regulating specific land uses within aquifer protection areas.
c. Provide a means of establishing safe construction practices for projects built within, an
aquifer protection area.
d. Protect the City's drinking water supply from impacts by facilities that store, handle,
treat, use, or produce substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality. (Amd. Ord.
4851,8-7-2000)
3. Flood Hazards: It is the purpose of the flood hazard regulations to:
a. Promote the public health. safety, and general welfare; and
9§.. Minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas; and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 3
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
I 105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
6Q.. Minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; and
e~. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public; and
fQ. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric,
telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;
and
€}~. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of
areas of special flood hazard so as to mini~ize future flood blight areas; and
Rf. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility
for their actions.
rE~a~~'t~i~t~: Removed redundant concepts due to changes in General Purpose
above.]
4. Geologic Hazards: The purposes of the geologic hazard regulations are to:
a. Minimize damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion through the control of
development; and
b. Protect the public against avoidable losses due to maintenance and replacement of
public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts,
and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and
c. Reduce the risks to the City and its citizens from development occurring on unstable
slopes; and
d. Control erosion and sediment run-off from·development.
5. Habitat Conservation: The primary purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to
minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality
habitat in order to:
a. Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City; and
b .. Coordinate habitat protection with the City's open space system, whenever possible, to
maintain and provide habitat connections; and .
c. Help maintain air and water quality, and control erosion; and
d. Serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation.
6. SIlGfeHReSj Streams and Lakes: (Reserved)The purposes of the stream and lake
regulations are to:
a. Protect riparian habitat in order to provide for bank and channel stability, sustained water
supply, flood storage, recruitment of woody debris, leaf litter, nutrients, sediment and pollutant
filtering, shade, shelter, and other functions that are important to both fish and wildlife: and
b. Prevent the loss of riparian acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over
present conditions through restoration where feasible: and, .. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
4
•
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
'.137
138
139
140
141
142
143
. 144
145
146
147
148
149
150
•
151
152
c. Protect aquatic habitat for salmonid species. Other fish/aquatic species are addressed through
Habitat Conservation regulations (see Subsection A.5. above)
7. Wetlands: The purposes of the wetland regulations are to:
a. Ensure that activities in or affecting wetlands not threaten public safety, cause
nuisances, or destroy or degrade natural wetland functions and values; and
b. Protect the public health. safety and wolfare by minimizing and managing the adverse
environmental impacts of development within and adjacent to wetlands; and
cQ. Preserve, protect and restore wetlands by regulating development within them and
around them; and
G~. Protect the public from;
i. Preventable maintenance and replacement of public facilities needed when wetland
functioning is impaired; and
ii. Costs costs associated with repair of downstream properties resulting from erosion
. and flooding due to the loss of water storage capacity provided by wetlands; and
iii. Unnocessary costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and
iv. Potential litigation on improper construction practices occurring in wetland areas;
aOO
e. Provide' City officials with information to evaluate, approve, condition or deny public or
private development proposals; and
fQ. Prevent the loss of wetland acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over
present conditions. rEait@l~tl~"m: Stricken concepts moved to General Purposes.]
B. APPLICABILITY -CRITICAL AREAS DESIGNATIONS/MAPPING:
1. Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: The following critical areas, classified in
subsections B2-H.1 through B+-M.1 of this Section, are regulated by this section:
. a. Aquifer Protection Areas. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
b. Area!) of Special Flood Hazard.
c. Sensitive Slopes, twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and Protected
Slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. .
d. Medium, High, and Very High Landslide Hazard Areas.
e. High Erosion Hazards.
f. High Seismic Hazards.
g. Medium and High Coal Mine Hazards .
h. Volcanic Hazard Areas.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 5
Ri. Critical Habitats.
+i. SRefeJ.iRes, Streams and Lakes. (Reservedt
i. All applicable requirements of this Section, RMC 4-3-050 apply to Class 2 to 4 water
bodies, as classified in RMC 4-3-050.L.1.
ii. Class 5 water bodies, classified in RMC 4-3-050.L.1, are exempt from all provisions of
this section, RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas.
iii. Class 1 water bodies, defined in RMC 4-3-050.L.1are not subject to this
section, RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, and are regulated in RMC 4-3-
090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, and RMC 4-9-190, Shoreline
Permits ..
i]S. Wetlands. Categories 1.2 and 3.
rEtiitarts1Notfi: Subsections B.2 to B.7are moved to the irrespective sections in H to M to
consolidate classifications with performance standards; for ease of use.]
a..-Aqu.i.fer Protection:
a. Applicability: The aquifer protection regulations apply to uses. activities. and facilities
located within an aquifer protection area (APA) as classified below.·
J
b. Aquifer Protection Area (API\): Aquifer protection areas are the portion of an aquifer
within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or 'operated by
the City. as depicted in subsection 0.1 of this Section. Maps.
c. Aquifer Protection Zones: Zones of an APA are designated to provide graduaied
levels of aquifer protection. Zone boundaries are determined using best available science
documented in the City of Renton \'Vellhead Protection Plan. an appendix of the City of
Renton \"later System Plan. as periodically updated. The following zones may be
deSignated:
i. Zone 1: The land area situated between a well orwell field owned by the City
and the three hundred sixty five (365) day ground'Nater tra'.'ei time contour. .
ii. Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose
of protecting a high priority well. wellfield. or spring withdra'Ning from an aquifer that is
partially protected by overlying geologic strata .. Uses. activities. and facilities located in
this area are regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by C.6(a)(iii) of this
section: .
III. Zone 2: The land area situatedbep .... een the three hundred sixty five (365) day
groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a
well or well field o ... med .or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a ' .... ell.
well field. or spring is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata. the City may
choose not to subdivide an APA into 1\'10 (2) zones. In such a case. the entire APA \!vill be
. designated as Zone 2. . .
d. MappiflgT
i. Determination of Location !Nithin a Zone of an Aquifer Protection Area: In
GotermifliAg-tfle-IGGatfeA-eW"acilities within the zBfle&-<lefined by subsection Q.1 of this
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13. 2004 6
•
•
•
194
.195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
•214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225 .
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
,,234
~35
Section, the following Hlfes-s~tRfn-tI:le-z-GRes-Gefffied by subsection 01 of
this Section, the followffig rules shall ap~
(a) Facilities located wholly within an APA zone shall be governed by the
restrictions applicable to that zone.
(b) Facilities having parts lying within more than one zone of an APA shall be
governed as follo\,vs: Each part of the facility shall be reviewed and regulated by
the requirements set forth in this Section for the zone in which that part of the
facility is actually located.
(c) Facilities having parts lying both in and out of an APA shall be governed as
follows:
That portion which is within an APA shall be governed by the applicable restrictions in
this Section; and
That portion which is not in an APA shall not be governed by this Section.
ii. Zone Maps: The locations of aquifer protection areas (APA) in the City are
€Iepicted by the map in-sOOsection 0.1 of this Section, Maps.
3. Flood Hazards:
a. Applicability: Flood hazard regulations shall apply to all areas of special flood
hazarcls within the jurisdiction of the City.
b. keas of Special Flood Hazard: "\reas of special flood hazard are defined as the land
in the floodplain subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Designation on flood m~s-always include the letters A or V.
c: Mapping and Documentation: The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the
Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled the Flood
Insurance Study for the City of-Renton, dated September 29, 1989, and any subsequent
revision, with accompanying flood insurance maps which are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this section. The flood insurance study is on file at
the Planning/Building/Public 'I'Jorks Department. The best available infOrmation for flood·
hazard area identification as outlined above shall be the basis for regulation until a new
Flood Insurance Rate Map is issued which incorporates the data utilized under
subsection D3a(iv) of this Section. (>'\md. Ord. 4851, 8 7 2000)
4. Geologic Hazards.:
a. Applicability: The geologic hazard regulatipns apply to all nonexempt activities on
sites containing steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards,
and/or coal mine hazards classified below or on.sites ' .... ithin fifty feet (50 ) of steep
slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and/or coal mine hazards
classified below which are located on abutting or acijacent sites.
b. Steep Slopes.;.
h-Steep-Slepe-DeHneation-PrOGeGUfe: The bountlafies-of a regulateG-steof)
sensitive or protected s~-is-Getermined to be in the location identified on the City
Gf-Re~e-Atlas~af)p.licant's qYalifieG--j:)rofessional may substitute
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 7
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
.270
271
272
273
,.
getffidaries independently derived from survey data for the City's considerat:iGR-m
determining the boun€laf.ie&-Of-seflsitive orprotected steep slopes. All topographic
maps shall utilize two (2) foot contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of
Renton Steep Slope Atlas. The City may require independent revievl of an applicant's
steep slope study by a qualified professional selected by the City, at the applicant's
expense.
ii. Steep Slope Types:
(a) Sensitive Slopes.
(b) Protected Slopes.
C. Landslide Hazards:
i. Low Landslide Hazard-{LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%).
ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): I\reas with slopes bet\."Ieen fiftee·n percent
(15%) and fOrty percent (40%) arid underlain by soils that consist largely of sand,
gravel or glacial till.
iii. High landslide Hazards (lH): Areas ' .... ith slopes greater than forty percent
(40%), and areas with slopes bewmen fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%)
and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay.
iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (lV): Areas of known mappable landslide
deposits. .
d. Erosion Hazards:
i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the !:'latural Resource
Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or
moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%).
ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having
severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen
. percent (15%).
e. Seismic Hazards:
i. low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils
generally have site coefficients of types 81 or S2, as defined in the Uniform Building
GOO&.
ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils.
These-sGils generally have site-GeeffiGieflt.s-ef-types S3 or S4, as defined in the
Uniform BHilGing Code.
f .. Coal Mine Hazards:
h-bGw-GGaJ-M.i.n.e.-Wazards (Cl): Areas with n9-AAown mine workin.gs-aflG-Ao
predicted stffisidence. Whfle-ne-miHes are knewn in the&e-afeaS;-tlfltiewmented
mining is kn~fFOd.:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
8
274
•
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
•
294
295
296
297
298
299
300'
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
•
ii-.--MeGium Coal Mine-Mazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than
two hundred feet (200 ) for-&teeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteeri (15) times
the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be
affected by subsidence.
iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): l\reas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine
openings and areas underlain by mine ..... orkings shallower than t>,\'O hundred feet
(200 ) in depth for steeply dipping seams, OF shallower than fifteen (15) times the
thickness of the seam or 'Norkings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be
affected by collapse or other subsidence.
g. Mapping: Maps of steep slopes,landslide, erosion, seismic, and coal mine hazards
are documented and included in subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The actual presence
or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall
govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance
with these regulations.
5. Habitat Conservation:
a. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on
sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below.
b. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the
following criteria:
i. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government
or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority;
aRdtoF .
ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or
iii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection B7b(i) of this Section for classification
criteria): and/or .
iv. Portions of streams and their shorelines designated in the Renton Shoreline
Master Program, RMC 4 3 090, as Conservancy or Natural (refer to the Renton
Shoreline Master Program).
c. Mapping:
i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species
promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non game
Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232 12 011; in the
Priority Habitat and Species Program of the VlJashington State Department of Fish
andVViidlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S.
Fish and VVildlife Service.
ii. Referenced inventories-afld maps are to be used as guides to the general location
and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection B5b of
this--SectieA-;-OOt-A-Gt--sl:10Wf+{;H'1--the-ffiferenced inventories and maps, are presumeG-to
exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section.
Draft Best Availabie Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 9
313
314
315
iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above as determined by
qHalified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or
parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations.
·316 e.-soorelines, Streams and Lake~served).
317 a.-Applicability: (Reserved.)
318 b. Definitions: (Reserved)
319 c. Mapping: (Reserved)
320 7. Wetlands:
. ..
321 a. Applicability: The \\'etland-l=egulations apply to sites containin9-Qr abutting wetlands
322 as described below. Category 2 wetiands,less than two thousand two hundred (2,200)
323 square feet in area, and Category 3 wetlands, less than five thousand (5,000) square feet
324 . in area, aremmmptfrom these regulations. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8 7 2000)
325 b. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the
326 purposes of regulating 'Netlands in the City. VVetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios
327 and avoidance criteria shall be based on the following rating system:
328 i. Category 1, Very High Quality Wetlands: Category 1 wetlands are wetlands
329 which meet one or more of th,e follo'Ning criteria:
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as·
endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species;
anGfef .
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to Sixty percent (60%) permanent open
water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) 'Nith two (2) or more vegetation
classes; and/or
(c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3)
or more vegetation classes, one of which is open 'Nater; and/or .
(d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the
geographic limits of their occurrence; and/or
(e) Wetlands assigned the UniquelOutstanding #1 rating in the current King
County VVetlands Inventory 1991 oras thereafter amended.
ii. Category 2, High Quality Wetlands: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands greater
than m'o thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet which meet one or more of the
follo'Ning criteria: .
(a) Wetlands greater than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet that are
not ,Category 1 or 3. ' .... etlands; and/or
(b) Wetlands that have heron· rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not
Category 1 wetlands; and/or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 .
•
•
•
10
349
.350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
.366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
•
384
385
(c) Wetlands of any size located at4R€-Rea4waters of a watercourse, but are not
Gategory 1 wetlands; and/or
(d) VI/etlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County
Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; andlor
(e) VlJetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical
alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization.
iii. Category 3, lower Quality WetlaflGs: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands greater
than five thousand (5,000) square feet which meet one or more of the following
cFiteria: .
(a) VVetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed 'Netiands are
wetlands which meet the following criteria:
Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human related hydrologic alterations
such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and
Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or
compaction of soils; and
May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are ne\vly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
.. Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
Characterized. by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used,
minimally by 'Nildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as
the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other. wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high
quality wetlands.
c. Maps,an~'ln\fentory:
i. TheapiJroximate . location and extent of wetlands in the City is displayed in
subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general
location and extentofwetlands.
ii. Wetlands 'Nhich are defined in subsection B7b of this Section, Classification
System, but not shown on the Renton VlJetlands Map Inventory, are presumed to
exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section.
iii. The actual presence or absence of the wetland criteria listed above, as determined
by qualified professionals, shall govern the-treatment of an individual building site or
parcel of land requiring compliance with. these regulations.
G.DeHneatien-o.f.Wet.Ja.fld-€Gge.;-F-oF-t1=leill:lrpese-ef-regulat~on,the--wetlam:l--et!ge-sAeuld
be delineated pursuant to subsection M4 of this Soction.
e.-RegulateG-and-NGflr-egulated-WetlanGs;~-Refef-to-subsectioH-M.1-a--and M 1 b . of thfs
S€GOOn-for-appIiBabiJ.Hy-tl':tresl=loIds-for+egl:llatoFy-aHG-Rooreg~4So
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 11
386
387
388
389
390
g~. Mapping -General: The exact boundary-of each critical area depicted on maps
referenced herein is approximate and is intended only to provide an indication of the
presence of a critical area on a particular site. Additional critical areas may be present on a
site. The actual presence of critical areas and the applicability of these regulations shall be
based upon the classification criteria for each critical area. (Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
391 3. Reports and Submittal Requirements: Study requirements and submittal requirements
392 are required in each regulated critical area as follows:
393 a. General Submittal Requirements -All Critical Areas: See RMC 4-3-050.F,
394 Submittal Requirements and Fees. and RMC 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements Specific
395 to Application Type.
396 b. Exempt Activities, Study Requirements: See RMC 4-3-050.C.4.c, Reports and
397 Mitigation Plans Required.
398 c. Aquifer Protection Area Permit Submittal Requirements: See RMC 4-3-050.H.1.e
_ 399 and 4-9-015.E. -
400 d. Flood Hazard Data: Flood hazard data is to be applied pursuant to RMC 4~3-
401 050.1.1.b. Mapping and Documentation.
402 e. Geologic Hazards Special Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.J.2, Special
403 Studies Required.
404
405
f. Habitat Conservation Assessment Required: See RMC 4-3-050.K.2. Habitat
Assessment Required.
406 g. Streams and Lakes Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.L.3, Study Required.
407 h. Wetlands Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.M.3. Study Required.
408 C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES:
409 1. Applicability:-Unless determined to be exempt from permitting and standards, all proposed
410 development, fill, and activities in regulated critical areas and theirbuffers shall comply with the
411 requirements of this Section. Expansion or alteration of. existing activities shall also'comply with the -
412 requirements of this Section. Any person seeking to determine whether a proposed activity or land
413 area is subject to this Section may request in writing a determination' from the City. Such a request for
414 determination shall contain the information requirements specified by the Department Administrator.
415 a. Aquifer Protection Areas -Compliance with Regulations: The following developments,
416 facilities, uses and activities shall comply with the applicable provisions and restrictions of this
417 Section and chapters 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, and 5-5 RMC for the APA zone in which the _
418 developments, facilities, uses and activities are located, except as preempted by Federal or State
419 law:
420 i. Development Permits: Development permits shall be reviewed for compliance with the
421 aquifer protection requirements of this Section.
422
423
·ii. Facilities: Facilities, as defined in RMC 4-11-060, Definitions F, which are existing, new, -
or to be closed are subject to this Section as specified below: '
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 12
•
•
•
424
•
425
~26
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
tt1~
448
449
450
451
452
453.
·454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
(a) Existing Facilities: All owners of facilities which store, handle, treat, use, or
produce hazardous materials or have done so in the past, must comply with the
permit requirements, release reporting requirements, and closure requirements as
set forth in this Section;
(b) Existing Facilities -Limitation on Material Increase: In Zone 1 of an APA, no
change in operations at a facility shall be allowed that increases the quantities of
hazardous materials stored, handled, treated, used, or produced in excess of
quantities reported in the initial aquifer protection area operating permit with the
following exception: An increase in the quantity of hazardous materials is allowed up
to the amount allowed for a new facility in Zone 1 as provided by subsection .
C.8.!!e(ii) of this Section, Prohibited Activities -Aquifer Protection Areas, Zone 1;
(c) New Facilities: All proposals for new facilities within any zone of an aquifer
protection area must be reviewed for compliance with this Section prior to issuance of
any development permits for uses in which hazardous materials are stored, handled,
treated, used or produced or which increase the quantity of hazardous materials
stored, handled, treated, used, or produced;
(d) Abandonment: No person, persons, corporation or other legal entity shall
temporarily or permanently abandon, close, sell, or otherwise transfer a facility in an
APA without complying with the requirements of RMC 4-9-015.F, Closure Permits,
and permit conditions of this Section;
iii. Hazardous Materials -Use, Production, Storage, Treatment, Disposal, or
Management: Persons that store; handle, treat, use, or produce a hazardous material as
defined by -chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions, shall be subject to the requirements of this
Section, and as further specified below:
(8) All appli~ations for development permits for uses in which hazardous materials
are stored, handled, treated, used or produced or which increase the quantity of
hazardous materials stored, handled, treated, used, or produced at a location in the
APA must be reviewed for compliance with this Chapter by the Department prior to
approval.
(b) The focus of review for all permits will be on the hazardous materials that will be
stored, handled., treated, used, or produced; and the potential for these substances to
degrade groundwater quality.
(c) An inventory of hazardous materials on forms provided by the Department shall
be submitted to the Department upon application for a development permit.
(d) Where required by the Department, plans and specifications for secondary
containment shall be submitted and shall comply with subsection H.2.d(i) of this
Section, Secondary Containment -Zones 1 and 2. Development permits shall not be
issued until plans and specifications for secondary containment, if required, have
been approved by the Department.
(e) The Generic Hazardous Materials List attached and incorporated as subsection R
of this Section is provided for informational purposes.
iv. Application of Pesticides and Nitrates: Persons who apply pesticides and/or fertilizer
containing nitrate in the APA, except for homeowners applying only to their own property,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 13
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
I 491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
shall comply with subsection H.3 of this Section, Use of Pesticides and Nitrates -APA Zones •
1 and 2.
V. Construction Activities: Persons engaged in construction activities as defined in RMC 4-
11-030, Definitions C, shall comply with subsection H.7 of this Section, Construction Activity
Standards -Zones 1 and 2, and RMC 4-4-030.C.7, Construction Activity Standards -APA
Zones 1 and 2;
vi. Fill Material: Persons placing fill material on sites within the APA shall comply with
subsection H.8 of this Section, Fill Material, and RMC 4-4-060.L.4, Fill Material;
vii. Fuel Oil Heating Systems: Owners of facilities and structures sh~1I complywith
subsection C.8.e(i)(9) and C.8.e(ii)(6) of this Section, Prohibited Activities -Aquifer
Protection Areas, Zones 1 and 2, relating to conversion of heating systems tofuel oil and
installation of new fuel oil heating systems.
viii. Pipelines: Owners of pipelines as defined in RMC 4-11-160 shall comply with
subsection H.6 of this Section, Pipeline Requirements; .
. ix. Solid Waste Landfills: Owners of existing solid waste landfills shall comply with
subsection H.9 of this Section, Regulations for Existing Solid Waste Landfills -Zones 1 and
2;
x. Surface Water Systems: Surface water systems shall meetthe requirements of
subsection H.S of this Section, Surface Water Requirements, and RMC 4-6-030.E, Drainage
Plan Requirements and Methods of Analysis;
xi. Unauthorized Release: All persons shall comply with subsection H.1 0 of this Section,
Hazardous Materials -Release Restrictions -Zones 1 and 2, and RMC 4-9-01S.G;
Unauthorized Releases;
xii. Wastewater Disposal Systems: Owners of structures that are connected to existing on-
site sewage disposal systems and proposed wastewater disposal systems shall comply with
subsection H.4 of this Section, Wastewater Disposal Requirements, and RMC 4-6-040.J,
Sanitary Sewer Standards, Additional Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an
Aquifer Protection Area.
b.SOOrelines. Streams and lakes: (Reserved)
2. Permit Required:
a. Permit Required .,.. Development or Alteration: Prior to any development or
alteration of a property containing a critical area as defined in subsection B of this
Section, Applicability':'" Critical Areas Designations/Mapping, the owner or designee must
obtain a development permit, critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption. No separate
critical area permit is required for a development proposal which requires development
permits or which has received a letter of exemption. If a proposed activity is not exempt
and does not otherwise require a development permit, but is subject to this Section, the
Department Administrator shall determine whether to grant.or deny a separate critical
areas permit based upon compliance with applicable standards and regulations of this
Section.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 14
•
•
•
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
.27
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
.46·
b. Aquifer Protection Area -Operating and Closure Permits: Aquifer protection area
operating permit and c.losure permit requirements are contained in RMC 4-9-015, Aquifer
Protection Area Permits.
3. Finding of Conformance Required:
a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any
approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall
be documented in writing in the project file.
b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits
for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use, activity, or
business is likely to impact the long-term, short-term or cumulative quality of the aquifer.
The finding shall be based on the present or past activities conducted at the site;
hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used or produced; and the
potential for the land use, activity, or business to degrade groundwater quality.
4. Letter of Exemption:
a. When Required:
h-Aquifer Protection, Flood Hazards, Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation,
Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: Except in the case of public emergencies, all
exemptions in subsections C5, C6 and C7 of this Section require that a letter of
exemption be obtained from the Department Administrator prior to construction or
initiation of activities.
"ii-Shorelines, Streams and lakes: (Reservedt
b. Applicability of Section Requirements to Exempt Activities: Exempt activities
provided with a letter of exemption may intrude into the critical area or required buffer
subject to any listed conditions or requirements. Exempt activities do not need to comply
with mitigation ratios of subsection M11 of this Section, Wetlands Creation and
Restoration, or subsection M12 of this Section; Wetland Enhancement, unless required in
exemption criteria.
c. Reports and Mitigation Plans Required: A critical areas report for the specific
critical area affected, and/or enhancement or mitigation plan shall be required pursuant to
subsections Hto M, unless otherwise waived by the Department Administrator.
&g. Administrator Findings: In determining whether to issue a letter of exemption for
activities listed in subsections C5, C6, and C7 of this Section, the Administrator shall find
that:
i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or
Federal law or regulation;
ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by
industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles;
iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately
restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to
subsection CSf(i) and C5f(ii).
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 15
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
iv. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this
Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then
the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection
requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity,
and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific
data.
5. Specific Exemptions -Critical Areas and Buffers: Specific exempt activities are listed
in the following table. If an "X" appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified
critical area and required buffer. If an "X· does not appear in a box, then the exemption does
not apply in the particular critical area or required buffer. Where utilized in the following table
the term "restoration" means returning the subject area back at a minimum to its original state
prior tofollowing the performance of the exempt activity. Activities taking place in critical areas
and their associated buffers and listed in the following table are exempt from the applicable
provisions of this Section, provided a letter of exemption has been issued per sUbsection C4
of this Section, Letter of Exemption. Whether the exempted activities are also exempt from
permits will be determined based upon application of chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other
applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. .
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES -PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS
;
Aquifer Flood Geologic Habitat Shorelines/Streams.l !
EXEMPT ACTIVITY Protection Hazard Hazard Conservation and Lakes i
(ReseMld): Class 2 to i Wetlands
Area Area Area Area
1 I
I a. conserv.~tion, ~nhancement, Education and Related Activities: .
; .' , ; ; X , Conservation or preservation of soil, .X' X X . I X
water, vegetation, fish and other I . I .
il I
. ~~::~~~~:~~~r~~~:~!~i~n: o· . . L:JG10'
I wildlife .. ' '. . .
I' ~============~:~========~I
I ii. Enhancement activities as DI:lr-:!I·r-:-l.1
X
X defined in chapter ~ RMC. . CJL..:.J~
iii. Approved Restoration/Mitigation: I L:J11 IO:======::=; I Any crit~cal area and/~~ bu~er I I
i restoration or other mitigation ·1 X' X I X I X X
I ~Gti'lities ) .... hiG~a~ti~~tie~.~at have I II I "" ... _._ ....... '. ., :.1 .. I een appr~~= ... y '" ~ .. I. . . j .. L... J _ _ . ...... .......... . ..... . lib. Research .. and Site Investigation:
X
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 16
•
•
•
•
•
•
w=--::::-....::::-EXEMPT ACTIVITIES -PERM~~~·~ WITHIN CRITICAL ARE~S A~~ ASSOCIATED BUFFERS ~
If ..... ~ ................. ~._._ ....... ________ ... " ... H. ___ m. ____ ••• H._. ___ .. __ ._._. __ ... _.:;:.._ .......... _. __ • ____ ._ .. _.--.--...... --.-----... -.. -....... : .... -•...... --.. --... -.-.... -.. -.. -.. ----.. -... --___ ... __ ~ .. _ ... __ .. _ ......... _ •. _._ ... _ .... J I[ ! I ShorelineslStreamsi
I EXEMPT ACTIVITY p~i~~~~n! :~~~~d ~eaO~~;~Cj CO~S~~:~ion and Lakes
Area I Area Area i Area (Reserved): Class 2 to
i I J ~ !~========::====::==~ i soil logs, percolation tests and I other related activities.
i Investigative work shall not i disturb any more than five I percent (5%) of the critical
! area and required buffer. In i every case, impacts shall be ! minimized and disturbed I areas shall be immediately ! restored at a 1: 1 ratio. L
Wetlands
I:=~=' =~=9=~i=~=U=lt=u:::r=al=,=H=a=rv=e:::s=t=in=g=,=v::;-er=g=e=t=at:::i=~=~:::::;.~_~~~~_e=m'1r=e=n=t:==;r==== __ ·_= __ =. __ =]r_ .. =_ =======;r=======;-J i i. Harvesting Wild Foods: The I i I harvesting of wild foods in a I I
: manner that is not injurious to '
1 natural reproduction of such I X I ! foods and provided the Xl! X ' I harvesting does not require ! !
i tilling of soil, planting of crops ,.11 Jl i or alteration of the critical I ., l:=a=re=a='=========~:====~_J __ _ i ii. Existing/Ongoing . I Agricultural Activities: Existing
i and ongoing agricultural I activities including farming, ! horticulture, aquaculture
I and/or maintenance of
I existing irrigation system.
j Activities on areas lying fallow ! as part of a conventional i
j rotational cycle are part of an .1 i ongoing operation. Activities ' I wJ::Ii6I:l-that bring a critical area' I i into agricultural use are not !
X
I part of an ongoing operation. I ! Operations cease to be . ! I ongoing when the'area on X X I' X
i which it was conducted has ,I 'I i been converted to another , i use or it has lain idle so long
i that modifications to the' I
ilhvdrolOgiCal regime or the I' I removal of native vegetation I,'
, are necessarv to resume III:
i operations.An oporatioo Ii, I I'
i oeases-te-be-oogGiA!}WAefl .
i tho area on which it was Ii
:i1GOO!M;teti-Ms-beeA II I
I
: converted to aootReHlse-9f III I '
;;~: __ j .... ~"J~.""i"" ... '''' ... = .... = ..... = ..... = .. _.=:~'-''Il_=_ ==,= .. "" ... = ...... =, .. ...ll ... ~=.,~.,=~.=,= ........ _ ........... _ ............ _._ .. , _ .................... .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendr:nents, July 13, 2004
X J
X
17
r,==-----_.: ----IL ____ EXEMP.T ~c:nv~~~~~~~~~~ ~I~_HI~_~_RI:~~~.~REAS ~ND ASSO.~IATED B~FFERS
I Aquifer Flood Geologicl Habitat shqreli~e~/~treamsl .
I EXEMPT ACTIVITY Protection Hazard Hazard I Conservation ELL a es i Wetlands
'I' Area Area Area I Area (Reserved~ Class 2 to I
I !~======~~============~~========~I I necessary to resume I
I operations. Maintenance of I
existing legally installed . ,I
irrigation, ditch and pipe
systems is allowed; new or
iii. Dead or Diseased Trees:
expanded irrigation, ditch,
I outfall or other systems are I not exempt.
Removal of dead, terminally
diseased, damaged, or
dangerous ground cover or
hazard trees which have been
certified as such by a forester,
registered landscape
architect, or certified aroorist,
selection of which to be
approved by the City based
on the type of information
required, or the City prior to
their removal. Allo' .... ed in
I habitat consorvation areas
and wetlands when approved
by the State Department of
Fish and \''Jildlifo, 'Nhere
applicable.
x x
I
~
X
X: Limited to cutting of
hazard trees; such
hazard trees shall be
retained as large
woody debris in the
stream/buffer cOrridor,
where feasible.
X: Tree cutting
of hazard trees
or other woody
vegetation
accomplished
such that trees
are-retained in
the wetland and
buffer where
feasible.
ll~d=.=s=u="=a=c=e=_vv=a=t=e=r:========rr=====~~==~r=_=_= __ =_~.r-========~==============~========~II
Ii. New Surface Water
Discharges: New surface
water discharges to wetland
Categories 1, 2 and 3, or
buffers of Categories 1, 2 and
3, and to streams or lakes
, from detention facilities, I presettlement ponds or other I surface water management . i structures; provided, the
, discharge meets the I requirements of th~ Storm and
! Surface Water Dramage I Regulations (RMC 4-6-030);
\ will not result in significant· .
I adverse changes in the water
temperature or chemical
\ characteristics of the wetland I or streamllake water sources; I and there is no increase in the
I ~~~~~g ;:~o~fs~~%~~~:tSt~e
X X
j change in hydrologic regime
. \ ~?l:I'.9_~~~~I~}~jlD;:,=Cl=!~,f== ..... =. ___ =._ .. = ...... = .. --djl= .. -= ... -.=-... -==dl=.==",d!l=c,"=,==,-"o='=====~=====c===cc=,-~,,======dl
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 18
•
•
•
•
•
•
.[[ __ ... ___ .. _.~~E.~.~.~ .~~;;~'i'~~=~~~~_'~~~_~'.i.~.'~.:~~~~:~~ AREA~_.~~_~ AS:~_~~~~·~ •• ~-~F~~~: ___ _
1.1 I Flood I Shorelinos/Streams!
I
, Aquifer Geologic! Habitat
I EXEMPT ACTIVITY Protection Hazard Hazard Ii Conservation and Lakes .
I Area Area Area Area (Reserved): Class 2 to: Wetlands
I I l' I -_...J:==~:===::===i~=====i:i========::;====~1 I improved wetland or I
I shoreline/stream/lake ! I functions and values. Where I
i differences exist between I
I these regulations and RMC 4-
6-030, these regulations will
take precedence.
:r=====--=-=-=-=-~--=-=-=""=""'="""=-=""'~--~-~-=-=-====;~-=-==~~====~~======~ I ii. New or modified Regional II I Stormwater Facilities:
i Regional stormwater I
I management facilities to be
, operated and maintained I I under the direction of the City !
I StOFFA'I.'ater Surface Water '
Utility that are proposed and I designed consistent with the
I Washington State Department
of Ecology Wetlands and
Stormwater Management
Guidelines or meeting
equivalent objectives. For
'1 habitat conservation areas,
this exemption applies only to I Ca!egmy 1 wetlands.
iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: !
I Implementation of public flood
'\ hazard reduction and public I
surface water projects, where I
I habitat enhancement and 'I ! restoration at a1:1 ratio are .
, provided, and appropriate
i Federal and/or State I
I· auth?rization has been .\
. received .. I : ------....... --.
X
I
!
I
I
I
! ! I
! ! ! ,
X
I e. Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities: 1~======~r===~==~=~==~=====~~====~1 I i. Relocation of Existing i
I Utilities out of Critical Area ! ! and Buffer: Relocation out of !
! critical areas and required I ! buffers of natural gas, cable, I ! communication, telephone I
i and electric facilities, lines, I i pipes, mains, equipment and I i appurtenances, (not including i ! substations), with an i
X X X X
I associated voltage of fifty five I 'I I thousand (55,000) v~lts or I
! less, only when reqUired by a il
! local governmental agency, iii i
il~!1~_~i!~t.~~_?'pp'!.~~al.o=!=.!=~e, .. ~ .. = .... cl..J~ ... = ...... = ....... ,= ..... = ....... = ..... =-cl.j.'o...i. =.= .... = ..... = ...... cl.Jk===~=====~========c!.!=~ .. = .... = ...... = .... = ... = .... =.-= ..... 2)]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 19
I
1[. -~EM~T AC~IVITJ~S-PER_MITTED WITHIN CRmC,,=AR~S AND ASS()(;'ATED BU~~~ .. 1
i I Aquifer Flood Geologic Habitat ShorelindOLS/Sktreamsi i
I' EXEMPT ACTIVITY an a es ! Protection Hazard Hazard Conservation I (ReSOMd): Class 2 t I Wetlands I I Area Area, Area Area ~ 0; ,
I City. Disturbed areas shall be D, DD I ~====~I
I restored at a 1:1 ratio. I!=========~:====l;:==::::;;====;:====~:=========i II I
II ii. Existing Parks, Trails,
Roads, Facilities, and Utilities
-Maintenance, Operation,
I
Repair: Normal and routine
maintenance, operation and
i repair of existing parks and I trails, streets, roads, rights-of-
way and associated
appurtenances', facilities and
utilities where no alteration or
I additional fill materials will be
placed other than the
minimum alteration and/or fill
needed to restore those
facilities to meet established
safety standards. The use of X X 2S
heavy construction equipment
shall be limited to utilities and
public agencies that require
this type of equipment for
normal and routine
maintenance and repair of
existing utility structures and
rights-of-way. In every case,
critical area and required
buffer impacts shall be
minimized and disturbed
areas shall be restored during
and immediately after the use
of construction equipment.
.
i ! I ! i I I
I i
I I I i 1
I
I X
I ! !
I
I I I I ! I I I I
I :===-=-'='-=---=-========~f-='==-=-~f=====i:====~~===-=---="~F-=-=-=-==--=--======i~======~1 iii. Utilities, Traffic Control,
Walkways, Bikeways Within
Existing, Improved Right~of-
Way or Easements: Within
existing and improved public
road rights-of-way or
easements, installation,
construction, replacement,
operation. overbuilding. or
alteration of all natural gas,
cable, communication,
telephone and electric
facilities, lines pipes, mains,
equipment or appurtenances,
traffic control devices,
illumination, walkways and
bikeways. If activities exceed
the existing improved area or
the public right-ot-way, this
~xe..':!:l.e!i~!.l.,~C?~S not apply. -. _V~.'~
X I X
I !
I
I
I
I I I
,II ' i I J I __ JL I
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
X-X
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
~;;';~CTIV_I11~~~M-'-rrED>V'~c:I<ITlC~~R~A~ AN~ ~~~OCI~BU~~ _ _ I
I =-J A'f Flood Geologic! Habitat Shorelines/Streams! I
II EXEMPT ACTIVITY P qtu1;r n Hazard Hazard," Conservation and Lakes I Wetlands ro ec 0 {Rese~: Class 2 tOl I Area Area. Area' i Area 4 ;
I I -!l-= __ ---ll I;~~;~'~~~~;~~~~~n DDDDl_ __ .. ID
I iv. Modification of Existing I ,1.1 I Utilities and Streets by Ten !
Percent(10%) or Less: I I I Overbuilding (enlargement I I
I, beyond existing project ! I
l needs) or replacement of I I I existing utility systems and i :.1
, replacement and/or 1
!I' rehabilitation of existing k 11;1
I streets, provided the wor I does not increase the footprint X ;
I of the structure, line or street :1.
! by more than ten percent
'II (10%) within the critical area I
, and/or buffer areas. This I I exemption allows for 10% !
II' maximum expansion total, life III'
of the project. After the 10% ! expansion cap is reached. . I future improvements are . I I subject to all applicable I"
x
! ,
I I !
x
I provisions of RMC 4-3-050. '1[===========~F===~~===::===iJL"'===:;:;:'''=~F========iF=====~I ~ - . -r
! v. Vegetation I I Management/Essential Tree i ! Removal for Public or Private I
I Utilities, Roads, and Public X: Tree cutting
i Parks: Maintenance activities, i and vegetation I including routine vegetation X: Trees shall be , i management and essential
I tree removal, and removal of . I non-native invasive vegetation i or weeds listed by the King
i County Noxious Weed Board
i or other government agency.
i road rights-of-way and
X X X
retained as large I
woody debris in the I
management
accomplished
such that trees
stream/buffer corridor.! are retained in
where feasible. i the wetland and
I buffer where
feasible. ! for public and private utilities, II' _J
! easements, and parks. i~~~~.=· ~~I. I f. Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal:
I~'==============~r=====~==~====~======~r===========~========~l I i. Any Activity in Small ! I [I I I I Category 2 Wetland: Any I
i activity affecting a single. 1,,' .' ... , •..... ,
1
'.' III ~ I hydrologically isolated ~,
i Category 2 wetland no greater X I
i than two thousand two I I~ ~hii ... ~~~~~?~~;=~d~~te!~::~m~;£:r!=::=ii:3'i:i=;=~e=~~~f~:±:d:~:=1l .. = ..... = ...... = ...... =.= ..... = .. = ..... JJl."' .... = ... = ..... = ..... = ..... d.11h ..... , .. "" '="c, ....... ,1=,."" .. = .. = ..... = ..... = ..... = .. ,.=.!Jl= .. = .... = ... = ..... = .... = .. = ..... = ..... = ...... = ..... = ... =. ~=~"'-'..l.= .... =. ,==.~."c~~'c~==,ij
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 21
~XE~P~A:rI\ll~.".S -=:'ERMITIED WITHIN CRI~~R~ AND ASSOCIATED B~~I<S __ ~
! ! Shorelines/Streams! 1 ; Aquifer Flood Geologic! . Habitat i I EXEMPT ACTIVITY Protection Hazard Hazard I Conservation and Lakes ! Area (Reserved): Class 2 to! Wetlands I Area Area I ·Area ~ I
I:i~~~f~!~~s~~~~n n~~~~~~ae~~~I~~~~~fi~I~~eJ~o~rt~~~::! ~~~_ ·~~~:IDDD[~=· =======~[:=. ==. =' ·==]~I
i ii. Any Activity in Small I I , Category 3 Wetlands: Any j' I activity affecting hydrologically .
! isolated Category 3 wetland ! I no greater than five thousand I'
j (5,000) square feet when
! determined to provide no or ! I insignificant functions based I I on a wetland report prepared
j I ! I I
I X
.1 I i ! by a qualified professional. ! 1:============::==~;r=~:===::::;:==::::::::::==:;=======::;:====::::1 I iii. Temporary Wetland
"
Impacts: Temporary
disturbances of a wetland due ! to construction activities that
do not include permanent
filling may be permitted;
provided, that there are no
I permanent adverse impacts to
the critical area or required
I buffer, and areas temporarily
disturbed are restored at a 1:1
ratio. Category 1 wetlands
and Category 2 forested
wetlands shall be enhanced at
a 2:1 ratio in addition to being
restored. For habitat
conservation areas, this
exemption applies only to
Category 1 wetlands.
X
g. Maintenance and Construction -Existing Uses and Facilities:
i. Remodeling, Replacing,
Removing Existing Structures,
Facilities, and Improvements:
Remodeling, restoring,
replacing or removing
structures, facilities and other
improvements in existence on
the date this section becomes'
effective and that do not meet
the setback or buffer I
requirements of this section I
provided the work complies .
with the criteria in RMC 4-10-I
010G, Nonconforming
~:~Viti.:~~. _. •. I ..
'X
--
I
I
./
! X ! I I I I i i ! I I i
~-'¥---'"
I
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
X
.-
X-X
-
22
•
•
•
•
•
I[ EXEMPT ACTIVITIES --;~~;;I';;;~'~ITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS-"'-:'l
1 ....... u ••• _._ •••• _. __ • ___ ·_······_... ••• .---••• --.--•• -•••••• ---••• -.------•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : ......................... -.--•• ------_·· ___ ••••••• ____ ••• _m_ .... ••• ••• ·_ ........... •••••••• ..................... ----.-........... -...... ---........... ---................. __ ..................................... i
I Aquifer 11 Flood Geologic Habitat ShoreliAos/St~eamsi I 1 I EXEMPT ACTIVITY Protection I'! Hazard. Hazard Conservation and ~akes i Wetlands I
I Area i Area i Area Area {RoseJ'V.OG}, Class 2 to t I i i 4 i ---JL'_~ -!
I ii. Maintenance and Repair -L I Any Existing Public or Private I I Use: Normal and routine I
! maintenance and repair of any I I existing public or private uses I
i and facilities where no ! I alteration of the critical area \1
1
,
' and required buffer or
additional fill materials will be
placed. The use of heavy
I· construction equipment shall I
be limited to utilities and I I public agencies that require I
I this type of equipment for ! normal and routine I
I maintenance and repair of I
i existing utility or public I
I structures and rights-of-way. I
In every case, critical area
and required buffer impacts
shall be minimized and
disturbed areas shall be
restored during and
immediately after the use of
construction equipment.
iii. Modification of an Existing
Single Family Residence:
Construction activity
connected with an existing
single family residence and/or
garage; provided, that the.
work does not increase the
footprint of the structure lying
within the critical area or I
buffer; and provided, that no
portion of the new work .
occurs closer to the critical
area or required buffers than
the existing structure unless
the structure or addition can i
meet required buffers. ! .
Existing. oow-or rebuilt
accessory structures
associated with siflWe
familysingle-family lots such
as fences, gazebos, storage I
sheds,~ ,
J::Ioo.sesplayhouses are I
exempt from this Section. Newl
accessory structures may be I
allowed when associated with I , single family lots such as i
f b t "; ences. q~z~gs!_s 0~~9€!."","_" i
X X
I
I X X
I
1 ,
i i I I ,
I I i
i I
i
J \ ! J
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
X
X
23
I
I I
~II',.L==== ___ ==:=--=-=~-==============================================~
.. EX:~~~ ~:~I~~~I~S -=-PE~~~~.~D~I~H~~_.:~IT~:AL AREAS ~ND ASSO:~~~=~.~~~~:~~_. ____ ._ . .1 .
i I I ' I =-J Aquifer Flood Geologic Habitat Shorelinos/Streams! I
I EXEMPT ACTIVITY ". Protection Hazard Hazard Conservation and ~akes ! I Area Area Area Area {Ro~ Class 2 to j
'
I ~~~E~:~:!~~~~l~~;; D_. DL_JDl .. JD==_=·=~===="
Wetlands
iv. Existing Activities: Existing
activities which have not been
changed, expanded or
altered, provided they comply
with the applicable
requirements of chapter 4-10
iRMC. .
h. Emergency Activities:
i. Emergency Activities:
Emergency activities are
those which are undertaken to
correct emergencies that
threaten the public health,
safety and welfare pursuant to
the criteria in subsection C9b
of this Section. An emergency
means that an action must be
undertaken immediately or
within a time frame too short
to allow full compliance with
this section, to avoid an
immediate threat to. public
health or safety,'to prevent an
imminent danger to public or
private property, or to prevent
an imminent threat of serious
environmental degradation.
ii. Emergency Tree/Ground
Cover Cutting or Removal by
Agency or Utility: Removal of
trees and/or ground cover by
any City department or
I agency and/or public or
private utility in emergency ! situations involving immediate
danger to life or property,
substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services
x
x
I
X
provided by a utility . . __ .. ___ . __ ._. ___ . ___ . __ ._ ......... __ ................... _._..1 . ___ .... _ ...... _ .. __ .. ;:::::::::_. __ =. __ ==;
I iii. Emergency Activities in ! I Aquifer Protection Area: ,
! Public interest emergency I .
II use, storage; and handling of
hazardous materials by I governmental organizations.
x x
x X
I ! I
I
I I , I I X I X
f
!
______J _ _ __ . __
Downed hazard trees!
shall be retained as i
x
X
X: Tree cutting
and vegetation
management
accomplished
such that trees
large woody debris in are retained in
the stream/buffer. i the wetland and
buffer where
I feasible. J _ ____ __ .. _ .. _.__ .. _______ ... __ .. _ ..... ___ .. _____ ... ___ .... ___________ ,._
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 24
1 _____ _
•
•
•
•
• 567
568
569
570
571
572
573
•
--------~~ .. -.~ .. -----.-----------------------.--_ .. __ ._. __ ._ ..... .
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES -PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS I •••.•.•.... M........ . .•.••..•••.•. ~ •• _.__ .....• _ •••. _H .... H •. H •. V._.... . •.•••••• H········H. •... ·········.·H ..••• H· ...•. H·.··.··.·H·_.· ... ___ • _ .. _-----_ ...... -...... -.-.--.. ~ ..... -... -.. --..... -.-.-..... ....................... -. .•• __ •• _---_._ •..... _ .. _1
I GeOlOgiC' Habitat I Shorelines,lStreamsl I
j EXEMPT ACTIVITY . and Lakes ; . Hazard Conservation IO"~,, ~,. CI 2 t i Wetlands i I Area I Area Area Area! ....-==F¥e'1 ass 0 I",
i i _. I I !~==============~~====~==~~==~========~==========~b=======~1 iii. Hazardous Materials: I I. ----..... ---.. ---.---.. -------.-.--.... -.. --.-................. r: ... :::; .. -.;;;;;; ... _:;:::. ===jj===;r===:;:::-:.:; .. ;;;;: ...... :=-1·1"···;;;;;;·-··:.:;· .. ·;;;:;·····;;;;;;······:::;:····;;::····=·····::::;· -::::;. ===·-1·1' =====:;1 i i. Federal or State Pre-, !
II emption: Cleanups, !
monitoring and/or studies i I undertaken under supervision i
'I of the Washington X1 i
I Department of Ecology or the !.;
, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. j 1F===========~==~r-·=--=-·==~~····=·-=·····~F====~~====~F=-=-==--=-=·====~~======~I ii. Use of Materials with No i
Risk: Use, storage, and I I handling of specific hazardous i
II materials that do not present a X1 III I i
risk to the aquifer as i I determined and listed by the I I I,~:::::~us malerial, activtty, and/~~cil.;;~Ih;;S exempt pu",uant to Ihl~ s,;ctio;;-;;~s a S;gnffi~nl or substantial
potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the DepartmentAdministrator may require compliance with the aquifer
protection requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material activity and/or facility .
6. Limited Exemption~: Activities ~that are exempt from some, but not all provisions of this
Section are listed in the following table. If an "X· appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the
specified critical area and required buffer. If an "X· does not appear in a box, then the exemption does
not apply in the particular critical area or required buffer. Whether the exempted activities are also
exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9, or
other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code.
L LIMITED EXEMPTIONS -WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS
. EXEMPT ACTIVITY I Protection Hazard I Hazard Area: Conservation I Streams/.-and
., Aquifer ['FlOOd i Geologic i Habitat i 1<'1 'lWetlands I
J __ ~a .~:.J _~_J~eaJ~~;;;';;J j
(
! I i i
l'-IS~-·~-=-~e-.~-'~-~S-ta=f~n""'r e .... ~:-:-:;~-,·····~-~z-:··~::-···~.,.-:~..,..i~-:-,.I--,I ;:::." ==X=1==a(~~S_M_~~~~.~~~-r.-._ .. _._ ... _._. __ . ____ .... , ........... -....... -...... , ........... --.. -.... ______ ...... ___ . ____ ..1
materials offered for sale in i ."'",., .. 1
eir original containers of five !,i.I'
(5) gallons or less shall be . ~xempt from requirements in II I
:subsections H.2.d{i) through '; Ii
kVi) of this Section and the i!
irequirements pertaining to Ii
\removal of existing facilities in i!
!subsection H.2.a{i). i i
1.... ................... _._ ...... jL ..
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 25
I
C-:-~~~-:-~~-'::~~~:~ED EXEMPTIONS -WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSO~!~~=E=;D;::::B=U=F:::::F=E=R=S=::;-;::::==~i
: EXEMPT ACTIVITY ! Aquifer Flood I' Geologic i Habitat : N' : [Wetlands! i I Prolection Hazam Hazam Area' Conservation i Streams;. and I I
I ~,. ____ J;==A=r::;ea==;:J ~:~_)~:;;.~~ ____ J
I ii. Activities Exempt from I X1 I
I Specified Aquifer Protection I ,I i Area Requirements: The , I ollowing are exempt from
I requirements in subsections i H.2.d(i) through (vi) of this I Section, the requirements
! pertaining to review of ! ! proposed facilities in subsection I C.B.e of this Section, Prohibited i ~ctivities -Aquifer Protection
! ~reas, and the requirements I pertaining to removal of existing i ~acilities in subsection H.2.a(i).
I (1) Hazardous materials use, I fstorage, and handling in Ge.-de-
j minim us amounts (aggregate i quantities totaling twenty (20) I gallons or less at the facility or
j construction site). Weights of i solid hazardous materials will
1 be converted to volumes for ! purposes of determining ! whether ee-de-minimus
i~mounts are exceeded. Ten. i (10) pounds shall be
X1
I
I I
I
I i
:======:
I considered equal to one
l~allon.) :'----.. ----.. -.... --.............. --...... -.. -.... --.---'---_.-,----:====~:=--====~;::===; ! (2) Noncommercial residential I X1! I. I I use, storage, and handling of I . !
! hazardous materials provided I I
1 hat no home occupation . I ' I business (as defined by chapterll I I I
i 4-11 RMC) that uses, stores, or I I I I
i handles more than twenty (20) ! II, I, I i ~allons of hazardous ~aterial isl 'Ii ',i. I
j pperated on the premises. i I '---___ ...... ____ .. , .............. _ ...... _ ............. ______ -1 ~=====:; <------.. ___ 1 __ ,---..JJ __ .. _ ... _ ... ,.,_._:...... ___ ._-..1 :====i
I (3) Hazardous materials in fuel I X1 I II ! i ! anks and fluid reservoirs. I 'I i i
! attached to a private or i : I : i J i commercial motor vehicle and I . I I II ! used dir~ctly in the operation of I ' iii,
i hat vehicle. I ! i i~~~~:~~~e'lsll~~[~-=c:::t=-11r-_--_-~----_-_--:--.. --.... -.. ---,~[· '~~Jr _ I
~5) Hazardous materials used, :1 X1 II 'DODD .~t~~::~~;;;;~,~li=====""lL==._=_=l 'I. ~_J~_' I ' ,I
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 26
•
•
'.
•
•
•
r;:=:===~:::::=:::::::.:::::::.::::::===~~-------'--:':;;;":;:"";;":=--:::' ::;::::-:~-:.~-:===';:::=::=:~=====;:::::::::::====:::;::::::======:::--====1
::,::1 ::::;::::::::::::::::=:=:::::::::::::L:::I=M::::IT=E=D=E=X=E=M=P;rr=I=O:=N=S:::;-=W=IT:;;H;:::IN_~~~:'~:~r::~:=A::::::R:=E=:A=S=A=Nir.D:::;::::::A:::;::S=S=O=C=IA=T=E::::;-D;:::B=U=F=F::=E=~=S::::::=. ::::;-;::====:::;'
EXEMPT ACTIVITY I 'I Aquifer 1 Flood Geologic: Habitat I N' : Wetlands i ! Protection i Hazard Hazard Areal Conservation i Streamsf.. and I I
Ii Area : ~rea I Area l~~kes:: I I
___________ . __ . __ ,., .. _. Il, ...... __ . ____ . ______ , ~ ___ ._. ___ .. __ ... ___ .. " _ ! ! Class 2 to 4! : __ ~ _ ... . ... _ .. _. ______ J __ . __ ----1 _. ___ .. _. __ .. __ ........ _ ....... __ j _. ____ .. __ .1
Fperations. II II J[ II II II I
(6) Fueling of equipment not 1'1 X1 !
licensed for street use; ! I
provided, that such fueling 'I' i I
activities are conducted in a i I
!containment area that is I .... " .. ' i designed and maintained to ! I
prevent hazardous materials II
Ifrom coming into contact with ,i i I ~:~==i~ I I I1II I I I
construction activity regulated I i I'
by subsection H.7 ofthis I: :
Section, Construction Activity i ,I,'
Etandards -Zones 1 and 2. I i I
~==:=~ ~====~ ~==~I (7) Hazardous materials . I X1 I 'I'
contained in properly operating I I I
sealed units (transformers, ! I
refrigeration units, etc.) that are I I',,:
not opened as part of routine I
use. I
'-------'
(8) Hazardous materials in fuel l.n1 i I !. I I ./.
anks and'f1ui~ reservoirs I I 1.
11
. II'~' I",' ~ttached to pnvate or I· i ,
commercial equipment and Ii! I ~sed directly in the operation of i ! ! I I'
hat equipment. '. II ! I I 1'=====-'1
(9) Hazardous materials in
erosol cans: 1\ X1 :CJCJi=/ ===::::;I/:=========:,D
~=========~
1
(10) Hazardous materials at 'II X1 I I 'II I I ~mUlti-famiIY dwellings, hotels, . i 'I ! II"
motels, retirement homes, . ! I I I I
1 onvalescent center/nursing Ii' I : '
/homes, mobile or manufactured: ii' I
Ihome parks,. group homes, andil I, I ! I
jdaycare family homes or !, :! I ! , ~enters when used by owners ·1 !,' I
land/or operators of such i I ! iii i ~acilitie~ for on-site operation ! II I!! i I
land maintenance purposes. : !: I ' I \~:l~n~:'~~~:':~~: ~~ed t--X-
1--r', 'D:D~n' ~acility where the products are I .:! :
!stored. . " I ' : ! ....................... _ ... __ ..... __ .. _ .. _._. __ .......... _.... ;, .. . _ _ .. ___ __ 1_ _ _ ! .. _ _ _____ .. 1 ______ . __ _ _: I. .:
!(12) Hazardous materials 'used :r---i1-;! . i [---il :r-----1 r----:
~;~~~~t~a~fCta;: f~i~~:~-\~:::~t=o,=o,=~~~ •• o== ••• ~t~~_=~=J_=,===,.-.J I L~-.,,~".~~~=~l=-_=l
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 27
I
I
574
575
576
577
578
___ . ____ . _____________ ..... __ . _______ .__.---.--.. ---.-._____ _cc ______ ._ .. _. __ ... _' __ .. ~ :=::::--
I;::: ::;:::::::::::::::::======:::=L:::::;I::::M:::=IT=E=D=E=X=E=M:::;P-rT=IO:::::N=_S::::. ;::;:-::::W=I::::Tir.H:::;:IN=C=R;=I=T=IC::;Ar.;L;:=A=R:=E=A;=S::::A=N:;r.D=:=::A=:=S=S=O::::C=IA::::T=E::;Dr.;-::::B=U=F;:FE::::R=S=::::;;:;::::_ __~ ...•... _J
EXEMPT ACTIVITY 1 i Aquifer : Flood i Geologic f Habitat I ~ICtflh'l9FE,n*ffiesf ["andS ' i I Protection i Hazard I Hazard Area; Conservation I Streams/-and ! '
11'[ Area j Area 11,_ ~ea '. I ~~,kes N\' 1 \
... ___ ..... __ .. 1 __ ... " ____ . ~ ______ J ____ J ..... ___ ~ Class 2 to 4 j ....... _.. _:
~~:~~i~ge ;~f~~~~m~;:ds:~red I'D' IDOi" 101 soaps, hair treatments,': , I! woo~ing aids, health aids, and I -: i' I -,', I., m~~~L II' I . II ~====~~====~ iii. Uses, Facilities, and I X1 i
fA,ctivities in Zone 1 Modified I
~quifer Protection Area Exem_ptl I
!from Specified Aquifer -I I
Protection Area Requirements: I I
Facilities located in the Zone 1 II
Modified Aquifer Protection
Area in Figure 4-3-050.Q.1 are
I I
exempt from the following: I
~==~=7==~~~==~~==~~==~~====~~====~ 1) Removal requirements in X1
I
,
I i ; \ ! I
-I
I I
subsection H.2.a(i) of this i
Section except that the storage, 1
!
handling, use, treatment, and "I.
production of f
etrachloroethylene (e.g. dry-I
cleaning fluid) shall continue to .,1
be prohibited; I
~~~==~~~======~~------~~----~~------~=========~==========~'==~==~I ~)Additionalfacility ~DJD-r--lCJ-D' -. I ~.~~:~~~~~ii~~~~~~~~ion 1 __ -__ . __ . ________ Jj .. _-_" .. ' -' -L~_,,_·~ .' " ,_.J
;~~;~~~~~~~r If .. :~~~1 . ·Il. 1001· j
:~~:~~r~~;:~~dO~ns:~3~c J'IXiDID,r--lCJ-'D' I
0_50.C.8.e.Q(lf)(2), and _ l_~_· _______ .. _J __ J ___ .-..-J . !L _________ ~.J I ---.J
~~~~~:~it~JDDO ___ J_JO
11f a hazardous material, activity; and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial!
potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer!
. ______ .. P~Q.!~~qD_!.~~~~.9!.!hi.~.§~~~i9.I)9.!~~~J~~~~~\f_<!.l'lt~...!~~!!!~~?I.Q_I?~~I'!l§!~.~~?E!Ylty.§I)_~Q!l~~i!i!Y.:_ ... __ J
7. Exemptions in Buffers: The activities listed in the following table are allowed within
critical area buffers, and are exempt from the applicable provisions of this Section, provided a
letter of exemption has been issued per subsection C4 of this Section, Letter of Exemption. If
an "X" appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified buffer. If an "X" does not
appear ina box, then the exemption does not apply in the required buffer. Whether the'
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 28
•
•
•
•
579
580
•
•
exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application
of chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code.
EXEMPTIONS WITHIN CRITICAL AREA BUFFERS
__ •••••••• .._ ......_ •••••• ••• ____ m _______ .J ••••••.•••• _._ •••••.•• _ ••••• _ •• _._. __ .•.• _ m.·, __ ·_ • _____ ._ •• __ •• _ •• ___ . _._ •• ____ . ___ :::::;.~= .. :::::_. =_===
i ' I Aquifer ! Flood I Protection I Hazard EXEMPT ACTIVITY I Area i Area
~ ,
ra. Activities in Critical Area Buffers:
_ ... _-l .. m"'_m" .. _ ..................... m ... _ ............ _ ................ _;::: .. _:.:;; __ ===
L Trails and Open Space: walkways!1
and trails, and associated open
space in critical area buffers located
_"m_. __________ .
on public property, or where I
easements or agreements have ,
been granted for such purposes on I
private property. All of the following !
;~~t~:: :~~:: ::I:::y, and ,I
associated open space shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive I
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space;
Master Plan. The City may allow I
private trails as part of the approval
of a site plan, subdivision or other
land use permit approvals. I (2) Trails and walkways shall be ,
located in the outer half of the I
buffer, Le. the portion of the buffer i
that is farther away from the critical ,
area. Exceptions to this requirement i
may be made for: I
Trail segments connecting to
existing trails where an alternate
alignment is not practical.
i I r
1 j
\ Public access points to water 1
bodies spaced periodically along the L
trail. . '11
Ii (3) Enhancement of the buffer area II
I I
I
I
I
I ,
is required where trails are located II
in the buffer. Where enhancement of!!
the buffer area adjacent to a trail is II :
not feasible due to existing high :, '
Geologic Habitat
Hazard I Conservation
Area Area
X X
I quality vegetati~~! a?ditional buffer .11 i
area or other mitigation may be n I I I
£horelines,!Streamsi '8 and Lakes !
(ResOM{ij: Class 2 i Wetlands
to 4 ! -j
X
I required. ;! i I I
I (~) Trail widths shall be a maximum Ii i ! ! :1
I :::::: ~:~ag:~e;--+--iL----1
1
-~l-··-==..Jljr= ====-=-... = ... ::::::m·::::· .... =_··=I__1
i Facilities in Buffe.r: .Sto~mw~~er;1 I j X I 25. II X l;:;:~_e;~~~!~i~;~~;:;i;~~:~:~:::::mt:" .. ~ .. ::~~:_:=~ L_~:=: -J~_-==_~=-.: _ _ II m_~=_:.:.::.:=.: •• =tt====J
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 29
I
I --.==~:=::::::::;;:.-::"--::-";:::"'=-'-.=====================::::;'-=::'-':::-:-::::-:::--::;:;-.::;:;--::;:;-=; L ______________ . _______________ =~=~~_~!_~_~~ WITHI~ CRITICAL ~~:A_~_~~FERS ___ __ ...___ _________ J
:.1.111 Aquifer 'I' Flood G I . I H b'tt I Shorelines/Streams! iB eo oglc! a I a . and Lakes \ II' Protection Hazard Hazard! Conservation I ~p -,-1\. CI 2 i Wetlands A I A A I A t'",OSO,*O"'7' ass , iii rea rea rea 1. rea to 4 ,
iI I . i .' -, I~====================~'I~====~~==~ ~==~I
EXEMPT ACTIVITY
dispersion outfall systems designed i. . .
to minimize impacts to the buffer !
and wetlane critical area, where the i
site topography requires their _ : I
location within the buffer to allow i
hydraulic function, provided the i
standard buffer zone area I
associated with the \\'etlane critical Ii
area classification is retained Ii
pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.M.6.c . .Q! !'
RMC 4-3-050.L, arid is sited to I
reduce impacts between ' .... etland the!
critical area and surrounding ;
activities. For Habitat Conservation :
Areas, this exemption applies only I
to Category 1 wetlands. Stormwater i
management facilities located in I
wetland buffers shall require buffer I
enhancement or buffer averaging I,
when they are sited in areas of I
forest vegetation. _ J__--.J
8. Prohibited Activities: Prohibited activities are identified below for each critical area governed by .
this Section.
a. General -All Critical Areas: No action shall be taken by any person, company, agency, or
-applicant which results in any alteration of a critical area except as consistent with the purpose,
objectives, and requirements of this section.
b. Prohibited Activities -Floodways: Encroachments, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvernents, and construction or reconstruction of residential structures is
prohibited within deSignated floodways, unless it meets the provisions of subsection 1.4 of this
Section, Additional Restrictions within Floodways. .
G. Prohibited Activities Shorelines, Streams and lakes: (Reserved) rEgifcmgqete'1
Subsection 8a seems to cover the issues for water bodies.)
dQ. Prohibited Activities -Streams/Lakes and Wetlands: Grazing of animals is not allowed
within a stream, lake, wetland or -its-their associated buffer§.
eQ. Prohibited Changes in Land Use and Types of New Facilities-Aquifer Protection
Areas:
i. Zone 1:
(1) Changes in land use and types of new facilities in which any of the following will be on
the premises:
(a) More than five hundred (500) gallons of hazardous material;
(b) More than one hundred fifty (150) gallons of hazardous material in containers.
that are opened and handled; . .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 30
•
•
-•.
602
.603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
.618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635 •
(c) Containers exceeding five (5) gallons in size; or
(d) Tetrachloroethylene (e.g. dry-cleaning fluid).
(2) Surface impoundments (as defined in chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC);
(3) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
(4) All types of landfills, including solid waste landfills;
(5) Transfer stations;
(6) Septic systems;
(7) Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials;
(8) Underground hazardous material storage and/or distribution facilities;
(9) New heating systems using fuel oil except for commercial uses when the source of
fuel oil is an existing above-ground waste oil storage tank; and
(10) Petroleum product pipelines.
ii. Zone 2:'
(1) Surface impoundments (as defined in chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC);
(2) Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials;
(3) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
. (4) Solid waste landfills;
(5) Transfer stations;
(6) New heating systems using fuel oil stored in u"nderground storage tanks; and
(7) Petroleum product pipelines.
9. Temporary Emergency Exemption Procedure:
a. Temporary Emergency Exemption Purpose: Temporary emergency exemptions
shall be used" only in extreme cases and not to justify poor planning by an agency or
applicar:t.
b. Temporary Emergency Exemption Review Authority and Decision Criteria:
Issuance of an emergency permit by the City does not preclude the necessity to obtain"
necessary approvals from appropriate Federal and State authorities. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this section or any other City laws to the contrary, the Department
Administrator may issue a temporary emergency exemption letter if the action meets the
following requirements: " .
i. An unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property will occur if an emergency
permit is not granted;
ii. The anticipated threat or loss may occur before a permit can be issued or modified
under the procedures otherwise required by this section and other applicable laws;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 31
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
iii. Any emergency exemption letter granted shall incorporate, to the greatest extent
practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the
standards and criteria required for nonemergency activities under this Section.
c. Temporary Emergency Exemption Letter Process and Timing: The emergency
exemption shall be consistent with the following procedural and time requirements:
i. Time Limits: The emergency shall be limited in duration to the time required to
. complete the authorized emergency activity; provided, that no emergency permit be
granted for a period exceeding ninety (90) days except as specified in subsection
C9c(ii) of this Section. .
ii. Restoration Required: Require, within the ninety (90) day period, the restoration
of any critical area altered as a result of the emergency activity, except that if more
than ninety (90) days from the issuance of the emergency permit is required to
complete restoration, the emergency permit may be extended to complete this
restoration. For the purposes of this paragraph, restoration means returning the
affected area to its state prior to the performance of the emergency activity.,
iii. Public Notice Required: Notice of the issuance of the emergency permit and
request for public comments shall be posted at the affected site(s) and City Hall no
. later than ten (10) days after the issuance of the emergency permit. If significant
comments are received, the City may reconsider the permit.
iv. Expiration of Exemption Authorization: The emergency exemption
authorization may be terminated at any time without process upon a determination by
the Department Administrator that the action was not or is no longer necessary to
protect human health or the environment. .
659 10. Nonconforming Activities or Structures: Regulated activities legally in existence prior
660 to the passage of this Section, but which are not in conformity with the provisions of this
661 Section are subject to the provisions of RMC 4 10 010G4-10-090 Nonconforming Activities.
662 (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)~: Corrects reference to section addressing
663 nonconforming activities in critical areas.) ..
664 D. ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION:
665 1. General Provisions -All Critical Areas:
666 . a. Duties of Administrator: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator (the
667 Department AdministrCitor) or his/her duly authorized representative, shall have the power
668 and authority to enforce the provisions of this Section. For such purposes he/she shall
669 have the power of a law enforcement officer.
670 b; Interpretation: The Department Administrator shall have the power to render
671 interpretations of this Section and to adopt and enforce rules and regulations
672 supplemental to this Section as he/she may deem necessary in order to clarify the
673 application of the provisions of this Code. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall
674 be in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Section. ' .
675
676
677
c. Compliance: Unless specifically exempted by this Section, the City shall not grant any
approval or permit any regulated activity in a critical area or associated buffer prior to .
fulfilling the requirements of this Section.· .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
32
678
.679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
.698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
•
717
718
d. Reviewing Official: Wherever referenced in this Section, Reviewing Official refers to
the decision making official or body authorized to grant permit approval for an activity.
2. Aquifer Protection:
a. Inspections Authorized: The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall
have the right to conduct inspections of facilities at all reasonable times to determine
compliance with this Section.
i. Annual Inspections: All permitted facilities in an APA will be subject to a minimum
of one inspection per year by a Department inspector or deSignee.
ii. Monthly Inspections: All permitted facilities in Zone 1 of the aquifer protection
area will be subject to monthly inspections to determine compliance with the
provisions of the Section.
b. Potential to Degrade Groundwater -Zone 2:
i. Potential for Impacts Equal to Facility in Zone 1: If the Department determines
that an existing or proposed facility located in Zone 2 of an APA has a potential to
degrade groundwater quality which equals or exceeds that of a permitted facility in
Zone 1, thEm the Department may require that facility to fully comply with
requirements for Zone 1 contained in subsections H2, Facilities, H4, Wastewater
Disposal Requirements, H6, Pipeline Requirements, C8e(ii), Prohibited Activities -
APA Zone1,and C1 a(i), Aquifer ProtectiQn Areas, Compliance with Section, .
Development Permits.
ii. Criteria: Criteria used to make the deterr;nination in subsection D2b(i) of this
Section, Potential for Impacts Equal to Facility in Zone 1, shall include but ncit be
limited to the present and past activities conducted at the facility; types and quantities
of hazardous materials stored, handled, treated, used or prod_uced; the potential for
the activities or hazardous materials to degrade groundwater quality; history of spills
at the site, 'and presence of contamination on site. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
3. Flood Hazards:
a. Duties and Responsibilities of the Department Administrator or Designee: The
duties of the Department Administrator or his/her designee shall include, but not be
limited to:'
i. Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this
Section have been satisfied; and
ii. Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been
obtained from those Federal, State or local governmental agencies from which prior
approval is required; and
iii. Review all development permits to determine if the proposed development is
located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment
provisions of subsection 14 of this Section, Additional Restrictions within Floodways,
are met; and
iv. Use-of-OtReF-Base--·F-J.oeG-Oata.;.-W-I:len base floo9--elBvaoo!Hiata has not-geeR
provided in accordanw-witli--suBsection B3c of this Section, Mapping and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 33
719
720
721
722
723
724
Qecumentation, the Qepartment Administrator or designee shall Oebtain, review, and
reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a
Federal, State or other source, when base flood elevation data has not been
provided in accordance with subsection 11 bi of this Section in order to administer
subsection 13, Specific Standards, and subsection 14, Additional Restrictions Within
Floodways. rECf,mr:tS1l1Jm: Reword consistent with style of prior listed items.] .
725 b .. Information to Be Obtained and Maintained: The Department Administrator or
726 his/her designee shall obtain and maintain the following information:
727 i. Record Required: Where base flood elevation data is provided through th~ flood
728 insurance study or required as in subsection D3a(iv) of this Section, Use of Other
729 . Base Flood Data, the applicant shall obtain and record the actual elevation (in
730 relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or
731 substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a
732 basement.
733 ii. Elevations and Certificates: For all new or substantially improved flood proofed
734 structures:
735 (1) The applicant shall verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean
736 sea level); and
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
(2) The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall maintain the
floodproofing certifications required in subsection D6 of this Section, Flood
Hazard Data; and "
(3) Flood elevation certificates shall be submitted by an applicant to the
Development Services Division prior to the building finished floor construction.
Finished floor elevation should be verified by a preconstruction elevation
certificate at the time of construction of a substantial structural element of the
finished floor (Le., foundation form for the concrete floor). An as-built elevation
certificate will be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy, and the
certificates shall be maintained by the Department Administrator or designee.
747 iii. Public Records: The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall
748 maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of the flood
749 hazard regulations (e.g., elevati~n certificates, notification of alteration/relocation of
750 watercourses, flood hazard regulation variances).
751 c. Alteration of Watercourses: The Department Administrator, or his/her designee shall:
752. i. Notice Required: Notify adjaGeffi.abutting communities and the. State of
753 Washington Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a
754 watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance .
755 Administration.
756 . ii. Maintenance: Require that maintenance is provided within t~e altered or relocated.
757 portion of said watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. The
758 City may require covenants, or other mechanisms to ensure maintenance.
759
760
761
d. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries: The Department Administrator, or his/her
designee, shall make interpretations where needed,as to exact location of the
boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard (for example, where there appears to be
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
••
••
34
•
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
.780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person
contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal
the interpretation as provided in RMC 4-1-050F, Hearing Examiner, and RMC 4-8-110,
Appeals). (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
e. Record Required: The Department Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain
the records of all appeal actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance .
Administration upon request
4. Review Authority:
a. Review Authority -General: The Department Administrator or his/her designee is
authorized to make the following administrative allowances and determinations:
i. Issue a critical areas permit for proposals not otherwise requiring a development
permit per subsection C3 of this Section, Finding of Conformance Required.
ii. Issue written letters of exemption pursuant to subsection C4 of this Section.
iii. Allow temporary emergency exemptions per subsection C7 of this Section.
iv. Interpret geologic hazards, habitat conservation, and wetlands regulations per
subsection D1 b of this Section.
v. Approve the use of alternates in accordance with subsection N1 of this Section and
RMC 4-9-250E.
vi. Waive report content or submittal requirements per subsection F6 of this Section .
. vii. Grant administrative variances to those specified code sections listed in RMC 1..1..
050,/\ and RMC 4-9-2508 and per Subsection N of this Sedion. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-
7-2000)rEtrtflitiJs?blq: removed reference to 4-1-050 which refers to 4-9-250.1
viii. Require tests for proof of compliance per RMC 1-3-1 E7.
ix. Grant modifications and administrative variances, per subsection N of this Section.
b. Review Authority -Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines,
Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands: The Department Administrator is authorized to .
make the following administrative allowances and determinations:
i. Geologic Hazards:
(1) Waive independent review of geotechnical reports per subsection J3-F.7 of
this Section.
(2) Increase or decrease required buffer for very high landslide hazard areas per
subsection J7b of this Section.
(3) Waive coal mine hazard reports per subsection J8 of this Section.
(4) Grant a modification for created slopes per subsection N2 of this Section.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13; 2004 35
796 ii. Habitat Conservation: Waive habitaUwildlife assessment reports per subsection • 797 K2 of this Section.
798 iii. Shorelines, Streams and Lakes: (Reserved)
799 (1) Waive water body study requirement per subsection L.3 of this Section.
800 (2) Approve QroQosals for buffer width reductions in accordance with the review
801 criteria stated in subsection L.5.c of this Section.
802 (3) Approve proposals for buffer width averaging l,2ursuant to the standards and
803 criteria stated in subsection L.5.d of this Section.
804 iv. Wetlands:
805 (1) Waive wetland ~assessment requirement per subsection M3b of this
806 Section.
807 (.:t-~) Determine whether wetlands are unregulated per subsections M1a and M1b
808 of this Section.
809 (~~) Extend the 'valid period of a wetland ·delineation pursuant to subsection M4d
810 of this Section.
811 (34) Approve proposals for buffer width reductions of up to twenty five percent
812 (25%) in accordance with the review criteria stated in subsection M6e of this • 813 Section.
..
814 (4Q) Approve proposals for buffer width averaging pursuant to the standards and
815 criteria stated in subsection M6f of this Section.
816 (a~) Authorize other category level for created or restored wetlands per
I 817 subsection M11 c of this Section.
818 (6) Release !,f/etlaAe rAaiAteAaAse assl:IFity eevises per sI:I9seGtieA M~ 1a ef this
819 SestieA. (~Jsmli~: See 4-3-050G as written. New surety section prol,2osed
820 too in Chapter 1.1
821 (7) Waive requirements of this Section upon determination that all impacts on
822 wetlands would be mitigated as part of an approved area-wide wetlands plan
823 that, when taken as a whole over an approved schedule or staging of plan
824 implementation, will meet or exceed the requirements of this section (see
825 subse<?tion M9 of this Section):
826 c. Review Authority -Aquifer Protection Areas: The Department Administrator is
827 authorized to make the following administrativei allowances and determinations:
828 i. Issue operating and closure permits.
829 ii. Determine pipeline requirements per subsection H5a(iii} and H5b ..
830 iii. Determine if Zone 1 requirements should apply in Zone 2 of an APA per • 831 subsectionD2b, Potential tei Degrade Groundwater -Zone 2, and C8e(iii}, Prohibited
832 Activities -'-Aquifer Protection Areas, Zone 2. (Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13. 2004 36
•
833
34
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
.852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
.869
5. Authority to Approve, Condition, or Deny -General: Based upon site specific review
and analysis, the Reviewing Official or his/her designee may approve, condition, or deny a
proposal.
6. Relationship to Other Agencies and Regulations: Compliance with the provisions of this Title
does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and/or other local agency regulations and
permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for complying with these
requirements, apart from the process established in this Title.
6. Authority to AP~ Condition, or Deny Shorelines, Streams and bakes:
(Reserved) ~si~0tea Subsection 0.5 appears to address what is needed for streams
and lakes. In subsection L, conditions of approval are also stated.)
E. GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ALLOWED ALTERATIONS:
1. Performance Standards: The performance standards for each critical area are specified
in subsections G to M of this Section. T~e standards are minimum standards.
2. Protection of Critical Areas: Critical areas and any associated buffers shall be avoided,
and undisturbed, unless alterations are permitted in accordance with the requirements of this
Section.
3. Allowed Alterations: Critical areas may be altered by authorized exempt activities,
alterations specifically allowed in subsections G-.!:ito M of this Section and subject to listed
criteria, or through approval of modifications or variances.
4. Native Growth Protection Areas: [E::crJtO'PslNG'fe: Moved from Section G unless otherwise noted.]
a. Applicability:
i. Required: A native growth protection area shall be instituted when required by
subsections H to M of this Section in order to protect a critical area from any
proposed development for a non-exempt activity as follows:
. (a) Protected slopes per subsection 4-3-050.J.5.e.
(b) Very high landslide hazard areas per subsection 4-3-050.J.7.c.
(c) Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and their associated buffers per subsection 4-3-
050L12.
(d) Wetlands and their associated buffers per subsection 4-3-050.M.7 ..
ii. Applied with Discretion: Native growth proection areas may be required for very
high landslide hazard area buffers, or for critical habitats and their buffers pursuant to
subsections 4-3-050.J.7 and 4-3-050.K.3.
iii. Application as Condition of Approval When Otherwise Not Required: Where
subsections H to M do not require a native growth protection area, the Reviewing
Official may condition a proposal to provide for native growth protection areas.
rtditcrrTgrt!!ltlt~: Clarifies application in comparison to oriqinal language in former
section G.)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 37
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
I 895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
b. Standards:
i. Trees and ground cover shall be retained in designated native growth protection
areas.
ii. Activities allowed in a native growth protection areas shall be consistent with
applicable critical area regulations.
iii. The City may require enhancement of native growth protection areas to improve
functions and values, reduce erosion or landslide potential, or to meet another
identified purpose of this section or of critical area regulations.
c. Method of Creation: Native' growth protection areas shall be established by one of the
following methods. in order of preference:'
i. Conservation Easement: The permit holder shall. subject to the City's approval.
convey to the City or other public or nonprofit entity specified by the City. a recorded
easement for the protection of the critical area and/or its buffer.
ii. Protective Easement: The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent
and irrevocable easement on the property title of a parcel or tract of land containing a
critical area and/or its buffer created as a condition of a permit. Such protective
easement shall be held by the current and future property owner. shall run with the
land. and shall prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the easement'
except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project
which has received prior written approval from the City. and from any other agency
with jurisdiction over such activity.
iii. Tract and Deed Restriction: The permit holder shall establish and record a
permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on the property title of any critical area
management tract or tracts created as a condition of a permit. Such deed
res.triction(s) shall prohibit development. alteration. or disturbance within the tract
except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project
which has received prior written approval from the City. and from any other agency
with jurisdiction over such activity. A covenant shall be placed on the tract restricting
its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have
, an undivided interest in the tract. r6ml1~.B: The last two sentences are newly
added. This is based on the desire to avoid tax delinquency leading to separate sale
of the tract which needs to remain undeveloped.]
d. Marking During Construction: The location of the outer extent of the critical area
buffer and areas not to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit shall be marked with
barriers easily visible in the field to prevent unnecessary disturbance by individuals and
equipment during the development or construction of the approved activity. '
connectivity.]
f. Signage Required: The common boundary between a native growth protection area
and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include
permanent wood or metal signs on treated or metal posts. Sign locations and size
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
.'
38
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
.937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
•
955
56
specifications shall be approved by the City. Suggested wording is as follows: "Protection
of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law."
g. Responsibility for Maintenance: Responsibility for maintaining the native growth
protection easements or tracts shall be held by a homeowners' association, abutting lot
owners. the permit applicant or designee. or other appropriate entity. as approved by the
City.
h. Maintenance Covenant and Note Required: The following note shall appear on the
face of all plats. short plats, PUDs, or other approved site plans containing separate
native growth protection easements or tracts. and shall also be recorded as a covenant
running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title:
"MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created by or benefiting from this
City action abutting or including a native growth protection easement [tract] are
responsible for maintenance and protection of the easement [tract). Maintenance
includes insuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains
undisturbed unless the express written authorization ofthe City has been received."
5. Discretionary -Building or Development Setbacks: The Reviewing Official may require
a building or activity setback,from a critical area or buffer to ensure adequate protection of the
critical area/buffer during construction and on-going maintenance of the activity. A
requirement for a setback shall be based on the findings of a critical area report or a peer
review required for the activity. ~li11e: Based on comparison/review of DCTED
Example Code. The language could be further clarified to specify how the setback is
maintained in perpetuity. However, for future applications the Reviewing Official could revisit
the setback issue and continue the requirement or not based on site-specific conditions.]
F. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES:
1. Applicability: When a regulated critical area or ass9ciated buffer is identified, the
following procedures apply. . .
2. Preapplication Consultation: Any person intending to develop properties known or
suspected to have critical areas present is strongly encouraged to meet with the appropriate
City department representative during the earliest possible stages of project planning before
major commitments have been made to a particular land use and/or project design. Effort put
into a preapplication consultation and planning will help applicants create projects which will
be more quickly and easily processed due to, a better understanding on the part of applicants
of regulatory requirements.
3. Plans and Studies Required: When an application is submitted for any building permit or
land use review and/or to obtain approval of a use, development or construction, the location
of the critical areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted based
upon an inventory provided by a qualified specialist.
4. Submittal Requirements: See chapter 4-8 RMC.
5. Fees: See RMC 4-1-170.
6. Waiver of Submittal or Procedural Requirements: The Department Administrator may
waive any of the requirements of this subsection if the size and complexity of the project does
not warrant a step in the proceeding and provided criteria to waive studies are met in
subsections H to M.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13, 2004 39
7. Independent Secondary Review: The City may require independent review' of an
applicant's report as follows:
a.· Aquifer Protection Areas, Flood Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes,
Wetlands: 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, including, but not limited to:
i. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis
and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any
recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the
Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional; and/or
ii. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Tribe or other
appropriate agency; and/or
iii. Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and abutting·to the site.
rE'ait".~m: Based on State Example Code and Renton regulations for Habitat
ConserVation. Would now be an option for wetlands, in addition to streams and lakes
and flood hazards.]
b. Geologic Hazards: Independent Secondary Review shall be conducted in
accordance with the following:
i. 'Required -Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very
High Landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with
subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC,
Permits -General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified
specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may
request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in .
accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority -Geologic .
. Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands. (Amd. Ord.
4963, 5-13-2002)
iii. At City's Discretion -Volcanic, High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium
Coal.Mine, or High Coal Mine Hazards: For any proposal except critical
facilities, the City may require independent review of an applicant's geotechnical
report by qualified specialists selected by the City. at the applicant's expense.
"'-"':w/",!?,'m' :A'<",,",,::-'A.~~ ftRClitot:lSwNbtell Moved from J.7 and updated to address volcanic hazards.]
8. Mitigation Plan Required: l{lil'5ft§}N~'t'€l: Moved from section M and globalized to all
critical areas. Removed 'annual' project monitoring and inspection requirement in case City
wants to do more or less frequently on case by case basis; added notification provision based
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
40
.1002
•
003
004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
~24 Wf025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
~46 .r47
. on Staff Review team discussion and example of a King County stream relocation proposal
that would increase a stream buffer on park property reducing ability to have recreation
facilities.]
a. Criteria: For any mitigation plans required through the application of subsections H to
M, the applicant shall:
i. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial
resources to carry out the mitigation project; and
ii. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the
monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and
iii. Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area
to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the
mitigation area; and
iv. Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections; and
v. For onsite or offsite mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners are notified
when wetland creation or restoration. stream relocation, critical area buffer increases, flood
hazard mitigation. habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the
potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent
properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland
buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner should be
notified. Notification shall be given as follows:
(al For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice
of the mitigation proposal shall be given by posting the site and notifying abutting or
adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the mitigation proposal
shall be identified in the notice of application and mailed to abutting or adjacent
property owners with the potential to be impacted.
b. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a
mitigation plan is required, the proponent shall submit a final mitigation plan for the
approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits for
development. The proponent shall receivewriUen approval of the mitigation plan prior to
commencement of any mitigation activity.
G. SURETY DEVICES:
1. Required for Mitigation Plans: For any mitigation plans required as a result of the application of
these regulations, the Responsible Official shall require a surety device to ensure performance
consistent with RMC 4-1-230.
2. Time Period -Wetlands, Streams. and Lakes: For wetland and/or stream/lake mitigation
plans. the surety device shall be sufficient to guarantee that structures. improvements. and
mitiaation required by permit condition perform satifactorily for a minimum of 5 years after they
. have been completed.
rW~: Development Services Staff are developing code amendments to co-locate
bond/surety requirements, concurrent with this work program. If that proposal is not complete in the
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 41
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
'1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084.
1085
, 1086
1087
1088
same timeframe, then independent surety language should be developed based upon current wetland
regulations.]
NATIVE-GRGW+H--PRO-TECTION AREAs';'
rEaitir1~~N~te: Moved to subsection E.4 above. Development Services Staff indicate it is
more likely to be recognized and applied as part of the general performance standards
section.]
1. When Required: A native growth protection area may be required by subsections H to M
of this Section in order to protect a critical area from any proposed development for a non
exempt activity.
2.-Standards:
a. Trees and ground cover shall be retained in designated native grO'.vth protection areas,
b. Activities allowed in a native growth protection areas shall be consistent v'lith
applicable critical area regulations.
c. The City may require enhancement of native growth protection areas to improve
functions and values, reduce ~rosion or landslide potential, or to meet another identified
. purpose of ~is section or of critical area regulations.
3. Method of Creation: Native grO'.vth protection areas shall be established by one of the
following methods, in order of preference:
a. Conservation Easement: The permit holder shall, subject to the City's approval,
convey to the City or other public or nonprofit entity specified by the City, a recorded
easement for the proteCtion of the critical area andlor its buffer. '
. b. Protective Easement: The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and
irrevocable easement on the property titlo of a parcel or tract of land containing a critical
area andlor its buffer created as a condition of a permit. Such protective easement shall
be held by the current and future property owner, shall run with the land, and shall
prohibit de\,'elopment, alteration, or disturbance within the easement except for purposes
of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior
written approval from the City, and from any other agency '1·lith jurisdiction over such
activity. ,
c. Tract and Deed Restriction: The permit holder shall establish and record a
permanent and irre .. ~ocable deed restriction on the property title of any critical area
management tract or tracts created as a condition of a permit. Such deed restriGtion{s)
shall prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the tract except for purposes
of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project iNhich has received prior
written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction' over such
activity:
4.-Marking During Construction: The location of the outer extent of the critical area buffer
and areas not to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit shall be marked with barriers
easily visible in the field to prevent unnecessary disturbance by individuals and equipment
during tho development or construction of the approved activity_
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 42.
•
•
•
1089
•
090
091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102·
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
•
110
111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
•
5.Sigflag.e-R.equi.red.;......The-common boundary between a native growth protectiOA-8ffia-aM
the adjacent land must bB-f**"fRaAently identified. This identification shall include permanent
wood or metal signs on treated-er-metal posts. Sign locations and size specifications shall-be
approved by the City. Suggested wording is as fellows: "Protection of this natural area is in
your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law."
6. Responsibility for Maintenance: Responsibility for maintaining the native growth
protection easements or tracts shall be held by a homeo ... mers' association, adjacent lot
owners, the permit applicant or designee, or other appropriate entity, as approved by the City.
7. Maintenance and Maintenance Note Required: The following note shall appear on the
face of all plats. short plats. PUDs, or other approved site plans containing separate native
growth protection easements or tracts, and shall also be recorded as 8covenant running with
the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY: All o' .... ners of lots created by or benefiting'from this City action abutting or
including a native growth protection easement [tract] are responsible fer maintenance and
protection of the easement [tractp-Maintenance includes insuring that no alterations occur
..... ithin the tract and that all vegetation remains undistbJrbed unless the express written
authorization of the City has been received." .
H. AQUIFER PROTECTION:
1. Applicability: The aquifer protection regulations apply to uses, activities, and facilities
located within an aquifer protection area (APA) as classified below.
a. Aquifer Protection Area (APA): Aquifer protection areas are the portion of an aquifer
within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or-operated by
the City, as depicted in subsection 0.1 of this Section, Maps.
b. Aquifer Protection Zones: Zones of an APA are designated to provide graduated
levels of aquifer protection. Zone boundaries are determined using best available science
documented in the City of Renton Wellhead Protection Plan, an appendix of the City of
Renton Water System Plan, as periodically updated. The following zones may be
designated:
i. Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City
and the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour.
ii. ; Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 .but for the purpose
of protecting a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is
partially protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in
this area are regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by C.6(a)(jii) of this
section.
III. Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred Sixty five (365) day
groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a
well or well field owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well,
well field, or spring is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may
choose not to subdivide an APA into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire APA will be
designated as Zone 2.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 43
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
c. Mapping:
i. Determination of Location within a Zone of an Aquifer Protection Area: In
determining the location of facilities within the zones defined by subsection 0.1 of this
Section, the following rules shall apply. . .
(a) Facilities located wholly within an APA zone shall be governed by the
restrictions applicable to that zone.
(b) Facilities having parts lying within more than one zone of an APA shall be
governed as follows: Each part of the facility shall be reviewed and regulated by
the requirements set forth in this Section for the zone in which that part of the
facility is actually located.
(cl Facilities having parts lying both in and out of an APA shall be governed as
follows:
That portion which is within an APA shail be governed by the applicable restrictions in
this Section; and
That portion which is not in an APA shall not be governed by this Section.
iLZone Maps: The locations of aquifer protection areas (APA) in the City are
depicted by the map in subsection 0.1 of this Section, Maps.
rElfltal'f-'~"ttt Moved from subsection B to 'co-Iocate with performance standards.]
d. Performance Standards: Iri addition to the general standards of subsection E of this
Section, the following performance standards, subsections H2 to H1 0, apply to all non-
exempt uses, activities; and facilities on sites located within an aquifer protection area per
subsection B2H1, Critical Areas DesignationslMapping, Aquifer ProteGtienApplicability,
e. Authority to Require Hydrogeologic Assessment: The City may require an
applicant to prepare a hydrogeologic study if the proposal has the potential to Significantly
impact groundwater quantity or quality, and sufficient information is not readily available.
Such a report shall be prepared by a qualified professional at the applicant's expense.
Report content requirements may be specified by the City in accordance with State or
Federal guidelines or tailored to the particular development application. Peer review of
the applicant's report may be required in accordance with 4-3-050.F.7. rE!91toriSi:HiWfEt
Based on a review of the DCTED Example Code.]
2. Facilities:
a. Removal of Existing Facilities -Zone 1:
LThe storage, handling, use, treatment or production of hazardous materials in aggregate
quantities greater than five hundred (500) gallons shall not be allowed within Zone 1 of an
APA after October 14, 2002. The storage, handling, use, treatment or production of
tetrachloroethylene (e.g. dry-cleaning fluid) shall not be allowed within Zone 1 of an APA after
March 31,1999.
iL Once a facility in-Zone 1 is closed, relocated, or the use of hazardous materials is
terminated, reinstatement of the use of hazardous materials onthe site in quantities greater
than that allowed for new facilities locating in Zone 1 as described in subsection C.B.e(ii),
Prohibited Activities, Zone 1, shall'be prohibited.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 44
•
•
•
1175
.176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
•
1197
198
199
1200
1201'
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210 '
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
•
22
223
iii. Closure of a facility or termination of any or all facility activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the closure requirements in RMC 4-9-015.F, Closure Permit.
b. Existing Facilities Change in Quantities -Zone 1: In Zone 1 of an APA, no change in
operations at a facility shall be allowed that increases the aggregate quantity of hazardous
materials stored, handled, treated, used, or produced with the following exception: The aggregate
quantity of hazardous materials may be increased not to exceed 500 gallons.
c. Existing Facilities -Allowances in Zone 2: The storage, handling, treatment, use or
production of hazardous materials at existing facilities shall be allowed within Zone 2 of an APA
upon compliance with the provisions of this Section.
d. Requirements for Facilities -Zones-1 and 2: The following conditions in subsections
H.2.d(i) to (vi) of this Section will be required as part of any operating permit issued for facilities in .
Zone 1 of an APA. Conditions in subsections H.2.d(i) to (v) shall apply to facilities in Zone 2 of an
APA.
i. Secondary Containment -Zones 1 and 2:
(1) Materials Stored in Tanks subject to DOE -Zones 1 and 2: Hazardous materials
stored in tanks that are subject to regulation by the Washington Department of Ecology
under chapter 173-360 WAC are exempt from containment requirements in subsection
H.2.d(i), Secondary Containment -Zones 1 and 2, but are subject to applicable
requirements in RMC 4-5-120, Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment
Regulations.
(2) Secondary Containment Devices and Requirements -Zones 1 and 2: Every owner of
a facility shall provide secondary containment devices adequate in size to contain on-site
any unauthorized release of hazardous materials from any area where these substances
are-either stored, handled, treated, used, or produced. Secondary containment devices
shall prevent hazardous materials from contacting soil, surface water, and groundwater
and shall prevent hazardous materials from entering storm drains and, except for
authorized and permitted discharges, the sanitary sewer. Design requirements for
secondary containment devices are as follows:
. (A) The secondary containment device shall be large enough to contain the
volume of the primary container in cases where a single container is used to
store, handle, treat, use, or produce a hazardous material. In cases where
multiple containers are used, the secondary containment device shall be large
enough to contain the volume of the largest container. Volumes specified are in
addition to the design flow rate of the automatic fire extinguishing system, if
present, to which the secondary containment device is subjected. The secondary
containment device shall be capable of containing the fire flow fora period of
twenty (20) minutes or more.
(B) All secondary containment devices shall be constructed of materials of
sufficient thickness, density, and composition to prevent structural weakening of
the containment device as a result of contact with any hazardous material. If
coatings are used to provide chemical resistance for secondary containment
devices, they shall also be resistant to the expected abrasion and impact
conditions. Secondary containment devices shall be capable of containing any
unauthorized release for at least the maximum anticipated period sufficient to
allow detection and removal of the release.
(C) Hazardous materials stored outdoors and their attendant secondary
containment devices shall be covered to preclude precipitation with the exception
of hazardous materials stored in tanks that have been approved by and are
under permit from the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Secondary
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 45
1224 containment for such tanks, if uncovered, 'shall be able to accommodate the • 1225 volume of precipitation that could enter the containment device during a twenty
1226 four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm,in addition to the volume of the
1227 hazardous material stored in the tarik. Storage of hazardous materials, both
1228 indoors and outdoors, shall, at all times, meet both the requirements of this
1229 Section and the Uniform Fire Code.
1230 (D) Secondary containment devices shall include monitoring procedures or
1231 technology capable of detecting the presence of a hazardous material within
1232 twenty four (24) hours following a release. Hazardous materials shall be removed
1233 from the secondary containment device within twenty four (24) hours of detection
1234 and shall be legally stored or disposed.
1235 (E) Areas in which there are floor drains, catch basins, or other conveyance
1236 piping that does not discharge into a secondary containment device that meets
1237 the requirements of this Chapter shall not be used for secondary containment of
1238 hazardous materials. Closure of existing piping shall be according to procedures
1239 . and designs approved by the Department.
1240 (F) Primary containers shall be impervious to the contents stored therein,
1241 properly labeled, and fitted with a tight cover which is kept closed except when
1242 substances are being withdrawn or used.
1243 (G) Hazardous materials stored outdoors when the facility is left unsupervised
1244 must b~ inaccessible to the public. Such techniques as locked storage sheds,
1245 locked fencing, or other techniques may be used if they will effectively preclude
1246 access.
1247 (H) Stored hazardo·us materials shall be protected and secured, as needed, • 1248 against impact and earthquake to prevent damage to the primary container that
1249 would 'result in release of hazardous materials that would escape the secondary
1250 containment area:
1251 ii. Hazardous Material Monitoring Requirements for Existing Facilities -Zones 1 and 2:
I 1252 (1) The owners of all existing facilities shall implement hazardous materials monitoring.
1253 (2) All hazardous material monitoring activities shall include the following.:
1254 (A) A written routine monitoring procedure which includes, when applicable: the
1255 frequency of performing the monitoring method, the methods and eqUipment to
1256 be used for performing the monitoring, the location(s) from which the monitoring
1257 will be performed, the name(s)or title(s) of the person(s) responsible for
1258 performing the monitoring and/or maintaining the equipment, and the reporting
1259 format.
..
1260 . (B) Written records of all monitoring performed shall be maintained on-site by the
1261 operator for a period of three (3) years fromthe date the monitoring was
1262 performed. The Department may require the submittal of the monitoring records
1263 or a summary at a frequency that the Department may establish. The written
1264 records of all monitc)fing performed in the past three (3) years shall be shown to
1265 the Department upon demand during any site inspection. Monitoring records
1266 shall include but not be limited to:
1267 • The date and time of all~monitoring or sampling;
1268 • Monitoring equipment calibration and maintenance records; • 1269 .• The results of any visual observations;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 46
1270
.271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
•
1292
293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
•
16
17
• The results of all sample analysis performed in the laboratory or in the field,
including laboratory data sheets;
• The logs of all readings of gauges or other monitoring equipment, groundwater
elevations or other test results; and
• The results of inventory readings and reconciliations.
(C) Visual monitoring must be implemented unless it is determined by the
Department to be infeasible to visually monitor.
(3) On every day of operation, a responsible person designated by the permittee shall
check for breakage or leakage of any container holding hazardous materials. Electronic
sensing devices approved by the. Department may be employed as part of the inspection
process, provided that the system is checked daily for malfunctions. .
iii. Emergency Collection Devices -Zones 1 and 2: Vacuum suction devices, absorbent
scavenger materials, or other devices approved by the Department shall be present on site
(or available within an hour by contract with a cleanup company approved by the
Department), in sufficient quantity to control and collect the total quantity of hazardous
materials plus absorbent material. The presence of such emergency collection devices and/or
cleanup contract are the responsibility and at the expense of the owner and shall be
documented in the operating permit.
iv. Inspection of Containment and Emergency Equipment -Zones 1 and 2: Owners shall
establish procedures for monthly in-house inspection and routine maintenance of
containment and emergency equipment. Such procedures shall be in writing, a regular
checklist and schedule of maintenance activity shall be established, and a log shall be kept of
inspeclionsand maintenance activities. Such logs and records shall be made available at all
reasonable times to the Department for examination.
.. v. Employee Training -Zones 1 and 2: Operators shall schedule training for all new
employees upon hiring and once per year thereafter to explain the conditions of the operating
permit such·as emergency response procedures, proper hazardous waste disposal,
monitoring and reporting requirements, record keeping requirements, and the types and
quantities of hazardous materials on site. These training sessions will be documented and
recorded and the names of those in attendance will be recorded. These records shall be
made available at all reasonable times to the Department for inspection.
vi. Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1: Owners shall complete the following:
(1) Site Monitoring: For facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, an owner of a facility may,
at their own expense, be required to institute a program to monitor groundwater, surface
water runoff, and/or site soils. The Department may require that the owner of a facility
install one or more groundwater monitoring wells in a manner approved by the
Department in order to accommodate the required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used
to determine the need for site monitoring shall include, but not be limited to, the proximity
of the facility to the City's production or monitOring wells, the type and quantity of
hazardous materials on site, and whether or not the hazardous materials are stored in
underground vessels.
Every owner required to monitor groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or soils shall
perform such monitoring semi-annually and obtain independent analytical results of the
presence and concentration of those chemicals requiring monitoring (including
breakdown and transformation products) as identified by the Department in the operating
permit. The analytical results shall be obtained through the use of Department of
Ecology-approved methods for water and/or soils. The results shall be filed within ten
(10) days with the Department.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 47
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334·
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344 .
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
·1359
1360
1361
If a facility is required to perform site monitoring pursuant to subsection H.2.d(vi} of this
Section, Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1, Site Monitoring, then a site
monitoring plan will be required. This plan must indicate procedures to be followed to
assess groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or soil for concentrations of those
chemicals requiring monitoring as identified by the Department in the operating permit. If
a groundwater monitoring program is in effect per the requirements of 40 CFR 264 or
265, and this program includes all of the chemicals identified in the operating permit, then
it shall be incorporated into the site monitoring plan which shall also include provisions to
address the groundwater monitoring requirements of subsection H.2.d(vi} of this Section,
Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1, Site Monitoring, and RMC 4-9-015.G.3,
Unauthorized Releases, Monitoring Results.
(2) Site Improvements:
(A) For facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, the owner may be required to pave all
currently unpaved areas of their facility that are subject to any vehicular use or storage,
use, handling, or production of hazardous materials.
(B) For those facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA in which the nature of the business
involves the use of hazardous materials outside of fully enclosed structures, the City shall
evaluate the existing storm water collection and conveyance system, and reserves the
right to require the owner to upgrade the system to meet the provisions of RMC 4-6-
. 030.E.3, Additional Requirements in Aquifer Protection Areas -Amendments to King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
(C) For those facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, the City may require theowner to
test interior wastewater plumbing and the building side sewer for tightness according to
subsection H.6.a(ii), Pipeline Requirements-Zone 1, and reserves the right to require
that such wastewater conveyance be repaired or replaced according 10 subsection
H.6.a(i), Pipeline Requirements -Zone 1.
(3) Capital Cost Reimbursement for Additional Operating Permit Requirements:
The City shall pay fifty percent (50%) of documented capital costs up to twenty five
. thousand dollars ($25,OOO.00) for required installation and construction of monitoring
wells, site paving, wastewater conveyance, and storm water improvements as required in
subsections H.2.d(vi}(1} and (2), Site Monitoring and Site Improvements. Payment by the
City shall be made according to adopted administrative rules. .
3. Use of Pesticides and Nitrates -APA Zones 1 and 2:
a. Use of Pesticides: The application of hazardous materials such as pesticides shall be
allowed inan APA, except within one hundred feet (100) of a well or two hundred feet
(200 ) of a spring, provided that: . . .
i. The application is in strict conformity with the use requirements as set forth by the
EPA and as indicated on the containers in which the substances are sold.
ii. Persons who are required to keep pesticide application records by RCW
17.21.100.1 and WAC 16-228-190 shall provide a copy of the required records to the
Department within seventy two (72) hours of the application.
b. Nitrate-Containing Materials: The application of fertilizers containing nitrates shall· be
allowed in an APA except within one hundred feet (100 ) ota well or two hundred feet
(200 ) of a spring; provided, that:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 48
•
•
•
1362
•
363
364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
• 381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399 .00
i. No application of nitrate-containing materials shall exceed one-half (0.5) pound of
nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per single application and a total
yearly application of five (5) pounds of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square
feet: except that an approved slow-release nitrogen may be applied in quantities of
up to nine-tenths (0.9) pound of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per
single application and eight (8) pounds of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square
feet per year; and
ii. Persons who apply fertilizer containing nitrates to more than one contiguous acre
of land located in the APA either in one or multiple application(s) per year shall
provide to the Department within seventy two (72) hours of any application the
following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person applying the
fertilizer;
(2) The location and land area of the application;
(3) The date and time of the application;
(4) The product name and formulation;
(5) The application rate.
4. Wastewater Disposal Requirements -Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-6-040J, Sanitary
Sewer Standards, Additional Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer
Protection Area. ' .
5. Surface Water Requirements -Zones 1 and 2:' Refer to RMC 4-6-030E, Drainage Plan '
Requirements and Methods of Analysis for additional surface water requirements applicable
within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area.
6. Pipeline Requirements:
a. Pipeline Requirements -Zone 1:
i. All new and existing pipelines in Zone 1 shall be constructed or repaired in
accordance with material specifications contained in subsection S of this Section,
Pipeline Material. All existing product pipelines in Zone 1 shall be repaired and
maintained in accordance with best management practices and best available
technology.
ii. All new pipelines constructed in Zone 1 shall be tested for leakage in conformance
with the following provisions prior to being placed into service.
(1) Pipeline leakage testing shall be conducted in accordance with best available
technology, to the satisfaction of the Department.
(2) Pipeline leakage testing methods shall be submitted to the Department for
review prior to testing and shall include: a detailed description of the testing
methods and technical assumptions; accuracy and precision of the test;
proposed testing durations, pressures, and lengths of pipeline to be tested; and
scale drawings of the pipeline(s) to be tested.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 49
I
(3) Upon completion of testing, pipeline leakage testing results shall be submitted
to the Department and shall include: record of testing durations, pressures, and
lengths of pipeline tested; and weather conditions at the time of testing.
(4) Routine leakage testing of new pipelines constructed in Zone 1. may be
required by the Department.
iii. If the Department has reason to believe that the operation or proposed operation .
of an existing pipeline in Zone 1 of an APA may degrade ground water quality, the
Department may require leakage testing of the existing pipeline in accordance with
subsection H6a(ii) of this Section; and installation, sampling, and sample analysis of
monitoring wells. Rciutine leakage testing of existing pipelines in Zone 1 may be .
required by the Department. Criteria for this determination is specified under
subsection D2b(ii), Potential to Degrade Groundwater -Zone 2, Criteria.
iv. Should pipeline leakage testing reveal any leakage at any level then the
Department shall require immediate repairs to the pipeline to the satisfaction of the
Department such that no infiltration of water into the pipeline or exfiltration of
substances conveyed in the pipeline shall occur. Any repairs which are made shall be
tested for leakage pursuant to subsection H6a(ii) of this Section.
b. Pipeline Requirements -Zone 2: If the Department has reason to believe that the
operation or proposed operation of an existing pipeline in Zone 2 of an APA maydegrade
groundwater quality, the Department may require: leakage testing in accordance with
subsection H6a(ii) of this Section; installation, sampling, and sample analysis of
groundwater monitoring wells; repair of the pipeline to the satisfaction of the Department
such that degradation of groundwater quality is minimized or eliminated. Criteria for this
determination is specified under subsection D2b(ii), Potential to Degrade Groundwater -
Zone 2, Criteria ..
7. Construction Activity Standards -Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-4-030.C.7, Construction
Activity Standards -APA Zones 1 and 2.
8. Fill Material Requirements -Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-4-060L4, Fill Material,
regarding quality of fill and fill material source statement requirements within aquifer
protection areas.
9. Regulations for Existing Solid Waste Landfills -Zones 1 and 2:
a. Materials: Earth materials used as fill or cover at a solid waste landfill shall meet the
requirements of RMC 4-4-060L4, Fill Material..
b. Groundwater Monitoring: The Department shall have the authority to require an
owner of a solid waste landfill to implement a groundwater monitoring program equal to
that described by King County Board of Health Title 10 (King County Solid Waste
Regulations) Section 10.72.020 and a corrective action program equal to that described
by Section 10.72.030. The Department shall have the authority ascribed to the health
officer in said regulations. Quarterly reports shall be provided to the Department detailing
groundwater rrionitoringactivity during the preceding three (3) months. Reports detailing
corrective action required by the Department shall be submitted according to a written.
schedule approved by the Department.
10. Hazardous Materials -Release Restrictions -Zones 1· ancl 2: Hazardous materials
. shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed, or allowed to escape or leach into
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
••
50
1445
•
446
447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
.466
. 1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488,
1489 •
the air, if'1to groundwater, surface water, surface soils or subsurface soils. Exception:
Int~ntional withdrawals of hazardous materials for the purpose of legitimate sale, use, or
disposal and discharges permitted under federal, state, or local law. Any unauthorized
releases shall be subject to the procedural requirements of RMC 4-9-015G, Unauthorized
Releases. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
I. FLOOD HAZARDS:
1. Applicability: Flood hazard regulations shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards
within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, all other applicable critical area or Shoreline
Master Program regulations shall apply within flood hazard areas. See RMC 4-3-090.E for a
description of Shoreline Master Program jurisdictional areas.
a. Areas of Special Flood Hazard: Areas of special flood hazard are defined as the land
in the floodplain subject to one percent or· greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Designation on flood maps always include the letters A or V.
b. Mapping and Documentation:
i. Basic Map and Documentation Identifying Hazards: The areas of special
flood hazard are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific
and engineering report entitled the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Renton,
dated September 29, 1989, and any subsequent revision, with accompanying
flood insurance maps which are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be
a part of this section. The flood insurance study is on file at the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department.
ii. When Federal Insurance Study is NolAvailable: When base flood
elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection 11 bi of this
Section the Department Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize
, any base flood ele'vation and f100dway data available from a Federal, State or '
other source in order to administer subsection 13, Specific Standards, and
subsection 14, Additional Restrictions Within Floodways. The best available
information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation
until a new Flood Insurance Rate Map is issued which incorporates the data
utilized under subsection D3a(iv) of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
iii. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries: Per RMC 4-3-050.D.3.d, the Department
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall make interpretations where needed, as to exact
'location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard (for example, where there
appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The
best available information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for
regulation.
iv. Data to be Used for Existing and Future Flow Conditions: The City shall
determine the components of the flood hazard area after obtaining, reviewing and
utilizing base flood elevations and available floodplain data for a flood having a one
percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, often referred to as the
"one-hundred-year flood." The City may require projections of future flow conditions for
proposals in unmapped potential flood hazard areas. In mapped or unmapped flood
hazard areas. future flow conditions shall be considered for proposed bridge proposals
crossing floodways. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 51
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
[ifilitWfJlrIlfit~l Subsections a, b.i and b.n moved from subsection 4-3-050 B to co-locate
with performance standards. Subsection b.iii cross-references languge from D.3.d
regarding interpretation in field versus maps. Subsection b.iv is newly added to allow the
City to use future flood information for particular situations that would not conflict with the
standards to reguiate finished flood elevations consistent.with FEMA one-hundred year
floodplain elevations.) .
1496 c. Performance Standards: In addition to general standards of subsection E of this
1497 Section, the following regulations apply in all areas of special flood hazard.
1498 2. General Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are
1499 required:
1500 a. Anchoring -All New Construction: All new construction and substantial
1501 improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the
1502 structure.
1503 b. Anchoring -Manufactured Homes: All manufactured homes must likewise be
1504 anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, and shall be installed using
1505 methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but
1506 are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors (Reference FEMA's
1507 Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas guidebook for additional
1508 techniques).
1509 c. Construction Materials and Methods:
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
. 1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
i. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
ii. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using
methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
iii.'Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-cOnditioning equipment and other
service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to
prevent 'water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions
of flooding.
d. Utilities: ' '
i. Water: All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system. The proposed water
Well shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway (WAC 173-160-171).
(Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
.' '.
ii. Sewer: New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from
the system~ into, flood waters. ,
iii. Waste Disposal: On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
e. Subdivision Proposals:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
52
1529
.530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542.
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
~~49
~50
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557 .
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568 •
i. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage;
ii. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood
damage;
iii. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
exposure to flood damage; and
iv. All subdivision proposals shall show the flood hazard information and boundary on
the subdivision drawing including, the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of
the subdivided area. .
f. Project Review:
i. Building Permits: Where elevation data is not available either through the flood
insurance study or from another authoritative source, i.e., subsection D3a(iv} of this
Section, applications for building permits shall be reviewedlo assure that proposed
construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a
local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of
past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet (2 ) above
grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.
ii. Land Use Applications: Where base flood elevation data has not beeriprovided
or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for
subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least fifty
(50) lots or five (5) acres (whichever is less).
3. Specific Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data
has been provided as set forth in subsection BdGI1 b of this Section, Mapping and
Documentation, or subsection D3a(iv}, Use of Other Base Flood Data, where such data
. provides flood elevations that exceed the regulatory standards in the FEMA flood insurance
study, the following provisions are required:
a. Residential Construction:
i. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
hav~ the lowest floor, including Basement, eleva'ted a minimum of one foot above
base flood elevation . '
ii. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are'
prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting
this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or
architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
(1) A minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one
square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided; and
(2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 53
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586.
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
I 1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
(3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or
devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
b. Manufactured Homes:
i. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones A 1-
A30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites outside of
a manufactured home park or subdivision, in a new manufactured home park or
subdivision, in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision,
or in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured
home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood, shall be elevated on
a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is
elevated a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation and be securely
anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation system to resist flotation,
collapse and lateral movement.
ii. Manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the
communitY's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the above
manufactured home provisions shall be elevated so that either the lowest floor of the.
manufactured home is elevated a minimum of one foot above the base flood
elevation or the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other
foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than thirty six
inches (36 ) in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately
designed anchored foundation system to resist flotation , collapse, and lateral
movement.
IEJIf~ltMf;t"tj~: Addresses State DOE comment as Dart of community assistance review.]
c. Nonresidential Construction: New construction of any commercial, industrial or other
nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated a
minimum-of one foot above the level of the base flood elevation. Substantial improvement
of any commercial; industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the level of the base flood
elevation, or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall:
i. Be floodproofed so that below one foot above the base flood level the structure is
watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 1fa;(1Uf8i~· timEt Addresses State DOE comment as part of community assistance review.]
ii. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads and effects of buoyancy; .
iii. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and
methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for
meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of
the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to
the Department Administrator;
iv. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same
standards for space below the lowest floor as described in subsection 13a(ii) of this
Section;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
54
•
1612
613
614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
•6~2
633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
•
1650
651
652
v.Applicants f1oodprooflng nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood
insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood proofed
level (e.g., a building f1oodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot
below).
d. Recreational Vehicles: Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A 1-30,
AH, and AE on the community~s Flood Insurance Rate Map n9t including recreational
vehicle storage lots shall either:
i. Be on the site for fewer than one hundred eig~ty (180) consecutive days;
ii. Be fully licensed and ready for high'way use, on its wheels or jacking system,is
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and
has no permanently attached additions; or . .
iii. Meet the requirements of subsection 13b of this Section and the elevation and
anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. (Arnd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
4. Additional Restrictions within Floodways: Located within areas of special flood hazard
established in subsection BJG.-11 b of this Section, Flood Hazards: Mapping and
Documentation, are areas designated as f1oodways. Since the f100dway is an extremely
hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles,
and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:
a. Increase in· Flood L.evels Prohibited: Encroachments, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a
registered professional engineer demonstrates through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engirieeringpractice that:
i. Encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence
of the base flood discharge; and
ii. There are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent
properties; arid
iii. There are no higher flood elevations upstream; and
iv. The impaCt due to f100dway encroachment shall be analyzed using future land use
condition flows. .
b. Residential Construction in Floodways: Construction or reconstruction of residential
structures is prohibited within deSignated floodways, except for:
i. Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the
ground floor area; and
ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a) before the
repair, reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged,
and is being restored,before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to
comply with existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as
historic places sJ::lall not be incluGeEimay be excluded in the fifty percent (50%) .
rEt1!ltir~lti~t~: Addresses State DOE comment as part of community assistance
review.]
. Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 55
1653
1654
1655
c. Compliance Requirements: If subsections 14a and 14b of this section are satisfied, all
new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood
hazard reduction provisions of this section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
1656 5. Critical Facility: Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible,
1657 located outside the limits of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) (one hundred (100) year)
1658 floodplain. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no
1659 feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have
1660 the lowest floor elevated three feet or more above the level of the base flood elevation (one
1661 hundred (100) year) at the site. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure
1662 that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into flood waters. Access routes
1663 elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical
1664 facilities to the extent possible. (Ord. 4851.8-7-2000)
1665 6. Compensatory Storage:
1666 a. Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other alterations shall
1667 not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. ·If grading or other
1668 activity will reduce the effective storage volume. compensatory storage shall be created
1669 on the site or off the. site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective
1670 compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall .
1671 be configured so as not to trap or strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be
1672 configured to provide salmonid habitat or high flow refuge whenever suitable site
1673 conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect bank stability or existing
1674 habitat.
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
b. Additional Requirements -Springbrook Creek: The higher of the City hydrologic
and hydraulic model results for the one hundred (100) year future land use conveyance
and storage events shall be used by the City to determine the volume of compensatory·
. storage required for filling within the one hundred (100) year flood zone of Springbrook
Creek.
1680· i. An exception to this requirement shall apply where the Federal Emergency
1681 Management Agency (FEMA) defined one hundred (100) year flood zone is lower
1682 than the City model results for the one hundred (100)year future land use
1683 conveyance event. .
1684 ii. Under the exception, the lower FEMA floodplain elevation shall be used. The
1685 exception only applies for the reach of Springbrook Creek between SW 43rd Street
1686 and Oakesdale Avenue near SW 41 st Street. .
1687 c. Determining Finished Floor Elevations According to FEMA: Although City model
1688 results will apply to compensatory storage requirements, the FEMA one hundred (100)
1689 year flood plain elevations shall be used to establish building finished floor elevations to
1690 comply with other National Flood Insurance Program requirements. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-
1691 7-2000)
1692 J. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS:
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1. Applicability: The geologic hazard regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites
containing steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards. seismic hazards, and/or coal
mine hazards classified below or on sites within fifty feet (50) of steep slopes. landslide
hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and/or coal mine hazards classified below which .
are located on abutting or adjacent sites.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
56
1698
.699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
~16
~17
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
.735
a. Steep Slopes:
i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep
sensitive or protected slope is determined to be in the location identified on the City
of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute
boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in
determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic
maps shall utilize two (2) foot contour intervals or the,standard utilized in the City of l'-··~.Jttt'~p\'~1'\r~b.~~"'~ Renton Steep Slope Atlas. [echtoil!s~lN\!}te: Copied from subsection B, minus
sentence re: independent review of steep slope study since independent review is
now under subsection F.J
ii. Steep Slope Types:
(a) Sensitive Slopes.
(b) Protected Slopes.
b. landslide Hazards:
i. low landslide Hazard ell): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%).
ii. Medium landslide Hazard (lM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent
(15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand,
gravel or glacial till.
iii. High landslide Hazards elH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent
'(40%>' and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%)
and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. .
iv. Very High landslide Hazards (lV): Areas of known mappable landslide
deposits. '
c. Erosion Hazards:
, Llow Erosion Hazard (El): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or
moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%).
ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having
severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen
percent (15%).
d. Seismic Hazards:
i. low Seismic Hazard (Sl): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils
generally have site coefficients of types S1 or S2, as defined in the Uniform Building
Code.
ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils.
These soils generally have site coefficients of types S30r S4, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 57
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
'1750
1751 '
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
e. Coal Mine Hazards:
i. low Coal Mine Hazards (Cl): Areas with no known mine workings and no
predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas. undocumented
mining is known to have occurred.
ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than
two hundred feet (200) for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times
the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be
affected by subsidence.
iii.'High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine
openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet
(200 ) in depth for steeply dipping seams. or shallower than fifteen (15) times the
thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be
affected by collapse or other subsidence.
rEaifefrimate: Moved from subsection B to co-locate with performance standards.]
f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for
inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in
Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. GeologiCal Survey
(Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier. Washington. Open-File Report 98-
428. ~e~: Added based upon comparison to State Example Code.]
g. Mapping: Maps of steep slopes, landslide, erosion, seismic. and coal min~ hazards
are documented and included in subsection Qof this Section. Maps. The actual presence
or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals; shall
govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance
with these regulations.
1760rEaRot~;ti: Moved from subsection B to co-locate with performance standards.]
1761 h. Performance Standards: In addition to the general ,standards of subsection E of this
1762 Section, the following performance standards, subsections J2 to J8, apply to all regulated
1763 geologic hazard areas, unless the subsection clearly identifies that the standard applies
1764 only to a specific geologic hazard category. Multiple performance standards may apply to
1765 a site feature, for example steep slope, landslide and erosion hazards, based upon
1766 overlapping classification systems.
1767 2. Special Studies Required:
1768 5LWhenever a proposed development requires a development permit and a geologiC
1769 hazard is present on the site of the proposed development or on abutting or adjacent
1770 sites within fifty feet (50 ) of the subject site, geotechnical studies by qualified
1771 professionals shall be required. Specificaily, geotechnical studies are required for
1772 developments proposed on sites with any of the following geologiC hazards:
1773 al. Sensitive and protected slopes;
1774 eli. Medium, high, or very high landslide hazards; .
1775 sill, High erosion hazards;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
-.'
58
1776
.777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
•
792
793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
• 813
diY. High seismic hazards;
ey. Medium or high coal mine hazards.
b. The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met:
i. The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent
properties beyond pre-development conditions; and
ii. The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and
iii. The development can be safely accommodated on the site.
rbbftrfJg'diot~: Added based upon comparison to State Example Code, and
similar to J.4.)
c. A mitigation plan may be required by the Responsible Official, consistent with Section
F.B.
3. Independent Secondary Review: Independent secondary review is required consistent
with 4-3-050.F.7. rE'll'it1r',ygi_: Subsections below moved to F.7 to consolidate.)
a. Required Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very High
landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance INith subsection J2
of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4 S RMC, Permits General and
Appe"als',shall' be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at
the applicant's-expense. ,I\n applicant may request that independent review be waived by
the Department Administrator in accordance '"lith subsection D4b of this Section, Review
Authority Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and
Wetlands. (Amd. Ord. ~963, 5 132002) .
b. At City's Discretion High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine, or High
Coal Mine Hazards: The City may require independent review of an applicant's
geotechnical report by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's
expense.
4. Conditions of Approval: Conditions of approval may modify the proposal, including, .
but not limited to, cohstruction techniques, :design, drainage, project size/configuration, or
seasoneil constraints on development. Additional possible conditions may be listed under
the performance standards for each hazard type. Upon review of geotechnical studies,
the development permit shall be conditioned to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
and to assure that the development can be safely accommodated on the site and is
consistent with the purposes of this Section. A mitigation plan may be required consistent
with Section F8.
5. Protected Slopes:
a. Prohibited Development: Development is prohibited on protected slopes. This
restriction is not intended to prevent the subdivision or development of property that
includes forty percent (40%) or greater slopes on a portion of the site, provided there is
enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 59
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833 .
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851,
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
b. Exceptions through Modification: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for:
i. Filling against the toe of a natural rock wall or rock wall, or protected slope created
through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or private road
installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track
installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities pursuant to
subsection N2 of this Section, Modifications.
ii. Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow
reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource
recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related
transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or
private utility installation activities, pursuant to subsection N2 of this Section,
Modifications.
c. Exceptions through Variance: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for
construction, reconstruction, additions, and associated accessory structures of a single
family home on an existing legal lot pursuant to a variance as stated in RMC 4-9-250B1,
where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to accommodatEi
building pads and provide practicable off street parking. rE~riit&Sftsr€$t~: Abbreviated and
conditions added to Variance section.] .
d. Exceptions through Waiver: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for
installation of public utilities Which are needed to protect slope stability, and public road
widening where all the following provisions have been demonstrated:
. i. The utility or road improvement is consistent with the Renton Comprehemsive Plan,
adopted Utility Plans, and the Transportation Improvement Program where
applicable.
ii. Alternative locations have been determined to be economically or functionally
infeasible.
iii. A geotechnical evaluation indicates that the proposal will not increase the risk of
occurrence of a geologic hazard, and measures are identified to eliminate or reduce
risks. .'.
. .
iv. The plan for the improvement is based on consideration of the best available
, science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid
scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. rEai11frt:S~Wt~m: Based
on a review of the DCTED Example Code.]
Where the excepted activities above are allowed, the erosion control measures in
subsection J6 of this Section, Sensitive Slopes, Medium, High and Very High Landslide
Hazards, and High Erosion Hazards, shall also apply. (Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
e. Native Growth Protection Areas -Protected Slopes: Unless development is
allowed pursuant to subsection J5a(i), (ii), or (iii), Protected Slopes, those protected
slopes shall be placed in a native growth protection area pursuant to RMC 4 3 050G4-3-
050EA, or dedicated to aconservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved
through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City:
f. Conditions of Approval: Based upon the results of the geotechnical report and
independent review, conditions of approval for developments on sites which include
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
60
1857
•
858
859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877 .
• 78
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
•
98
899
steep slopes may include, but are not limited to vegetation enhancement, slope
stabilization, buffer zones, or other requirements. Mitigation plans may be required
consistent with Section F8.
g. Coordination with Stream and Lake Buffers: When a required stream/lake buffer
falls within a protected slope area, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the
~·~.,f'I"'?'}_'4>~~i't~t boundary of the protected slope. IlCiitafJ.swNete: Added to be consistent with proposed
stream regulations.]
6. Sensitive Slopes -Medium, High and Very High Landslide Hazards -High Erosion
Hazards: The following standards apply to development on sensitive slopes, .
medium/high/very high landslide hazard areas, and high erosion hazard areas:
a. Erosion Control Plans: Development applications shall submit erosion control plans
consistent with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8
RMC, Permits and Decisions.
b. Conditions of Approval: The Reviewing Official may condition a development
proposal to achieve minimal site erosion, including, but not limited to, timing of
construction and vegetation stabilization, sequencing or phasing of construction, clearing
and grading limits"and other measures. Mitigation plans may be required consistent with
Section F8.
c. On-Site Inspections: During construction, weekly on-site inspections shall be required
at the applicant's expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall
be require~.
7. Very High Landslide Hazards:
a. Prohibited Development: Development shall not be permitted on land designated
with very high landslide hazards, except by variance; administered pursuant to RMC 4-9-
250B1, for construction cif a single family home on an existing legal lot.
b. Buffer R~quirement: A buffer of fifty feet (50) 'shall be established from the top, toe
and sides of a verY high landslide hazard area. The Department Administrator may
increase or decrease the required buffer based upon the results of a geotechnical report,
and any increase or decrease based upon the results of the geotechnical study shall be
documented in writing and included with the project approval.
i. The modified standard shall be based on consideration of the best available
science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid
scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Notification may
be required pursuant to Section F8.
ii. When a required streamllake buffer falls within a very high landslide hazard
area or buffer, the streamllake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the
very high landslide hazard buffer. jdI~"'N~t!: Added to coordinate with
proposed stream buffers.]
c. Native Growth Protection Area -Very High Landslide Hazards: The landslide
hazard area shall be placed in a native growth protection area pursuant to subsection G
EA of this Section, or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly
preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City.-Based
upon the results of the geotechnical study, the buffer may be placed in a native growth
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 61
1900
1901
protection area, or it may be designated as a "no build" easement, or the area may be.
designated in part, a native growth protection area and in part, a "no build" easement.
1902 8. Coal Mine Hazards:
1903 a. Medium Hazard -Report Required: Reports consistent with subsection J2 of this
1904 Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits and Decisions, shall
1905 be prepared for development proposed within medium coal mine hazard areas and for
1906 development proposed within two hundred feet (200 ) of a medium coal mine hazard
1907 area. An applicant may request that the Department Administrator waive the report
1908 requirement pursuant to subsection D4b of this Section,. Review Authority -Geologic
1909 Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands. where it
1910 has been determined through field documentation that.coal mine hazards are not
1911 present. (Amd. Ord. 4835,8-7-2000)
1912 b. High Hazard -Report Required: Reports consistent with subsection J2 of this
1913 Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits and Decisions, shall
1914 be prepared for development proposed within high coal mine hazard areas and for
1915 development proposed within five hundred feet (500) of a high coal mine hazard area.
1916 An applicant may request that the Department Administrator waive, the report requirement
1917 pursuant to subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority -Geologic Hazards, Habitat
1918 Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands, where it has been
1919 determined through field documentation that coal mine hazards are not present.
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
.1926
1927
·1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
c. Conditions of Approval: Based upon the results of studies prepared, the City may
condition approval of development by requiring mitigation. Potential mitigation may
include, but is not limited to, backfilling and sealing mine entries and shafts, backfilling
existing sinkholes, removal or regrading or capping coal mine waste dumps, limiting
development on portions of the site, or other measures offering equal protection from the
hazard. A mitigation plan may be required consistent with Section F8.
. i. Additional Engineering Design and Remediation Specifications: After approval
of the mitigation approach proposed as a result of subsection J8c ofthis Section, and
prior to construction, the applicant shall complete engineering design drawings and
specifications for remediation. Upon approval of the plans and specifications, the . .
applicant shall complete the remediation. Hazard. mitigation shall be performed by or
under the direction of a qualified engineer or geologist. The applicant shall document
the hazard mitigation by submitting as-builts and a remediation construction report.
d: Hazards Found during Construction: Any hazards found during any development
activities shall be immediately reported to the Development Services' Division. Any coal
mine hazards shall be mitigated prior to recommencing construction based upon
supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant's geotechnical professional.
e. Construction in Areas with Combustion: Construction shall not be permitted where
surface or subsurface investigations indicate the possible presence of combustion in the
underlying seam or seams, unless the impact is adequately mitigated in accordance with
the recommendations of the applicant's geotechnical professional.
1941
1942
1943
1944
, 9. Volcanic Hazards: 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 mitiaation measures as
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 62
•
•
•
1945
.946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
•
962
963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972,
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
•
984
985
appropriate. Mitigation plans may be required consistent with F8. lEaU'O'1ls1NGte: Based on a review
of the DCTEDExample Code.]
K. HABITAT CONSERVATION:
1. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on
sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below.
a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the
following criteria:
i. The documented presence of non-salmon ids (see subsection L.1 and RMC 4-3-090
Shoreline Master Program Regulations for salmonid species) species proposed or
listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered. threatened,
sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or
ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or
iii. Category1 wetlands (refer to subsection M.1 of this Section for classification
criteria.
rEEi'm'rfs1N'M: Moved from subsection B to co-locate with performance standards at the
request of Development Services.]
b. Mapping:
i. Critical habitats are identified by lists. categories and definitions of species
. promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non-game
Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the
"Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations a'dopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. '
Fish'and Wildlife Service.
ii. Referenced inventories and maps are'to be used as guides to the general location'
and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection K1 a of
this Section, but not shown on the referen'ced inventories and maps, are presumed to
exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section.
iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above as determined by
qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or
parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations.
c. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this
Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to K5, apply to all non-
exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection BaK1 a.
2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection Ba-KLofthis Section, Habitat
Conservation, the City shall require a habitaUwildlife assessment for activities that are located
within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat. and have the
potential to significantly impact a critcal habitat. The assessment shall-ffi determine the
extent, function and value of the critical habitat \'vhen regulated acti'litiesare proposed which
have the potential to cause sign+H~Gtsand potential for impacts and mitigation
consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120.D, In cases where a proposal is not likely
to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 63
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department
Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. The City may require .
. , t-the
applicant's expense. [;;ai 0l:tistD: Combined with other independent review conditions in
subsection F above. Clarify that review is required if abutting/adjacent based on DCTED
Example Code.]
1992 3. Bald Eagle Habitat: Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington
1993 State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). ~oil~8r6Hl Based on a review of
1994 the DCTED Example Code.]
1995 ~. Native Growth Protection Areas: Based onthe required habitat assessment, the
1996 Reviewing Official may require critical habitat areas and their associated buffers be placed in
1997 a native growth protection area subject to the requirements of subsection G-EA of this
1998 Section, or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved
1999 through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City ..
2000 4~. Alterations Require Mitigation: If alterations to critical habitaVwildlife habitat or buffers
2001 are proposed, mitigation shall be required by the City. The applicant shall evaluate alternative
2002 methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order:
2003 a. Avoid any disturbances to the habitat.
2004 b. Minimize any impacts to the habitat.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
c. Compensate for any habitat impacts.
S~. Mitigation Options: In addition to any performance standards or mitigation required by
wetland regulations, additional mitigation maybe determined by the Reviewing Official based
upon the consultant report submitted by the applicant, and/or peer review of the applicant's
consultant report by a qualified professional selected by the City at the applicant's expense,
and/or by information from State or Federal agencies.
2011 a. On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation shall be provided on-site, unless on-site mitigation is
2012 not sCientifically feasible due tophysieal features of the property. The burden of proof
2013 shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site.
. .
2014 b. Off-Site Mitigation: When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be
2015 provided in the immediate vicinity of the permitted activity on property owned or
2016 controlled by the applicant, and identified as such through a recorded document such as
2017 an easement or covenant, provided such mitigation is beneficial to the habitat area and
2018 associated resources.
2019 c. In-Kind Mitigation: In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant
2020 demonstrates and the City concurs that greater functional and habitat value can be
2021 achieved through out-of-kind mitigation ..
2022 7. Mitigation Plan: Mitigation plans may be required consistent with F8.
2023
2024
2025
L. SHORELINES, STREAM~ AND LAKES: (Reserved)
Pending issuance of "4d" Rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service and subsequent Tri
County Regulatory Response
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
64
•
2026
027
028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
• 045.
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
~63 ~064
1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake
regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or
their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters which are
regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters
which are exempt. All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to flood hazard
regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable.
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the
purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are
based on the following rating system:
i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are:
classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State.
rEaiit~M~t~: Class 1 will be based on status as a Shoreline of the State only; if not
mapped or not a Shoreline of the State the stream would be Class 2. Note that the
Class 1 waters also coincide with the known mapped Chinook distribution.)
ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters
which meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Mapped on Figure 0.1, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or
(b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident
trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or
(c) is a water body (e.g. pond, lake) between 0.5 acre and 20 acres in size .
raii'1I'~ The Stream regulations would protect salmonid habitat; butthe
standards are not designed to address other aquatic species. Other fish/aquatic
species that are listed would be addressed through Habitat Conservation
regulations.]
. iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years
of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure a.m. Renton Water Class Map. as Class
3.
iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during
years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure 0.1, Renton Water Class Map, as
Class 4.
v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which
meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) flow within an artifically constructed channel where no naturally-defined
channel had previously existed; and/or
(b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acre (e.g. pond) not meeting
the criteria for a wetland as defined in Section M.
b. Measurement:
i. Stream/Lake Boundary: The boundary of a stream or lake shall be considered to
. be its Ordinary Hiqh Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM shall be flagged in the field by
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
~
65
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
·2098
2099
2100
. 2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107·
2108
2109
.2110.
2111
2112
2113
a qualified consultant when any study is required pursuant to Subsection L of this
Section .• W&'~G'tltm The water resource is proposed to be measured based on
the OHWM. The riparian areas. where they exist, would be a part of the buffer. The
City's flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations would apply in addition to the
water body regulations where applicable.) .
ii. Buffer: The boundary of a buffer shall extend beyond the boundaries of the stream
or lake to the width applicable to the stream/lake class as noted in Subsection L.5
below, Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements.
c. Maps and Inventory:
i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to
4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in Subsection a of this
Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent .
of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon
field review and applicant-funded studies prepared pursuant to Subsection L.3.
ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in
Subsection a and the criteria in Subsection L.1.a, the criteria in Subsection L.1.a shall
govern. The re-classification of a water body to a lower class (Le. 2 to 3: or 3 to 4, etc.)
requires Administrator acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, followed by· a
legislative amendment to the map in Subsection a prior to its effect.
iii. Unmapped Streams and Lakes: Streams and lakes which ate defined in Subsection
L.1.a of this Section, Classification System. but not shown on the Renton Water Class Map in
Subsection a,· are presumed to exist in the City and are regulated by all the provisions of this
Section. IF the water body is unmapped according to the City of Renton's Water Class Map
(refer to Subsection a), and:·
(a) the width of the stream channel· averages less than two-feet at the Ordinary High
Water Mark, or·
(b) the stream channel has an average gradient of greater than 20 percent, or
. (c) the channel or water body is upstream of an existing, enduring, and complete barrier
to salmonid migration, as interpreted in Subsection L.1 .c.iv below. or as shown on the
City of Renton's Salmonid Migration Barrier Map. and the channel or water body contains
water only intermittently upstream of the barrier during years of normal rainfall, or
(d) the water body is isolated from any connected stream and/or wetland, or
(e) the water body is less than 0.5 acre in size and connected to. a stream meeting the
criteria noted in Subsections L.1 .c.iii.(a) through (c) above: .
THEN the water body is considered Non-Salmonid-Bearing and water class would be
assessed based upon the Non-Salmonid-Bearing Waters criteria in Subsections L.1.a.iii.
through v. above. HOWEVER, If none of the conditions above apply, then the water
body is considered Salmonid-Bearing -Class 2. Classification of an unmapped stream or
lake is effective upon expiration of the 14-day appeal period following the Administrator's
determination, and the map in Subsection a shall be amended consistent with
Administrator determinations at the next appropriate amendment cycle.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 66
•
•
•
•
2114
115
116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
•
136
137
138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
•
163
164
iv. Salmonid Migration Barriers: For purposes of classifying or reclassifying water bodies,
features determined by the Administrator to be salmonid migration barriers per definition in
RMC 4-11-190 shall be mapped, The Administrator shall prepare and update the map as
appropriate and maintain a copy in the Planning/Building/Public Works Customer Service
Area,
[rtjaiit3T~mijt~: The description of the barriers in RMC 4-11-190 to salmonid
migration is intended to avoid interpretations that temporary features should
result in a lower stream class, or that partial barriers should lead to a lower
stream class, or the situation where someone is adding a barrier; the current
mapping of barriers by a prior City consultant may not have included temporary
or partial barriers; but the language here may help guide future mapping
updates.)
v. Experts or State Agency May Be Required or Consulted: The City may require
an applicant to retain an expert or to consult the Washington Departrrient of Fish &
Wildlife to assess salmonid-bearing status of the channel in question and prepare a .
report to the City detailing the facts and conclusion of their analysis.
vi. Criteria to Govern: The actual presence or absence of the stream and lake
criteria listed in this Section L. as 'determined by qualified professionals. shall govern
the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with
these regulations.
2. Applicability -Activities to Which This Section Applies: This Section applies to all non-exempt
activities on sites containing Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and their associated buffers.
3. Studies Required:
a .. When Standard Stream or Lake Study Is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Standard Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body or
buffer area or the project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a water body even if the water
body is not located on the subject property.
b. When Supplemental Stream or Lake Study is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body
or buffer area and changes to buffer requirements or alterations of the water body or its
associated buffer are proposed, either administratively or via a variance request.
c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan per RMC 4-8-120 if impacts are identified within a
Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the
Administrator shall be based on the criteria located in Subsection L.3.c.ii below ..
i. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plan is required, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for the
approval of the Administrator Prior to the issuance of· building or construction permits
whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan
prior to commencement of any mitigation activity.
ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Streams
and Lakes or Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan the
Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria:
=iK"'''",'''''"oY,~ . I C 1 rBCfltor~s)N'0tei Based upon DCTED Examp e ode.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 67
I
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
·2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207.
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213·
2214
.2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
(a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iv)
. below:
(i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing
Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable;
em Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin
as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over
mitigation on the subject site; .
(iii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin
within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions
within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
(iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City
limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same
drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved.
ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the
Renton City limits and it meets City goals.
eb) Contiguous corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve
contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development
on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same
aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and
eel Non-indigenous species: Wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall
not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal
permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-050.L.6.c.; and
Cd) Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report
"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company 'and Cedarock Consultants. dated X, 2003.
unless superceded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential
ecological function of the stream or lake or riparian' habitat that is being affected.
. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate
alterations to streamllake areas and associated buffers shalt achieve equivalent or
greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts
upstream or' downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-Ioss of riparian habitat
or water body function shall be demonstrated; and
eel Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: See Subsection 4-3-050.F.8.
(f) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of
. activities allowed within or abutting a streamllake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize
or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include. but are not limited to,
the following:
(i) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as
snags and downed wood;
(ij) Limitation of access to the habitat area. including fencing to deter unauthorized
access:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 68
•
•
••
2220
•
221
222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
•
247
248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
·2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
.273
(iii) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(iv) Establishment of a duration and. timetable for periodic review of mitigation
activities.
(0) Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the
mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC
365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in
RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
III. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance surety to ensure
completion and success of proposed mitigation, per RMC 4-3-050.G and 4-1-230.
iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in this Subsection L.3 may
be modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved
habitat functions, on a per function basis, can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage basin
as a result of alternative mitigation measures.
d. Studies Waived:
i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when the
applicant provides satisfactory evidence that:
(a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed
activity, or
(b) The water body or required buffer area does not i'ntrude on the applicant's lot. and
based on evidence submitted, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to
nearby water bodies regulated under this Section; or
(c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when:
(a) No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed;
or
(b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project· proposed exists and an
additional report is not necessary.
iii. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been
identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study.
e. Period of Validity for Studies Associated with This Section: Studies submitted and
reviewed are valid for five (5) years from date of Study completion unless the Administrator
determines that conditions have changed significantly.
4. General Standards for Class 2 to 4 Waters:
a. Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed,
except where the buffer is to be enhanced, or where exemptions allowed in Subsection 4-3-050.C
are conducted. or where allowed to be altered in accordance with Subsections L5. L7 and L8.
Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with exemption or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 69
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
development permit approval during construction or other activities, revegetation with native
vegetation shall be required. rE1lfilr~~HntEl Similar language copied to exemption criteria.]'
b. No Net Loss: There shall be no net loss of riparian area or shoreline ecological function
resulting from any activity or land use occurring within the regulated buffer area.
5. Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements:
a, Minimum Stream/Lake Buffer Widths: The. minimum width of the required buffers shall be
based upon the water body class. (iEfafterJ'If-;J5te: Increased and Reduced Buffer Widths dealt
with in separate subsections.]
i. Class 2: 100 feet
ii. Class 3: 75 feet
iii. Class 4: 35 feet
b. Increased Buffer Width:
i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the streamnake buffer is in an area of hiqh
blOW-down potential as identified by a qualified professional.' the buffer width may be
expanded an additional fifty (50) feet on the windward side by the Responsible Official.
Notifications may be required per section F8.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slope or Very High Landslide Area: When the
required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area or
buffer, the streamllake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the
very high landslide hazard buffer. Notifications may be required per section F8.
c. Reduction of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request. and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study. the Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum buffer
widths where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections iv(a), (c), Cd), (e)
and (f) below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii above; or compliance with
Subsections iv(b),(c}, Cd), (e). and (f) below and any mitigation requirements as a resullof
L.3.c.ii. above.
ii. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: An enhanced buffer shall not be
less than the widths specified below for reduced buffers.
(a) Class 2: 75 feet
(b) Class 3: 50 feet
(c) Class 4: 25 feet
Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a) through (c)· above require review
as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B.
iii. Procedure: Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file.
Public notification shall be given as follows:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 70
•
•
2328
•
329
330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
•
354
, 355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364,
2365 '
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
&380
.381
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of
the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record,
if any. in accordance with RMC 4-8.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination or
request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon
determination, notification of parties of record. if any, shall be made.
iv. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: Criteria (a) and (c) through (f), or
, criteria (b) through (f) shall be met:
(a) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%)
slopes; the width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of
anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; the width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat;
and no direct or indirect. short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water
bodies. as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's
determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to
Subsection F3 and RMC 4-8-120; or
(b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed, as
determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and
(c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and
substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes
of the buffer; and
(d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological '
function; and, .
(e) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and
(f) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science
as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific'
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
d. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Basea upon an applicant's request. and the acceptance of a' Supplemental
Stream or ~ake Study, the Administrator may approve buffer width averaging. '
ii. Minimum Averaged Buffer Widths: In no instance shall the buffer width be less than:
Cal Class 2: 50 feet
(bl Class 3: 37.5 feet
eel Class 4: 25 feet
Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a) through (c) above require review
as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B.
iii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Administrator only
where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 71
I
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
'2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
.2434
2435
2436
(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; and·
(b) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of streamllake/riparian ecological
function; and
(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; and
(d) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science
as described in WAC 365-195~905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iv. Buffer Enhancement May be Required: Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging
per this Subsection, buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site
conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics.
v. Notification: Notification may be required consistent with F8.
6. Stream or Lake Buffer Use Restrictions and Maintenance: Any .
activity or proposal subject to RMC 4-3-050.L shall comply with the following standards within'
required buffer areas:
a. Preservation of Native Vegetation: Existing native vegetation shall be preserved to the
. extent possible, preferably in consolidated areas.
b. Revegetation Required: Where water body buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance
with exemption or development permit approval or other activities, revegetation· with native
vegetation shall be required.
c. Use of Native Species: When revegetation is required, native species, or other appropriate
species naturalized to the Puget Sound region and approved by the Reviewing Official, shall be
used. A variety of species shall be used which serve as food or shelter from climatic extremes
and predators, and as structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young.
d. Removal of Noxious Species: When required as a condition of approval, noxious or
undesirable species of plants shall be removed or controlled so as to not compete with native
vegetation.· ,
e. Impervious Surface Restrictions: Where impervious surfaces exist in buffer areas, such
impervious surfaces shall not be increased or expanded within the buffer area. The extent of
impervious surfaces within the buffer area may only be re-arranged if the reconfiguration of
impervious surfaces is part of an enhancement proposal that improves ecological function of the
buffer area, rE(jlt0f,fS:i~om: States what City is trying to achieve when impervious surfaces are
re-arranged ,J
7. Criteria for Permit Approval -Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects
involving regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the proviSions
of this Section L. and complies with the following: '
a. Creation of Native Growth Protection Areas Required: As a condition of any approval for
any development permit issued pursuant to this Section, the property owner shall be required to
create a native growth protection area containing the stream/lake area and associated buffers
based upon field investigations performed pursuant to Subsection E.4. and .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 72
•
•
•
2437
•
38
439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
•
64, 65
2466
2467
246~
2469
2470'
2471
2472
2473
2474 , 2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
.90
b. At least one of the following conditions must apply:
i. A proposed action meets the standard provisions of this Section and results in no net loss
of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where the site
is located, or
, ii. A proposed action meets alternative administrative standards pursuant to this Section and
the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological
function in the drainage basin where the site is located; or
iii. A variance process is successfully completed and the proposed activity results in no net
loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where
the site is located.
8. Alterations Within Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers
a. Transportation Crossings:
i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Transportation Crossings in Stream/Lake or
Buffer Areas: Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be
permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study subject to the
following criteria:
(a) There is no other feasible alternative route with less impact on the environment: and
. -. .
(b) The crossing minimizes interruption of do~nstream movement .of wood and gravel;
, and"
(c) Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and
(d) Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and
, ,
(e) Bridges· are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or
equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and
(flSeasonalwork windows are determined,and made a condition of approval; and
(g) Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3~050.L.3.c.ii. are met.
. ,
~~ Based in part upon the State Example Codel
b. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Utilities:
i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Utilities in Stream/Lake or Buffer: New utility
lines and facilities may be permitted to cross water bodies in accordance with an approved
supplemental stream/lake study, if they comply with the following criteria:
(a) Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; and
(b) The utility is designed consistent with one orrriore of the following methods:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 73
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501·
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526 '
2527
. 2528 '
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
(i) Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the scour depth and
hyporheiczone of the water body and channel migration zone; or
(ii) The' utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60) degrees to the
. centerline of the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline; or
(iii) Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility
crossing; and
(c) New utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down-valley course'
near the channel; and ' .'
(d) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate of shore
migration or channel migration; and
(e) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and
. '. . . . m Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met. . ,
mit3F~.m Based in part upon the State Example Code.]
c. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers -In-Water Structures and In-
Water Work:
i: Administrative Approval of In-Water Structures or In-Water Work: In accordance with
an approved supplemental stream or lake study, in-water structures or work may be
permitted, subject to the following: In-stream structures, such as, but not limited to, high flow
bypasses. sediment ponds, in-stream ponds. retention and detention facilities, tide gates.
, dams, and weirs, shall be allowed as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project'
approved 'by the City of Renton, and in accordance with mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-
050.L.3.c.ii.' The applicant will obtain and comply with State or Federal permits and
requirements. pd'OiJU[afE!: Based in part on the State Example Code.]
. ,,' .
d. Alterations of Streams' and Lakes or Associated Buffers -Dredging.
L Administrative Approval of Dredging: Dredging may be permitted only when:
'(a) Dredging is necessary'for'f1ood hazard reduction purposes, if a·definiteflood hazard: .
would exist unless dredging were permitted; or ., .
. (b) Dredging js necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality,
when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life; or .
(c) Dredging is associated with a, stream habitat enhancement or creation project not
otherwise exempt in 4-3-050.C; or ., .
,
(d) Dredging is necessary to protect public facilities; or
. . . . . .
(e) Dredging is required as a maintenance ~md operation condition of a federally funded
flood hazard reduction project or a hazard mitigation project; and
. . . ,
(f) Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met. ' '.
!laff.oms:~ote: Based in part upon the Renton SMP :)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 74
•
•
2545
546
547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
•
71
72
573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
.596
e. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Stream Relocation:
i. Administrative Approval of Stream Relocation: Stream relocation may be allowed when
analyzed in an accepted supplemental stream or lake assessment, and when the following
criteria and conditions are met:
(a) Criteria -Stream relocation may only be permitted if associated with:
(i) A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by
appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or
" .
. (ij) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible
alternative exists; or .
(iii) A public or private proposal restoring a water body to its original location and
resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species.
(b) Additional Conditions: The following conditions also apply to any stream relocation
proposal meeting one or more of the above criteria:
(i) Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location, provided that the
buffer widths may be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of L.S c or d, or other
equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-Ioss of riparian function is
provided; and
(H) Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-0S0.L.3.c.ii. must be met; and
(iii) Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations, per RMC 4-
3-0S0.D.3.b, Infoni1ation to be Obtained and 'Maintained, and RMC 4-3-0S0.D.3.c,
Alterations" of Watercourses, in cases where the streamllake is subject to flood
hazard regulations of RMC 4-3-0S0, as well as RMC 4-3-0S0.FB if neighboring
properties are impacted. "
rElifGjjDltea Based in part upon the Renton SMP.]
f. Alterations -Single Family Home -Existing Legal Lot: If criteria to reduce or average a
buffer cannot be met, construction, reconstruction, additions, and associated accessory
structures of a single family home on an existing legal lot may be allowed to intrude into a buffer
pursuant to a variance as stated in RMC 4-9-2S0B 1 .. "
g. Alterations '-Other: Proposed alterations of a stream or lake or associated buffer not
addressed by Subsections L.8.a to L.8.f require a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9-2S0B in order to
be condycted.
h. When Variance Is Required: If the proposed alteration applicable to Subsections L.B.a to
L.8.g does not meet the above criteria, it shall require a variance per Subsection N3 of this
Section and RMC 4-9-2S0B in order to be conducted.
M. WETLANDS:
1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as
described below. Category 2 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square
feet in area. and Category 3 wetlands, less than five thousand (S,OOO) square feet in area,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 7S
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614·
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622 ....
2623·
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
.2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
. .
are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in RMC 4-3-050.C. (Amd.
Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
[Sr.,,: . Section below and above moved from subsection B to co-locate with
performance standards at the reguest of Development Services and modified based on
Parametrix review.] .
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the
. purposes of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios
and avoidance criteria shall be based on the following rating system:
i. Category 1, Very High Quality Wetlands: Category 1 wetlands are wetlands
which meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as
endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species:
and/or
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open
water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation
classes; and/or
. .
(c) Wetlands egual to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3)
or more vegetationcl~sses, one of which is open water; and/or
identified language as vague, alternative language could be -"The presence of
high quality regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological
functions. "]
(e) Rated as a Category I wetland based on an adopted rating system by the
State of Washington Department of Ecology.
ii. Category 2; High Quality Wetlands: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which ...
meet one or more of the following criteria: .
(a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or.
.(b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not
Category 1 wetlands: and/or
languge added based on Parametrix review.}
. ," .
(d) Wetlands haVing minimum existing evidence of human related physical
alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or
(e) Rated as aCategorY'lIor III wetland based on an adopted rating system by
the State of Washington Department of Ecology. rf§1iI~~~~: Based on .
Parametrix review.]
. Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
76
.636
.. 637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
.654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
• 666
iii. Category 3, Lower Quality Wetlands: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which
meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are·
wetlands which meet the following criteria:
• Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related
hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization
and/or outlet modification; and
• Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal
and/or compaction of soils; and
• May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
• Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
• Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species
richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are
generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and
Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high
. quality wetlands.
(d) Those rated as a Category IV wetland based on an adopted rating system by
the State of Washington Departmentof Ecology. J§jfttli!Ret~: Based on
Parametrix review.]
Parametrix review.]
City of Renton State DeQartment
Category of Ecology
Category
·1 !
~ II and III
~ IV
c. MaQs and Inventory:
i. The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the City is displayed in
subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general
location and extent of wetlands.
ii. Wetlands which are defined in subsection M.1.a of this Section. Classification
System, but not shown on the Renton Wetlands Map Inventory. are presumed to
exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 77
2667
2668
2669'
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
,2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
I 2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
iii. The actual presence or absence of the wetland criteria listed above, as determined
by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or
parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations.
d. Delineation of Wetland Edge: For the purpose of regulation, the wetland edge should
, be delineated pursuant to subsection M4 of this Section.
e. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands: Refer to subsection M1 a and M1f of this
Section for applicability thresholds for regulatory and non regulatory wetlands.
f. Performance Standards: In addition to general standards of subsection E of this
Section, the following performance standards apply to all regulated wetlands.
ai, Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -General: Wetlands created or
restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated
wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not
limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, 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. The Department
Administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of
photographs, statements, and other evidence. '
bil. Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands: Based upon an applicant request, the
Department Administrator may determine that Category 3 wetlands are not '
considered regulated wetlands, if the applicant demonstrates the following
criteria are met: '
{illh The wetland formed on top of fill legally placed on a property; and
, '
{Q}ih The wetland hydrology is solely provided by the compaction of the soil
and fill material; and "
~ the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that they will not
take jurisdiction over the wetland.
2. General Standards for Permit Approval: Permit approval by the Reviewing Officiaifor
projects involving regulated wetlands or wetland buffers shail be granted only if the approval
is consistent with the provisions of this section. Additionally, approvals shall only be granted
if:
a. A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or
takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable
impacts; and .'
, b. The, proposed activity results in no net loss of regula ted wetland area, value, or
function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located; or
c. Denial of a permit would deny all reasonable use of the property and a A variance
,'process is successfully completed to determine conditions for.permitting of activity
requested including measures to reduce impacts as appropriate. ~~~ift:l '
Changed to be consistent with proposed streams and lakes regulations,] ,
'Draft Best Available Scien'ce Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
'.
78
•
2708
709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
.730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743·
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
•
750
. 751
3. Study Required:
a. When Study Is Required: Wetland classifications or delineationsassessments are
required as follows:
i. Wetland Classification: The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to
determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is
within one hundred feet (100) of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the
subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely
. to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. If there is a potential Category 1 or 2
wetland within three hundred (300) feet of a proposal, the City may require an
applicant to conduct a study even if the wetland is not located on the subject property
but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the
wetland in question or its buffer. JECiit'S'aJiiIie: Based on Parametrix review, and
Staff Review Team regarding the difficulties in obtaining neighboring property owner
permission if offsite. DOE early agency review suggested that the distance be
measured from the wetland or its buffer .J
ii. Wetland Delineation: A wetland delineation is required for any portion of a
wetland on the subject property that will be impacted by the permitted activities.
b. Study Waived: The sWGy-wetland assessment shall be waived by the [)epartment
Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that a road, building or .
other barrier exists between the wetlan9 and the proposed activity, or when the buffer
area needed or required will notintrude on the applicant's lot. or when applicable data
and analysiS appropriate to the project proposed exists "and an additional report is not
necessary;
4. Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands: .
. . . .
a. Methodology: For the purpose of regulation, the exact location of the wetland edge
shall be determined by the wetlands specialist hired at the expense of the applicant
through the performance of a field investigation using the procedures provided in the
following manual: Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual,
Washington StateOepartment of Ecology, March 1997, Ecology Publication #96-94.
b. Delineations -Open Water: Where wetlands are contiguous with area~ of open
freshwater, streams, or rivers, the delineation shall be consistent with the Washington
State Wetlands Rating SYstem: Western Washington, SeCond Edition, Washington State
Department of Ecology, August 1993, Publication #93-74, Appendix 5, or another
accepted Federal or State methodology, subject to City. review: ."
c. Adjustments to Delineation by City: Where the applicant has provided a delineation
of the wetland edge, the City shall review and may render adjustments to the edge
delineation. In the event the adjusted edge delineation is contested by the applicant, the
City shall at the applicant's expense, obtain the services of an additional qualified
wetlands speCialist to review the original study and render a final delineation.
d. Period of Validity for Wetland Delineation:
i. Within City Limits: A final wetland delineation, for properties within the city limits
at the time the delineation was prepared, is valid for five (5) years, unless the
Department Administrator determines that conditions have changed. ~
vaUdity-pOf.i.OO-sRaH-femaiA-apj)HGaGle-f.eF-j*ojects 'Nhere complete building permit Of
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 79
2752·
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757 .
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770 .
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784·
2785
2786
2787
preliminary plat applications have been submitted regardless of 'Nhether conditions
have changed_ Upon applicant request, extensions for additional years of validity
may be approved by the Department Administrator ifan application is proceeding in a
timely manner through the permit process.
ii. Outside City Limits:· The period of validity of wetland delineations for properties,
which were unincorporated at the time of the delineation, will be determined by the
Department Administrator. Following a review of a wetland delineation prepared for a
unincorporated property, since annexed into tne city, the Department Administrator
may require adjustments be made to the study or a new study prepared, per
subsection M3 of this Section, Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands.
5. Determination of Wetland Classification: Wetland studies shall deteliT1ine the
appropriate wetland classification according to subsection 87-M1 of this Section, Wetlands.
The City may accept a dual wetland classification for a wetland exhibiting a combination of
Category 1 and 2 features or a combination of Category 1 and 3 features. The City will not
accept a dual rating for a Category 2 wetland, such as a combined Category 2 and 3 rating.
Dual ratings for a Category 1 wetland shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetlands
. Rating System: Western Washington, $econd Edition, Washington State Department of
Ecology, August 1993; Publication #93-74 or as thereafter amended or updated.
6. Wetland Buffers:
a. Buffers Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required of all proposed regulated
activities adjacent toabutting regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, 'restored, or
enhanced in conjunction with creation or restoration as compensation for approve"
wetland alterations shall include the standard buffer required for the class of the wetland
being replaced. Except as otherwise specified, allrequired wetland buffer zones shall be
retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during
. construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation may be required.
b. Measurement of Buffers: All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary
as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of.subsection M4a of this Section,
Methodology.
, .
c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths: The width of the required wetland. buffer zone shall be
determined according to the wetland category; The buffer zone required for all regulated
wetlands is determineq by the classification of the wetland. If standard buffer widths .
cannot be met, ·and buffer reductions per subsection MSe of this Section, and buffer
averaging per subsection MSf cannot be accomplished, a variance to buffer requirements ..
may be requested per subs.ection N of this Section; Alternates, Modifications and
Variances, and RMC 4-9-2508, Variance-Procedures ..
'IL we~land categoryllstaridard BUfferl
!Icategory 1~ Very High Qualityll ... 100 feet -I
·Ilc~~~g~: .2 = High Quality JL:~~~~.t .. __ . .l.·
.llca~egory 3-LowerQuality .. 11 25 feet
Draft BestAvailableScience Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
e·
e
e
80
2788
•
789
790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806·
2807
2808
_809.
~810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816 .
2817
2818 .
2819
2820
2821
2822 '
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830 •
d. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width: The Environmental Review
CommitteeResponsible Official may require increased standard buffer zone widths in
unique cases, i.e., endangered species, very fragile areas, when a larger buffer is
necessary to protect wetlands functions and values. This determination shall be
supported by appropriate documentation provided by the, applicant or the City showing
that increased buffers are reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of
the regulated wetland. Such determination shall be attached as a condition of project
approval and shall demonstrate that: <
. i. A larger buffer is n;;;.
existing species; or I
ii. The wetland is used by species listed by the Federal or the State govemment as
threatened, endangered and sensitive species and State-listed priority species,
essential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as
heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees or,evidence thereof; or
iii. Nearby lands which drain into the wetland are susceptible to severe erosion, and
erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
iv. Nearby lands which drain into the wetland have minimal vegetative cover or
slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%),;,.,Q[
v. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The
Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Manaaement of Wetlands.
McMillan 2000, or a similar approach lias been conducted .• ~"Rr.: Based on
review of State Example Code.)
. vi. Notification is given consistent with F8.
e. Reduction of Buffer Width: Based upon an applicant's request, the Department
Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard wetland buffer zone widths on a
case-by-case basis where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with subsections
M6e(i) and (iii) o"r (ii) and (iii) below. Such determination and evidence shall be included in
the application file arid public notification and'public notification shall be given in
accordance with 'M6e(iiir shall be given by posting the subject site and City Hall, and
notifying parties of record. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7;..2000) .
. . . .
i. The adjacent buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen,
percent (15%) slopes and no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse
impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated
activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by
recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and
subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts'to regulated wetlands are
discovered; or
ii. The project inCludes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and
substantiates that the enhanced buffer will be equal to or improve the functional
attributes of the buffer. An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a twenty
five percent (25%) reduction in the buffer width, and the reduced buffer shall not be
less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as
a variance per subsection N3 of this Section.:.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 81
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
·2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
'2855
I ·2856
2857·
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
·2870
2871·
Example Code.J
iv. Public notification of the buffer reduction determination shall be given as follows:
. .
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice
of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of
record, if any, in accordance with RMC +8,
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination
or reguest for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon
determination, notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made.
f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by
averaging buffer widths, Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be .
allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the
following: "
. .' .
i: The averaging is necessary to avoid denial of reasonabfeuse to the applicant
",caused by circumstances peculiar to the property; and Jtt"'~: Based on
Parametrixreview; change in criteria also applied tostreams/lakes and s~orelines.]
fi. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing
physical improvements in or near "the wetland and buffersensitivity due to existing .
physical characteristics; and .
iii. That only low impact land uses would be located adjacent to areas where buffer
'Nidth is reduced, and that such low impact land uses are guaranteed by covenant,
deed restriction, easement or other legally binding mechanism; and m~~;E!:
Definition of iow impact land use is vague. Other critieria considered sufficient.) .
ivil. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values;
and
. . . . ';
iliv,That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no .Iess
than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and ".
ExampleCode.J
"vL In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%)
of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25 ) wide. Greater buffer width
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 82
•
•
•
2872
.873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
.li.~92
.93
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901 .
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
•
10
11
reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC
4-9-250B; and
vii. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced may-shall be
required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland
sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to F8.
7. Wetlands -Native Growth Protection Areas:
a. Protection Area Required: As a condition of any approval issued pursuant to this section
for any development permit, the property owner shall be required to create a separate native
growth protection area containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer
in field investigations performed pursuant to .subsections M4, Delineation of Regulatory Edge
of Wetlands, and M5, Determination of Wetland Classification. Native growth protection
areas shall be established pursuant to subsection E.4 of this Section
b. Establishment: Native gro'lAh protection areas shall be established pursuant to
subsection G-of this Section or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or
similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City.
c. Fencing May Be Required: The City shall require permanent fencing of the nativo
growth protection aroa containing wetlands and associated buffers when there is a
substantial likelihood of the presence of domestic grazing animals within the de'/elopment
proposal. The City shall also require as a permit condition that such fencing be provided.
8. Wetland Cl1anges -,0. Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are
proposed for·a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluatealtemative methods of
developing the property using the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a
less intrusive method of development is not feasible. In determining whether to grant permit
approval per subsection M2 of this Section, General Standards for Permit Approval, the
Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive
methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of
development are not feasible:
a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and
d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following
methods:
i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland
characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost;
ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
iii. In addition to restoring or creating a wetland, enhancing an existing degraded·
wetland to compensate for lost functions and values_
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 83
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
I 2936
2937·
2938
2939 .
. 2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946 .
2947
2948
2949
2950·
2951.
2952
•
9. Compensating for Wetlands Impacts:
a. Goal: The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be. no net loss of wetland
function and acreage and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present
conditions. The concept of "no net loss" means to create,. restore and/or enhance a
wetland so that there is no reduction to total wetland acreage and/or function.
b. Plan Requirements: The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land
acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that
recreate as nearly as possible the wetland being replaced in terms of acreage, function,
geographic location and setting, and that are equal to or larger than the original wetlands.
c. Plan Performance,Standards: Compensatory mitigation shall follow an approved
mitigation plan pursuant to subsections MB to M10 of this Section and shall meet the
following minimum performance standards in subsection 4-3-0S0.F.B. The applicant shall:
i. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, ana the
financial resources to carry out the prO:iect; ana .
ii. Demonstrate the capability fur monitoring the site an€lto make corrections €luring
the monitoring perio€l if the prO:iect fails to meet prO:iecte€l geals; and
iii. Pretect and manage, or provi€le fer the protection and management, of the
compensation area to avoid further developrrient or €Iegradation and to provide fer
long term persistence of the compensation area; ana
iv. Provide fer prO:iect monitoring and allow annual City inspections.
d. Acceptable Mitigation -Permanent Wetland Impacts: Any person who alters
regulated wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas 'or greater areas of wetlands
than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. Enhancement of wetlands
may be provided as mitigation if it is conducted in conjunction with .mitigation proposed to .
create or restore a wetland in order to maintain "no net loss" of wetland acreage. ,
Subsections M10 through tvJ12 provide furth~r detail on wetland restoration, creation, and
enhancement. .
. .
e. Restoration, Creation, or Combined Enhancement Required -Compensation for
Permanent Wetland Irnpacts.:As a' conpition of any permit.allowing alteration of .
wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action the City shall require that
the applican.t engage .in the restoration or creation of wetlands and their buffers (or
funding of these activities) in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or
violator's actions. Enhancement in conjunction with restoration or creation may be
allowed in order to offset the impacts resulting from an applicant's actions. Enhancement
is not allowed as compensation for a violator's actions.
f. Compensating for Temporary Wetland Impacts: Where wetland disturbance has
occurred during construction or other activities, see subsection CSf(iii) of this Section.
g. Mitigation Bank Agreement -Glacier Park Company: Pursuant to the Wetland
Mitigation Bank Agreement between the City and the Glacier Park Company, King .
County recording number 920624180S, wetland alteration and wetland mitigation shall be
conducted in accordance with the agreement.
. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendmen'ts; July 13, 2004
•
•
•
84
•
53
54
955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
•
73
74
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
•
10. Wetland Compensation -Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement: The applicant
may propose a mitigation approach that includes restoration or creation solely or combines
restoration or creation with enhancement. The City may.require one mitigation approach in
favor of another if it is determined that:
a. There is a greater probability of success in ensuring no net loss of wetlands acreage,
functions, and values; and
b. The mitigation approach can be accomplished on-site rather than off-site.
11. Wetlands Creation and Restoration:
a. Creation or Restoration Proposals: Any applicant. proposing to alter wetlands may
propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site
restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to
compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost
hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions.
b. Compliance with Goals: Applicants proposing tor~store or create wetlands shall
identify how the restoration or creation plan conforms to the purposes and requirements
of this section and established regional goals of no net loss of wetlands.
c. Category: Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category
than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower, except as follows: For impacts
to Category 1 shrub-scrub and emergent wetlands, if it is infeasible to create or restore a
site to.become a Category 1 wetland, the Administrator may allow for creationirestoration
of high quality Category 2 wetlands at one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the normally
required creation/replacement ratios of Category 1 shrub-scrub or emergent wetlands,
. within the basin.
d. Design Criteria: Requirements for wetland restoration or creation as compensation
areas shall be determined according to the function, acreage, type and location of the
wetland being replaced. Compensation requirements should also consider time factors,
the ability of the project to be self-sustaining and the projected success based on similar
projects. Wetland functions and values shall be calculated using the best professional
judgment of a qualified wetland ecologist using the best available techniques. Multiple or
cooperative compensation projects may be proposed for (;me project in order to best
achieve the goal of no net loss. Restoration or creation must be within the same drainage
basin.
e. Acreage Replacement Ratio: The ratios listed in subsections M11e(i), Ratios For
Wetland Creation or Restoration, apply to all Category 1,2, or 3 wetlands for restoration
or creation which is in-kind, on-or off-site, timed prior to alteration, and has a high
probability of success. The required ratio must be based on the wetland category and
type that require replacement. Ratios are determined by the probability of recreating
successfully the wetland and the inability of guarantees of functionality, longevity, and
duplication of type and/or functions.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 85
2992
2993
2994·
2995
2996
2997
2998·
2999
I 3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008·
3009
3010
3011.
3012
3013
3014
1[~~OS FOR WETLANDS C~EATI~N OR RESTORATION: I
! I. i i Wetland Category Vegetation Typel Creation/Restoration Ratio' I .
i
I i i !
I Forested 6 times the area altered. I
Category 1
I
!
Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. I I Very High Quality !
Emergent 2 times the area altered. I 1 ,
i ,
I Forested 3 times the area altered.
t Category 2 I I Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. I
High Quality
1.5 times the area altered. I I Emergent
i I i _ ...
I I I
I Forested 1.5 times the area altered. I , Category 3
1.5 times the area altered. I i Scrub-shrub
I Lower Quality I Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. I
I
f. Increased Creation/Restoration/Replacement Ratios: The Reviewing Official·may
increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable
success of the proposed restoration or creation; Significant period of time between
destruction and replication of wetland functions; prOjected losses in functional value; or
off-site compensation. The requirement for an increased replacement ratio will be . .
determined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial actions resulting from
·illegal alterations where the Department Administrator or Environmental Review .
Committee I)'lay require increased weiland replacement ratios.
g. Decreased Creation./Restoration/Replacement Ratios:
i. Category .;: The Revie~ing Official may·decrease the ratios for Category 1
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to 2.0 times the area altered, and to 1.5 times the
area altered for emergent wetlands, provided the applicant has successfully replaced
the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully
established for five (5) years. ..
ii. Category 2: The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category.2
. forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to 1.5 times the area altered provided the
applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that
the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years. Ratios for-Category 2
emergent wetlands may be'reduced to 1.25 times the area altered provided the
applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that
the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years.
iii. Category 3:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
86
3015 ~16
WJ017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
•
38
39
3040
3041
3042
3043
J044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
• 059
(1) The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 3 emergent
wetlands to 1.0 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully
replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is
successfully established for twelve (12) months. Ratios for CategorY 3 scrub-
shrub and forested wetlands may be reduced to 1.25 times the area altered
provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling
and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years.
(2) If the applicant can aggregate two (2) or more Category 3 wetlands, each less
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, into one wetland, the replacement ratio
shall be reduced to 1: 1. If the combined wetland would be rated as a Category 2
wetland as a result of the combination, the buffer requirement may be reduced to
twenty five feet (25 ) minimum provided the buffer is enhanced.
h. Category 3 Replacement Option: The applicant, at his/her expense, may select to
use accepted Federal or State methods to establish the functions and values for the
Category 3 wetland being replaced in lieu of repla.cement by acreage only. A third party
review, funded by the applicant, and hired and mariaged by the City, shall review and
verify the reports. Dependent upon the results of the functions and values evaluation, a
Category 3 wetland may be replaced by assuring that all the functions and values are
replaced in another location, within the same basin.
i. Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: Unless allowed by subsection M11g of this
Section, restoration or creation ratios may only be reduced by modification or variance
pursuant to subsection N, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-2508,
Variance Procedures, and RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures. In order to maintain
no net loss of wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or creation ratio be less
than 1:1. This minimum ratio may not be modified through the modification or variance
process.
12. Wetland Enhancement:
a. Enhancement Proposals -Combined with Restoration and Creation: Any
applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance an existing degraded
wetland, in conjun<;;tion with restoration or creation of a wetland in order to compensate
for wetland losses. Wetland enhancement shall not be allowed as compensation if it is
not accomplished in conjunction with a proposal to restore or create a wetland.
. b. Evaluation Criteria: A wetland enhancement compensation project may be approved
. by the Reviewing Official provided that enhancement for one function will.not degrade
another function unless the enhancement would provide a higher functioning wetland with
greater or multiple environmental benefits. For example. an enhancement may degrade
habitat for one wildlife species but overall it may result in a wetland that provides higher.
function to a wider variety of wildlife species. Wetland function assessment shall be
conducted in conformance with accepted Federal or State methodologies.
c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement: An applicant proposing to alter wetlands may
propose to enhance an existing Category 2 or 3 wetland. Existing Category 1 wetlands
shall not be enhanced to compensate for wetland alteration unless the wetland selected
for enhancement is a Category 1 wetland only by virtue of its acreage and three (3)
vegetation classes, where the existing vegetation is characterized partly or wholly by
invasive wetland species .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 87
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
d. Mitigation Ratios: Wetland alterations shall be created, restored and enhanced using
the formulas in sUbsection M12d(i), Ratios for Wetland Restoration or Creation plus
Enhancement., The following is an example of use of the formulas below:
If one acre of Category 2, forested wetland, were proposed to be removed, the
creation/replacement ratio (subsection M11e(i» requires that three (3) acres of forested
Category 2 wetland be restored or created; if wetland enhancement were proposed
(subsection M12d(i» for the Category 2, forested wetland, 1.5 acres of forested Category
2 wetland would have to be createdlrestored and tWo (2) acres of forested Category 2
wetland enhanced, possibly in a different part of the same wetland. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-
2000) ,
i. RATIOS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION ORCREATION PLUS ENHANCEMENT I I
Wetla~d categoryllvegetation Type!lRestoration or Creation Ratio!l, I Enhancement Ratio I
! ! • 1
3.5 ti~es the area altered! Forested 3 times the area altered plusl
Category 1
Plusl
i i Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered 2 times the area altered !
Very High Quality :
Emergent 1 times the area altered Plusl 1.5 times the area alteredi ! 1 !
j i
Forested 1.5 times the area altered' plus! 2 times the area altered I
Category 2 ~ i
, Scrub-shrub ,1 times the area' altered plusJ 1.5 tim~s the area alteredl
High Quality ! ' !
Emergent " 1 times the area altered plus! 1 times the 'area altered !
! I !
i I , , ! Forested 1 times the area altered plusl 1 times the area altered 1
Category 3
plus! 1 times the area altered I Scrub-shrub 1 times the area altered
Lower Quality ,
Emergent ' 1 times the area altered plusl 1 times the area altered i
I
e. Ratio Modification and Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: An applicant may
propose an increased creation or restoration ratio and-a decreased enhancement 'ratio if, •
the total combined ratio is maintained overall. Restoration/creation or enhancement ratios
shown in subsection M12d of this Section may only be reduced by modification or
variance pursuant to subsection N3, Alternatives, Modifications and Variances, and RMC '
4-9-250B, Variance Procedures, ,and RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures. In order
to maintain no net loss of wetland acreage,in no case shall the restoration pr creation
ratio be less than 1 :1. This minimum ratio may not be modified throu,gh the variance
process.
13. Out-of-Kind Replacement: Out-of-kind replacement may be used in place of in-kind
compensation only where the applicant can demonstrateio the satisfaction of the Reviewing
Official that:
a. Thewetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind replacement will
result in a wetland with greater functional value; or
Draft Best Available Science Regulatio"n Amendments,July 13, 2004
•
'.'
•
88
3084
.085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
.103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113'
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
.123
b. Scientific ,problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology
make implementation of in-kind compensation impossible or unacceptable; or
c. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (e.g., replacement of
historically diminished wetland types).
14. Off-Site Compensation:
a. When Permitted: Off-site compensation may be provided in lieu of on-site
compensation only where the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Respo~sible Official that:
i. The hydrology and e~system of the original wetland and those abutting or
adjacent land and/or wetlands which benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will
not be substantially damaged by the on-site loss; and
ii. On-site compensation is not feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other
factors; or
iii. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding
land uses; or
iv. The proposed wetland functions at the mitigation site are Significantly greater than
the wetland functions that could be reasonably achieved with on-site mitigation, and
there is:no significant loss of function on-site, i.e. at the development project site
E)(isting functional 'Ialues at the site of the proposed restoration are signifisantly
greater than lost ' .... etland funstional'/alues; or
v, Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitafor other
wetland functions have been addressed and strongly justify location of compensatory
measures at another site. '
b. Locations: Any off-site compensation approved by the City shall occur within the
same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurred. In the City, the drainage basins are
the Black River (includes the Green River Valley), Lower Cedar River, East Lake
Washington, West Lake Washington, Duwamish, and May Creek.
, c. Siting Recommendations: In selecting compensation sites, the City encourages
applicants to pursue siting compensation projects in disturbed sites which were formerly
wetlands, and especially those areas which would result in a series of interconnected
wetlands.
d. Timing: Compensatory projects shall be substantially completed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Construction of compensation projects
shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. The Reviewing Official may
elect to require a surety device for completion of construction.
15. Cooperative Wetland Compensation: Mitigation Banks or Special Area Management
Programs (SAMP):
a. Applicability: The City encourages, and will facilitate and approve cooperative
projects wherein a single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability
may undertake a compensation project under the following circumstances:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 89
3124
3125
i. Restoration or creation on-site may not be feasible due to problems with hydrology,
soils, or other factors; or '
3126 ii. Where the cooperative plan is shown to better meet established regional goals for
3127 flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions.
3128 b. Process: Applicants proposing a cooperative compensation project shall:
3129 i. Submit a permit application; ,
3130 ii. Demonstrate compliance with all standards;
3131 , iii. Demonstrate that long-term management will be provided; and
3132 iv. Demonstrate agreement for the project from all affected property owners of record.
3133 c. Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks are defined as sites which may be used for
3134 .restoration, creation and/or mitigation of wetland alternatives from a different piece of
3135 ' property than the property to be altered within the same drainage basin. The City of
3136 Renton maintains a mitigation bank. A list of City mitigation bank sites is maintained by
3137 the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. With the approval of the ,
3138 ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department, non-City-controlled mitigation banks may be
3139 established and utilized.
3140
3141
3142
3143,
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152 '
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
, 3158
3159
3160
3161
3162, '
3163
d. Special Area Management Programs: Special area management programs are
those wetland programs agreed upon through an interjurisdictional planning process
involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of
Ecology, any affected counties and/or cities, private property owners and other parties of
interest. The outcome of the process ,is a regional wetlands permit representing a plan of
action for all wetlands within the special area.
e. Compensation Payments to Mitigation Bank: Compensation payments, amount to
be determined by the: Reviewing Official, received as part of a mitigation or creation bank
mustbe received prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit '
, 16. MitigationPlans:
a.Required for Restoration, Creation and Enhancement Projects: All wetland
restoration, creation, and' enhancement in conjunction with restoration and creation
projects required pursuant to this seCtion eittier_ as a permit condition or as the result of
an enforcement action shal,l follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland
, specialists approv~d by the City. ,
b. Timhlg for Mitigation Plan Submittal an'd Commencemen't ~,fany Work: See
subsection F.B. The proponent shall submit a final'Netland mitigation plan for the
approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building or
construction permits for development. The proponent shall receive written approval of the
mitigation plan prior to commenc~ment of any 'Netlandrestoration or creation activity.
c. Content of Mitigation Plan: Unless the City, in consultation with qualified wetland
specialists, determines, based on the size and scope ofthe development proposal, the
nature of the impacted wetland and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland
from other development proposals, that the scope and specific requirements of the
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
90
3164
.165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
. 3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
• 185
. 3186.
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206 •
mitigation plan may be reduced, the mitigation plan shall address all requirements in
RMC 4-8-120023, Wetland Mitigation Plan and RMC 4-3-050FB.
d. Performance Surety: As a condition of approval of any mitigation plan, the
Reviewing Official shall require a performance surety per RMC 4-1-215 and RMC 4-3-
050.G.
17. Surety De¥ices: rB13itB.s1mm: Surety devices language consolidated in RMC4-1j11
(under preparation) and RMC 4-3-050.G for general applicability.]
a. Performance Surety De\dce Required: The City shall require the applicant of..a
wetlands permit proposal to post a performance surety d&lice acceptable to the City such
as a letter of credit, irrevocable set aside letter or cash.
i. Amount.of Performance Surety De¥ice: The device shall be in an amount
oquivalent to one and one half (1 1/2) times the estimated. cost of the performance·
and with surety and conditions sufficient to fulfill the requirements of subsection MQ of
this Section, Compensating for Wetlands Impacts, and, in addition, to secure
com'pliance with other conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The amount
and the conditions of the surety device shall be consistent with the purposes of this
section. The amount of the security can be modified to reflect more current.data,
particularly a signed contract.
ii. Breach of Conditions: In the event of a breach of any condition of any permit
protected by a surety device, the City may institute.an action in a court of competent
jurisdiction UpC)A such surety device and prosecute the same to judgment and
9)(tecution. . .. . .
iii. ·Release of Performance Security De¥ice: Until such written release of the·
surety device, the principal or surety cannot be rel~ased. The.City shall release the
. surety device upon determining that: . .
(1) ,1\11 activities, including any required compensatory mitigation, have been
completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and the
'requirements of this section; and
(2) Upon the posting by the applicant of a maintenance surety device.
b.Maintenarice Surety Device Required: The City shall require thoholder ,of a
development peniiitissued pursuant to this section to post cash .or other security
acceptable to the City such as letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter in an amount
and with surety and conditionssufficientio guarantee that structures, improve,ments, and
mitigation required by the permit or by this section perform satisfactorily for a minimum of
five (5) years after they have been completed. The City shall release the maintenance
surety device upon determining that performance standards established for evaluating
the effectiveness and success of the structures, improvements,andlor compensatory
mitigation have been satisfactorily met for the required period. For mitigation projects, the
performance standards shall be those contained in the mitigation plan developed
pursuant to subsection M16 of this Section and approved during the permit review
process. The maintenance surety device applicable to a compensation project shall not
be released until the Department Administrator determines that performance standards
established for evaluating the effect and success of the project ~ave been met.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 91
3207
3208
3209
3210
, 3211
3212
3213
3214 '
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226'
3227
3228
I 3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239,
3240
3241 '
3242
3243
3244
3245
N. ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES:
, 1. Alternates:
a. Applicability: See RMC 4-9-250E.
2. Modifications:
a. ApplicabilitY: The Department Administrator may grant modifications. per RMC 4-9-
25001. Application Time and Decision Authority. in the following circumstances:
i. Aquifer Protection ~ Modifications: The Department will consider modification
'applications in the following cases: ,
(1) The request is to find that a standard is inapplicable to that activity. facility. or
development permit due to ~he applicant's proposed methods or location; or
(2) The request is to modify a specific standard or regulation due to' practical
difficulties; and
(3) The request meets the intent and purpose of the aquifer protection
. regulations. '
Based upon'application of the abo'le tests (1). (2), and (3), applications which are
considered appropriate for review as modifications are subject to the procedures
and criteria in RMC 4-9-2500. Modification Procedures. Requests to modify
regulations or standards which do not meet the above tests shall be processed
as variances. (Arnd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
it Geologic Hazards -Modifications: An applicant may request that the
Department Administrator grant a modification to aUow: '
(1) Regrading of an'y slope which was created through previous mineral and
natural resource recovery activities or was created prior to adoption of applicable
mineral and natural resource recovery regulations or through public or private
road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. railroad"
track installation or improvement. or public or private utility installation activities; ,
(2) Filling against the toe of a natural rockwall or rock wall created through'
mineral and natural resource recovery activities or through public or private road"
installation or widening and related transportation improvements. railroad track
iristallation or improvement or public'or private utility installation activities; ,
and/or '
(3) Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow
reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource
, recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
••
•
92
3246
.247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257.
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
';'265
~266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
·3272 .
3273
3274'
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283 •
transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement,or public
or private utility installation activities.
, The following procedures shall apply to .~ny of the above activities:
(1) The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report describing any potential
impacts of the proposed regrading and ,any necessary mitigation measures;
(2) All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists
selected by the City at the applicant's expense;
(3) The Department Administrator may grant, condition, or deny the request
based upon the proposal's compliance with the applicable modification criteria. of
RMC 4-9-250D; and ,.
(4) Any slope which remains forty percent (40%) or steeper following site
development shall be subject to all applicable geologic hazard regLilations for
steep slopes and landslide hazards, in this section.
iii. Wetlands -' Modifications: An applicant may request that the D~partrnent
Administrator grant a modification as follows:
(1) Modifications may be requested for a reduction in.creatiori/restoration or
enhancement ratios for a Category 3 wetland; however, the creation/restoration
ratio shall not be reduced below 1':1.
(2) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the
following criteria shall apply:
3. Variances:
,_e _The proposal will result in no-net loss of wetland or buffer area and
functions.
e .. The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best'
available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are
. followed. ~;;a;.Wt~: Based on review of State Example Code.)
a. Aquifer Protection -Variance:
i..Applicability: If an applicant feels that the strict application of this Section would
deny all reasonable use of the property or would deny installation of public
transportation or utility facilities determined by the public agency proposing these
facilities to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, the
applicant of a development proposal may apply for a variance.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 93
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295'
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
·3302
3303
3304
3305
I 3306
3307
3308.·
.3309
3310 .
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
331,6
3317
3318
3319
ii. Application Submittal: An application for a variance shall be filed with the
Development Services Division.
iii. Review Authority: A variance shall be decided by the Hearing Examiner based
on the standards set forth RMC 4-9-2508, Variance Procedures. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-
7-2000)
b. Flood Hazards -Variances:
i. Applicability: Refer to RMC 4-9-2508.
c.Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation,' Streams and Lakes -Classes 2 to 4.
and Wetlands -Variance:
i. Applicability: If an applicant feels that the strict application of this section would
deny all reasonable use of the property containing a critical area or associated buffer,
or would deny installation of public transportation or utility facilities' determined by the
agency proposing these facilities to be in the best interest of the public health, safety
and welfare, the public agency, the applicant of a development proposal may apply
. for a .critiCal area variance. '
ii. Application Submittal: An application for a critical areas variance shall be filed
with the Development Services Division.
iii. Review Authority: Varianc,es shall be determined administratively by the
Department Administrator, or by the Hearing Examiner, as indicated in RMC 4-9-, '
2508.
d. Shorelines, Streams and bakes Varianses: (Reserved).
O.APPEALS:
1. General: See RMC 4-8-070, Authority and Responsibilities, and RMC 4-8-110. (Amd. Ord.
4851.8-7-2000; Ord.4963, 5-13-2002).
2. Record Required -Flood·Hazards: The Department Administr!3tor or his/her designee,
the Building Official, shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and report any variances '
to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request.
P. ASSESSMENT RELlEF-WETLANDS:
1. City Assessments: Such landowner should also be exempted from all special City
assessments on the controlled wetland to defray the cost of Municipal improvements such as
sanitary sewers. storm sewers, water mains and streets.
Q. MAPS:
1. Aquifer Protection: See Figure 4-3:-050Q1 for reference map.
2. Flood Hazards: see Figure 4-3-050Q2 for reference map.
3. Geologic Hazards:
a. Coal Mine Hazards:
, .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
94
•
3320
321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
• 338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
'.55
i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3a(i) for reference map .
ii. Mapping Criteria:
(1) low Coal Mine Hazards (Cl): Areas not identified as high or medium
hazards. While no mines are known,in these areas, undocumented mining is
known to have occurred.
(2) Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM):
(A) Lands overlying coal mines, but not included in the high hazard category; and
(8) Surrounding lands overlying a wedge between a plane rising vertically from
the mine and a plane rising from the mine at a break angle of between twenty
five (25) and forty (40) degrees. The break angle is measured from the vertical.
The break angle appropriate for the given seam is determined by the slope of the
seam and the workings. Approximate mine depths and seam dip and break
angles are provided in Appendices C and D of the Summary Report, Critical and
Resource Areas Evaluation, GeoEngineers, 1991. ' '
(3) High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): All lands where underlying coal mines are
within two hundred feet (200 ) below the ground surface, or fifteen (15) times the
height of the mine workings below the surface, whichever is less.
b. Erosion Hazards:
" ' .
i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3b(i) for reference map .
ii. Mapping Criteria:
(1) 'low Erosion Hazard (El): All surface soils on slopes less than fifteen
percent (15%). Mapped areas include all Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) soils designated A, B, or C.
(2) High Erosion Hazard (EH): All surface soils on slopes steeper than fifteen
percent (15%). Mapped areas include all Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) soils deSignated as D, E, or F.
c. Landslide Hazards:
i. Map:' See Figure 4-3-050Q3c(i) for reference map.
ii. Mapping Criteria:
(1) low landslide Hazard (ll): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent
(15%).
(2) Medium landslide Hazard (lM): areas with slopes between fifteen percent
(15%) and forty percent (40%) where the surface soils are underlain by
permeable geologic units. The permeable units include:
(A) Fill: af, afm, and m;
(B) Alluvium: Qac, Qaw, Qas, and Qa;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 95
3356 (C) Vashon recessional and advance glacial deposits: Qik, Qit, Qiv, Qpa, Qis, • 3357 Qys, Qyg, Qvr, Qsr, and Qos;
3358 (D) Vashon glacial deposits: .Qg, Qgt, Qt, and Qvt.
3359 (3) High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent
3360 (40%) and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent
3361 (40%) where the surface soils are underlain by low permeability geologic units.
3362 The low permeability units include:
3363 (A) Post-glaciallake and peat silts: Qlp, Qp, Qlm, and Qvl;
3364 (8) Pre-Vashon Pleistocene deposits: Qss, Qu, Qc, Qcg, and Qog;
3365 (C) Tertiary rock formations: Ts, Ti, Tr, Tt, Tet, Ttu, Tta, Teta, ar:td Ttl.
3366 . (4) Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): All mapped landslide deposits: Qmc,
3367 Qm, QI, and landslides known from public records.
3368 d. Seismic:
3369 i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3d(i) for reference map.
3370 ii. Mapping Criteria:
3371 (1) Low Seismic Hazard (SL): All Vashon age glacial and older sediments. The • 3372 mapped areas include:
3373 (A) All deposits of recessional and advance glacial deposits: Qik, Qit, Qiv, Qpa,
3374 Qis, Qys, Qyg, Qur, Qsr, Qos, Qog.
3375 . (8) Vashon glacial deposfts: Qg, .ogt, Qt, and avt;
I 3376 (C) Pre-Vashon Pleistocene deposits: Qss,Qu, Qc, and Qcg; . '. . . .
3377 (D) Tertiary rock formations: Ts, Ti, Tr, Tt, Tet, Ttu,Tta, teta, and Ttl;
3378 (E) Areas of roadway fill, af and atm, which overly the above units~ .
3379 (2) High Seismic. Hazard (SH): Post-glacial deposits which are likely to be
3380 saturated as they occupy low areas and frequently overlay low permeability
3381 deposits. They include:
3382 (A) Depositsl;>f fill: af, afm, and.m;
3383 (B) Alluvium: Qaw, Qac, Qas, and Qa;
3384 (C) Mass wasting deposits: Qmc, Qm, and QI;
3385 (D) Post-glacial lake silts and peats: Qlp, Qp,Qlm, and Qvl.
3386 e. Steep Slopes: •
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 96
•
3387
88
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
•
•
i. Map: Refer to the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas and Figure 4-3-05003e(i) for
reference map. . .
f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for
inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower. Green River as identified in
Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
(Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-
428. m_: Based on review of State Example COde.)
4. Shorelines, Streams and Lakes: fReserved)See Figure 4-3-050.0.1 for reference map
identifying Class 2 to 4 water bodies. Water class shall be determined in accordance with
RMC 4-3-050.L.1. For Class 1 waters, refer to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations.
5. Wetlands: Refer to the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Corridors Critical Areas
Inventory and see Figure 4-3-05005 for reference map. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
Eitb •• 1; Refer to maps in Renton Municipal Code.l
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 97
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416 .
3417
3418.
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
.3428
3429 .
3430
• 3431
3432
3433
3434
3435··
·3436
3437
3438
3439.
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS:
A. PROGRAM ADOPTED: .
The Shoreline Master Program,· as issued and prepared by. City of Renton includes policies and
regulations pursuant to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58. Planning
Commission, of '""hich 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, is hereby adopted as
the Shoreline Master Program by the City of Ronton. (Ord. 3758, 125 1983, Rev. 7 22 1985 (Min.), 3 12
1990 (Res. 2787), 7 16 1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9 12 1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4 13 1998)
The following· is an ml:GerptThis section RMC 4~3-090 provides shoreline regulations from the officially
adopted Shoreline Master Program. The complete Shoreline Master Program, including policies, should
also be conSUlted. (Ord. 4722,5-11-1998)
B •. AUTHENTICATION, RECORDCOMPONENTS OF PROGRAM:
The· City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to duly authenticate and record a copy of the above
mentioned Shoreline Master Program together with any amendments or additions thereto, togother with
an authenticated copy of this Section. The components of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. and
their location in the City's plans and regulations, are as follows:
1. Goals, Objectives, Policies:
a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Land Use,
Recreation, and Circulation Management .
b. Comprehensive Plan Environment Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Natural
Resources and Hazard Management
c.RMC 4-3-090.0: Purposes and Priorities.
2. Use Environments:
a. General Boundaries: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the·
State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management
. ..' .. ,
b. General and Specific Boundaries: RMC 4-3-090 F, G, H, arid I.
3. Use Regulations. and Provisions for Variances and Conditional Uses.
a. Shoreline Use Regulations: RMC 4-3-090.
.. b. Shoreline Permit Procedures, including Exemptions, Substantial Development Permit,·
Variances, and Conditional Uses: RMC 4-9-190.
.c. Non-conforming Uses in Shoreline Jurisdiction in RMC 4-10-100 ..
4. Definitions: RMC 4-11.
(Ord. 3094, 1-10-1977, eff. 1-19-1977)
rJ$f;!U0.r?s1ttlMei GMA indicates SMP goals and· policies are part of the Comprehensive Plan and .
developmentregulatioris are part of the GMA implementing development regulations. 1 .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 98
•
•
•
3454
•
55
~56
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
~81
82
483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
. ·3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506 '
3507 •
C. AMENDMENTS:
Any and all amendments, additions or modifffiaOORs to said-Master Program, shall be by ordinance, (Ord .
3758,125 1983, Rev. 722 1985 (Min.), 3 12 1990 (Res. 2787), 7 16 1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9 12 1993
(Min.), Ord. 4716, 4 13 1998; Amd. Ord. 4633, 9 16 1996)
C. AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM:
090.N.l
3. Adoption by Ordinance: Anv and all amendments, additions or modifications to said Master
Program, shall be by ordinance .•• 1 •• 113: Part of original 4-3-090.C.l
D. PURPOSES AND PRIORITIES: .
The purpose of these regulations is to manage the Shorelines of the State within the City of Renton in
accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58, Planning appropriate
uses in recognition of the following use priorities:
1 ~ Shoreline use priorities shall be consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for all Shorelines of the State.
LEach shoreline has its own unique qualities which makes it valuable, particularly Shorelines of
Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake Washington and the Green River. Preference
is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority for ~horelines of ~tatewide
.§significance (as established by RCW 90.58.020):
.tE. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for shorelines of statewide
Significance.
2Q. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines .
3£. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
49.. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
ae. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. {Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev.
7=-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord.
4716,4-13-1998)
6f. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
g. Provide for any other use or activity deemed appropriate or necessary.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 99
I
•
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524.
3525·
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
·3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
·3548
3549
3550
3551
3552.
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
E. REGULATED WATER BODIES:·
1. Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State. which
includes Shorelines and Shorelines of Statewide Significance as defined in RMC 4-11 and as listed
below.
a. Shorelines: The Cedar River. Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are classified
as Shorelines.
b. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: The Green River and Lake Washington are classified
as Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
2. Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: 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 f1oodways, whichever is greater; and
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:
3. Regulated Shoreline Segments: Approximately eighteen (18) miles of shoreline in the City of
Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These eighteen (18)
miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the
City of Renton, but also to the State Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part: In the City
of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act:
.9.:... ~edar River.
!L~Green River. The Green River itself is outside the City limits, but a portion of the 200 foot
jurisdictional area lies within Renton City limits. The City is required as the permitting agency to
apply the master program applicable to the Green River (Tukwila) if the water body is outside the
City of Renton, but the 200-foot jurisdictional area falls within Renton City limits.
~3,-Lake Washington.
~ 4.--May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter.
of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its
mouth at Lake Washington.
~&.-Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north b SW 43rd Street on the south~
Le.,..Black River~
7. The jurisdiction of this Master Program' includes shorelines of the State as defined in·
subsection F of this Section. (Ord. 3758, 125 1983, Rev. 722 1985 (Min.), 3 12 1990 (Res.
2787),716 1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9121993 (Min.), Ord .. 4716,4 13 1998)
F. STATE OF WASHINGTON CLASSIFICATION OF WATER BODIES:
(EiJitO?1$'l1lSI~: Moved above.]
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: By State standards, the Green River and Lake-Wa~fe
classified as Shorelines. of StatewfGe Significance, and comprise approximate~les--:.of-tRe
sOOFelines of the State regulatetl-Gy-ihe City of Renton.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 100
.'.
•
•
3563
.~
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
•
•
2. Shorelines of the-State7-ffi-addition, the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, SpriA-gbFook Creek,
and May Creek are shorelines within the City.
Gf. THREE (3) ENVIRONMENTS DESIGNATED BY CITY:
1. Names of Environments: Three (3) environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, shall beare
designated to provide a uniform basis to apply. policies and use regulations within distinctively
different shoreline areas.
2. Basis for Designation: The environmental designation to be given any specificto an area shall be
based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area
being considered for development and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have
been categorized according to the natura!" characteristics. and use regulations have been designated
herein.
. 3. Map of Environments: The above information is illustrated in the following map. (Ord. 3758,12-5-
1983, Rev. 7-22~1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), .
Ord.4716,4-13-1998)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 101
I
3582
3583 3584
3585
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
I ENVIRONMENTS
Urban ...... Conservancy . __ .,
Natural ••••
.. ~ ..
1\0
"tt.me: To Be Amended Per SMP Map Amendment Recommendations. See 'separate memo
dated March 8, 2004 and associated revised map.]
Draft BestAvaiiable Science Regulation Amendments, juiy 13, 2004 102
•
•
•
•
3586 3587
.588
CITY OF RENTON
SHOREUNE MASTER PROGRAM
" SPRINGBROOK CREEK
SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP
UUrbu Envl!'OIiment
o ,. 1000 2000 C ConaervaricJ EnvIrOnment
~I~§;, ~~~~~I" ~ WetleDda
1:12000 --' .... -Shoreline BouridaiJ - -Cit, Umlta· .
Note: "1hismap~pii:ts"lIie approximate location .ofllie SpringbrookCreekshaeiineboundil!y and associated wetliliidsgOveir1e~ I1YtheRemoo Shoreline Moister Program..Application of the Renton Shaeline
~sterPtogram 10 a prOperty is determined 00'0 sile-specific basis"bythe'r>evetoPmenl SeMces DivisiofiUiilizirig ttie regulalioosaiiddefiniliOns In the Prograin:andany.si!e speCific environinental analysis, . '. . . . . '. . .
[g'i!ilt(5f!!sll~ffl Text amended in F4 to strengthen idea of field review and report controlling regarding
wetland location.1 "
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 103
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
4. Extent of Classifications
a. Aquatic Area: Shoreline Environment classifications extend from the centerline of the water body
to the shorelands, or City limits as appropriate, if the opposite shoreland is not within the City limits.
~~~: Follows from SMP Map amendment recommendations described under separate
cover.]
b. Associated Wetlands"'; Springbrook Creek: The Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in
Section 3 above identifies Use Environments for the Creek and associated wetlands as determined at
the time of the map wetland inventory. The application of the Renton Shoreline Master Program to
associated wetlands shall be based on the site-specific presence and extent of associated wetlands
at the time of application as determined by the Development Services Division.
MG. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1. Objective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to protect and preserve unique
and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is
intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev.
7-22-1985 (Min.) 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787),7-16-1990 (Res. 2805) Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4-
·13-1998) .
2. Areas to Be Designated as a Natural Environment:
a. Areas that are unique or fragile.
. b. Floodway areas.
3. Extent of the 'Natural Environment: That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying east of
Monster Road/68th Avenue S. and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek shall be!§.
designated Natural (see the Shoreline Environment Map in subsection G-Eof this Section) ..
4. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Acceptable activities and uses in the Natural Environment are
limited to the following:The only human activity that is acceptable is for floodv .. ay drainage or storage.
All other human activities including recreation are considered in~ppropriate.
a. Fiood control: Public flood controlstructures arid operations: floodway drainage and storage
activities. . .. . .
b.Dredging: Dredging necessary for public flood control activities.
c. Public Access: Installation of public trails ..
i. Hard surface trails when located on existing rights of way:
ii.Softsurface trails;
iii. Public viewing platforms or areas.
d.Local Service utilities: Installation of necessary local service utilities subject to the standards
of Subsection K.18, Utilities.
e. Roads and Railroads: Necessary expansions or modifications of existing roads, railroads, and
bridges subject to the standards of Subsection K.15, Roads and Railroads, of this Section.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 104
•
•
•
•3~
645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660 .
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
"~70 ~71 3672
3673 .
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
·3683
3684·
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
~96
97
. 698
f. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed
uses in the Natural Environment: RMC 4-9-190
i. C.3, Normal maintenance or repair;
ii. C.5, Emergency construction;
iii. C.11, Marking of property lines;
iv. C.13, Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application;
v. C.14, ~emoving or controlling an aquatic noxious weed;
vi. C.15, Watershed restoration projects;
vii. C.16, Improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; and .
viii. C.17, Hazardous substance remedial actions.
fll!~_-Follows from current Natural Environment language regarding allowances for
f100dway drainage and storage and is more specific to accommodate the existing utility/flood
operations (including pump station) along the Black River, and the Parks Division plans for public
access.]
5. Dedication for Flood Storage: The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural
Environment shoreline areas can only be 'assured through public acquisition. Therefore, vlWhere
private development is proposed in these areas so designated, the City shall allow reasonable use of
property. but shall require adequate long-term on-site require dedication as' necessary for flood
storage. ~i~ Language added to address that the City must provide for reasonable use of
property and the :primarv concern is to assure flood storage whether that occurs through easement.
dedication of facilities, etc .. It appears that the City now owns the vast majority of Natura:! designated
shorelines. particularly if redefining the extent of the Natural designation per the amendments in this
work program.] .
tH. CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT:
. 1. Objective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and
manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state,
while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a
pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion
of the present and future needs of Renton. .
2. Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
a. Areas of high scenic value.
b. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
c. Hazardous slope areas.
d. Flood-prone areas.
e. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development.
f. Areas with unique or fragile features.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 105
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
'3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736.
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
.3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3. Extent of the Conservancy Environment: The following segments are designated Conservancy:
5L That portion of May Creek east of FAI-40S right-of-way~ and .
b. Ithat portion of the south bank of the Cedar River, two thousand five hundred feet (2,SOO ) east
of FAI-40S right-of-way and south of Ma Ie Valle Hi hwa to' the easternmost Cit limit.
bounda as of the effective date of these re ulations i '2004 , and
c. That portion of the north and south banks of the Cedar River lying north of Maple Valley
Highway between 13Sth Avenue SE extended and the easternmost City limit boundary as of the
effective date of these regulations lI. 2004}, and
d. Ithat portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately S.W. 27th Street on the north
to S.W. 31 st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of
the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of S.W. 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired'
Wetlands Mitigation Bank~ shall be designated Conservancy (see the Shoreline Environment Map
and the Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in subsection (;.Eof this Section~.
e. That portion of the south bank of the Black River lying east of Monster Road/68t Avenue S.
and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek (see the Shoreline Environment Map in
Subsection F of this Section).
4. Acceptable Activities and Uses: 'Activities and uses considered to be ,acceptable in a
Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing
character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low-density
residential, passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands; and passive outdoor recreation.
5. Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment:
: . .. -.'
, a. Commercial Uses: Commercial..uses shall be limited to home occupations, which' shall be
" contained wholly within the' dweliing unit. ~~e: Definition of home occupation limits
activities to inside a dwelling or accessory structure.]
b. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall be allowed only by
the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
c. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited in a Conservancy environment
. d. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy environment, only the following recreation uses shall be
limited to passive recreationpermitted.
" '
i. Permitted Uses: Public hiking and bicycle trails, nonmotorized public fishing, public·
wading and swimming spots, public areas for nature study, public picnic areas, public
outdoor recreation facilities authorized by the City Parks, Recreation. and Open Space
Master Plan.
ii. Conditional Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner: Public overnight camping areas.
e. Residential Uses:
. .
i. Permitted Uses: Low-densitysingle family residences.
ii. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two (2) units or more.
f. Utilities:
i. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be. permitted for
,approved activities and uses within the Conservancy environment aRs--shaU-be tffiGe~,~hen consistent with Gity-Gode-'requirements in subsection K.18.
Draft sest Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 106
•
•
3755
•
756
757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
•
782
783
784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793·
3794
3795
3796
3797 .
3798·
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
.809
ii. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Land Use Hearing
Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route .
g. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subject to the standards regulations of subsection
~K.15, Roads and Railroads, of this Section, Roads and Railroads.
h. Educational Facilities: Installation of facilities by public agencies for public educational
purposes such as, but not limited to, ecological or historical education when located outside of
unigue or fragile areas.
i. Flood control: Public flood control structures and operations; floodway drainage and storage
activities.
j. Dredging necessary for public flood control activities.
k. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed
uses in the Conservancy Environment: RMC 4-9-190
i. C.3, Normal maintenance and repair;
ii. C.4, Bulkhead;
iii. C.5, Emergency construction;
iv. C.6, Farming, irrigation, and ranching activities;
v. C.10, Canals, waterways. drains, and reservoirs;
vi. C.11, Marking of property lines;
vii. C.12, Maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches; and drains;
viii. C.13, Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application;
ix. C.14, Removing or controlling noxious weeds;
x. C.15, Watershed restoration projects; and
xi. C.16, Fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; and
xii. C.17, Hazardous substance remedial actions.
rEm~'~: Follows from SMP Map amendment memos March 8, 2004, for the Maplewood
Golf Course and Ron Regis Park additions to the SMP map as Conservancy, matching King
County allowances for active recreation.] .
J!. URBAN ENVIRONMENT:
1, Objective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines
within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge
and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable
and necessary urban uses'.
2. Areas to Be Designated as Urban Environment:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 107
I
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834 .
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845·
3846
3847·
3848·
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
a. Areas of High Intensity Land Use: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use
including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not
necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those
. areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to
accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban
expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site.
3. Extent of the Urban Environment: All shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not
designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban (see the Shoreline Environment Map
in subsection G-Eof this Secti0!1)'
4. Acceptable Use· and Activities: All uses shall be allowed as indicated by subsection h-K..of this
Section, Specific Use Regulations. Also all uses in 4-9-190.C, Exemptions from Permit System, are
allowed in the Urban Environment.
5. Use Regulations in the Urban Environment:
8. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource,
emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-
oriented industrial and commercial uses.
b. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and
physical access to water in the Urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the
acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall
be accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum
public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront
activities where practicable, and the various access pOints ought. to be linked to nonmotorized
transportation routes such as bicycle and hiking· paths.
KJ.. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL SHORELINE USES:
1. Applicability and Exemptions:
a. Applicability:
i. General: The Renton Shoreline Master Program regulations apply to any use, activity,
or development on the Shorelines of the State within the City. No authorization to
conduct a use, activity or development shall be granted unless such use, activity, or
development is found consistent with the· Renton Shoreline Master Program. +I=Hs.
Section shall apply to all shoreline uses whenever applicable. Items included here will not
necessarily be repeated in subsectionL of this Section, Specific Use Regulations, and
shall be used in the evaluationof all permits.
ii. Nonconforming uses: See RMC 4-10-100 regarding the extent to which Renton
Shoreline Master Program standards apply to nonconforming uses and activities.
b. Exemptions:
i. Permit Exemptions: RMC 4-9-190.Cidentifjes developments or activities which· are
not required to obtain· a shoreline substantial development permit. but which must
otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of the Renton Shoreline Master Program.
ii. Use or Activity Exemptions:· Reserved. [~1Si:N0fS: This is a larger issue for the
larger future SMP update.]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 108
•
••
•••
3865
•
866
867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
•
3892
93
894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
•
19
20
2. Environmental Effects: @ait(fal~tE;: Moved and integrated in new Section 6 below. Pollution
and Ecological Disruption discussion was deleted as too similar to No-Net-Loss of Functions
discussion below.]
a. Pollution and Ecological Disruption: The potential effects on water quality, ',vater and land
vegetation, water life and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and
circulation habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental aspects
must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which may have detrimental
effects on the environment. .
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits must explain the methods that will be used to
abate, avoid or othen ... ise control the harmful effects.
c. Erosion: Erosion is to be controlled through the use of vegetation rather than structural means
where feasible.
d.Geology: Important geological factors such as possible slide areas' on a site must be
considered. Whatever actil/ity is planned under the application for the development permit must
be safe and appropriate in vie",.' of the geological factors prevailing.
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects: g31~"': Moved and integrated in new Section 6
below.]
a. The potential impact of any of the follol,ving on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and
shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize
detrimental aspects: .. ,
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires,
signs, lights, and other structures ..
ii. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, ..... ater and land traffic, and other
structures and activities.
iii. Design Theme: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other
. aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a uniform or coordinated deSign, planned
for the purpose of visual enhancement as well as for serving a useful purpose.
iv. Visually Unpleasant Areas: Landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public
vie' .... any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a site, for example, disposal
bins, storage yards, and outdoor work areas.
v. Outdoor' Activities: Work areas, storage, and other activities on a site in a residential
area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible, to reduce distractions and
other effects on surrounding areas. Outdoor activities of commercial and industrial
operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor
areas shall not be used for storage of more than minimal amounts of eMment, parts,
materials, products, or other objects.
4. Public Access: ®Clit0JS1fOi~: Moved and integrated in new Section 6 below.]
" a. Where possible, space and right-of-way-sflaIl-9e-left.-available on the immediate shefeline so
tflat..-trails, nonmotorized bike paths, and/or other meaRS of public use may be developed
PfOViGiflg greater shoreline l:ltilization.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 109
I
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965·
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
c. No property shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the O'.vner.
5. Facility Arrangement . Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall . . .
the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. :; ifGf~ 'lilf : Moved and inte rated in new Section
6 below.] .
6. landscaping: The natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous
character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and shall be compatible
with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed
shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. .rOls"'!~Il: Section
removed. Requirement for "natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of
indigenous character.· etc .. duplicative of J.B.d. e. and f.]
preserved and
riparian areas.] .
2. Studies Required:
. . .
a. When Standard Stream or Lake Study Is Required: If a proposed development site contains
a Shoreline of the State or associated buffer area, or the project area is within one hundred feet
(100') of the Shoreline of the State even if the water body is not located on the subject property
but the Reviewing Official determines that alterations of the subject property could potentially
impact the water body in question, then the applicant shall be required to conduct a Standard
Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120.
b. When Supplemental· Stream or Lake Study is Required: Changes to buffer requirements, or
alterations of the Shoreline of the State requires a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study as
identified in RMC 4-8-120.
c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan Required: A Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan shall be
required per RMC 4-8-120.0., if impacts are identified within a required Supplemental Stream or
Lake· Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the Administrator shall be .
based on the criteria located in Subsection J.2.c.ii. below. '
L Timing of Mitigation Plan·-Final Submittal and Commencement: When a.Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plan is required, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for the
approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits,
whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan·
prior to commencement of any mitigation activity.
ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Shorelines
and Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan the
Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria:
(a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iv)
below:· •
. (i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing
Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable;
{m Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 110
••
•
3976
•
977
978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
~03
. 04
~005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015 '
4016
4017,
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
.027
, .
as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over
, . mitigation on the subject site;
(iii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin
within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions
within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
(iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City
limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same
drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved
ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the
Renton City limits and it meets City goals.
ebl Contiguous Corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve
contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development
on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same
aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and
ecl Non-indigenous species: Wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall
not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal
permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-090.J.6.g.i; and
(d) Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report
·City of Renton Best. Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated X, 2003,
unless superceded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential .
'ecological, function of the stream or lake or riparian habitat that is being affected.
Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate
alterations to' streamllakeareas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or
greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts
upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-Ioss ofriparian habitat
orwater bodyfunction shall be demonstrated; and '
Cel Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: For any required Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plans, the applicant shall:
(i) Demonstrate ~ufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the
financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and
, , (ij) Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and making corrections during
the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and
(iii) Protect and manage, or provide for' the protection and management of the
mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-
term perSistence of the mitigation area: and
(iv) Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections as appropriate;
and
(v) For onsite or offsite mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners are
notified when mitigation has the potential to considerably decrease the development
potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a stream alteration were
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 111
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
.4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
I 4058
4059
4060.
4061
4062·
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072 '
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
proposed and altered the location of a required buffer on an abutting property, the •
abutting property owner should be notified. Notification shall be 'given as follows:
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-
8, notice of the mitigation proposal shall be given by posting the site and
notifying abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be'
impacted.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the mitigation
proposal shall be identified in the notice of application and mailed to abutting
or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted.
(f) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of
activities allowed within or abutting a stream/lake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize
or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(i) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or· habitat features such as
snags and downed wood;
(ij) Limitation of access to the habitat area,' including fencing to deter ·unauthorized
access;
(iij) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(iv) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation
activities.
(0) Based on Best Available Science:, The applicant shall demonstrate that the
mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC
365~ 195-905; or where there is an absence of valid· scientific information, the steps in
RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
'iii. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance surety to ensure
completion and success of proposed mitigation, per RMC4-1-230. The surety device shall be
sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by permit,
condition perform satisfactorily for a mInimum of 5 years, after they have been completed.,
" ,
iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in this Subsection may be
modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved habitat '
functions, on a per function basis, can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage baSin as a
result of alternative mitigation measures.
d.Studies Waived:,
i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when 'the
. applicant provides satisfactory evidence that:
. ,'. . . . ,
(a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed
activity. or
, '
(b) The water body or required' buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot. and
based on evidence submitted. the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to
nearby water bodies regulated under this Section, or '
Draft Best Available Science Regulatiori Amendments, July 13, 2004 112
•
'.'
4080
•
081
082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
•
107
108
. 4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
•
133
134
(c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when:
(a) No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed:
or
(b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
iiL Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been
identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study.
e. Independent Secondary Review: Studies may require secondary review pursuant to RMC 4-
9-190.E.4.
3. Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed, except
where the buffer is to be enhanced or in conformance with allowances of Section J.4 or 5.
4. Shoreline Buffers: The following shoreline setbacks/buffers shall be required:
a. Buffer Width:
i. Standard Buffer Width: Shorelines shall have a minimum 100-foot buffer measured from
the ordinary high water mark of the reg~lated shoreline of the state ..
ii. Alternative Buffer Width: Shoreline buffers'may be increased or reduced as required or
allowed in Subsections b through d. '
b. Use of Buffers:
i. Natural or Partially Developed Shorelines: Buffers shall be maintained as stated in
Subsections J.3. Disturbance Prohibited: J.B.e. Native Growth Protection Areas Required:
and J.B.g., Revegetation Required. . .
ii. Developed Shorelines: On sites predominantly containing impervious surfaces in the
shoreline buffer areas the buffer widths shall be considered building setbacks, with the
setback area to be managed in accordance with Subsection J.5.b, Sites with Developed
Shorelines. . . '.
c. Increased Buffer Width:
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
expanded up to an additional fifty feet (50') on the windward side. when determined
appropriate to site circumstances and ecological function by the Responsible Official.
ii. Buffers Falling· Within Protected Slopes or Very High landsldeLandslide 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.
iii. Notification: Notification of an increased buffer width may be required pursuant to
J .2.c.ii.e. v.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 113
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
_ 4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155,
4156
4157
4158 ,
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173'
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
d. Reduction of Buffer or Setback Width:
i. Authority:' Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard buffer
widths/setbacks where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections below
and any mitigation requirements applied as conditions of approval.
ii. Public Notice: Public notification of any buffer reduction determination shall be given as
follows:
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of
the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record
in accordance with RMC 4-8. '
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, per RMC 4-8, the buffer
determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of application,
and upon determination, notification of parties of record shall be made.
iii. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: If a proposal meets Subsections (a) or
(b) or (c) and meets the environmental criteria of (d), minimum buffer widths may be reduced
as stated in Subsection JA.dAv below: ' ,
(a) The abutting land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%)
slopes; the width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of
anadromous fish or non-fish habitat; the width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat;
and no direct or indirect. short-term or long-term. adverse impacts to regulated water
bodies, as determined by the' City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's
determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to
Subsection J.2 and RMC 4-8-120 and RMC 4-9-190 EA; or
(b) The proposal includes dayliqhting of a stream through the entirety of its course
through the property. or·' removal of a legally installed. as determined by the
Administrator, salmonid passage barrier; or
(c) The proposal. includes priority uses pursuant to RCW 90.58.020 which cannot be
accommodated reasonably using standard buffers/setbacks; and
:(d) Envir~nmenta'i .Criteria: Proposals -meeting Subsection Ca) or (b) or{cr shall also
meet the following environmental criteria: '
'(i) Buffer Enhancement:
• 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; or
• In the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not
possible, the proposal includes on-or off~site riparian/lakeshore or
aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative
impact on shoreline ecological functions; and
(in The proposal will, result in, at minimum, no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian
ecological function; and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments; July 13, 2004 114
•
•
•
4190
•
191
192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
•
17
218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230'
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
•
43
44
(iii) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and
(iv) The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal is based on consideration of
the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an
absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iv. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: If the criteria in Subsection
J.4.d.iii are met, the reduced buffer or setback width shall not be less than the following
minimum standards.
(a) 75 feet for non-water-oriented development, unless otherwise listed below.
eb) 50 feet for water related or water enjoyment development, unless otherwise listed
below. '
ec) 50 feet for multi-family development in the Urban Environment along the Cedar
River.
(d) 25 feet for a single family residential dwelling on a pre-existing legal lot. where
there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to reasonably
accommodate building pads and off-street parking.
(e) 25 feet for existing essential public facilities in the Urban Environment not
otherwise considered water dependent. The appropriate buffer/setback shall be
based .on the facility type, conformance with adopted master plans, ability to provide
for safe public access, or other legal or safety con'cerns.
(f) 25 feet· for water dependent development that does not require an abutting
shoreline location.
(g) . 0 feet· for water dependent development if the use depends on an abutting
shoreline location .
(h) 0 feet for public access connections to the water's edge, or public access water
body crossings. or public access segments connecting to existing trails where an
alternate alignment is not practical, or where public access alignment avoids impacts
to other critical areas. or where safety requires an abutting location; otherwise 25 feet
for public access proposals paralleling the water:
. (j) 0 feet for necessary roads, bridges, and rai'lroads and utilities when consistent with
the standards of Subsection K.
(j) 0 feet for piers, docks, marinas, boat launches, and bulkheads when consistent
with applicable standards in Subsection K. '
(k} As determined by the Administrator, for development proposed on sites separated
from the shoreline by existing intervening lots/parcels, roads. or other significant
improvements on an adjoining property, but no less than the standards of the
underlying zone.
v. Documentation: Reduced buffer width determinations and evidence shall be included in
the application file.
vi. Variance Required for Narrower Buffer Width: Greater buffer width or setback
reductions require review as a shoreline variance by the Land Use Hearing Examiner per
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 115
I
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264,
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
,4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
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 ..
e. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve 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; and .
. (b) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological
function; and
(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; and
(d) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less than fifty feet (50'); and
(e) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science
as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information. the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
, iii. Buffer Enhancement May Be Required: Buffet enhancement in the areas where the
. buffer is reduced shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity,
. and proposed land development characteristics. . .
iv. Variance Required for Narrower Buffer Width: Greater buffer width or setback
reductions require review as a shoreline variance by the Land 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. '
v. Notification: Notification may be required per Section J.2.c.ii.e:v:'
, ,
5. Stream/Lake Buffer Standards: Any proposal subject to RMC 4-3-090 shall comply with the
. following standards within required buffer areas:
a.Sites with Natural or Partially Developed Shorelines: Streams and lakes and their buffer
areas shall be undisturbed. except where:
i. Buffer averaging or buffer reduction requests are evaluated in a Supplemental Stream or
Lake Study and authorized pursuant to Subsections J.4.d, Reductions of Buffer or Setback
Width and J.4.e, Averaging of Buffer Width, or .
ii.· The activity consists of a habitat or watershed enhancement proposal exempt from the
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, or
iii. A variance has been approved for the use or activity.
iv. Specific criteria of Section K shall apply to the specific use or activity in addition to
Subsection J.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendmem'ts, July 13, 2004 116
•
•
•
•
4300
301
302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
•
327
328
4329
4330·
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336··
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341·
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352 .353
b. Sites with Developed Shorelines: Where the shoreline is largely in an unnatural state and
the buffer predominantly contains impervious surfaces due to existing, legally permitted activities,
the following standards shall apply:
i. Streams and lakes shall be undisturbed.
ii. No new buildings may be constructed within the required buffer.
States what needs to be achieved in're-arranging impervious surface proposals.]
iv. Existing native vegetation shall be preserved or enhanced to the extent possible,
preferably in consolidated areas.
v, The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net' loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological
function;.
vi. Specific criteria of Subsection K shall apply to the specific use or activity in addition to
Subsection J.
c. Proposed Activities Independent of a Use: Section K includes standards for practices or
activities within waters or along the shoreline that can be unassociated with a land use, including
but not limited to dredging, landfills, and stream alteration.' Proposed activities or practices that
are independent of a land use are subject to: .
i. Authorization in the Use Environment.
ii. Evaluation in a Stream/Lake Reconnaissance and Supplemental Study.·
iii. Preparation of a Mitigation Plan consistent with SUbsection J.2 as appropriate.
iv. Consistency With applicable specific criteria in subsection K in addition to Subsections J2,
J5and J6.
6. Permit Evaluation' Criteria for Shoreline Developments: rEi'Ut0iJi1liiM: Former sections 2 to 7
integrated here.] .
a. Burden on Applicant: Applicants must explain to the satisfaction of the Administrator the
methods that will be used to halt. avoid or otherwise control any harmful effects associated with
the proposal.
b. Erosion: Vegetation shall be used to control erosion rather than structural means where
feasible.
c. Geology: Important geological factors -such as possible slide areas -on a site must be
considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the development permit must
be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing.
d. No-Net-Loss of Functions: Shoreline uses or activities shall not adversely impact unique or
fragile areas or stream/lake/riparian ecology function unless adequate mitigation measures are
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 117
I
•
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
, 4384
4385.
4386
4387
4388
4389 .
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
provided to ensure that there is no-net-Ioss of ecological functions as a result of the shoreline •
uses or activities. '
e. Native Growth, Protection Areas Required: The Reviewing Official shall' require the
establishment of Native Growth Protection Areas' consistent with RMC 4-3-050.E.4 to protect
streams or lakes or riparian or lakeshore habitat where present. Where water body or buffer
disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, revegetation with native
vegetation may be required as a condition of approval.
f. Preservation of Existing Vegetation: Existing native vegeta'tion shall be preserved to the
extent possible, preferably in consolidated areas.
g. Revegetation Required: Revegetation may be required in order to achieve reduced buffer
widths; in cases where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other
activities; or as a result of findings addressed in required studies. When revegetation is required,
it shall meet the following standards:
i. Use of Native Species: When revegetation is required. native species, or other
appropriate species naturalized to the Puget Sound region and approved by the Reviewing
Official, shall be used. A variety of species shall be used which serve as food or shelter from
climatic extremes and predators,' and as structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of
young.
ii. Removal of Noxious Species: When required as a condition of aooroval, noxious or
undesirable species of plants shall be removed or controlled so as to not compete with native
vegetation. . '
.. h. Studies Required: All required studies shall be submitted in compliance-with Subsection J.2. . _' .•
and RMC 4-8-120.
i. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects: The potential impact of any of the following on
adjacent, abutting, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the
design plans and efforts made to avoid. or minimize detrimental aspects:
i: View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks. machinerv,'fences, piers, poles,·wires, signs,
lights, and other structures.
ii. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors. night lighting. water and land traffic. and other
structures and activities. . .
iii. Design Theme: Coordination and uniformity of architectural styles. exterior designs,
landscaping patterns and other aspects of the overall design of i site.
iv. Visually Unpleasant Areas: Landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public,
view any area that may negatively impact the visual quality of a site.
v. Outdoor Activities:
Ca) Residential Areas: Work areas, storage, and other activities on a site in a residential
area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible. to reduce distractions and
other effects on surrounding areas_
Cb} Commercial and Industrial Areas: Outdoor activities of commercial and industrial
operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor •
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 118
4408 ~09 Wl410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
·~35
~36
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445 .
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456 .
4457
4458
4459
4460 •
areas shall not be used for storage of more than minimal amounts of equipment, parts,
materials, products, or other objects.
j. Public Access:
i. Where possible and consistent with this Section, space and right-of-way shall be left
available on the immediate shoreline sci that greater public use of the shoreline can be
provided.
ii. Trail systems shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential property rights.
iii. No property shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the owner.
k. Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent. water-
related and water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all
other facilities inland.
I. Other Permit Criteria: Also see criteria in Section 4-9-190.F.
bK. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS:
In addition to the General Use Regulations for All Shorelines Uses in Subsection J, the following Specific
Use Regulations shall be met as applicable to the use or activity:
1. Airports and Seaplane Bases:
. a. Airport Location: A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the sh.oreline. However, an·
airport already located within a shoreline shall be permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities
provided such upgrading and expansion would not have. a detrimental effect on the shoreline.
b. Location of Seaplane Bases:
i. Private Seaplane Bases: A single private seaplane is permitted per residence.
ii. Commercial Seaplane Bases: New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in
industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous to residential areas.
c. Airport Facilities:
LFuture hangars should be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20 ) 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. .
ii. Tie down areas should be no closer than n¥enty feet (20 ) from the ordinary high water
mark of the shoreline for aircraft. ~$lt1Om: Addressed in J4.J
d. Seaplane Bases (CommerCial):
i. Docks and Tie Down-Areas: Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted.
Seaplanes may be stored on the dock or ramps.
ii. Tie-Down Areas: Tie-down areas may be provided on seaplane ramps.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 119
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480··
4481
4482
4483
.4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507.
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
e. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be required around parking areas in accordance with City
regulations. The landscaping shall be compatible with the activities and characteristics of aircraft
in that it should be wind resistant, low profile, and able to survive under adverse conditions.
f. Services: Services or aircraft shall conform to FAA standards, which include fuel, oil spill clean-
up, safety and firefighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian separation.
2. Aquaculture:
. a. Location: Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers, EXCEPT in Natural
and Conservancy environments and along urban areas developed with residential uses.
b. Time: Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only.
c. Design and Construction: 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
li~. .
iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming
and/or boating. .
iv. They shall be setback appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if potential
. cOnflicts exist; .. .
3. Boat':Launching Ramps:
a. Site Appropriateness -Water Characteristics: Water depth should be deep enough off the
shore to allow use by boats. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall. be
sUitable for ramp activity. .
. . .
. b. Site Appropriateness -Topography: The proposed area should not present major geological or
topographical obstacles to construction. or. operation of the ramp.· Site adaptation such as
dredging shall be minimized.
c. Dimensions and Location: The ramp should be deSigned so as to allow for ease of access to
the water withminimal impact on the shoreline and water surface. .
d. Ramp Surface Material: The surface of the ramp may be concrete,precast concrete, or other·
hard permanent substance. The material shall be permanent and noncontaminating to the water.
Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used. The material chosen shall be
appropriate considering the following conditions: Soil characteristics, erosion, water currents, ..
waterfront conditions, and usage of the ramp.
e. Review Required: Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the
appropriate City department.
. 4. Bulkheads:
a. Applicability and Exemption: All bulkheads are subject to the regulations set forth in this Master
Program, except that bulkheads common to a single family residence are exempted from the
permit system set forth in this Master Program and Building Code .
. Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 120
•
•
4517
•
518
519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
..s45 <~46
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
.571
b. When Permitted: A bulkhead may be permitted only when:
i. Required to protect upland areas or facilities.
ii. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection.
iii. The bulkhead design has been engineered by an appropriately' State licensed
professional engineer, and the design has been approved by the Renton Department of
Public Works.
c. Associated Fill: A bulkhead for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead shall
be permitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a bulkhead shall be
included in the application for the landfill in this case. (See subsection h8-K.8 of this Section,
Landfills.)
d. General Design Requirements:
i. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific type of
bulkhead design which has been engineered by an appropriately State licensed
professional engineer.
ii. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize damage
to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the application' for a proposed bulkhead, the
Development Services Division shall consider the effect of the bulkheads on public
access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible, bulkheads are to be designed so
as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
iii. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to -minimize alterations of the
. natural shoreline and to minimize adverse effects on nearby beaches.
iv. In cases where 'bulkheading is permitted, scientific Information suggests a rock riprap
design is preferred. The cracks and openings in such a structure afford suitable habitats
for certain forms of aquatic life. if there is determined to be a severe rate population,
consideration must be given to construction of a solid bulkhead to eliminate cracks and
openings typical to a riprap structure. '
5. Commercial Developments:
a. Location of Developments:
i. New' commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those areas where
current commercial uses exist. <
ii. New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water-
dependent, nor water-related, nor water-enjoyment, nor which do not provide significant
public acce~s to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline.
b. Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities: Commercial developments should
incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public.
c. View Impacts: The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his' application the effect which the proposed commercial
development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, ~ the
applicant must state in his permit what steps' have been taken in the design of the proposed
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 121
•
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587.
4588
4589
4590
45.91
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598'
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606.-
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627,
commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by
any significant number of people in the area. '
d. Setback: A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty feet (50 ) to the ordinary
high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through
the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along
the \'vater's edge. r§ajtOfn~: Addressed in J4.J . •
6. Dredging:
a. Definition: The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water.
b. Permitted Dredging: Dredging is to be permitted only when:
i. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes, if a definite flood hazard would exist
unless dredging were permitted. .
ii. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality,
when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas.
iii. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as 'to decrease the intrusion
into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type of dredging may only be
allowed if the following conditions are met: The water of the dredged area shall not be
. stagnant or. polluted; and the water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting
aquatic life. -
iv. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of
pubiic shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access.-.
Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided and/or where
there is anticipated to be a significant improvement to fish or wildlife habitat, provided
there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake.
-v. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability.
vi. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan, approved under authority of
the Model Toxics Control Act or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of
_ Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer or other agency with jurisdiction.
c. Prohibited Dredging:
i. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas (see RMC 4-11-210) except for the
purposes identified' in subsection b7a-K.6.b of this Section where appropriate Federal
and/or State authorization has been received, and any required environmental review
and mitigation is conducted.
.' . . . . '
ii. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material, which dredging
is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection b+a-K.6.b of this Section,
is prohibited. .
d. Regulations on Permitted Dredging:
i. Report by Engineer Required: All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by an
appropriate State licensed professional engineer. An approved engineering report shall
be submitted to the Renton Development Services Division as' part of the application for a
shoreline permit. . ,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 122
•
...
•
4628
•
629
630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
•
4655
56
657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
.4669
4670·
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
•
682
683
ii. Applicant's Responsibility: The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to
demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredging operation .
iii. Minimal Adverse Effect: The responsibility further rests with the applicant to
demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on
recreational areas.
iv. Timing: The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal
impact or interference with fish migration.
v. Adjacent Abutting Bank Protection: When dredging bottom material ofa body of water,
the banks shall not be disturbed unl~ss absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests
with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. If it is
absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent abutting 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. Adjacent PropertiesMinimize Impacts: The responsibility rests with the applicant to
demonstrate a method of eliminating or preventing conditions that may:
Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
Damage property in or near the area.
Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near
the area. .
. Endanger public safety in or near the area .
vii. Contamination: The applicant shall demonstrate a method to control contamination
and pollution to water, air, and ground.
viii. Disposal of dredged material: The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing
of all dredged material. Dredged material shall not be depOSited in a lake or stream
except if the. material is approved as part of a contamination remediation project
approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. In no instance shall dredged
material be stockpiled in a shoreland area. If the dredged material is contaminant or
pollutant in nature, the applicant shall propose and carry out a method of disposal that
does not contaminate or pollute water, air, or grC?und.
7. Industrial Development:
a. When Permitted: Industrial developments are to be permitted only when:
i. They are water-dependent, water-related or they provide reasonable public access to
and along the water's edge. New industrial developments on Lake Washington which are
neither water .. dependent, nor water-related shall provide significant public access.
ii. They 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; and,
iii. Any over-water portion is water-dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable
dimensions, and is approved by the Land Use Hearing Examiner; and,
iv. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 123
I
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704·
.4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
. 4718
4719 .
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
v. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability .exists to contain
and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants aS,sociated with the industrial development.
b. Setbacks: InGl:lstrial stFl:lctures shall be set back t>. ... enty five feet (25) minimum from the
ordinary high 'Nater mark. r§ito~Sjlme: Addressed in J4.J
8. Landfills:
. a. When Permitted: Landfills shall be permitted in the following cases:
, .
i. For detached single family residential uses, when the property is located between two
(2) existing bulkheads, the property may be filled to the line of conformity provided the fill
does not exceed one hundred twenty five feet (125 ) in length along the ordinary high
water mark and thirty five feet (35 ) into the water, and provided the provisions of RMC 4-
9-19014b(i) through 4-9-19014b(vi) are satisfactorily met; or
ii. When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill shall be
approved to bring the contour up·to the desired grade; or
iii. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general public; or
iv. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and fills; or
v. When landfill is required for flood control purposes; or
vi. When a landfill is part of a remedial action plan. approved by the Department of
Ecology pursuant to the Model ToxicsControl Act, or otherwise authorized by the
Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction.
vii. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in subsections
b8aK.8.a{i~through fv~ of this Section will be allowed only with prior approval of the Land
Use Hearing Examiner. .
. 9. Marinas: .
~. When permitted: Marinas shalf be permitted only when:
i. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the moorage facilities
provided. (See subsection hgeK.9.b(vi) of this Section.)
ii. Adequate water area· is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities
provided.
iii. The location of the moorage facilities is convenient to public roads.
b. Design Requirements: .
. .
i. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that wili minimize adverse effects on fish and
shellfish resources and be aesthetically compatible with abutting and adjacent areas.
ii. Marinas utilized to overnight and . long-term moorage are not to be located in shallow-
water embayments with poor flushing action.
. iii. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be evaluated for compliance
with standards promulgated by Federal, State, and local agencies.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 124
•
••
•
•
4740
741
742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
~~67
.... ~68 4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
.794
iv. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be equipped with receptacles to
receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste, rubbish, and litter from patrons' boats.
v. Applications for development permits for the construction of marinas must affirmatively
indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain and clean up any spills or discharges
of pollutants associated with boating activities.
vi. Parking should be provided in accordance with the following ratio: private and public
marinas: two (2) per three (3) slips; private marina associated with residential complex:
one per (3) slips.
vii. Special designated loading areas should be provided near piers in the amount of one
parking space per twenty five (25) slips; all other parking areas are to be located one
hundred feet (100 ) from the ordinary high water mark~
c. Location of Marinas:'
i. Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington. Marinas must provide
adequate access, parking, and surface water area in relation to the number of moorage
spaces provided.
10. Mining:
a. All mining, including surface mining, shall be prohibited.
b. Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction of minerals by
removing the overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits thereby exposed,
including open pit mining of minerals naturally exposed at the surface of the earth, mining by the
auger method, and production of surface mining refuse. The, surface mining shall not include
reasonable excavation or grading conducted for farming, on-site road construction, or on-site
building construction.
11. Parking:
a. Public Parking: In. order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be
provided at frequent iocations. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's
edge. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact
upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view.
b. Private Parking: Private parking facilities are to be located away from the water's edge where
possible.
12. Piers and Docks:
a. Purpose: To establish approval and design criteria.
b. Fees Prohibited: No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of
piers or docks accessory to residences.
c. General Design Requirements:
i. Minimize Interference: Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with
the public use of the water surface and shoreline.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 125
4795
4796 '
4797
4798 , 4799'
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831,
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
, 4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
ii. Floating Docks: 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.
iii. Expansion Encouraged: The expansion of existing piers .and docks is encouraged over
the construction of new facilities.
iv. General Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers: The responsibility rests upon the
applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his
application for a permit. 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:
The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide
reasonable and safe moorage.
The dock or pier does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the
water nor create a hazard to navigation.
The dock or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of
adjacent docks and/or piers; and
The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following
sections.
v. Construction 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: :' ,
Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling.
A soft bottom condition, providing little supp0r:! for piling.
, Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling.
. '. .' . . . '. .
vi. Safety: All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintain~d in a safe and sound
condition. '
vii. Protection from Toxic Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of
piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks shall use materials and
methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering
surface water during and after construction.
d. Allowable Types of Piers and Docks: Permits for the following construction of piers or docks
will b~ allowed: '
i. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas.
ii. Community piers and docks in new. major waterfront subdivisions.
iii. Piers and docks which are constructed for private jOint use by two (2) or more
waterfront property owners.
iv. Private single family residence piers and docks.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 126 '
•
'.
4850
•
851·
852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
•
4877
878
879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
•
04
05
v. Community piers and docks for multi-family residence including apartments,
condominiums, or similar developments .
vi. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses.
e. Design Criteria for Single Family Docks and Piers:
i. Number: There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or
ownership.
ii. Dock Size Specifications: The following dock specifications shall be allowed: .
Length: The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty feet (80 ) beyond the
ordinary high wate~ line into the water or until a depth of twelve feet (12 ) below
the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a
dock of less than fifty feet (50 ) in length be required.
Width: The maximum width ora dock shall be eight feet (8 ).
Location: No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private single family
residence may lie closer than five feet (5 ) to an adjacent abutting property line.
Extension: One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline or one float may be
allowed provided such extension is not located closer that five feet· (5 ) from a
side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size.
iii. Joint Use Piers and Docks:
Location: A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront
properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side
property line,. common to both properties. .
Agreement: A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with
the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with
. the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be
provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and
maintenance provisions.
Dock Size Specifications: Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty feet
. (80') beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve feet (12'),
whichever is reached first. .
Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of tweive feet (12).
Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one pier extension or float a maximum
of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner.
Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted as speCified below
under subsection ~K.12.i of this Section once an individual has failed to work
with an aGjaGeffi-abutting property owner in establishing a joint use dock.
f. Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks:
i. Resident Moorage: Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the
subdivision, apartments, condominiums or similar developments for which the dock was
built.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 127
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
. 4938
4939
4940
4941
4942·
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
·4955
4956
. 4957
4958
4959·
4960
ii. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces: The ratio of moorage berths to residential units
shall be one berth for every two (2) dwelling units.
iii. Length of Multiple Family Pier or Dock: Multiple family piers and docks shall not
exceed a length of one hundred eighty feet (180 ) into the water beyond the ordinary high
water mark, except as may be allowed under subsection ~K.12.i of this Section.
g. Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial arid Industrial Docks: The following dock
specifications shall be allowed:
i. Length and Depth: Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency
having jurisdiction, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty feet (150 ); if the
.depth of thirty feet (30 ) is not reached, the dock may be extended until a deptl1 of thirty
(feet 30 ) is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty feet (250 );
and in the case of a marina adjacent to a designated harbor area, docks and associated
breakwaters may extend to the greater of (a) the distance determined pursuant to the
foregoing criteria, (b) the inner harbor line, or (c) such point beyond the inner harbor line
as is allowed by the terms of a lease; license or other formal authorization approved by
the Washington State Department.ofNatural Resources or. other agency with jurisdiction.
ii. Width: The maximum width shall be twelve feet (12 ).
iii. Location: Docks shall be placed· no closer than thirty feet (30 ) to a side property line:
iv. Piers or Docks Associated with City Trails: Docks or piers which are associated or
linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose
and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis.
h. Use of Buoys and Floats:
. i. Buoys and Floats Encouraged: Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for
moorage, as permitted below under subsection ~K.12.h(ii) of this Section, may be
allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats
are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation,
including. reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shaH a buoy be located further from
the shoreline than the allowable length for docks.
ii. Requirements: Floats·shall be allowed under the following conditions:
Floats shall·be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft.
Floats shall not ~xceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A
float proposed for jOint use between adjacent abutting property owners may not
exceed one hundred f~ (150)square feet per residence ..
A single family residence may only have one float.
Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty feet (50') into the water beyond the
ordinary high water mark, except public recreation floats.
i. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions: Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions .
than those specified above may be submitted as variance applications to the City's Land
Use Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed
by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 128
•
•
•
4961
•
962
963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
•
4988
989
990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
•
15
16
to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions: The Examiner, in approving a variance
request, shall include a finding that a variance request compiles with:
i. The criteria listed in subsection ~K.12.c of this Section when approving such
requests; and
ii. The criteria specified in RMC 4-9-19014.
13. Recreation:
a. Definition: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation.
The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be
passive, such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife.
b. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the
following criteria are considered:
i. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in
consideration of natural features.
ii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of
demands of the local community; and
iii. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the public use;
and
iv, It is designed to avoid conflicts with owner's legal property rights and create minimum
. detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and .
v. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use, and it will be designed to
have a minimum impact on the environment. .
c. Private Recreation: Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when
the following standards are met:
i. There is reasonable public access to the recreational uses, including access along the
water's edge where appropriate. In the case of Lake Washington, significant public
access shall be provided.
ii. The proposed facility will have no Significant detrimental effects on acijacent abutting
parce!s; and' , '
iii. Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from
pedestrian paths are provided.
14. Residential Development: Floating residences are prohibited. Residential developments shall be
allowed only when:
a. Adequate public utiiities are available; and
b. Residential-str-tlGt1:1fes are set back inland from-tRe--erdinary high Vlater mark a minim1:!ffl-ef
twenty five feet (2~+ or consistent 'NitfH;efuaG*-~sions of the Rent~ipal--GOOe,
whffiRever proviGes-the-9feateF-setba6k-;-aRe~&n;s'liJ0g: Addressed in J4.J
c. Density sJ:tatl-flet--ffiGfea~Ond the zoning-tlensity--otltl+nee in the R9flteA...Gt)mpfeJ:tensive
Plan and Zoning Code.[~~;i,.: Zoning controls in any case.] .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 129
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
.5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
SQ. New residential developments shall be encouraged to provide public access. Unless deemed
inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-family, condominium,
planned unit developments, and subdivisions except.short plats, shall provide public access along
the water's edge; in the case of Lake Washington, significant public access shall be provided.
15. Roads and Railroads:
a. Scenic Boulevards: Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible.,
b. Sensitive Design: Roadways and Railroads located in shoreland areas should shall be limited
and allowed only if the following conditions are met: .
. i. There is no other feasible alternative route with less impact on the environment; and
ii. The facility is designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural
. movement of groundwater. .
iii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel;
and . .. . . . : .
iv. Roads and railroads in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and
v. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and
vi. Bridges are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts. 1999. and the National Marine Fisheries Service
Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings. 2000. as may be updated. or
equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and
vii. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and
viii. Mitigation for impacts is provided pursuant to an approved mitigation plan per
Subsection J.2.
rliinfogGte1 Based in part upon the State Example Code.]
c. Debris Disposal: All debris and other waste materials from construction are to be disposed of in
such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body. .
d. Road Locations: Road locations are to be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in
order that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary.
16. Stream Alteration:
. a. Definition: Stream alteration is the relo~ation or change in the· flow of a river, stream or creek. A
river, stream or creek is surface water runoff flowing in a natural or modified channeL
b. Permitted Stream Alteration:
i. Unless otherwise prohibited by subsection h-iGG-K.16c of this Section, stream alteration
may be allowed subjeCt to the regulations in subsection b4-eG-K.16.d of this Section.
ii. Stream alteration may be permit~ed if it is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat
enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 130
•
•
5066
•
067
068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
~93
94
095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107'
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119 e120
121
c. Prohibited Stream Alteration:
i. Stream alteration is prohibited in unique and fragile areas, except if the stream
alteration is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved
by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.
ii. 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.
iii. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to abutting or
adjacent parcels.
d. Regulations on Stream Alteration:
17. Trails:
i. Engineering: All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an appropriately
State licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted to the Development
Services Division as part of the application. '
ii. Applicant's Responsibility: The re~ponsibility rests solely' with the applicant to '
demonstrate the. necessity of the proposal.
iii. Timing: The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on
aquatic life.
iv. Pollution: Pollution is to be minimized during and after construction.
v. Low Flow Maintenance: The project must be designed so that the low flow is
maintained and the escape of fish at low water is possible.
'vi. Over-Water Cover: .No permanent over-water cover or structure shall be allowed
unless it is in the public interest. '
a.Definition: For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, trails are a non motorized
transportation route designed primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists.
b. Permitted Uses: Trail uses shall be 'permitted within the shoreline, when the following
standards are met:' ,
i. Prov'isions for ~aintenance operation and emergency. access have been provided ..
ii. They link water access points. along the shoreline, or they link water access points
along the shoreline with upland community facilities.
iii. They are designed to avoid conflict with private property rights and to create the
minimum objectionable impact on aejaGeffi.-abutting property owners. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-
1983, Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12~1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), 9-12-1993
(Min.), Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998)
iv. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property to be acquired by the public.
v. They insure the rights and privacy ofthe adjoining property owners.
vi. Over-water structures required by the trails are determined to be in the public interest.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 131
I
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
,5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
vii. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user loads and'
will have a minimum impact on the environment.
viii. Additional Standards Applicable within the Natural Environment:
(1) Within unigueand fragile areas, only public soft surface trails and/or public
viewing platforms or areas may be allowed and must comply with all of the
following:
(a) The trial is authorized by the Renton Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan;
(b) City permit authorization is granted indicating compliance with City
Critical Area Regulations in RMC 4-3-050.
(cl The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been
consulted in design;
'Cd) The trail is seasonally restricted in public use as necessary to protect
,Federal, State, or locally listed wildlife and fish species;
(e) Trail widths shall be a maximum width of twelve (12) feet.
(2) Hard surface trails when located on existing rights cif way, and outside of
unique and fragile areas, and meeting the remaining provisions of this
subsection, 4-3-090.K.17, Trails.
[§B1Wls"thfM Follows from discussion of SMP Map amendments in March 8, 2004
memo under separate cover.l
18. Utilities:
a. Native Vegetation: The, native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible. When utility
projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed area shall be restored and
landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined
to be more desirable. ' , '
b. Landscaping:' All vegetation and screening shall 'be hardy enough to withstand the travel of
, service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs.
c. Screening of Public Utilities: When a public utility building, telephone' exchange, sewage
pumping operation ora public utility is built in the shoreline area, the requirements of this Master
Program shall be met and the following screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements
of subsection ~K.18.a of' this Section, Native Vegetation; aM the requirements of this '
subsection are in disagreement, the re,quirements of ,this subsection shall take precedence.
, , ' , ,
i. If the installation is housed in a, building, the building shall conform architecturally with
, ' the surrounding buildings and area~ or with the type of building that will develop due to
the zoning district. '
ii. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform
with subsection lASGK.18.c(i)of ,this Section shall be sight screened with evergreen
trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual
sight barrier within five (5) years. , ' '
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 132
•
'.
•
5177
•
178
179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
•
5204
05
206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213 -
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
•
31
32
iii. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical distribution
substation, shall be enclosed with an eight foot (8 ) high open wire_ fence. Such
installations shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping
planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance
gate(s}, within five (5) years.
d. Special Considerations for Pipelines:-Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the
natural conditions of adjacent abutting watercourses and shorelines.
i. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor shall water quality
standards be violated.
ii. Native soils shall be _ protected from erosion and natural conditions restored.
Watercourse banks and bottoms shall be protected, where necessary, with suitable
surface treatment.
,
iii. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff
valves at each side of the water crossing. -
iv. 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.
e. Major Utilities -Specifications:
i. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines: Structure of overhead power lines should be
single-pole type or other aesthetically compatible design. Joint use docks and piers may
extend to eighty feet (80 ) beyond the ordinary high water mark or-to a depth of twelve
feet (12 ), whichever is reached first.
ii. Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall be at a
shoreland location only when the applicant proves there exists no other site out of the
shoreland area and when the screening requirements of subsection b4-8G-K.18.c of this
Section are met.
iii. Communications: This Section applies to telephone exchanges including radar
transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, and any
other facility for the transmission of communication systems. Communications
installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there exists no feasible
site out of the shoreline and water area and when the screening requirements of
subsection b-1-8&K.18.c of this Section are met. In an aesthetic interest, such installations
shall be located as far as possible from _ reSidential, recreationai, and commercial
activities.
iv. 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.
v. 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-abutting public use area. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 133
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262.
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
.5268
5269
.. 5270'
. 5271
·5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
vi. All Inclusive Utility Corridor: Vllhen it is necessary for more than one-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 desifaGle to include railroad lines ' .... ithin this right of way also.
~~~: see new subsection g below.] .
f. Local Service Utilities, Specifications:
i. Waterlines: Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works
Department in .ac~ordance with American \Jllater Works i\ssociation (AVVWA)
guidelinesCity standards.
ii. Sanitary Sewer: The existence· or use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. All uses
shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic tanks or other on-site
sewage disposal systems. Storm drainage arid pollutant drainage shall not enter the
sanitary sewer system. During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets
may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed. All sanitary sewer
pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton Planning/Building/Public Works
Department and METRO.
iii. Storm Sewers: A storm sewer drainage system shall be required. Pretreatment of
storm runoff or diversion to sanitary sewers may be required to keep deleterious
substances out of neighboring watercourses. Storm sewer sizes and specifications shall
be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with A.P.W.A.
guidelinesCity standards.
iv. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum products:
Agency . Review: Discharges of pollutants into watercourses and groundwater
shall be subject to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Corps of
Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for
disc~arge.
Oil Separations:. These units shall be required at sites that have oil waste
disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be built to Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) or State of Washington Department of Public
Health specifications. . .
Petr~leum· Bull< Storage and Distribution: Petroleum facilities shall hereafter not be allowed. . . .. . . .
. .
g. All Inclusive Utility Tunnels: For the distribution of local utilities, utilitytunnels under the street
right of way are recommended to carry all local utility services. For new development, the tunnel
could be built at the time of road construction. The tunnel would include all utility services, both
public and private, necessary for use in the public right of way, such as '<\firing for street lighting
and wateHJ.nes for fire hydrants ana all utility services necessary for the private uses of the area ..
(Ora. 3758, 12 5 1983, Rev. 7 22 1985 (Min.), 3 12 1990 (Res. 2787), 7 16 1990 (Res. 2805), 9
12 1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4 13 1998) .
g. Local and Major Utilities -Location and Crossings: Local and Major Utilities shall be designed
and developed according to the following criteria and meeting mitigation criteria of K.9:
i. Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; and
ii. The Utility is designed consistent with one or more of the following methods:
(8) Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the scour depth and hyporheic
zone of the water body and channel migration zone; or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 134
•
•
•
5286
.287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
_07
08
309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
•
(b) The utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60) degrees to the centerline of
the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline; or
(c) Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility crossing;
and
iii. New -utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down-valley course near
the channel; and
iv. The utility installation shall not increase or'decrease the natural rate of shore migration or
channel migration; and
v. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and
vi. Mitigation for impacts is provided pursuant to an approved mitigation plan per Subsection
J.2.
rEait"tMl,\SItwt'e1 Based in part upon the State 'Example Code.]
Mh. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES:
See RMC 4'-9-1901. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998)
N. ,J\..MENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM:
1. Time: The City shall re'iiew this Master Program every four (4) years hereafter, or sooner if
necossary. (Om. 3758, 12 5 1983. Re'/. 722 1985 (Min.), 3 12 1990 (Res. 2787), 7 16 1990 (Res.
2805),9 12 1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4 13 1998)
2. Review Process: Any amendments to this Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning
Commission, which shall conduct one public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning
Commission ,shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which may hold one pblblic hearing
before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall' be sblbmitted to the IJ.lJashington
State Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
(Ord. 3758,12 5'19B3, Rev. 7 22 19B5 (Min.), 3 12 1990 (Res. 27B7), 716 1990 (Res. 2805). 9 12
1993 (Min.), Om. 4716, 4 13 199B) rEGirt>rai.itste: See subsection C.] "
OM. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
See RMC 1-3-1C. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998)
PN. APPEALS:
See RMC 4-8-110H. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 135
I
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333'
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
4-4-130 TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS:
A. PURPOSE:
This Section provides regulations fpr the clearing of land and the, protection and preservation of trees and
associated significant vegetation.o for the following purposes The purposes of these regulations are to:
1. To preserve and enhance the City's physical and aesthetic character by minimizing indiscriminate
removal or destruction of trees and ground cover; .
2. To implement and further the goals and poliCies of the City's Comprehensive Plan for the
environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watersheds, and
economics;-~aAG
3. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the City's natural
topographical and vegetational vegetative features while at the same time recognizing that certain
factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed
structures ,and improvements, interference with utility services, protection of scenic views, and the
realization of a reasonable. enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground
cover;
31. To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting, and effective erosion control of
property during and after land clearing;
4§. To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse disturbance to existing
vegetation and soils within the City;
a§. To minimize surface water and groundwater runoff and diversion, and aid in the stabilization of
soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and minimize the need for additional storm drainage
facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; .
SI. To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and wind protection; and
1!!. To'recognize that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from
carbon dioxidOi.o '
8. To preserve and enhance \\'ildlife and habitat including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands and
groves of trees. ~'fl.smM: Addressed by critical areas ordinance.] , . ,
B. APPLICABILITY:
The regulations of this Section apply to any developed, partially developed or undeveloped property
where land development or routine vegetation management activities are undertaken.
C. EXEMPTIONS:
The following activities are exempt from routine vegetation management permit requirements, and may·
be authorized without an associated land development permit; however, the activities must be conducted
in accordance with stated requirements:
1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private·
utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, SUbstantial fire hazards,
or interruption of services provided by a utility.
2. Dead, Dangerous, or Diseased Trees: Removal of dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or
dangerous ground cover or hazard trees which have been certified as such by a forester, registered
Draft Best Available Science Regulation AmehdmEmts, July 13, 2004 . 136
•
•
•
5382
•
383
384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
.:
09
10
411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
.436
landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of which to be approved by the City based on the
type of information required, or the City prior to their removal.
3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal -Public or Private Utilities, Roads and
Public Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree
removal for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements, and parks.
4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public·
and private utilities provided that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures.
5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing and ongoing
agricultural activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions.
6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: Clearing or cutting of only those trees which are planted
and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler.
7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads, unless critical areas would be affected, in
which case see C12 and C13. .
8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals
such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of
mechanical equipment to perform site investigative work provided the work is conducted in
accordance with the following requirements.
a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent (5%) of any protected
sensitive area described in subsection 02 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, on the
subject property. In every case impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas restored .
. b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted, disturbed areas shall be
minimized,:and immediately restored.
c. A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner's agent indicating tliat site
investigative work is being conducted, and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical
areas identified in subsection 02 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas.
d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or designee in
advance. ..
9. Allowabl.e Minor Tree Cutting Activities: Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical
equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection 02 of this Section, Restrictions
for Critical Areas:
a. On a developed lot or on a partially developed lot less than one-half (1/2) of an acre any
number of trees may be removed; , .
b. On a partially developed lot greater than one-half (1/2) of an acre or on an undeveloped lot
provided that:
i. No more than three (3) trees are removed in any twelve (12) month period from a property
under thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size; and '
ii. No more than six (6) trees are removed in any twelve (12) month period from a property
over thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 137
I
5437
5438
5439
5440'
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456 "
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
,5475
5476
5477
5478 '
5479
'5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486 '
5487
5488
5489
5490
. '
iii. Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree cutting activities, rights-of-way shall
not be obstructed. '
10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with tile provisions of
, subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D2, Restrictions for
Critical Areas, is permitted on a developed lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening. Land
clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C9; Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities,
and subsection D2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted on a partially' developed or
undeveloped iot for purposes of landscaping or gardening provided that no mechanical equipment is
used.
,11. Operational Mining/Quarrying:' Land clearing and tree cutting associated with, previously
approved, operational mining and quarrying activities.
Regulations.
revisions.)
13. Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved Right-of-Way or
Easements: Within existing and improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation,
construction; replacement. operation, overbuilding, or alteration of all natural gas, Cable,
communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances,
traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improved
area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply. Where applicable, restoration of
disturbed areas'shall be completed. rfE?:nf8lS!i~ Makes this consistent with RMC 4-3-050 and
allows work within improved rights-of-way, while #12 allows 10% increase beyond improved areas.)
D. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES:
1. Prohibited Activities: There shall be no tree cutting or land clearing on any site for the sake of '
preparing that site for future development unless a land development permit for the site has been
approved by the City. " " ' "
2. Restrictions for Critical Areas:'" General: Unless exempted by critical areas, Section 4-3-
050·.C.5 'or Shoreline. Master Program Regulations, Section 4-3-090, nNo tree cutting, or land
clearing, or groundcover management is permitted:
a. 6n portions of property with identified and protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050.K;
streams and lakes; per RMC 4-3-050.L; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton
Shoreline Master Program Regulations; arid wetlands, per RMC 4-3-050.M; and their associated
buffers;
b. On protected slopes except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical Areas Regulation, RMC
4-3-050; or "
C. Areas classified as very high landslide hazards, except as allowed in this Section or in the
Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-3-050. ' .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 138
•
•
•
5491
".492 493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515 ,
5516
5517 .
•
5518
19
520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
'.545
Buffer requirements shall be consistent with the critical area regulations. Tree cutting or land clearing
shall be consistent with established native growth protection area requirements of RMC 4-3-
()'wG050E.4.
3. Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas: Tree cutting or land clearing shall be
consistent with established native growth protection area requirements of RMC 4-3-050E.4.
3. RestrictioRs for Critical Areas RObltiRe VegetatioR, MaRagemeRt Permits: In aadition to the
prohibitions of subsection 02 of this Section, no tree cutting, land clearing or groundcover
management, e>«cept for enhancement purposes or otherwise permittea by this Section, shall be
allo\\'ea per a routine vegetation management permit in the following cases:
a. In wetlanas ana their buffers; and
b. Riparian corriaors including a minimum buffer area of twenty five feet (25 ) from the ordinary
high '""ater mark of the creek or stream and in the two hundred foot (200 ) State shoreline area.
SrtGil~: Addressed by 0.2.1
4:-RestrictioRs for Criticalkeas baRd DevelopmeRt Permits aRd ~bliidiRg Permits: In aaaition
to the prohibitions of subsection 02 of this Section, no tree cutting, lana clearing or groundcol/er
management, e>«cept for enhancement purposes or othol\\!iso permitted by this Soction, shall be
allowed per a land development or building permit in the following cases:
a. In a 'Netland; and
b. VVithin a minimum of t\t,lenty five feet (25 ) of the ordinary high " .. ater mark of creeks, streams,
lakes and other shoreline areas or within fifteen feet (15 ) of the top of the bank of same, nor
should any ~echanical equipment operate i~ .s.uch £!~~!:a=et for the development of public
parks and trail systems and enhancement actiVities. ~~~ote: Addressed by 0.2.1
E. AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION:,
The City's Development Se~ices Division Director, or his duly authorized representative, is hereby
authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section.
F. PERMITS REQUIRED:
1,. Land Developm'ent Permit: An approved land development permit is required in order to conduct
tree cutting or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development.
2. Permit Required for Routine Vegetation Management on Undeveloped PropertJes: Any
person who performs routine vegetation management on undeveloped property in the City must
obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work.
3. Permit Required to Use Mechanical Equipment:, Except where use of mechanical equipment is
specifically listed as exempt, any person who uses mechanical equipment for routine vegetation
management, land clearing, tree cutting, landscaping, or gardening on developed, partially developed
or undeveloped property must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing
such work.
4. Timber Stand Maintenance -Conditional Use Permit Required: While timber harvesting shall
not be permitted until such time as a valid land development is approved, a request may be made for
maintenance and thinning of existing timber stands to promote the overall health and growth of the
stand. Permits allowing maintenance and thinning beyond the limits allowed in subsections
subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, shall be considered as a conditional
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 139
I·
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563.
5564
·5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
. 5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
. 5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
use permit, by the Hearing Examiner according to the following criteria in lieu of s.iandard conditional
use permit criteria:
a. Appropriate approvals have been sought and obtained with the State Department of Natural
Resources; and
b. The activity shall improve the health and growth of the stand and maintain long-term
alternatives for preservation of trees;. and
c. The activity shall meet the provisions of subsections H2, Applicability, Performance Standards,
and Alternates, and H3, General Review Criteria, of this Section; and .
d. Thinning activities shall be limited to less than forty percent (40%) of the volume and trees.
5. Tree Cutting -Solar Access or Pasture Land: A routine vegetation management permit is
required for tree cutting in greater amounts than specified under partially exempt actions in.
subsection C2 of thil:; Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, for any property where tree cutting is
proposed without an associated land development pel111it. A routine vegetation management permit
may be issued allowing tree cutting only in the following cases:
a. For purposes of allowing solar access to existing structures; or
b. To create pasture land where agricultural activities are permitted uses in the zone.
Any tree cutting activities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose, and shall be
consistent with subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas.
G. ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS:
Permits for routine vegetation management shall be processed consistent with RMC 4-9-195, Routine
Vegetation Management Permits. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) .
H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVEL()PMENT/BUILDING PERMITS:
1. Plan Required: When a development permit is submitted to the City ilshall be accompanied by a
··Iand clearing. and tree cutting plan. Where it is not practicable to retain all trees on site due to a
. proposed development, the plot plan shall identify those trees which are proposed for removal. Where
the drip line of a tree overlaps an area where construction activities will occur, this shall be indicated
on the plot plan. Trees shall be shown on the plan as follows:
a. For allowed activities, including allowed exemptions, modifications, and variances, show all
trees proposed to be cut on priority tree retention areas: slopes twenty five percent (25%) or
greater, high or very high landslide areas, and high erosion hazard areas. .
b. Show trees to be cut in protected critical areas: wetlands, shorelines of the state, streams and
lakes, floodways, slopes forty percent (40%) or greater, very high landslide hazard areas, and
critical habitat if the activity is exempt or allowed by the critical areas. regulations in RMC 4-3-
050C5, SpeCific Exemptions .
c. Show all trees to be retained in critical area buffers.
Eh-Show trees to be Gut along shorelines,streams~ and lakes and in their buffers. jEmjtGi},S~tN:m'~: .
Addressed by b.J . .
eQ. Show trees proposed to be cut within required· zoning setbacks along· perimeter of
development.
Draft Best Available SCience Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 140
•
•
••
5602
•
603
604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
•
630
. 631
5632
5633·
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646·
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
.656
f.g. In all other areas of the site, trees to be cut can be indicated generally with clearing limits .
(Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002) , .
2. Applicability. Performance Standards and Alternates: All land clearing and tree cutting
activities shall conform to the criteria and performance standards set forth' in this Section unless
otherwise recommended in an approved soil engineering, engineering geology, hydrology or forest
management plan and where the alternate procedures will be equal to or superior in achieving the
policies of this Section. AII)and clearing and tree cutting activities may be conditioned to ensure that
the standards, criteria, and purpose of this Section are met.
3. General Review Criteria: All land clearing and tree cutting activities shall meet the following
criteria:
a. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or significantly contribute to landslides,
accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence or hazards associated with strong ground
motion and soil liquefaction. '
b. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or significantly contribute to flooding, erosion,
or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of pollution in a watercourse.
c. Land· clearing and tree cutting will be conducted to maintain or provide visual screening and
buffering between land uses of differing intenSity, consistent with applicable landscaping and
setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code:
d. Land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of
soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an approved build-out schedule and
including any necessary erosion control measures. '
e. Land Clearing and tree cutting. shall be consistent with subsection D2 of this Section,
Restrictions for Critical Areas, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations.
4. Tree Preservaticm: Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the pro'perty
where they are growing.
a. Ability to Conditi~n Plan: The City may require a modification of the land clearing and tree
cutting plan or the associated land development plan to ensure the retention of the maximum
number of trees. '
b. Clearing -Conditions of Approval: The Department Administrator or designee may
condition a proposal to restrict clearing outside of building sites, rights-of-way, utility lines and
easements,' to require sequencing and phasing of construCtion, or other me,asures, consistent
with the permitted density and intensity of the zone.
5. Nathle Gro\vth Protection Areas: Native growth protection areas may be established through the
subdivision process: or via another-land de~rnent permit pursuant to-the critical areas regulations
aM RMC 4 3 050G, and in envir-Gflmentally-GFitlcal areas including but not-f.im.it-ed-tG the followiffg
area: a buffer area from the annual higtHNater mark of creeks, streams, lakes and other sJ::ler-eiffie
aFe3S or from the top of the bank Gf-same,whiGRe~s good resoufGe-f)feteGtieR-:-g."s 11m: Addressed by Critical Areas Regulations for all critical areas.]
6§. Timing: The City may restrict the timing of the land clearing and tree cutting activities to specific
dates and/or seasons when such restrictions are necessary for the public health, safety and welfare,
or for the protection of the environment.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 141
I
•
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674·
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
·5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690 .
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
7§. Restrictions for Critical Areas: See subsection 02 of this Section, Prohibited Activities and
RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations.
SZ. Tree/Ground Cover Retention:· The following measures may be used by the Department
Administrator or designee in conditioning a land development permit or building permit proposal per
subsection H4 of this Section, Tree Preservation, to comply with the general review criteria. of
subsection H3.
a. Trees shall be maintained to the. maximum extent feasible on the property where they are
growing.
b. The City may require and/or allow the applicant to relocate or replace trees, provide interim
erosion control, hydroseed exposed soils, or other similar conditions which would implement the
intent of this Section.
c. Priority shall be given to retention of trees on sensitive slopes and on lands classified as having
high or very high landslide hazards, or high erosion hazards as classified in the critical areas
regulations ..
d. Where feasible, trees which shelter interior trees or trees on adjacent abutting properties from
strong winds that could otherwise cause them to blow down should be retained.
e. Except in critical areas unless enhancement activities are being performed, the removal of
trees on the following list should be allowed in order to avoid invasive root systems, weak wood
prone to breakage, or varieties which tend to harbor insect pests:
i. All Populus species including cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus
tremuloides), lombardy poplar (Populus nigra "Italica"), etc.
ii. AlIAlnus species which includes red alder (Alnus oregona),blackalder (Alnus glutinosa),
white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), etc.
. iii.· Salix species which includes weeping· willoW (Salix babylonica), etc., unless along a
stream bank and away from paved areas. .
iv. All Platanus species which include London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia), American,
sycamore, buttonwood (Platanus occidentalis)~ etc.
~. Protection Measures During Construction:
a. Tree Protection Measu'res: Protection measures in. subsections H9b(i) through H9b(vi) shall
apply for all trees which are to be retained in areas immediately subject to construction. These
requirements may be waived pursuant to RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures, individually or
severally by the City if the developer demonstrates them to be inapplicable to the specific on-site
conditions or iUhe intent of the regulations will be implemented by another means with the same
result..·· . ..
b. Drip Line: All of the following tree protection measures.shall apply:
i. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, or compact the earth in
any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be. retained.
. . . .
ii. The applicant shall erect and maintain rope barriers or place bales of hay on the drip line to
protect roots. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or
trucks are moving near trees.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 142
••
•
•
5713
.-714
~15
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
'.41
42
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
•
iii. If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall
construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must
be equal to the tree's drip line.
iv. The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the
drip line of any tree to be retained.
v. The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the
following areas: (1) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or (2) an area around the tree
equal to one foot in diameter for each one inch of tree caliper.
vi. The applicant shall retain a qualified professional to prune branches and roots, fertilize,
and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover which are to be retained.
I. VARIANCE PROCEDURES:
The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to grant variances from the provisions of this Section
pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Ftq and RMC 4-9-250.
J. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
1. Penalties: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be in accord with
RMC 1-3-2. In a prosecution under this Section, each tree removed, damaged or destroyed will
constitute a separate violation, and the monet~ry penalty for each violated tree shall be no less than
the minimum penalty, and no greater than the maximum penalty of RMC 1-3-?D.
2. Additional Liability for Damage: In addition, any person who violates any provision of this
Section or 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 conditi.on
prior to such violation. , ' '
3. Restoration Required: The City may require replacement of all improperly removed ground cover
with species similar to those which were removed or other approved speCies such that the biological
and habitat values will be replaced. Restoration shall include installation and maintenance of interim
and emergency erosion control measures which shall be required as determined by the City.
4. Replacemel1t Required: The City may require for each tree which was improperly cut and/or
removed, replacement planting of a tree of equal size, quality and species or up to three (3) trees of
the same species in the immediate vicinity of the tree(s) which was removed. The replacement trees
will be of sufficient caliper to adequately replace the lost tree(s) or a minimum of three inches (3 ) in
~~ ,
5. Stop Work: For any parcel on which trees and/or ground cover are improperly removed and
subject to penalties under this Section, the City shall stop work on any existing permits and halt the
issuance of any or all future permits or approvals until the property is fully restored in compliance with
this Section and all penalties are paid. (Ord. 4219, 6-5-1989; Amd. Ord. 4835,3-27-2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 143
5759 4-8-120 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS'~ SPECIFIC TO APPLICATION TYPE:
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
I
The following tables list the submittal requirements for each type of permit application or land use approval which must
accompany the required application fees specified in RMC 4-1-14qthrough 4-1-200. '
A. Table 4-8-120A -Public Works Permit Submittal Requirements.
8. Table 4-8-120B -Building Section Permit Submittal Requirements.
C. Table 4-8-120C -" Land Use Permit Submittal Requirements.
PUBLIC WORKS I' " TABLE 4CS-120A
APPLICATIONS 'r' --::---~":':'l'r-' ~----:-llr' ----= ·r'-----······ Ii If
ITYPE OF
APPLICATION/PERMIT
Utility
Construction
Permit
(Sewer and/or
Water)
Stormwater
Construction'
Permit
Roadway
Construction
Permit
Combined 'IIAPA Operating IIAPA Closure
Permit Permit Permit (Includes Plats)
I Jl . I i I I SUBMITTAL \ I 11~~T~_" -------------------------------------. -----------------------. -----------~ l<:::lo..S.~!~ p~rmit Applicati9n F~rm ,JIll " II 1/ " . 1 (b) l
ItConstruction Permit Application Form II 1 .' II 1" II' 1 ,II ' 2" " I
l<:::gl.1~!r .. ~~_t~n_~iti9C!!i~I.1_Des.~!~on __ ~ __ ~_ =:]1 3 ~C ' 3 . Ie 3 JL 4 II __ JL )
[gi~~;~e Plans JI. II . 3 II 3 II 3 II II I
1~~~.i .. ~~~~ .. ~~P~~_ .. _ ...... ,...... _ .. ,~L =oJL 2 II 2 JI 2 II ___ ,JL. ,; ,..I
1~~~~:~(!~~PO~ry)_ --~F . :11 ! ~I 3 If ~ _ 11----------Jr ---I
DwestAvaiiable Science Regulation Amendments, July13, 2004 • .4
• • •
r'''"······-···-·"·--.. ~--·-·--·-'··--.. ·---TABLE 4.8 .. 120,6.
!.----------,,-----------.,
II PUBLIC WORKS "
APPLICATIONS
I \
TYPE OF
APPLICATION/PERMIT
Utility
Construction
Permit
Stormwater
Construction
Permit
Roadway
Construction
Permit
Combined IIAPA Operating IIAPA Closure
Permit Permit Permit
(Includes Plats) I
I
(Sewer and/or
Water)
IISUBMITTAL I REQUIREMENTS
IgECl9.i~lLPI.a~.~...... .. """"".__" _____ : ________ .. _ ...... ] I . JL ~. _ ][ _ __3" ___ JL ______ "._.'.!. _____ JL_. ___ . ________ ".JC=~~==~~.]
bCl~C1.r.9.~.~s _~a_~":~!.als Management statemeiJl 1 (b) II 1 (b) II 1 (b) II 1 (b) II =wi I ._ j
1~~rir~o9 petCl~~.M~p _____ ~ JL .. 3.. -'I 3 IL 3 JI_._2.. .. __ JL_ .. _________ .. _.JL. __ .. _ .... __ ...... J
1~~~~f~"=1dE:1bjtdt':jD
II 'L .. _ .... _ .. __ .. _.,, ____ JL IL 3 JL __ ~_:=JL_ .JL.. __ .. _, .. J
l§ii-~;~ .. ~-;;dL~k;;;D~t~·-.. ----· " ...... -·~I 1(0 II 1(0 II . 1(0 II 1(0 II IL ~
h:?pgg~C1P~Y~ClP._"_ ". __ ... __ ..... _, "._. ...11 3 '_11. 3 II 3 .11 4 IL __ __ __ __ JI.____ _ ]
l;:ro~~~;ng~nVenlo~/Land Clearing Plan _. I 3 II 3 II 3 II 3 II II I
1Y..!!!~~~_~~~ineered _'_ ]I 3 ]I 3' II 3' II 4 ~[ 1l _____ J 1 [Y.Y~,tl~2gc~;,B;R?;r¥'OElI.i~.El.C1!~(l~._ .. """_ ...... "........................ __ J L ____ ._1.1C1L._ .... _ ..... JI .. __ .. __ . .!~. __ ,JI .... _._..1{~._J 1 .. _. __ . ___ ~JCll .. _~ 1 .. _ .... _____ . ___ .... _ .... _ ..... .11_ ....................... =:===,J,
T bl 4 8 120A i The number of copies required (if any) is Indicated for each type of application and each submittal requirement, unless waived by the 'I a e _--! Development Services Division Plan Review Supervisor. Waiver of aquifer permit submittal requirements may be granted by the Water I Legend, : Utility . I _. J -------" ---.... " ....... -". ,. • ____ ........ " ... __ ... i[(a')R~q~i;~-~hen wEltland~.(lr bu~er .a~~ pre~.El.~!.(ln-~!!~. . . __ .. ..1
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 145
5766
5767
• • •
II--p-U-B-LI-C-W-O--R-K-S' -I' ". TABLE 4·8·120A i "r--l' "t-iiil -Ir===~== I I . "" ,I
APPLICATIONS
I
j
SUBMITTAL I
'IREQUIREMENTS i _._-------
Utility
Construction
TYPE OF Ilpermit
APPLICATION/PERMIT (Sewer and/or
Water)
Stormwater
Construction
. '''Permit
Roadway
Construction
Permit
Combined
Permit. IIAPA Operating IIAPA Closure
(Includes Plats) Permit Permit
(b) Required when project is located in Zones 10r 2 of an aquifer protection area. . . .
(cl A Standard Stream or Lake Reconnaissance is required for any application proposal. A Supplemental Study is required if an unclassified stream is involved, or
~f th~~~_~.~e 1?!~8ose9 al!.er~tio~~. of the water body or buffer... . ... _._ _ __ .. __ .. ___ ._._.__..._ ...
A
(Ord. 4587. 3-18-1996; Amd. Ord. 4851. 8-7-2000)
5768 B
:1 T A.;::.B=LE=-..:...4 • ..=,S.-.;.1=.;20:.:B:....· ~_~_--:-_---:-_---;-_-;----;-~--;--_-;-_--,
BUILDING APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
z o ~ U :::;
D. D. 0(
LL
01:::
UJ:::ii: D.O:: ~~
[Applicant Agreement Statement (for wireless communications facilities only)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13. 2004 ,.
e o E "0 E C\) c
u: C, e :c
E (!)
.S: ~ ~
C\) nI
ED. o C\)
J: E o J:
"C"C E E
::l ::l UU .l!.l! ::l ::l e e
nI nI :!::!:
C\) "C I ia E C\). ti 'i: o~ .:3 ti J:'" "C :::I U .EIII"C .l! :::: e e :::I nlO-e '-.-nI ~ :!:: :!: C\)"C
"C E"C C\) Eo( ~ '0 ~ ~ :::I ~ 0 0 ... nI U' ~ C\)D. >.~ '5:2 C\) • .!.::z eJ!lE~E_ nI :::I 0 ... nI nI :!: 0 J: :!: LL 'i:
3
a;
"C _0
iaE 'CjC\) ~O:: C\) ~ E 0 E 'i: o.!l
u.E
nI c.. en -"0 o D.
e Cl en
~ C\)
Z
>< C\)
Q.
:::I C >.
:: III E e nI 0
LLE
C\)"C -"C ~« ,-~ en 0
~
E
nI LL • E :::I :!:-_ C\)
»"C :: 0
146
E E nI C\) LL.O::
~ C\) 0
o,'i: e C\) ,-....
(J).E
• • •
'I TABLE4-8-120B I
I L I,
BUILDING APPLICATIONS
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
.-,z o ~ o ::;
D. D. cs:
LL
01:::
UJ:E
D. et:: .' ~UJ D.
c:: 0 E
'0
E CII 0
.5
.¥ a..
CII ra
ED. o CII :x:E 0 :x:
'a 'a CII CII a.. a.. u: ::J ::J .... -u u Cl ra ra c:: ........
'a ::J ::J
ra c:: c::
a.. ra ra
(!) :E:E
1
~ CII Z
~ Q.
::J o >. =cn E c:: ra 0
LL;E
CII'a -'a ~cs: .-a.. (/) 0
1
~ 'E ra LL I E ::J :E-_ CII
>0 'a :: 0 E E ra CII LLet::
a.. CII 0 c,';: c::.CII .-.. . (/) .5
2
147
"
1
• •
T ABLE4-8-120B
I,
BUILDING APPLICATIONS .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
-z o .~
o :::i D. D. ~
•
1
~
148
•
•
•
>lJed awoH
paJnl:>eJnuew JO ap!Slno
awoH paJnl:>eJnuew
UO!lIlOWaa ..... al o N ~ ----------------------~--~ .. ~-+--~ CO -d-l.IWH3d
w INOll. V:ll1ddV :10 3dA.1 ..J
alL-----------4 <C I-
(/)
Z o ~ o ::::i Il.
Il. «
(!) z
C ...J
:::I [C
"0
Q) > o ~ «
..... Q)
CI III
Q.
CI C
.~
o
.E
Q)
Q)
~
o
'<:t o o N
C") .....
>.
"S -,
Vl
C Q)
E "0 C Q)
E «
c
"Q co "S OJ Q) c::
Q) u c Q)
"(3
(f)
Q)
:0 ~ Oro
> «
iii Q)
CD .:::: CO .L.. o
•
.'
••
TABLE 4-8-120C
IR, dno~~ I .... .I,." Approval Conditional Approval I ... ~,. Environ-Master Site Mobile Home 1 Mobile
Compo Plan Grade and Kennel Master Compo Plan I~V"
IUse Environ-IKennel 'Lot line !Plan 'A
IA
Permit fora Permit for a Use Permit mental iFiII Permit I~:::;~' Site Plan Park, Home Park,
license for Map
I:ext mental 1(10% , of I;~~::ouv 1 Appeal Review (Non-license emate Request
OF APPLICATIONI PERMIT Home Nonconforming Nonconforming (Admin-I, .. ~a''''!f Review -J-~""~'" (Overall) I',. ...... _uo. Preliminary Final
' I'emlon) ~,.,~ .. -, '~"-
!PhaSes) Iintent) Occupation' zone ,,"',,"u ... ,,'" Structure I"'uu",u,,, istrative) Examiner) Project)
• UfJV~,-"!:,, ,Map (5' contours)
lC::t,o"""/I"k"D<I~ ~ 12 12 -12 12 ~ 12 12 12 ~ ,.,. Map 12 12 12 12 12 12 (2) 12~ 12
IWetland Mitigation Plan -
-.""",, .. ,,' 3 3 3 3 3
IWetland IVIlUgifUUl1 Plan -Final 3 3
Report!
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Plat,
IPn.limlina:NIB PUD, Routine Vegetation Shoreline
IMianlll!leme,nt Permit Exemption Development
Permit
Shoreline OF APPLICATION! PERMIT Plan
Permit Permit
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
•
5771 .772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
•
•
4-8-120.D DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUILDING, PLANNING, AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
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 pertinent elements. If the evaluation involves
geologie 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, the preparation and content
requirements of RMC 4-8-120D, Table 18 shall also apply. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000)
Table 18 -Geotechnical Report -Detailed Requirements
landSlide Coal Coal
Report Preparation/Content Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High Seismic Mine-Mine
Requirements Slopes -Medium -High High Erosion ·Medium -
High
1. 'Characterize soils, geology and X X X X X X X X drainage.
2. Describe and depict all natural and
man-made features within one hundred X X X X X X X X
fifty feet (150¢) of the site boundary.
3. ,Identify any areas that have previously
been disturbed or degraded by human X X X X X X X X
activity or natural processes.
4. Characterize groundwater,conditions
including the presence of any public or X X X X X X .X X private wells within.one-quarter (1/4) mile
of the site.
5. Provide a site evaluation review of X X X X X X X X available information regarding the site.
6. Conduct a surface reconnaissance of X X X X X X X X the site and adjacent areas.
7. Conduct a subsurface exploration of X X X X X X X X soils and hydrologic conditions.
8: Provide a slope stability analysis. X X X X X X X
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
Volcanic
Hazards
2!;
2!;
2!;
2!;
151
Landslide Coal Coal
Report Preparation/Content Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High Seismic Mine-Mine Volcanic
Requirements Slopes -Medium -High High Erosion Medium -Hazards
High •
9. Address principles of erosion control in
proposal design including:·
Plan the development to fit the
topography, drainage pattems, 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 . X X X X X X X 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 ... X
relative to the proposed development.
11. Conduct sufficient subsurface
exploration to provide a site coefficient· . .-X (S) for use in the Uniform Building Code .
to the satisfaction of the Building Official. . • 12. Calculate tilts and strains, and .,
determine appropriate design values for -". X X
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 I
depressions, sinkholes, mine shafts, X X 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 (1 OO¢) of the
property.
14. Inspect, review and document any
possible mine openings and potential
trough subsidence, and any known X X
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 X X
coal mine workings or o~her hazards that
cannot be adequately investigated by
sl!rface investigations.
16. Provide an analysis of proposed X X X X X X X X' •
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 152
•
5791
5792
.793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
•
5818
819
Landslide Coal Coal
Report Preparation/Content . Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High Seismic Mine-Mine Volcanic
Requirements Slopes -Medium -High High Erosion Medium -Hazards
High
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 X X X X X X X X ! during and after construction, surface
water management controls, buffers,
remediation, stabilization, etc.
18. Critical facilities on sites containing
areas susceQtible to inundation due to
volcanic hazards shall reguire an
evacuation and emergeng( management
Qlan. The aQQlicant for critical facilities
shall evaluate the risk of inundation or ! flooding resulting from mudflows
originating on Mount Rainier in a
geotechnical reQort, and identify any . engineering or other mitigation measures
as aQQroQriate.
Note: An ax" indicates that the requirement applies in the identified critical area.
19. Definitions S:
Shoreline Conditional Use Justification: A written statement setting forth the reasons in favor of
the shoreline conditional use permit application and addressing the criteria listed in RMC 4-9-19015b~
and which are used by the Hearing Examiner in reviewing the permit request. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996)
Shoreline Variance Justification: A written statement setting forth the reasons in favor of the
shoreline variance application and addressing the criteria listed in RMC 4-9-19014b, and which are
used by the Hearing Examiner when reviewing the variance request.
Site Plan: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" =
20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) clearly indicating the
following:
a. Name of proposed project,
b. Date, scale, and north arrow oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet,
c. Drawing of the subject property with all property lines dimensioned and names of adjacent
streets,
d. Widths of all adjacent streets and alleys,
e. The location of all existing public improvements including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, median islands, street trees, fire hydrants, utility poles, etc., along the full property
frontage,
f. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking and loading areas,
driveways, existing on-site trees, existing or proposed fencing or retaining walls, freestanding
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 153
I
•
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835 .
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
'5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
·5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
signs, easements, refuse and recycling areas, freestanding liquid fixtures, utility junction boxes,
public utility transformers, storageareas, buffer areas, open spaces, and landscaped areas,
g. The location and dimensions of natural features such as streams, lakes; marshes and
wetlands, .
h. Ordinary high water mark, existing and proposed, if applicable,
i. For wireless communication facilities, indicate type and locations of existing and new plant
materials used to screen facility components and the proposed color(s) for the facility,
j. A legend listing the following must be included on one of the site plan sheets:
i. Total square footage of the site,
ii. Square footage (by floor and overall total) of each individual building and/or use,
iii. Total square footage of all buildings (footprint of each building),
iv. Percentage of lot coverage,
v. Square footage of all landscaping (total, parking lot, and wildlife habitat),
vi. Allowable and proposed building height,
vii. Building setbacks required by Code,
viii. Proposed building setbacks,
ix. Parking analysiS, including:
• Number of stalls required, by use; number of stalls provided, by use,
Sizes of stalls and angles,
Location and number of handicap stalls, compact, employee and/or guest parking stalls,
• Location and size of curb cuts, .
• Traffic flow within the parking, loading, and maneuvering areas and ingress and egress,
• Location of wheel stops,
• Loading space,
• Stacking space,
• Location and dimensions of bicycle racks, carpool parking spaces, and other facilities designed'
to accommodate acce!)s to the site,
• Square footage of interior parking lot landscaping.
k. Footprint of all proposed buildings showing the location of building entrances, window
openings, and landscape features (required for Urban Center Design Overlay District review
packet only),
Draft BestAvaiiable Science Regulation Amendments, July 13; 2004 154
•
•
•
5876
•
877
878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
_03
04
905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910·
5911
5912
5913
5914.
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
.29
I. Footprint of all abutting and adjacent buildings showing the location of building entrances,
window openings, and landscape features (required for Urban Center Design Overlay District
review packet only),
m. For nonconforming use or structure rebuild approval permits: draw on the scaled plan the
exact sizes and locations of existing structures and uses, whether damaged or not; write on the
scaled plan the dates these structures/uses were established; on a separate sheet, identify the
subject property, abutting lots and buildings and list adjacent and abutting land uses. (Ord. 5028,
11-24-2003)
Site Plan, Shoreline: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals
twenty feet (1" = 20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) clearly
indicating the information requested by the "Site Plan, Land Use" with the following additional
information:
a. Ordinary high water mark, existing and proposed,
b. Name of water body.~
c. Material stockpiles or similar/related activities,
d. Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether
temporary or permanent,
e. Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material,
f. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public
areas.
Stream' or Lake Study. Standard: A report shall be prepared bya 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 1" = 20' (unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Director): rEt1~IWm: Modified from 50 to 20 to be
similar to other map scales required by City.}
• i. The entire parcel of land owned by the 'applicant, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels
through which the water body(ies) f1ow(s); .
ii. The ordinary high' water mark (OHWM)· determined in the. field by a qualified biologist
pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field);
iii. Stream classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-
050QX or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see subsection c below);
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and its/their buffer(s)
at contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where
slopes are 10 percent or greater;
v. 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels
through which the water body(ies) flow(s);
vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major drainagefiow;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 155
I
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
. 5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
.5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
vii. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed. banks, and buffers to
scale; ..
viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian area,
and/or abutting wetland areas, extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the
property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least 10 inches average
diameter that are within 100 feet of the OHWM;
ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads.·
stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the
streamllake and its/their buffer(s); and
x. Location of site access, ingress and egress.
. b. Grading Plan: A grading plan prepared in accordance with RMC 4-8-120.D.7, and showing
contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where slopes are
1 0 percent or greater.
c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report shall be prepared to accompany
the site plan which describes:
i. The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in
RMC 4-3-050QX 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 100 feet upstream and downstream from the·
property line;
iii. The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake and existing riparian area;
iv. Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area including, but not limited
to. salmon ids. mammals. and bird nesting, breeding. and feeding/foraging areas; and
v. Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11 ~200, and vegetation.
Stream or Lake Study. Supplemental: The application shall include the following information:
a. Unclassified Stream Assessment: If the site contains an unclassified stream, a qualified
. biologist shall provide a proposed classification of the stream(s) based on RMC 4-3-050.L.1 and a
rationale for the proposed rating.
b. Alterations to Stream/Lake and/or Buffer(s): A supplemental report prepared by a qualified
biologist shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria
for justification: .
i. Avoid any disturbances to the stream. lake or buffer;
ii. Minimize any stream, lake or buffer impacts;
iii. Compensate for any stream. lake or buffer impacts,;
iv. Restore any stream, lake or buffer area impacted or lost temporarily:
v. Enhance degraded stream or lake habitatto compensate for lost functions and values.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 156
•
•
5985
•
986
987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002 '
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
•
012
013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
•
38
39
c. Impact Evaluation:
i. An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a qualified biologist, to
include:
(a) Identification, by characteristics and quantity, of the resources (stream, lake) and
corresponding functional values found on the site:
(b) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modifications, or alternative methods of
development to determine which option(s) reduce(s) the impacts on the identified
resource(s) and functional values of the site;
(c) Determination of the alternative that best meets the applicable approval criteria and
identify significant detrimental impacts that are unavoidable;
(d) To the extent that the site resources and functional values are part of a larger natural
system such as a watershed, the evaluation must also consider the cumulative impacts
on that system:
ii. For a violation, the impact evaluation must also include:
(a) Description, by characteristics and quantity, of the resource's) and functional values
on the site prior to the violations; and.
(b) Determination of the impact of the violation on the resource(s) and functional values.
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure compensation for unavoidable
significant adverse impacts that result from the chosen development alternative or from a violation as
identified in the impact evaluation. A mitigation plan must incl~de:
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than 1" = 20' (unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Director):
i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant. including 100 feet of the abutting parcels
through which the water body(ies) flow(s);.
ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist
pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field);
iii. Stream classification, as recorded· in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-
050QX or RMC 4-3-090 or as determined through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study
approved by the Administrator;
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and its/their buffer(s)
at contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where
slopes are 10 percent or greater;
v, 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels
through which the water body(ies) f1ow(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; .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 157
I
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063 .
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088·
6089
6090
6091
viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site. including the stream or lake. banks. riparian area.
and/or abutting wetland areas, extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the
property line. Include position. species. and size of all trees at least 10 inches average
diameter that are within 1 00 feet of the OHWM;
ix. The location. width. depth. and length of all existing and proposed structures. roads.
stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the
stream/lake and its/their buffer(s); and
. x. Location of site access; ingress and egress;
xi. Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation measures will take place on the
site;
xii. Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take place and areas where
vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and
xiii. Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact indicated on
site plan.
b. Mitigation narrative that includes the following elements:
i. Description of existing conditions on the site and associated water resource (baseline
information);
ii. Resource(s) and functional values to be restored. created, or enhanced on the mitigation
site(s); .
iii. Documentation of coordination with appropriate local. regional, special district. state, and
federal regulatory agencies;
iv. Construction schedule;
v. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the site;
vi. Environmental goals. objectives, and performance standards to be achieved by mitigation;
vii. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring standards and
timelines (Le., annual. semi-annual, quarterly);
viii. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation;·
ix. Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating surety
device; and .
. .
x. Discussion of compliance with approval criteria of 4-3-050.L.9 and 10 or 4-3-090.J.9.
xL 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
Stfeam-anG-bake-9ata .... StFeam-and lake data incfude the fOllewiAg iAformatioA,_ prepared as speGifi.eG.;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 158
•
•••
•
6092
• 093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
.110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116.
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
.26
a. Field location: The ordinary high water mark shall be flagged in the field by a qualified
consultant. The field flagging must be accompanied by a stream or lake reconnaissance report .
&,-Reconnaissance Report: The report shall include the following information:
h-ffi-atIdition to any submittal requirements in chapter 4 B, Permfts General and Appeals,
the site map(s) shall indicate:
"(1) The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the ordinary high water mark
determined in the field;
ii. Stream or lake Assessment: A narrative report shall be prepared to accompany the site
plan which describes:
23. Definitions W:
The vegetative cover of the stream or lake, banks, and the site, identifying the
dominant plant, fish, and animal species;
(2) If mitigation is proposed, a mitigation plan which includes baseline
information, environmental goals and objectives, performance standards,
construction plans, a monitoring program and a contingency plan;
(J) If stream or lake o~ associated buffer changes are proposed, the
applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property
using the following criteria in this order:
Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake or buffer,
Minimize any stream, lakaor buffer impacts,
Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts,
Restore any stream,~ lake or buffer area impacted or lost temporarily,
aM
Enhance degraded stream or lake habitat to compensate for lost
functions and values;
(4) Any proposed alteration of lakes or stream shall be evaluated by the
Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. (Ord. 4835, J 27
2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5 1J 2002) m~'iIIm: Adapted from
Portland's Chapter 33.430. Environmental Zones ~ Environmental
Review 33.430.220.]
Wetland Mitigation Plan -Preliminary: A preliminary wetland mitigation plan shall include the
following:
a. A conceptual site plan demonstrating sufficient area for replacement ratios;
b. Proposed planting scheme for created, restored, and enhanced wetlands;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 159
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
I 6155
6156
6157
. 6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
c: Written report consistent with final wetl.and mitigation plan requirements regarding baseline
information, environmental goals and objectives, and performance standards. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-
2000)
Wetland Mitigation 'Plan -Final: A final wetland mitigation plan shall include:
a. Baseline Information: A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland
including, at a minimum, a wetland delineation by a qualified wetland specialist; existing wetland
acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; an identification of direct and indirect
impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions; soil and substrata conditions;
topographic elevations and compensation site. If the mitigation site is different from the impacted
wetland site, the assessment should include at a minimum: existing acreage; vegetative, faunal
and hydrologic conditions; relationship within the watershed and to existing water bodies; soil and
substrata conditions, topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions;
. buffers; and ownership. .
b. Environmental Goals and Objectives: A written report by a qualified wetland specialist shall be
provided identifying goals and objectives of the mitigation plan and describing: .
i. The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection
criteria, identification of compensation goals; identification of target evaluation species
and resource functions, dates for beginning and completion, and a complete description
of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and
objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland or if out-of-
kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and
ii. A review of the best available science available literature andter report author's
experience to date !n restoring or creating the type of wetland proposed shall be
provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success ·of the compensation project at
duplicating the original wetland shall be provided based on the experiences of
comparable projects, preferably those in the same drainage basins, if any. An analysis of .
the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based
on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns, dynamiCs of the
wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutantinflux and/or erosion, periodic flooding and
drought, etc., presence of invasive flora or fauna, potential human or animal disturbance,
and previous comparable projects, if any.
c. Performance Standards: Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the .
goals and objectives of the project are achieved and for beginning remedial action or contingency
measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, .
species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological
. or hydrological criteria. These criteria will be evaluated and reported pursuant to subsection eof·
this definition, Monitoring Program. An assessment of the project's success in achieving the goals
and objectives of the mitigation plan should be included along with.an evaluation of the need for
remedial action or contingency measures.
d. Detailed Techniques and Plans: Written speCifications and descriptions of compensation
techniques shall be provided including the proposed construction sequence, grading and
excavation details, erosion and sediment control features needed for wetland construction and
long-term survival, a planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing,
and density; source of plant materials, propagates; or seeds; water and nutrient requirements for
planting; where appropriate, measures to protect plants from predation; specification of substrata
stockpiling techniques and planting instructions; descriptions of water control structures and 'water
level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydroperiod characteristics; etc.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 160
•
•
•
6174
•
175
176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
.193
6194
"6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
~13
..,.L14
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-
sectional drawings, topographic maps showiri'g slope percentage and final grade elevations, and
any other drawings appropriate to showconst~uction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The
plan shall provide"for elevations which are appropriate for the desired habitat type(s) and which
provide sufficient hydrologic data. The City may request such other information as needed to
determine the adequacy of a mitigation plan.
e. Monitoring Program: A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction and
development of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be
provided in the mitigation plan. Monitoring may include, but is not limited to:
i. Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and density
overtime; "" "
ii. Using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response;
iii. Sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading, and changes
from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy metals);
iv. Measuring base flow rates and storm water runoff to model and evaluate hydrologic" "
and water quality predictions;
v. Measuring sedimentation rates;
vi. Sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species
abundance and diversity; and"
vii. A description shall be included outlining how the monitoring data Vlill be evaluated by
agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report
shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter, and at aminimum,
should document milestones, successes, problems; and contingency actions of the
compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period
necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period
less than five (5) years.
f. Contingency Plan: Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to
be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being
m~ "
g. Permit Conditions: Any compensation project prepared for mitigation pursuant to RMC 4-3-
050M, Wetlands, and approved by the City shall become part of the application for project
approval.
h. Demonstration of Competence: A demonstration of financial resources, administrative,
supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to
successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project
manager shall be named and the qualifications of each team meinber involved in preparing the
mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including
educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable
projects. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000)
Wetland Re-p9rtJ.lJelineat-iGnAssessment: A wetland rep0FtfGeHAeatieRassessment includes the
following: "
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments,July 13, 2004 161
6215 a. A description of the project and maps at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two • 6216 hundred feet (1" = 200') showing the entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the
6217 wetland boundary surveyed by a qualified wetlands ecologist, and pursuant to RMC 4-3-
6218 . 050M3;
6219 b. A description of the vegetative cover of the wetland and adjacent area including
6220 identification of the dominant plant and animal species;
6221 c. A site plan for the proposed activity at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred
6222 feet (1" = 200') showing the location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed
6223 structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, sewage treatment and installations
6224 within the wetland and its buffer;
6225 d. The exact locations and speCifications for all activities associated with site development
6226 including the type, extent and method of operations;
6227 e. Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the,wetland and its buffer at contour
6228 intervals of no greater than five feet (5') or at a contour interval appropriate to the site
6229 topography and acceptable to the City;
6230 f. Top view and typical cross-section views of the wetland and its buffer to scale;
6231 g. The purposes of the project and, if a variance is being requested, an explanation of why
6232 the proposed activity cannot be located at another site;
6233 h. If weiland mitigcltion is proposed, a mitigation plan which includes baseline information, an • 6234 identification of direct and indirect imQacts of the Qroject to the wetland area and Wetland
6235 . functions, environmental goals and objectives standards, construction plans, a
6236 monitoring·program and a contingency plan.
6237 i. Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant
6238 shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in
I 6239 this order:
6240 • Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
6241 • Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
6242 • Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts;
6243 • Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily;
·6244 . • Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
6245 • In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded
6246 wetland to compensate for lost functions and values.
6247 This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration
6248 of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy.
6249 j. Such other information as may be needed by the City, including but not limited to an
6250 assessment of w~tland functional characteristics, including a discussion of the methodology • 6251 used; a study of hazards if present on site, the effect of any protective measures that might
DraftBest Available Science Regulation Amendments, ·July 13, 2004 162
•
6252
•
253
254
6255
•
•
be taken to reduce such hazards; and any other information deemed necessary to verify
compliance with the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; Amd. Ord. 4835. 3~27-
2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13. 2004 163
6255 4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES:
6256
6257 J. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREASIINAPPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS:
6258 1. Maps Depicting Environmentally Critical Areas and Critical Area Designation:
6259 a. Maps Adopted by Reference: The map(s) under Ordinance No. 3891 designate the
6260 location of environmentally critical areas within the City and are adopted by reference.
6261 These include greenbelts designated in the Comprehensive Plan, conservancy and
6262 natural environments of the Shoreline Master Program and the one hundred (100) year
6263 floodway mapped under the Federal Flood Insurance Program in RMC 4-3-050.0 identify
6264 Critical Areas. The Maps in RMC 4-3-090 identify regulated Shorelines of the State. The
6265 s ecific enviommentall critical areas where SEPA exem tions are not a licable are
6266 identified in subsection nb" below. ~ : The changes refer to the most CUrrent
6267 maps in RMC 4-3-050.1
6268b. Critical Areas Designated: Wetlands, Protected Slopes. Very High Landslide Hazard.
6269 Areas, Class 2 to 4 Streams and Lakes, Shorelines of the State designated as Natural or
627Q Conservancy, and the one hundred (100) year f1oodway, as mapped and identified ffi...tI:le
6271 City Critical Pieas Inventory of Wetlands pursuant to subsection "an above are
6272 designated as environ critical areas pursuant to the State Environmental Policy.
6273 Act, WAC 197-11-908.
6274 which intended to identify the most hazardous or sensitive areas where SEPA .
6275 exemptions would not apply.]
6276 2. Inapplicable State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemptions:
6277
6278
6279
6280
.6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292.
6293
6294·
6295
a, General: Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this
remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped.
b'. Environmentally Critical Areas: For each environmentally critical area, the
exemptions within WAC 197-11-800 that are inapplicable for that area are:
WAC 197-11-800(1)
WAC 197-11-800(2)(d, e, g)
WAC 197-11-800(6)(a)
WAC 197-11-800(24)(a, b, c, d, f, g)
WAC 197-11-800(25)(f, h)
c. Wetlands: The following SEPA categorical exemptions shall not apply to wetlands:
WAC 197-11-800(1)
WAC 197-11-800(2)
WAC 197-11-800(3)
WAC 197-11-800(4)
WAC 197-11-800(6)
WAC 197-11-800(8)
WAC 197-11-800(25)
Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within enVironmentally critical areas of
the City.
. . . .
6296
6297
3. Threshold Determinations for PropcisalsLocated within Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
The City shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 164
•
•
."
6298
•
299
300
6301
•
•
differently than other proposals under this Section, making a threshold determination for all such
proposals. The City shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is
proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (Ord. 4835,3-27-2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 165
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320-
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325 -
6326
6327
6328
6329
-6330
6331
I 6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
-6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS:
lEaitae.m~: To provide an alphabetical sequence in Chapter 4-9, this section Will be renumbered to 4-
9-197 at the time a formal ordinance is prepared.]
A. PURPOSE: (Reserved)
B. APPLICABILITY: (Reserved)
C. EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM:
_ The following shall not be considered SUbstantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program.
1. Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
2. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed twG-five thousand
five hundred 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. IBffimf __ : Change per recent RCW
amendments.] -
3. 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 hs 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 authqrized _ 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· sUDstantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or
environment.
4. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences.
A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at
or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing
single family residence and appurtenant structures from 1055 or damage by erosion. A normal
protective bulkhead is not exempt if it is constructed for-the purpose of creating additional dry land.
Additional construction requirements are found in WAC 173-27-040(2)(c).
5. 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 this progr9m. -
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
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 -. 166
6354
•
355
356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
\ 6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
~81
82
383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
•
08
09
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 this
Progrnm. .
d. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur, but that
are not imminent are not an emergency.
6. 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 winteririg operations.
7. 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 thirty five feet
(35') 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. _~0ie: Based on early agency review by DOE.] .
a. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and oc.cupied by one family'
including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal
appurtenance. An' "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single
family res!dence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a
wetland.
b. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high
water mark.
8. 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 exception applies if either:
i. In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500.00).
ii. In fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00); however, if subsequent construction having a fair market :value exceeding
two thousand five hundred dollars ($?,500.00) occurs within five (5) years of completion
of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial
development permit.
b. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks,
storage facilities or other appurtenances.
9. 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.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13; 2004 167
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414 -
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419 _
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
----10. 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.
11. The marking of property lines or comers on State-owned lands when such marking does not
interfere with the normal public use of the surface of the water.
12. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on
SeptemberS, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural
drainage or diking system.
13. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisites to preparation of an application
for development authorization under this program, if: '
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters.
'b. The activity will have no 'significant adyerse impact on the environment' including, but not
limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values.
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completipn 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 this program first, posts a
performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the Development-
Services Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.5S.550.
14. 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 43.21 C RCW.
15. 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 streamreach,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 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
instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 168
•
•
•
6465
~66
~67
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
~92
93
94
6495
6496.
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
•
19
20
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 chC!pter 43.21 C RCW, the State Environmental
Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan generally contains, a general program and
implementation measures or actions for the' preservation, restoration, re-creation, or
enhancement of the naturc~1I resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment,
drainage area, or watershed. '
16. 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.
c. The Development Services Division has determined that the project is consistent with this
Master Program.
17. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(3).
D. EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PROCEDURES:
1. 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 Development Services Division in the manner prescribed by that division.
2. 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. The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses' as
necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this Program.
4. 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 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 Development Services Division.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees: Applications for such
~RaII-ge--rn-atle·-Qf\-f-QfffiS---afltI-reviewe€l--aGGoFdjfl9~OGeGtlfe5----pfeSGfi9-etl--9.y-tAe
Development Services Division. Application forms may be revised from time to time by the
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 169
I
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525'
6526
6527 '
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555'
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
Development Services Division 'Nithout prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be '
designed to provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justitiee.,
Applications shall be m~de by the property O'Nner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract
purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property and, except for applications filed by
or on behalf of the City or other gOI/ernmental agencies, shall be accompanied by a receipt issued by
the Finance Department shm ... ing payment of the applicable fees which are established by RMC 4 1
170, land Use Review Fees.Submittal requirements and fees shall be as listed inRMC 4-3-090.J.2.
Studies Required. and RMC 4-8-120C. Land Use Applications and 4-1-170. Land Use Review Fees.
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 Reviewinq 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 requestfor 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.
6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each' Sl:ffih-notice of development application shall include a
statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Development Services Division with
regard to said application may do so in writing to that Division and perSons interested, in the
Development Services Division's action on an application for a permit may submit their views in
writing or notify the Development Services Division in writing of their interest within thirty (30) days
from the last-date of publication of such. noticethe 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 (11 )(b) or for the construction
of a bulkhead or other. measures to protect a single family residence and its a purtenant structures
from shoreline ,erosion shall include a twenty (20) day comment period.·:oifoi:',s, 'ofe: These time
periods in 5, 6 and 7 are based upon WAC 173-27-110.1
Such notification or submission of views to the Development Services Division shall entitle those
persons to a copy of the action taken on the application.
, ,
4§. Review Guidelines: Unless exempt~cI 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' aqoptedby the
Department of Ecology thereunder.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 170
•
•
•
6576
•
577
78
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592 -
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
•
04
. 605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
•
26
27
59. Conditional Approval: Should the Development Services 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 may deny such application or attach any terms or
condition which he deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and objective of this Master
Program.
610. Notification of City Departments: It shall be the duty of the Development Services 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.
F. REVIEW CRITERIA:
1. General: The Development Services Division shall review an application for a permit based on the
following:
a. The application.
b. The environmental impact statement, if one is required.
c. Written comments from interested persons:
d. Information and comments from ~ail aff~cted City departments aff.eGteEl.
e. InElepenElent stuEly by the Development Services Division anEl the Policy Economic
De~!elopment Department. .
. f~. Evidence presented at a public hearing shoulEl the Development Services Division anEl .the
Policy Development Department E1eciEle that it ..... ould be in the pLiblic interest to hold a public
hearing. The DelJOlopment Services Division and the Policy Development Department shall have
pe'A'ers to prescribe rules and regulations for sLAch hearings. .
g. 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. policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton
Shoreline Master Program. rE~"INGie: Based on early agency review by DOE; to reference
review criteria in WAC.]'
h. No permitshall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of a height inconsistent
with Renton Shoreline Master Program Public Access Policies. High-rise structures in the
shoreline jurisdiction generally should not be permitted. but could be permitted in the shoreline
jurisdiction if the Responsible Official determines: .
1. Views of the shoreline would not tie substantially obstructed due to topo'graphi~
conditions, and -
2. Some overriding considerations of the public interest would be served.
Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from
public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the water's edge. reeJitortsltlote: Based on
early agency review by DOE; codifies a policy now found in RSMP 4.04.02.1.1
2. Additional Information: The Development Services Division may require an applicant to furnish
information and data in addition to that con~ained 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
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 171
I
•
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
.6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662.
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678·
6679
6680
6681
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 may from time-ta-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. BONDS:
The Development Services Division may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of
Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any
shoreline permit. Said bond shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred
improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated.
H. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department 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 manlier
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 Hearing Examiner: The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant
conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program. .
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.
c. 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 subsectionJof this Section shall apply to conditional
use and variance permits.
iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in accordance with RMC
4-8-110H. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 172
•
•
•
6682
•
683
684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700 •
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709 .
•
:710
711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719·
6720.
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
• 736
3. Interpretation: 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.
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 ofthe following:
i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances· or conditions applying to the subject
property, or tathe intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on
shoreliQes 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 hal"!11 will be done to the area
by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance
will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and
development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions
of this Master Program.
vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
5. Condition~1 Use:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a conditional use permit may be granted: The objective of a
conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations
of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the 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 will be granted subject to 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 .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,.2004 173
I
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755,
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763"
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768 '
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
'6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
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. '
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:
a. Thetime 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
this Program.
b. 'If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections J2 and J3 of this Section
should not be applied, the Development Services Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a '
part of action on a substantial development permit upon a finding of good cause, based on the
requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and
provisions of this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143. If it is determined that standard time
requirements of subsections J2 andJ3 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 peiform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being
permitted. '
c.Where specific provisions are not included to establish time limits on a permit as part of action
on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology, the time limits in subsections J2 and J3 of
this Section apply. "
d. Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with subsections J2 and J3 of this
. Section. ' .
,2. Construction Commencement:
a. Unless' a different time p'eriod is 'specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW
90.58.143 and subsection J1 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 Development Services Division may authorize a
single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for
extension has been filed with the Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed,
extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology.
b. Construction activities or commencement of construction referenced in subsection J2a of this '
Section means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and
foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period.
3. Construction Completion: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more
.than five (5) years after the effective date ofa shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been
specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of this Section. If an applicant files a request
for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit the Development Services Division shall
review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a' single extension of the
shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 174
•
•
•
6793
•
794
795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
-.
820
821
822
6823
6824 ,
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831'
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
•
847
848
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. Effective Date:
a. For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a substantial
development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be the
date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections J2 and J3
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. '
b. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Development Services Division of the
pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City, and of any related
administrative or legal actions on any permit or approvaL If no notice of the pendency of other
permits or approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established by the
shoreline permit or the provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the
effective date of the shoreline permit.
c. The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits specified in the Type III and Type VI
review processes in RMC 4-8-080H. Substantial development permits' for a limited utility
extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11 )(b) or fC?r 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
s'pecified in RMC 4-9-190E3.
5. Review Period -Construction Authorization:
a. No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading
or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until 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.
b. If 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 t~ 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 by the Development Services
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:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 175
I
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
'6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
·6869
6870
6871.
6872
6873
6874
6875
. 6876
6877
6878
6879
6880'
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the Development Services 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 Development Services 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 Development Services 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.
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-
0900, 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 Attomey 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.
O.APPEALS:
See RMC 4-8-110H:
P. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
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 ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, and each day's violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
2. Injunction: The City Attomey may bring such injunctive, declaratory. or other actions as are
necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State the City's jurisdiction which
are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the Shoreline -Management .
Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Section and the Shoreline Management Act of
1971. .
3. Public and Private Redress: Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master
Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued
pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public Or private property arising from such
violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The
City Attomey 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
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendm-ents, July 13, 2004 176
•
•
•
6904
•
05
906
damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing
party. .
•
•
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 177
6906 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES:
6907
6908 A. PURPOSES:
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
.6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
·6928
6929
6930
6931
6932·
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
1. Variances: A grant of relief from the requirements of this Title which permits construction
in a manner that otherwise is prohibited by this Title.
2. Waivers: (Reserved) .
3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved
in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict
letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992)
4. Alternates: To allow the use of any material or method of construction not specifically
prescribed by this Title. (Ord. 4346,3-9-1992) .
B. VARIANCE PROCEDURES:
1. Authority and Applicability:
a. Hearing Examiner Variances: The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to grant
variances from the provisions of those sections of this Title listed in RMC 4 1 050F4-8-
070 where the proposed development requires or required any permit or approval as set
forth in RMC 4 1 050H4-8-070, Review Authority for Multiple Permit Applications, and for
variances from the following critical area regulations:
. i. Proposals Located within Critical Areas -Aquifer Protection Areas: If an
applicant feels that the strict application of aquifer protection regulations would deny
all reasonable use of the property or would deny installation of public transportation
or utility facilities determined by.the public agency proposing these facilities to be in
the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, the applicant of a
development proposal may apply for a variance.
ii. Proposals Located within Critical Areas -Flood Hazards: The Hearing
Examiner shall hear and decide requests for variances from the flood hazard
requirements of RMC 4~3-050, Critical Areas Regulations.
iii. Proposals Located within Critical Areas -Wetlands: Bufferwidth reductions
not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3-050M6e and M6f -Category 1 or 2.
iv. Proposals Located within Critical Areas -Streams and Lakes: Buffer width.
reductions not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3~050.L-Class 2 to 4.
ivy.. Proposals Located Within Critical Areas -General: Public/quasi-public utility
or agency proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habitat or wetlands
regulations not listed above or as an administrative variance.
vi. Proposals Located Within Class 2 to 4 Streams and Lakes -General: .
Activities proposing to vary from stream regulations not listed above in 1.a or as an
administrative variance in 1.c, and authorized to be requested as variances in RMC
4-3-050.L.
b. Board of Adjustment Variances: The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to
grant variances from the provisions of this Title upon application to the Development.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•••
•
178
6946
•
947
948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
.",965
~966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
.984
Services Division where no approval or permit is required for the proposed development
which must be granted by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-1-050H. The Board
of Adjustment shall have no authority to vary the terms or conditions of any permit,
recommendation or decision issued by the Hearing Examiner.
c. Administrative Variances: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee shall have the authority to grant variances from the following
development standards when no other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner
Review:
i. Residential Land Uses: Lot width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed projections into
setbacks, and lot coverage; and
ii. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses: Screening of surface-mounted
equipment and screening of roof-mounted equipment.
iii. Proposals Located Within Critical Areas:
(~ Steep Slopes Forty Percent (40%) or Greater and Very High Landslide
Hazards: The construction of one single family home on a pre~existing platted lot
where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to
(2!!) Wetlands:
. Creation/restoration/enhancement ratios: Categories 1 and 2 .
Buffer width reductions not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3-050M6e and M6f -
Category 3.
A new or expanded single family residence on an existing, legal lot, having a
regulated Category 3 wetland. (Amd. Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-
2000)
ic) Streams and Lakes. A new or expanded single family residence on a pre-
existing platted lot where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the
site to accommodate building pads and provide practical off-street parking,
providing reasonable use of the property. '
2. Filing of Application: A property owner, or his duly authorized agent, may file an
application for a variance which application shall set forth fully the grounds therefor and the
facts deemed to justify the granting of such variance.
3. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: Shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C,
Land Use Applications, and 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees.
4. Public Notice and Comment Period: Notice of the application shall be given pursuant to
RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements.
5. Decision Criteria: Except for variances from critical areas regulations, the Reviewing
Official shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination in writing that
the conditions specified below have been found to exist: (Amd. Ord. 4835,3-27-2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 179
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
I 7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of
special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning
Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated; ,
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and,zone in which the subject
property is situated;
d. That the approval as determined by'the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that
will accomplish the desired purpose. (Amd. Ord. 4835,3-27-2000)
6. Special Review Criteria -Reasonable Use Variance -Critical Areas Regulations
Only: ,For variance requests rel<;lted to the critical areas regulations not subject to
subsections B7 to B10 of this Section, the Reviewing Official may grant a reasonable use
variance if all of the following criteria are met:
a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated;
b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted;
c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal
objectives; and ' ,
d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner~
and
7. Special Review Criteria for Variances from the Aquifer Protection Regulations:
,Except for public or quasi-public utility or agency proposals which are subject to subsection
B10 of this Section, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following criteria, in addition to
those criteria in subsections B5 and B6 of this Section, for variances from aquifer protection
regulations:
a. That the proposed activities will not c~use significant degradation of groundwater or
surface water quality;
b. That the applicant has taken deliberate measures to minimize aquifer impacts,
including but not limited to the following:
i. Limiting the degree or magnitude of the hazardous material and activity; and'
ii. Limiting the implementation of the hazardous material and activity; and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendm'ents, July 13, 2004
•
.'
180
7025
.026
7027
7028
7029
7030.
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
';"045
.,046
.7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
.• 062
iii. Using appropriate and best available technology; and
iv. Taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; and
c. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the
health or safety of people on or off the property; anck (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord.
4851,8-21-2000)
d. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
. information, the steps in ({MC 4-9-250F are followed. rEmmfl1N"1\1'I: Based on review of
State Example Code.] .'
8. Special Review Criteria for Variances from Flood Hazard Requirements in the
Critical Areas Regulations: In lieu of the variance criteria of subsection B5 of this Section,
the following directives and criteria shall be utilized by the Hearing Examiner in the review of
variance applications related to the flood hazard requirementS of the critical areas
regulations:
a. Purpose and Intent: Variances, as interpreted in the national flood insurance
program, are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical
piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its
inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in
densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from the flood
elevations should be quite rare.
b. Review Criteria: In passing upon such an application for a variance, the Hearing,
Examiner shall consider the following review criteria: .'
i. Consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other
sections of this section; and:
(1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of
others.
(2) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
(3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the e~ect of such damage on the. individual owner;
(4) The importance of the s~rvices provided by the proposed facility to the
community;
(5) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
(6) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not
subject to flooding or erosion damage;
(7) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated
development;
(8) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood
plain management program for that area;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, 'July 13, 2004 181
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
.7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090 .
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099·
7100
7101
7102
. 7103
(9) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles;.
(10) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport
of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the
site; and
(11) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood
conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such
as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges.
ii. Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard
may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on
a lot of one-half (1/2) acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with'
existing structures constructed below the base flood level, provided criteria in
subsection B8b(i) of this Section have been fully considered. As the lot size increases
the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. .
iii. Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances
to allow a lesser degree of flood proofing than watertight or dry-flood proofing, where it·
can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all . .
other variance criteria except subsections B8b(ii), (iii) or (iv), and otherwise complies
withRMC 4-3.:.05012a and 12b of the general standards.
iv. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of
structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of
Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. -
v. Variances shall not be issued within a designated f100dway if any incre~se in flood
levels during the base flood discharge would result. .
vi. Variances shall only be issued upon:
(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause; .
(2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant;
(3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,
create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with
. existing local laws or ordinances:
(4) A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the
flood hazard, to afford relief. .
c. Conditions of Approval: Upon consideration of the factors of subsection B8b of this
Section, and the purposes of this section, the Hearing Examiner may attach such
conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of
this section. . -
d. Notice Required upon Variance Approval: Any applicant to whom a variance is
granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a
lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 .
•
•
182
7104
.105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
.124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
.143
will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor
elevation.
e. Records: The Department Administrator or his/her designee, the Building Official shall
maintain the records of all variance actions and report any variances to the Federal
Insurance Administration upon request. (Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851,8-7-
2000)
rlatrtilillll: Criteria to aooly best available science not included as the criteria above
match the Federal/State Model Flood Damage Prevention regulations.]
9. Special Review Criteria -Single Family Re,sidence on a Legal Lot with a Category 3
Wetland; Single Family Residence on a Legal Lot with a Class 2,3, or 4 Stream/Lake: In
lieu of the criteria shown in subsections B5 and B6 of this Section, a variance may be granted
from any wetland requirement in the critical areas regulations for a single family'residence to
be located on an existing legal lot if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The proposal is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and
access. In no case, however, shall the impervious surface exceed five thousand (5,OOO)
square feet, including access. Otherwise the alteration shall be reviewed as a Hearing
Examiner variance and subject to the review criteria of subsection B6 of this Section;
b. Access is located so as to have the least impact on the wetland or stream/lake and its
buffer;
c. The proposal preserves the functions and values of the wetlands...Q[
stream/lakelriparian habitat to the maximum extent possible;
d. The proposalincludes on-site mitigation to the maximum extent possible;:
e. The proposal first develops nom\'etland non-critical area, then the wetland critical area
buffer, before the wetland area itself is developed; .
f. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered,
threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State; and
g. The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of
actions segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition ,
after the effective date of this Section; and~{Ord. 4835, 3~27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-
2000)
h. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
10. Special Review Criteria -Public/Quasi-Public Utility or Agency Altering Aquifer
Protection, Geologic Hazard, Habitat, Stream/Lake or Wetland Regulations: In lieu of the
variance criteria of subsection B5 of this Section, applications by public/quasi-public utilities
or agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habitat, stream and lake or
wetland regulations shall be reviewed for compliance with all of the following criteria:
a. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department
Administrator that the public's health, safety, and welfare is best served;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 183
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170·
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
}178
7179
7180
. 7181
b. Each facility must conform to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with any -adopted
public programs and policies;
c. Each facility must serve established, identified public needs;
d. No practical alternative exists to meet the needs;
e. The proposed action takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and
compensate for unavoidable impacts;
f. The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland or stream/lake area,
value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland, stream or lake, is located;
g. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered,
threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State;
h. That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or
surface water quality; and .
i. The approval as determined by the Hearing Examiner is a minimum variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose; and. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord.·4851, 8-7-2000)
j. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific .
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
11. Continuation of Public Hearing:lffor any reason testimony in any manner set for public
hearing, or being heard, cannot be completed on date set for such hearing, the person
presiding at such public hearing or meeting may, before adjournment or recess of such
matters under consideration, publicly announce the time and place to and at which said
meeting will be continued, and no further notice of any kind shall be required. (Ord. 3463,8-.
11-1980; Amd. Ord. 4648,1-6-1997; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000)
12. Board of Adjustment Decision Process:
a. Boa~d of Adjustment Shall Announce Findings and Decisions: Not more than
thirty (30) days after the termination of the proceedings of the public hearing on any
variance, the Board of Adjustment shall announce. its findings and decision. If a variance
is granted, the record shall show such conditions and limitations in writing as the Board of
Adjustment may impose ..
b. Notice of Decision of Board of Adjustment: Following the rendering of a decision on
a variance application, a copy of the written order by the Board of Adjustment shall be
mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application and filed with the Board
of Adjustment and to any other person who requests a copy thereof.
c. Reconsideration: (ReserVed)
d~ Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the Board of Adjustment,
the Building Department shall forthwith make an appropriate record and shall inform the
admil)istrative department having jurisdiction over the matter. (Amd. Ord. 483~:3-27-
2000)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments,July 13, 2004
•
•••••
•
184
7182
.183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
_202
203
204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
•
20
221
13. Conditions of Approval: The Reviewing Official may prescribe any conditions upon the
variance deemed to be necessary and required. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000)
14. Finalization: (Reserved)
15. Expiration of Variance Approval: Any variance granted by the Reviewing Official,
unless otherwise specified in writing, shall become null and void in the event that the
applicant or owner of the subject property for which.a variance has been requested has failed
to commence construction or otherwise implement effectively the variance granted within a
period of tWo (2) years after such variance has been issued. For proper cause shown, an
applicant may petition the Reviewing Official during the variance application review process,
for an extension of the two (2) year period, specifying the reasons therefor. The time may be
extended but shall not exceed one additional year in any event. (Amd. Ord. 4835,3-27-2000;
Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
16. Extension of Approval: For proper cause shown, an applicant may petition the
Reviewing Official for an extension of the approved expiration period established per
subsection D15 of this Section prior to the expiration of the time period, specifying the
reasons therefor. The Reviewing Official may extend the time limit, but such extension shall
not exceed one additional year in any event. (Ord. 3463, 8-11-1980; Amd.Ord. 4648, 1-6-
1997; Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000)
C. WAIVER PROCEDURES:
1. Authority for Waiver, General: (Reserved)
2. Authority for Waiver of Street Improvements: The Board of Public Works may grant
waiver ofthe installation of street improvements subject to the determination that there is
reasonable j~stification for such waiver.
3. Application and Fee: Any application for such a waiver shall specify in detail the reason
for such requested waiver and may contain such evidence including photographs, maps,
surveys as may.be pertinent thereto. The application fee shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-
170, Land Use Review Fees.
4. Decision Criteria, General: (Reserved)
5. Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable justification shall
include but not be limited to the following: .
a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a
negative impact on a shoreline's area. .
b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such
as restricting available access.
d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the
improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years.
e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental
effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and
that the improvements are not needed for current or future development.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 185
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245-
7246
I 7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
D. MODIFICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole
or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777, 4-
19-1999)
2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the.
provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual
cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code .
impractical, and that the modification is inconformity with the intent and purpose of this Code,
and that such modification:
a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection
and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
b. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and
c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-
1995)
3. Additional Decision Criteria Only for Centers Residential Bonus District: For a
modification to special development standards in the Centers Residential Bonus District RMC
4-3-095B3, the Department shall rely on the recommendations contained within the report on
design criteria for modifications prepared by the Economic Development, N~ighborhoods and
Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the
request. In addition to the criteria in subsection 02 of this Section, the request for
modification in the Centers Residential Bonus District shall meet all of the following criteria:
8. Project uses a modified street grid system where most buildings front on a street.
Where no public streets exist, a private street grid system within the project is provided.
b. Project orients residential developments tothe street and has primary building entries·
facing the street. Entries are identified with a prominent feature or detail.
c. Parking garages are deSigned in a way which does not dominate the facade of the'
residential building. When garages must be located with vehicular access in the front due
to physical constraints of the property, they are stepped back from the facade of the
building. .
d. Parking lots are oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site and are designed.
so that the size and landscaping support the residential character of the developments in
contrast to adjacent or abutting commercial areas.
e. Project provides direct pedestrian access from the street fronting the building and from'
the back where parking is located. '.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
••
•
186
7260
•
261
262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
•
277
278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297 •
f. Walkways through parking areas are well defined and provide access from public
sidewalks into the site. Walkway width is a minimum of five feet (5 ). Pavers, changes in
color, texture or composition of paving are used.
g. Pedestrian connections are provided to the surrounding neighborhood.
h. Distinctive building design is provided. No single architectural style is required;
however, r~liance on standardized "corporate" or "franchise" style is discouraged.
i. Exterior materials are attractive even when viewed up close. These materials have
texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high level of quality and detailing.
j. A consistent visual identity is applied to all sides of buildings which can be seen by the
general public.
k. A superior level of quality is provided for materials, detailing and window placement.
I. At least one of the following features is incorporated in structures containing three (3) or
more attached dwellings:
i. For each dwelling unit, provide at least one architectural projection not less than
two feet (2 ) from the wall plane and not less than four feet (4 ) wide, or
ii. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings, or
iii. Vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two
feet (2 ) at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40 ) on a building face or an
equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. (Ord. 4777, 4-19-
1999; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
. . . .
4. Additional Decision Cri~eria Only for Center Office Residential 3 (COR 3) Zone: For a
modification to special upper story setback standards in the COR 3 Zone, RMC 4-2-120B, the
Department shall rely on the recommendations contairied within the Report on Design
Criteria for Modifications prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and,
Strategic Planning Admiriistrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the
request. In addition to the criteria in subsection D2 of this Section, the request for
modification in the COR 3 Zone requirements for upper story setbacks shall meet all of the
following criteria:
a. In com'parison to the standard upper story setbacks, the proposed building design will
achieve the same or better results in terms of solar access to the public shoreline
trails/open space and publicly accessible plazas; the building will allow access to sunlight
along the public trail/open space system and plazas abutting the shoreline during daytime
and seasonal periods projected for peak utilization by pedestrians.
b. The building will create a step in perceived height, bulk and scale in comparison to
buildings surrounding the subject building. (Amd. Ord. 4802,10-25-1999)
E. ALTERNATE PROCEDURES:
1. Authority: The provisions of this Title are not intended to prevent the use of any material
or method of construction or aquifer protection not specifically prescribed by this Title,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 187
7298
7299
provided any alternate has been approved and its use authorized by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator.
7300 2. Decision Criteria: The Administrator may approve any such alternate, provided he/she
7301 finds that the proposed design and/or methodology is satisfactory and complies with the
7302 provisions of this Title and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose
7303 intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this Title in suitability, strength,
7304 effectiveness, durability, safety, maintainability and environmental protection. (Amd. Ord.
7305 4851,8-7-2000)
7306 3. Substantiation: The Department Administrator shall require that sufficient evidence or
7307 proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use. (Amd.
7308 Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000)
7309 4. Record of Decision: The details of any action granting approval of an alternate shall be
7310 written and entered in the files of the Code enforcementagency. (Ord. 4367,9-14-1992)
7311 F. ABSENCE OF VALID SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION:
7312
7313
7314
7315
Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating
to a critical area leading to uncertainty ab'out the risk to critical area function of permitting an alteration
of or impact to the critical area. the Responsible Official shall:
7316
7317
7318
7319
. 7320
1. Take, a ~precautionary or a no-risk approach." that appropriately limits development and land use
activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved, or determine that protection can be ensured by
using an approach different ,from that derived from the best available science provided that the
applicant demonstrates on the record how the alternative approach will protect the functions and
values of the critical area; and .
7321 2. Reguire application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods
7322 to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive
7323 management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining
7324 information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shaH: .
7325a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program;
7326 b. Change. ,course based on the results and . interpretation of new information that resolves
7327 uncertainties; and . "
7328 c .. Commit to the appropriate timeframe and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and
7329 nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries.
7330 rEmmr~ete: Based on review of State Example Code.l
7331
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 188
•
•
•
_
7331
332
333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351 .
7352·
•
353
354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
.... 373
..,374
Chapter 10
LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, USES AND LOTS
4-10-050 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES:
A. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES -GENERAL:
Any legally established building or structure may remain, although such structure does not
conform with the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code; provided the following conditions are
met: .
1. Not Vacant or Left Abandoned: The nonconforming buildings or structures do not
have historic significance, and have not been vacant for two (2) ormore years, or have
not been abandoned.
2. Unsafe Structures: The structure is kept in a safe and secure condition.
3. Alterations: A legal nonconforming structure shall not be altered beyond the
limitations specified below:
a. Structures with Rebuild Approval Permits: Alteration work exceeding an
aggregate cost of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the building or
structure shall be allowed if: (1) the building or structure is made conforming by
the alterations; or (2) the alterations were imposed as a condition of granting a
rebuild approval permit; or (3) alterations are necessary to restore to a safe
condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper
authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming conditions
unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of granting a rebuild
approval permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-120.
'b; Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the alterations shall not
exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the building or
structure, based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal, unless the
amount over fifty percent (50%) is used to make the building or structure more
conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or
increase .any nonconforming condition.
4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is
conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a rebuild approval permit issued for it.
a. Wireless Towers and Antennas: Towers that are constructed, and antennas
that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of this Title shall not be
deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure.
5. Restoration: Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction, repairing,
rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure to its same size,
location, and height when damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the
date of these regulations and subject to the following conditions:
a. Legal Nonconforming Structures with Rebuild Approval Permits:
Restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the
latest appraised value of the building or structure closest to the time such
damage occurred shall be allowed if it is: (1) a condition of granting the rebuild
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 189
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390 .
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407 .
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
approval permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-120; and/or (2) necessary to allow the
structure to be rebuilt to its condition prior to the damage considering
construction costs; and/or (3) required to strengthen or restore to a safe condition
any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority;
and/or (4) necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this
Title.
b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The work shall not exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the latest assessed or appraised value of the building or
structure at the time such damage occurred, unless required to strengthen or
restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe
by a proper authority otherwise any restoration or reconstruction shall conform to
the regulations and uses specified in this Title.
c. Single Family Dwellings: Any legally established single family dwelling
damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt to itS same size, location, and
height on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes.
Restoration improvements shall commence within two years of the damage, and .
shall continue in conformance with approved building or construction permits,
otherwise the structure shall lose its restoration authorization and status.
B. R-10 AND R-14 ZONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSIDERED CONFORMING:
Residential structures that existed or that were developed in accordance with vested land use
permits prior to the effective date of this section (6-17-1996) shall be considered to be conforming
structures. Such structures may be replaced, renovated, and/or expanded pursuant to the
. provisions of the R~14 Zone; (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-10-060 NONCONFORMING USES:
Any legally established use existing at the time of enactment of this Code may be continued,
although such use does not conform with the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, provided
the follow'ing conditions are met: .
A. ABANDONMENT:
The use is not abandoned. A legal nonconforming use (of a building or preniises) which has been
abandoned shall not thereafter be resumed. A nonconforming use shall be considered
abandoned when:
1. The intent of the owner to discontinue the use is apparent, and discontinuance for a
period of one year or more shall be prima facie evidence that the nonconforming use has
been abandoned; or .
2. It has been replaced by a conforming use; or
3. It has been changed to another nonconforming use under permit from the City or its
authorized representative.
B. RELOCATION:
The use is not relocated. A legal nonconforming use of a building or premises which has been
vacated and moved to another location, or discontinued,shall not be allowed to reestablish itself
excepUn compliance with the development regulations ..
C. CHANGES TO A DIFFERENT NONCONFORMING USE:
The use is not changed to a different nonconforming use.To qualify as a continuation of an
existing, nonconforming use, a replacement nonconforming use shall:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004
•
•
•
190
7419
.420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
•
38
39
440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
•
460
461
1. Reflect the nature and purpose of the preexisting nonconforming use, and be
considered to be the same or related use classification; and
2. Be substantially similar or result in a lower impact in its effect on the surrounding
neighborhood; and
3. Not increase the nonconformance of the use; and
4. Not create a new type of nonconformance.
D. EXTENSION OR ENLARGEMENT:
The use is not enlarged or extended.
1. Extension/Enlargement Outside Building: The use shall not be extended or enlarged so
as to occupy additional land area on the same or any other lot or parcel. The use shall not be
relocated in whole or in part to any other part of the parcel.
2. Extension/Enlargement Within Building: Provided the use complies with subsections E
and F of this Section, Alterations to Legal Nonconforming Use, a nonconforming use housed
in part of a single-tenant building may be extended throughout the building, but the building.
shall not be enlarged or added to. A nonconforming use in a multi-tenant building shall not be
expanded into space vacated by other tenants and shall also comply with subsections E and
F.
3. Additional Development on Property Containing Nonconforming Use: No additional
building, whether temporary or permanent, shall be erected upon a property with a
nonconforming use for purposes of expanding or extending a nonconforming use. Additional .
developm·entof any property on which a legal nonconforming use exists shall require that all
.new uses conform to the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code.
E. ALTERATIONS TO LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE WITHOUT STRUCTURAL ALTERATION:
Alterations to a legal nonconforming use are only permitted when they do not expand or
enlarge a use consistent with subsection 0 of this Section, Extension or Enlargement. The
modification shall not increase the nonconformance of the use, nor create a new type of
nonconformance. .
F. ALTERATIONS TO LE~Al NONCONFORMING USE WITH STRUCTURAL ALTERATION:
Alterations to a structure housing a nonconforming use shall not be altered beyond the .
limitations specified below, and shall conform to subsection Dof this Section, Extension or
Enlargement:
1. Structures.with Rebuild Approvai Permits Housing a Nonconforming Use:
Alterations exceeding an aggregate cost of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of
the building or structure or site improvements housing or supporting the use shall be
allowed if: (a) the building or structure is made conforming by the alterations; or (b) the
alterations were imposed as a condition of granting a rebuild approval permit; or (c)
alterations are necessary to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase
any nonconforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of
granting a rebuild approval permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-120.
2. Other Legal Structures Housing a Nonconforming Use: The cost of the alterations
shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the building or
structure or site improvements, based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 191
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478 .
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489 .
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
unless the amount over fifty" percent (50%) is used to make the use, building or structure
more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase
any nonconforming condition. .
G. RESTORATION:··
Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the restoration or continuance of a nonconforming use
damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these regulations, or
amendments thereto, subject to the following conditions and conforming to subsection 0 of this
Section, Extension or Enlargement:
1. Legal Nonconforming Uses with Rebuild Approval Permits: Restoration work
exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the latest appraised value of the building or·
structure housing the use or site improvements supporting use (if not contained in a
structure) closest to the time such damage occurred shall be allowed if it is: (a) a condition of
granting the rebuild approval permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-120; and/or (b) necessary to allow
the structure to be rebuilt to its condition prior to the damage considering construction costs;
and/or (c) required to strengthen or restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority; and/or (d) necessary to conform to. the
regulations and uses speCified in this Title.
2. Other Legal Nonconforming 'Uses: The work shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
latest appraised value of the building or structure housing the nonconforming use or site
improvements supporting use (if not contained in a structure) at the time such damage
occurred.
3. Single Family Dwellings: Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire
or an act of God may be rebuilt to its same size, location, and height on the same site,
subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes. Restoration improvements shall commence
within two years of the damage, and shall continue in conformance with approved building or
construction permits, otherwise the structure shall lose its restoration authorization and
status.
H. AMORTIZATION OF ADULT USES:
For amortization of legal nonconforming adult entertainment, activity, use,or retail use, see RMC
4-3-010E. (Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-10-090 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS -NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES AND STRUCT,URES:
A legally nonconforming, regulated activity or structure that was in existence or approved or vested prior
to the passage of the Critical Area Regulations, RMC 4-3-050, and to which significant economic
resources have been committed pursuant to such apprbval but which is not in conformity with the
provisions of RMC 4-3-050 may be continued; provided, that:
1.No such legal nonconforming activity or structure shall be expanded, changed,enlarged or'
altered in any way that infringes further on the critical area that increases the extent of its
nonconformity with this Section without a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of RMC 4-3-050" . . .
-'
·2. Except for cases of on-going agricultural uses, if a nonconforming activity is discontinued
pursuant to RMC 4-10-01 OC arid D, any resumption'of the activity shall conform to this Section; .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 192
'.
•
•
7505
•
506
507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
•
530
531
7532
•
3. Except for cases of on-going agricultural use, if a nonconforming use or activity or structure is
destroyed by human activities or an act of God, it shall not be resumed or reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050;
4. Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as
nonconforming activities. (Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-10-100 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM -NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES, AND
STRUCTURES:
A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date
of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present
regulations or standards of the program, may be continued provided that:
A. Nonconforming Structures: Nonconforming structures shall be governed by RMC 4-10-050.
B. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060.
C. Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved.
~etm When nonconforming use and development standards do not exist in the applicable
master program, WAC 173-27-080 applies. Renton's SMP has not contained nonconforming regulations
and to this date would have been governed by the WAC. These regulations are important when
considering modifications to existing development. For consistency purposes, the proposal would apply
the standard Renton Nonconforming Regulations to lands subject to the Shoreline Master Program.]
4-10400-110 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES:
Penalties for:any violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with chapter
1-3 RMC. (Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 193
~!
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559 .~
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585 • ~
7588
7589
Chapter 11
DEFINITIONS
CHAPTER GUIDE: Definitions for terms used throughout this Title are primarily grouped in
chapter 4-11 RMC. A few chapter-specific definitions can be found in individual chapters, but are
cross-referenced here.
For the purpose of this Title, the following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall have the
meaning given herein, unless the context otherwise indicates. rlieJitatJI&'O.t'Et Shaded definitions (fully
shaded) below are from the Renton SMP.]
4-11-010 DEFINITIONS A:
ABANDONMENT OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITIES: See RMC 4-5-120G.
ABUTTING: Lots sharing common property lines or easements.
ACCESS EASEMENT: See EASEMENT, ACCESS.
ACCESSORY BUILDING: A subordinate building located upon the same lot occupied by a principal use
or building with which it is customarily associated, but clearly incidental to.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: See DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY.
ACCESSORY USE, AGRICULTURE OR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: Subordinate and incidental uses,
typically located upon the same lot, which support the agricultural or animal husbandry use of a site
including, but not limited to the storage of agricultural products and equipment, and the sheltering of
animals.
ACCESSORY USE, COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAUPUBLIC/COMMUNITY FACILITY: A use typicaily
subordinate in size to the principal commercial, industrial, public, community facility, .or other similar
principal use; that would notcon·tribute significantly to traffic generation, noise, or nuisance; and that
supports the primary use operation without displacing it. Uses are typically located upon the same lot
occupied by a principal use.
ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A subordinate use, which supports the principal residential use
without displacing it, typically located upon the same lot occupied by the principal residential use with
·which it is customarily associated, but clearly incidental to. The accessory use is typically subordinate in
size and supports the principal residential use without displacing it.
ADJACENT: Lots located across a street, railroad, or right-of-way, except limited access roads.
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE: A use containing one or more of the day-to-day functions
(e.g., management, payroll, information systems, inventory control) related to the operation of a company
or affiliated corporate group .
ADMINISTRATOR: The Administrator of the Departmentof Planning/Building/Public Works of the City, or
any successor office with responsibility for managementof the public properties within the City of Renton,
or his/her designee.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 194
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
,7642
7643
'7644
7645
7646
ADULT DAY CARE/HEALTH: A program designed to meet the needs of adults with functional
impairments through an individualized plan of care. It is a structured, comprehensive program that
provides a variety of health, social, and related support services in a protective setting during any part of
a day for a minimum of four (4) hours, but less than twenty four (24) hour care. While beds may be
provided for rest periods, adult day care/health uses are not intended to function as residential facilities. A
number, where specified, is the maximum number of clients present at anyone period of time during the
program operation. Adult day care/health programs are sLibclassified as follows:
A. Adult Day Care/Health Category I: A maximum of four (4) clients upon a property containing a
residential use; and a maximum of twelve (12) clients upon a property in nonresidential use.
B. Adult Day Care/Health Category II: Five (5) or more clients upon a property containing a residential
use; and thirteen (13) or more clients upon a property in nonresidential use.
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS:
1. Any enterprise which, for money or any other form of consideration, features "adult live entertainment"
as defined herein; or
2. Any "adult motion picture theater" as defined herein; or
3. Any adult arcade containing'individua'i viewing areas or stations or booths, where for money or any
other form of consideration one or more still or motion picture projectors, slide projectors, or similar
machines, or other image-producing machines are used to show films, motion pictures, video cassettes,
slides or other photographic reproduction of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
ADULT FAMILY HOME: A state-licensed facility providing personal care, room and board within a
dwelling unit to more than one person,but not more than four (4) adults, not related by blood or marriage
to the person(s) providing the service. A maximum of six (6) adults may be permitted if the Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and the home
and provider are capable of meeting standards and qualifications as provided for in chapters 79.128 RCW
. and 388-76 WAC. .
ADULT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT: A person appearing nude or a live performance which is characterized'
by specifie9 sexual activities as defined in RMC 4-11-190. This definition includes, but is not limited to,
, peep shows. . ,
ADULT MOTION PICTURE THEATER: An enclosed building used for presenting motion picture films,
video cassettes, cable television, or any other such visual media for observation by patrons there,
distinguished or characterized by an emphaSis on matter depicting, describing or relating to specified
sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. .
ADULT RETAIL USE: A retail establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, either:
(a) has as one of its prinCipal purposes to sell, exchange, rent, loan, trade, transfer, and/or provide for
viewing or use, off the premises, any adult-oriented merchandise; or (b) provides, as its substantial stock
.in trade, for the sale, eXChange, rental, loan, trade, transfer, and/or provide for viewing or use, off the
premises, any adult-oriented merchandise. .
ADULT-ORIENTED MERCHANDISE: Any goods, products, commodities, or other wares, including but
not limited to, videos, CD roms, DVDs, magazines, books, pamphlets, posters, cards, periodicals or
nonclothing novelties, which depict, describe or simulate specified anatomical areas or specified sexual
activities. This definition is not intended to include movies rated R by the Motion Picture Association of
Americaor its successor organization.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less
than eighty percent (80%) of the, median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined by
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 195
•
•
•
~~ ~9
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
• 4 T67~
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
.~~ .2
7703
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area,
and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of household income for housing expenses.
AGRICULTURE: Use of land for growing crops for sale or consumption. This use includes the necessary
accessory uses for packing, treating, or storing the produce provided that the operation of the accessory
use is clearly incidental to the agricultural activity. This definition includes but is not limited to produce
farms and Christmas tree farms. This definition excludes nurseries and animal husbandry.
AIR GAP: See RMC 4-6-100.
AIRPLANE SALES AND REPAIR: Facilities where airplanes are displayed for sale and/or brought for
repair services.
AIRPORT HAZARD: Any structure, tree or use of land which obstructs the ,air space required for the flight o.
of aircraft in landing or taking off at the airport or is otherwise hazardous to landing or takeoff of aircraft. 0
AIRPORT, MUNICIPAL: Any area of land or water designated and designed for aircraft to land and take
off, with accessory areas forstorage, refueling and repair of aircraft, various accommodations for
passengers, and other airport-related uses.
ALLEY: A vehicular right-of-way not over thirty feet (30 ) wide which is not designed for general travel and
primarily used as means of vehicular and pedestrian access to the rear of abutting properties.
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: The raising of domesticated animals other than common household pets.
ANIMALS, LARGE: Horses, ponies, cows, llamas, oxen, buffalo, deer, and other animals of similar size
and characteristics .
ANIMALS, MEDIUM: Goats, sheep, pigs and other animals of simili;lr size and characteristics.
ANIMALS, SMALL: Rabbits, chickens, ducks, geese, and other animals of similar size and characteristics.
APPEAL: A request for a review of any action pursuant to this Title, or of the interpretation of any
provision of the Title by any City official.
APPLICANT: A person who files an application of permit under this Title and who is either the owner of
the land on which that proposed activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the
person who WOUld. actually control and direct the proposed activity, or the authorized agent of such a
person.
APPROVED: See RMC 4-6-100.
AQUIFER: A geological unit of porous and permeable rock, sand or gravel capable of yielding usable.
amounts of water.
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA): Shall be the portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and
recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City, as defined in RMC 4-3-050B,
Applicability -Critical Areas Designations/Mapping, and depicted in RMC 4-3-050Q1, Maps, Aquifer
Protection.
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA PERMIT: An authorization by the Department for a person to store,
handle, treat, use or produce a hazardous material within an APA. The two (2) types of permits that will
be issued pursuant to RMC 4-9-015, Aquifer Protection Areas Permits, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas
Regulations, are an operating permit and a closure permit.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 196
I
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
.7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747.
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
ARTERIAL: A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
ARTERIAL PASS-THROUGH TRAFFIC: Traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in an affected
area which is diverted from an arterial road.
ARTICULATION: The giving of emphasis to architectural elements (like windows, balconies, entries, etc.)
that create a complementary pattern or rhythm dividing large buildings into small~r identifiable pieces.
ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL means a stream channel that is entirely manmade but does not include relocated
natural channels.
ARTS AND CRAFTS SCHOOLS/STUDIOS: See SCHOOLS/STUDIOS, ARTS AND CRAFTS.
ASSEMBLY AND PACKAGING OPERATIONS: A facility where pre-manufactured components are
assembled to construct a product. Products may be packaged and moved off-site for wholesale or retail
sale. This use includes but is not limited to assembly and packaging of computer, eiectronics, office
equipment, chemicals and allied products, fabricated metal products, and other products.
AUTOMOBILE: See VEHICLE.
. AUXILIARY WATERSUPPLY: See ~MC 4-6-100.
. .
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT): The average number of motor vehiCles crossing in one direction per
working day for any continuous thirty (30) day period. .
AVERAGE HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION: The quantity of light measured at the pavement surface and
averaged over the traveled lanes expressed in foot-candles. . .
AWNING: A shelter, typically for a pedestrian walkway, that projects from and is supported by. the exterior
wall of a building. Awnings have noncombustible frames, but may have combustible coverings. Awnings
may be fixed, retractable, folding or collapsible. Any structure which extends above any adjacent parapet
or roof of a supporting building is" not included within the definition of awning.
(Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 3981,4-7-1986; Ord. 4346, 3-:9-1992; Ord. 4367, 9-
14-1992; Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995; Ord. 4522, 6-5-1995; Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 4651,1-27-1997; Ord.
4680,9-22-1997; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4720,5·:-4-1998; Ord. 4821,12-20-1999; Ord. 4827,1-24-
2000; Ord. 4828, 1:-24-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B:
BACKFLOW: See RMC 4-6-100.
BACKFLOW PREVENTER: See RMC 4-6-100.
BACKGROUND AREA: The ,entire face of a sign upon which text and/or graphics could be placed.
BACKSIPHONAGE: See RMC 4-6-100.
BASE FLOOD: A flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any gi"ven
year. Also referred to as the "one hundred (100) year flood." Designation on flood maps always includes
the letters A or V.
BASEMENT: Any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having
only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as
defined herein. . . .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 197
•
".
•
~~ ~2
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775 .
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
.~
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
4113
[4
15
7816
BASEMENT (This definition for RMC4-3-050, flood hazard regulations, use only.) means any area of the
building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides.
BED AND BREAKFAST HOUSE, ACCESSORY: Overnight accommodations and a morning meal in a
dwelling unit with less than four (4) guest rooms provided to transients for compensation. Accessory bed
and breakfast houses are proprietor-occupied, or the proprietor lives on a contiguous property, and
morning meals are provided to the house residents and the overnight guests only. This definition does not
include congregate residences, professional bed and breakfast houses, hotels, or motels.
BED AND BREAKFAST HOUSE, PROFESSIONAL: Overnight accommodations and a morning meal in a
dwelling unit with four (4) to ten (10) guest rooms provided to transients for compensation. Professional
bed and breakfast houses are proprietor-occupied, or the proprietor lives on a contiguous property, and
morning meals are provided to the house residents and the overnight guests only. This definition does not
include congregate residences, accessory bed and breakfast houses, hotels, or motels.
BEDROCK: In-place subsurface material consisting of solid rock.
BEEKEEPING: Keeping of bees.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, WETLANDS: Conservation practices or systems of practices and
management measures that:
1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxins and
sediment;
2 .. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the.
chemical, physical and biological characteristics of wetlands; and
3. Includes allowing. proper use and storage of fertilizers/pesticides.
BINDING SITE PLAN: A drawing as authorized by chapter 58.17 RCW, which:
1. Identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open spaces,
and any other matters specified by RMC 4-8-120C, Submittal Requirements; and
2. Contains inscriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the
use of the land as are established I;ly the City; and
3. Contains provisions requiring site development to be in conformity with the approved binding site plan.
(Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002)
BIG-BOX RETAIL: See RETAIL, BIG-BOX.
BLOCK: A block consists of two (2) facing block fronts bounded on two (2) sides by alleys or rear property
lines and on two (2) sides by the centerline of platted streets, with no other intersecting streets '
intervening.
BLOCK FRONT: A block front is the frontage of property along one side of a street bound on three (3)
sides by the centerline of platted streets and on the fourth side by an alley or rear property lines.
BOARDING HOUSE: See CONGREGATE RESIDENCE.
BODY SHOP: An establishment which conducts any of the following operations:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 198
I
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833 7834
7835
7836,
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
, 7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868 '7869 .
7870
7871
7872
7873
1. Collision repair services, including body, frame or fender straightening, repair, or replacement; and/or
2. Overall painting of vehicles or painting of vehicles in a paint shop, but excluding minor painting with an
airbrush or roller brush utilized in customizing or detailing operations; and/or
3. Welding, molding, and similar operations conducted on vehicles.
BUFFER, CRITICAL AREA: A naturally vegetated and undisturbed, enhanced, or revegetated area that
surrounds and protects a critical area from adverse impacts to its functions, and values, and/or which
protects adjacent developed areas from potentially hazardous conditions.
BUILDABLE AREA: The portion of a lot or site, exclusive of required yard areas, setbacks, landscaping "or
open space within which a structure may be built.' ,
BUILDING: As defined by the Uniform Building Code.
BUILDING: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) Any
structure having a roof intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, plants, animals or
property.
BUILDING CODE: The Uniform Building Code, promulgated by the Intemational Conference of Building
Officials, as. adopted -by this jurisdiction. '
BUILDING COMPLEX, MULTIPLE: A group of structures housing more than one type of retail business,
office or commercial venture and generally under one ownership and control. .
BUILDING DRAIN: See RMC 4-6-100.
BUILDING FACADE: That portion of any exterior elevation of a building extending from the grade to the
top of the parapet wall or eaves, and the entire width of the building elevation.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: The area of a lot or site included within the surrounding exterior walls of a
building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exterior walls, the
building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance above a referenced datum measured to the highest point of the
coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average h'eight of the highest gable of a
pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields
a greater height of building: "
1. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five foot (5 ) horizontal
distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten
feet (10) above lowest grade measured within a five foot (5 ) horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the
building.
2. An elevation ten feet (10) higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described
in subsection A above is more than ten feet (10) above lowest grade measured within a five foot (5 )
horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 199
e
-e
474
75
76
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
• i
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
a3,. 2~
• 9
BUILDING, MULTI-OCCUPANCY: A single structure housing more than one type of retail business, office,
or commercial venture and generally under one ownership and control.
BUILDING OFFICIAL: The officer or other person charged with the administration and enforcement of the
UBC and the building-related provisions of this Title, or his duly authorized deputy.
BUILDING, SINGLE OCCUPANCY: A building occupied by a single tenant. A building is considered to be
"single occupancy" if:
1. It has only one occupant; and
2. It has no wall in common with another building; and
3. It has no part of its roof in common with another building.
BULK STORAGE: See STORAGE, BULK.
BUSINESS FACADE: That portion of an exterior building wall owned or leased by a business.
. . . '
(Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987; Ord. 4346,3-9-1992; Ord. 4651,1-
27-1997; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4720,5-4-1998; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord .
4851,8:-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-030 DEFINITIONS C:
CALIPER: The diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of four and one-half feet (4-1/2 ) above
the grqund on the upslope side of the tree. .
CANOPY, BUILDING: A rigid multi-sided structure covered with fabric, metal or other material and
supported by a building at one or more points or extremities cmd by columns or posts embedded in the
ground.atother points or extremities. Any structure which extends above anyadjacent parapet or roof of
supporting building is not included within the definition of building canopy.
CAR: See VEHICLE. . . . .
CAR WASH: A structure with machine-operated or hand-operated facilities used principally for the
cleaning, washing, polishing, or waxing of motor vehicles.
CARD ROOM: A use governed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9.46 RCW, 1973 Gaming Act, and
licensed by the Washington State Gambling Commission that is ancillary to a permitted use where food
and beverages are served on the premises and whose purpose is to serve as a commercial stimulant to
the principal activities associated with the primary use.
CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE: A dwelling unit located on the site of a nonresidential use and occupied
only by a caretaker or guard employed on the premises, and consisting of only one residence per
permitted establishment.
CARPOOL: A group of people traveling to the same or relatively nearby locations in the same vehicle .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 200
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958 7959·
}960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969' .
7970
7971
7972
7973 ·7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
CARPORT: A roofed structure, enclosed on less than three sides, without interior parking aisles, for the
purpose of storing motor vehicles.
CEMETERY: Property used for interring of the dead. This definition includes accessory buildings,
crematories, and mausoleums. ..
CENTER, EMPLOYMENT: An area of higher intensity uses that typically employ thousands of people that
is contained by a boundary to prevent it from encroaching on adjacent areas and/or neighborhoods.
CERTIFIED: A facility and staff qualified and able to provide certain tests and measurements relating to
speCific tasks and based upon established standards.
CITY COUNCIL: The City Council of the City of Renton, Washington.
CITY GOVERNMENT OFFICES: Offices for City administration and or provision of services to the public.
This definition includes but is not limited to City Hall.
CIVIL ENGINEER: A professional engineer registered in the State to practice in the field of civil works.
. . .
CLEAR VISION AREA: The area bounded by the stree~ property lines of corner lots and a line joining
pOints along said street lines twenty feet (20 ) from their pOint of intersection.
CLOSED RECORD APPEAL: An administrative appeal on the record to a local government body or
officer including the legislative body, following an open record hearing on a project permit application
when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted
and only appeal argument allowed. .
CLOSURE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITIES: See RMC 4-5-120G.
CLUSTER, RESIDENTIAL: The placement of more than one building envelope on a single lot or parcel of
land for the purpose of constructing single family residential dwelling units in either attached or detached
construction arrangement, and where the property ownership outside the building enveiopes is commonly
held hy all single fa~i1y dwellings on that lot or parcel of land.
.. .
COLLECTION POINT: In multiple family residences, commerciali industrial and other nonresidential .
developments, the exterior location designation for garbage and recyclables collection by ~he City's'
contractor or other authorized haulers. .
COMBINED PUBLIC DETENTION: A stormwater detention system designed to accommodate runoff from
both public streets and private property. .
COMBINED SEWER: See RMC 4-6-100.
COMMERCIAL"LAUNDRIES: A facility where clothing or other fabrics are washed, dried, or dry cleaned
for other businesses or institutions. This definition does not include laundromats~
COMMERCIAL USE: A type of land use that includes commercial office activities, services and/or retail
sales.
. .
COMMUNICATION BROADCAST AND RELAY TOWERS: Establishments that provide point-to-point
communication services, whether by wire or radio, including radio and television broadcasting stations
and the exchange or recording of messages. This definition excludes all terms related to wireless
commuriication facilities. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 201
•
••
7987
•
88
89
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013 414
15
16
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040 .~
8043
COMPACTION: The densification of an earthen fill by mechanical means.
COMPENSATION PROJECT: Actions necessary to replace project-induced wetland and wetland
buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, installation, monitoring and
contingency actions.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Replacing project-induced wetland losses or impacts, including, but not
limited to wetlands restoration and creation/establishment, and wetland enhancement in conjunction with
wetlands restoration or creation.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plans, maps and reports that comprise the official development plan and
twenty (20) year "vision" for the future physical design and character of the City as adopted by the City
Council in accordance with chapter 35.63 RCW.
CONDOMINIUM: Real property, portions of which are designated for separate ownership and the
remainder of which is designated for common ownership solely by the owners of those portions. Real
property is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the
unit owners, and unless a declaration and a survey map and plans have been recorded pursuant to
chapter 64.32 RCW.
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS: The filing of a declaration pursuant to the Horizontal Property Regimes
Act, of the sale by a developer of condominium units that were previously rental units.
CONFERENCE CEN~ERS: Facilities where large gatherings of people conveme to meet on a variety of
subjects. These facilities are characterized by one large space where exhibits are set up and numerous
adjoining meeting rooms. This definition excludes sports arenas, auditoriums, and exhibition halls.
CONGREGATE RESIDENCE: Any building or portion thereof that contains facilities for living, sleeping
and sanitation and may include facilities for eating and cooking for occupancy for other than a family. A
congregate residence may include a boarding house, but does not include a group home I or II,
convalescent center, jail, hotel, motel or secure community transition facility. (Amd. Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002)
CONSERVANCY: A Shoreline Master Program land use designation identifying an area to be managed
in"essentially its natural ,state while providing for a moder~te to low intensity of land uses surrounding the
area.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: Construction and all activities associated with construction, to include,
but not be limited to, construction, remodeling, repair, and maintenance of structures, equipment, roads,
and utilities; mining; grading; landfilling; and excavating. Construction activities may be regulated by
permits issued by the City including, but not limited to, public works construction permits, building permits,
and mining, excavation, and grading permits and licenses.
CONSTRUCTION/CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE: An area where a construction contractor maintains its
office, as well as storage for equipment and materials, for the construction and landscaping trades.
CONTAINMENT DEVICE: A device that is designed to contain an unauthorized release, retain it for
cleanup and prevent released materials from penetrating into the ground.
CONTAMINANT: See RMC 4-6-100.
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES: Properties sharing a property line.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 202
I
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
,8080
8081 ,
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
CONTINUOUS MONITORING: See RMC 4-5-120G.
CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness
or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illness where care
includes ongoing medical treatment, including hospice, and extended care facilities. This definition does
not include retirement residences, adult family homes, group homes I and II, medical institutions, or
secure community transition facilities. (Amd. Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002)
CONVERTED BUILDING: Any condominium or cooperative which formerly contained rental dwelling
units.
COOPERATIVE: Any existing structure, including surrounding land and improvements, which contains
one or more dwelling units and which: (a) is owned by an association organized pursuant to the
Cooperative Association Act (chapter 23.86 RCW); or (b) is owned by an association with resident
shareholders who are granted renewable leasehold interests in housing units in the building.
COOPERATIVE UNIT: Any dwelling unit in a cooperative.
COPY: The graphic content of a sign surface in either permanent or removable letter, pictographic, '
symbolic, or alphabetic form. '
~~f&IID~~Bi~taRfonniaarr!a*(~_tttetW~:~tW.~ngim«~Ii!~~!Bai$1
COUNTY AUDITOR: As defined in chapter 36.22 RCW or the office of the person assigned such duties
under the, King County Charter.
CREEK: See STREAM, RIVER, CREEK, OR WATERCOURSE.
CRITICAL AREAS: Wetlands, aquifer protection areas. fish and wildlife habitat. frequently flooded and
geologically hazardous areas as defined by the Growth Management Act and Section 4-3-050, Critical
Area Regulations.' in this Title.
CRITIC.A,L AREAS: Areas of the City that may not be suitable for development and which are subject to
~Gity'&-GFitic3l areas rog.ulatioAS ffiGl.uGifl§ .veryffi§h laflds#Ele ~~ .a~~, ~ slopes, wetlands; ~;; reGhar§9 a;e;,~ andwi.;abitat, ShOfelines, o;f1~ay&.j¥oit9n.~ii The Growth
Management Act has a broader definition of critical areas. and is provided in place of the more specific
definition of critical areas which was defined to work with the net density defintion. See corresponding
amendments to the net density definition below.]
, CRITICAL FACILITY: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding. high geologic hazard, or
inundation in the areas of flood hazard or volcanic hazard might be too great. Critical facilities include, but
are not limited to schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency re~onseinstallations"
and facilities that produce, use or store hazardous' materials or hazardous waste. r€rutW'ElSf«at§: Added
based upon comparison to State ModeL]
CRITICAL HABITAT or CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT: Habitatareas associated with threatened,
endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could
reduce the likelihood that the species would maintain and reproduce over the long term. See also RMC 4-
3-050B5b. " .
CROSS CONNECTION: See RMC 4-6-1.00.
CUL-DE-SAC: A vehicular turn-around at the end of a dead end street.
CULTURAL FACILITIES: Facilities which offer passive entertainment and enjoyment activities to the
general public. This definition includes, but is not limited to, museums and libraries. This definition
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 203
•
•
~01
02
03
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108.
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126-
8127
~~
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143 -
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
~1 Ys6
8157
excludes adult entertainment businesses, dance halls; dance clubs; religious institutions; and
gaming/gambling facilities.
CURB: A vertical curb and gutter section constructed from concrete.
(Ord. 2820,1-14-1974; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4056, 4-13-1987; Ord. 4346,3-9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-
4-1992; Ord. 4426,11-8-1993; Ord. 4521,6-5-1995; Ord. 4522,6-5-1995; Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; Ord.
4649,1-6-1997; Ord. 4691,12-1-1997; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4720,5-4-1998;
Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8'-7-2000; Ord. 4854, 8-14-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D:
DANCE CLUB: Any facility, restricted to adults over twenty one (21) years of age, at which dancing
occurs, as a primary form of en-tertainment. This definition excludes adult entertainment businesses,
entertainment clubs, and gaming/gambling facilities, dance halls and other establishments conducting
public dances as defined in RM~ 5-13-1.
DANCE HALL: Any place where a public dance, as defined in RMC 5-13-1, is conducted without
restriction on age, or restricted to minors only. Dance halls are further regulated under RMC Title 5 and
require a license to operate. This definition excludes adult entertainment businesses, dance clubs,
entertainment clubs, and gaming/gambling facilities.
DANGEROUS BUILDING: As defined by the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings."
DAY CARE CENTER: A day care operation licensed by the State of Washington (WAC 388-73-014), for
thirteen (13) or more children in any twenty four (24) hour period, or any number of children in a
nonresidential structure. This definition does not include adult day care/health.
DAY CARE, FAMILY, HOME: A day care operation licensed by the State of Washington (WAC 388-73-
014), caring for twelve (12) or fewer children in any twenty four (24) hour period .within the~aregiver's
place of residence. . ..
DEDICATION: A deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for any general and public uses, reserving
to himself/herself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercises and enjoyment of the
public uses to which the property has been devoted.
DEED OF DEDICATION: A formal dedication of right-of-way or easement to the City, to be approved by
City Coi.mcil. . -
DENSITY, GROSS: A measure of population, housing units, or building area related to land area, and
expressed as a ratio, i.e., ~ne dwelling unit per acre, or one thousand (1,OOO) people per square mile.
DENSITY, NET: Acalculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on·a
property after critical areas, i.e. very high landslide hazard areas, protected slopes, wetlands, Class 1 to 4
. streams and lakes, or floodways, and public rights-of-way and legally recorded private access easements
serving three (3) or more dwelling units, are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus streets
and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public
and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations.
[t=Ctit0IS1tmj't~: Combines specific definition of critical areas with net density. The critical areas listed are
those most sensitive where development is highly restricted. Other critical areas are protected and may
or may not be able to be developed per the Critical Area Regulations, but density may not be deducted
from them, e.g. erosion hazard areas, aquifer protection areas, and others not listed above. The list
above reflects the application of the net density calculation in practice by the City Development Services
Division.]
DEPARTMENT: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department of the City of Renton.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 204
I
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181 8182 .
8183
8184.
8185·
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
.8194
8195
.8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201'
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
'8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR: See ADMINISTRATOR.
· DESIGNATED ZONE FACILITY: Any hazardous waste treatment and storage facility that requires an
interim or final status permit under rules adopted under chapter 70.105 RCW and that is not a "preempted
. facility" as defined in HCW 70.105.010.
DETENTION/RETENTION FACILITIES: Facilitiesdesigned either to hold runoff for a short period of time
and then release it to the point of discharge at a controlled rate or to hold water for a considerable length
of time during which the volume is reduced through evaporation, evapotranspiration by plants, or
infiltration into the ground. '
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS): The written decision by the responsible official of the
lead agency that a proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore
an EIS is not required (WAC 197-11-310 and 197-11-340). The DNS form is in WAC 197~1;1-970.
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (MDNS): A DNS that includes mitigation
measures and is issued as a result of the process specified in WAC 197-11-350.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (DS): The written decision by the responsible official of the lead
agency that a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore an EIS
is required (WAC 197-11-310 and 197-11-360): The DS form is in WAC 197-11-.980 and must be used
· substantially in thaUorm.
DEVELOPABLE AREA: Land area outside of critical areas, critical area buffers, and public rights-of-way
that is otherwise developable.
· DEVELOPMENT: The division of a parcel ofland into two '(2) or more parcels; the construction,
. reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure; any mining,
excavation, landfill or land disturbance and any use or extension of the use of land ..
DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-050, flood hazard regulations, use only.) Anyman-made
change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures,
mining, dredging, filling. grading. paving. excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or
materials located within the area of special flood hazard. 1t@If0ESlr6il Addresses DOE 'comment as part
of community assistance review.]
DEVELOPMENt AGREEMENT: A recorded contract entered into"by the city and an applicant setting
forth development standards and other provisions governing and vesting a development or use for a
duration of time specified in the contract. May be' used to obligate an applicant to fund or provide
services, infrastructure, or other facilities. .
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: Written permission after appropriate review for type of application from the
appropriate decision-maker authorizing'the divisionof a parcel of land, the construction, reconstruction,
conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure, utility, or any use or extension
· of the use of the land.
DISPLAY SURFACE: The area made availabl~ by the sign structure for the purpose of displaying the
. advertiSing message.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 205
•
•
•
4)15
16
17
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
. 8239
8240
8241
~~~ ~44
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
~~ ~O
DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY: See RMC 4-6-100.
DOUBLE-WALLED: See RMC 4-5-120G.
DOWNTOWN CORE AREA: See Map Exhibit in RMC 4-2-080C.
DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT: See Map Exhibit in RMC 4-2-0800. Those uses,buildings and
walkways along either side of South Third Street between Burnett Avenue South and Main Avenue South,
and along either side of Wells Avenue South between South Second Street and Houser Way South.
DRAINAGE AREA: The total area whose drainage water flows to and across the subject property.
DRIP LINE: A tree's drip line shall be described by a line projected to the ground from the outer edge of
the tree canopy delineating the outermost extent of foliage in all directions and coinciding with the area of
the root mass.
DRIVE-IN/DRIVE-THROUGH RETAIL OR SERVICE: A biJsiness or a portion of a businesswhere a
customer is permitted or encouraged either by the design of physical facilities or by service and/or
packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the
business, while 'seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the
vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to fast-food
restaurants, espresso stands, and drive-in services at banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes
vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes . ..
DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY:
Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by com,mon roofs,
walls, or floors. This -definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garag~s or other
nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses,
accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defined herein.
A. Flat: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units which are attached at one or more
common roofs, walls, or floors. Typically, the unit's habitable area is provided on a single level. Unit
entrances mayor may not be provided from a common corridor. . .
B. Townhouse: A one-family, ground-related dwelling attached to one or more such units in which each
unit has its own exterior, ground-level access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each
unit is separated from any oth~r unit by one or more vertical common walls. Typically the units are multi-
story.
C. Carriage House: One or more accessory dwelling units attached to a garage. The garage attached to
the carriage house typically contains vehicles and/or storage for people living in another building as well
as occupants of the carriage house.
D. Penthouse: A single dwelling unit located at or near the top of a building containing other,
nonresidential uses.
DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY:
A. Dwelling, Detached: A building containing one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling
by any means except fences, has a permanent foundation, and is surrounded by open space or yards.
B. Dwelling, Semi-Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to only one other one-family dwelling at
secondary or ancillary building parts such as garages, carports, trellises, porches, covered decks, or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 206
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
.8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303·
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324 .
8325
8326
8327
other secondary connection approved by the City, and not connected at building P9rtS containing living
areas.
DWELLING UNIT: A structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as
separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use ota
single household.
DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: Anihdependent subordinate dwelling unit contained within a single
family detached dwelling or i~s accessory detached garage. An accessory dwelling unit houses family
members related to the property owner or an employee of the property owner.
DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: See DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY.
(Ord. 2520,11-17-1969; Ord. 2698, 3-6-1972; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 4346, 3:'
9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4367,9-14-1992; Ord. 4466,8-22-1994; Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995; Ord.
4522,6-5-1995; Ord. 4637,9-14-1992; Ord. 4671, 7-21:'1997; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-
1999; Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002; Ord. 4999,1:-13-2003)
4-11-050 DEFINITIONS E:
EARL Y NOTICE: See RMC' 4-9~070R.
EARTH MATERIAL: Any rock, natural soil or fill and/or any combination thereof.
EASEMENT: A grant by the property owner for the use or protection of a piece of land by the public,
corporation, or persons for speCific purposes.
A. Easement, Access: An easement created for the purpose of providing vehicular or pedestrian access'
to a property.
B. Easement, Conservation: An easement held by the City, a public or nonprofit entity approved by the
City, or by the property owner for the express purpose of protecting and conserving critical areas and
their buffers. . . .
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: Retail establishments selling food and/or drink for
consumption on the premises or for take-out, including accessory on-site food preparation. This definition
includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, cafes, fast~food, microbrew establishments, and espresso
stands. This .definition excludes taverns; entertainment clubs; dance clubs; and/or .dance halls.
EDUCATION INSTITUTION, HIGHER, OTHER: A public or private school, college or university that
provides post-secondary professional education and/or continuing education programs. This definition
does not include trade or vocationarschools, K-12 educational institutions, or arts and crafts schools' and
stUdios.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE), EXISTING K-12: An existirig public or private
school encompassing grades 'K-12. . .
EDUCATIQNAL INSTITUTIONS (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE), NEW K-12: A new public or private school
encompassing grades K-12 ..
ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION AND COGENERATION: Electrical power generatio'n is the
production of electriCity for consumption by facilities onsite or in a district. Electrical power cogeneration is
the simultaneous production of electricity and useful heat from the same fuel or energy or the use of a
production by-product to generate power. Facilities with cogeneration systems use them to produce their
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 207
•
•
•
428
29
30
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354 tH
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
·8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380·:
~i
• 3
8384
own electricity, and use the unused excess (waste) heat for process steam, hot water heating, space
heating, and other thermal needs. They may also use excess process heat to produce steam for
electricity production.
EMERGENCIES: Actions that must be undertaken immediately or within a time frame too short to allow
full compliance with this Title to avoid an immediate threat to public health or safety, to prevent an
imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. .
ENGINE OR TRANSMISSION REBUILD, INDUSTRIAL: An operation which rebuilds, reconditions, or
customizes engines or transmissions which are sold to vehicle service and repair operations or to
individual customers for installation into vehicles off site.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: See GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY: The application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and
evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of civil works.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY REPORT: See GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES: Removal of noxious or intrusive species, plantings of appropriate native
species and/or removal of diseased or decaying trees which pose a clear and imminent threat to life or
property. Enhancement activities shall not involve the use of mechanical equipment. Enhancement
activities may include the removal of pests which pose a clear danger to public health provided that such
danger is certified by the King County Department of PublicHealth.
ENTERTAINMENT CLUB: Any facility where live entertainment including but not limited to live theater;
dance performances; musical performances; comedy routines; book/poetry readings; and other forms of .
live entertainment are conducted. This definition excludes adult entertainment businesses; movie···
theaters; dance clubs; dance halls; taverns; and eating. and drinking establishments.
ENTERTAINMENT/MEDIA RENTALS: A business consisting of rental of entertainment media including
but not limited to videos, bVDs, and video games. This definition includes accessory retail sales of
entertainment media as well as foodstuff. This definition does not include adult retail uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC): The Environmental Review Committee as defined by
RMC 4-9-070G, is the SEPA Responsible Official Authority. The ERC shall consist of three (3) officials
designated by the Mayor with concurrence by the City Council. For all proposals for which the City is the
lead agency, the ERC shall make the threshold determination and perform any other functions assigned
to the "lead agency'~ or "responsible official" by the SEPA rules that were adopted by reference in WAC
173-806-020. . .
EROSION: The wearing away of the ground .surface as a result of the mover:nent of wind, water and/or
ice.
ESSENTIAL HABITAT: Habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species and state listed priority species.
EVICTION: Any effort by a property owner and/or developer to remove a tenant from the premises or
terminate a tenancy by lawful or unlawful means.
EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earth material.
EXISTING LEGAL USE: The use of a lot or structure at the time of enactment of a zoning or other land
use regulation.
EXOTIC: Any species of plants or animals that are not indigenous to the planning area .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 208
I
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413 .
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
. 8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES: Services which provide rapid delivery (i.e., overnight, within
an hour, etc.) of air parcels, foodstuff, household and entertainment goods, as well as taxi services. Use
is distinguished by space for multiple small delivery vehicles,and typically associated areas for sorting
and handling packages and documents, and accessory administrative offices.
(Ord. 2820,1-14-1974; Ord. 3366,10-15-1979; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4346,3-:9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-
4-1992; Ord. 4522; 6-5-1995; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Amd.
Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F:
FACILITY: (For purposes of aquifer protection area regulations contained in RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area
Regulations.) All contiguous land within an APA, structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on
the land and operations therein including, but not limited to, business, government, and institutional
activities where hazardous materials are stored, handled, treated, used or produced in quantities greater
than the de minimus'amounts specified in RMC 4-3-050C6a(ii)(1), Activities Exempt from Specified
Aquifer Protection Area Requirements. . .
. .
FAIR MARKET VALUE: The open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and
facilities, and purchase of the goods, services and materials necessary to accomplish the development.
This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the development from start to
finish, including the cost of labor, materials', equipment and facility usage, transportation and contraCtor
overhead and profit. The fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any
donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials. rECfIW'i[sltm>te: Based on early agency
comments from DOE regarding SMP definitions and WAC definitions.] .
FAMILY: Any number of related individuals, or not more than four (4) unrelated individuals, living together
as a Single household. .
FILL: A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
FINAL PLAT: See PLAT, FINAL.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Renton Fire Department.
FIRE FLOW: The measure of the sustained flow of available wafer for fire fighting at a specific building or
within a speCific area at twenty (20) pounds per square inch residual pressure.
FIRE MARSHAL: The City of Renton Fire Marshal or his/her designee.
FLAT: See DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY.
FLOOD or FLOODING: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from: .
1. The overflow of inland or tidal waters, and/or
2. The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): The official map on which the Federal Insurance
. Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones
. applicable to the community.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 209
•
•
••
~~~ ~2
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
M? ~~
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
.~~ '1195
8496
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that
includes flood profiles, the flood boundary-floodway map and the water surface elevation of the base
flood.
FLOODWAY: The channel of river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the baseiflood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation
more than one foot (1 ).
FLOOR AREA, GROSS: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building measured from
the exterior face of each wall.
FLOOR AREA, NET: The total of all floor area of a building, excluding stairwells, elevator shafts,
mechanical equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, and all floors below the ground floor,
except when used for human habitation or service to the public.
FLOOR AREA RATIO: The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area.
FLOWER/PLANTS AND FLORAL SUPPLY: A business involving the retail sale of flowers, house plants,
and associated floral supplies.
FRONT YARD: See YARD REQUIREMENT.
FUEL DEALERS: Wholesale distribution of fuels with associated bulk fuel storage.
FUELING STATION, VEHICLE: See VEHICLE FUELING STATIONS.
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1956 (FWPCA): See RMC 4-6-100.
(Ord. 2820,1-14-1974; Ord. 3541, 5-4-1981; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987; Ord. 4716, 4-
13-1998; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-070 DEFINITIONS G:
GAMING/GAMBLING FACILITIES, NOT-FaR-PROFIT: Facilities operated by a not-for-profit entity where
any type of gaming or gambling is the primary attraction.
GARAGE, PRIVATE: A roofed structure enclosed on three (3) or more sides, without interior parking
aisles,for the purpose of storing motor vehicles.
GARAGE SALE: All general sales open to the public conducted on a residential premises to dispose of
personal property, including, but not limited to, all sales entitled "lawn," "yard," "attic," "porch," "room,"
"backyard," "patio," "flea market" or "rummage sale."
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 210
I
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
'8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
,8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
GARBAGE: See-REFUSE.
GAS STATION: See FUELING STATION, VEHICLE.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: Areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions: erosion,
flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic activity. Refer to RMC 4-3-050B4.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: A State of Washington licensed geologist experienced and knowledgeable
in engineering geology.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: A report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer including an adequate
description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic
conditions on the proposed development.
, , '
GOLF COURSE: An area designed and used for playing golf, inCluding all acCessory uses incidental to-
the operation of the facility. This definition excludes other .outdoor recreational facilities, neighborhood
parks, and community/regional parks. '" • " , '
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, CITY: Facilities of any unit of City government. Types of facilities include
community centers, public works maintenance facilities, courts of layv, fire halls, and other types of
municipal facilities. This definition excludes city government offices, jails, parks, transit centers, park &
rides,sewage treatment plants, municipally owned golf course or airports, and libraries.
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, OTHER: Facilities of any unit of county, state, federal, or special district
government. Types of facilities include community centers, vehicle and drivers licensing offices, public
works maintenance facilities, courts of law, school support facilities, and other types of county, state,
, school district, special district, or federal facilities. This definition excludes offices, jails, parks, transit
centers, park & rides, sewage treatment plants, schools, municipally owned golf courses or airports, and
libraries.
GOVERNMENT OFFICES, CITY: See CITY GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
GRADE: The vertical location of the ground surface.
GRADE, FINISH: The surface level of the ground after completion of all grading.
GRADING: An excavating or filling or combination thereof.
A. Regular Grading: Any, grading that involves five thousand (5,000) cubic yards or less of material. '
B. Engineered Grading: Any grading that involves more than five thousand (5,000) cubic yards of
material.
GRID-LIKE STREET PATTERN (or FLEXIBLE GRID): A street s'ystem based upon a standard grid
, pattern; however, offset intersections, loop roads, and cul-de-sacs as well as angled or curved road
segments may also be utilized on a limited basis. The block pattern is characterized QY regular (Le., -
rectangular or trapezoidal) blocks.
GROUND COVER: Low growing plants such as salal, ivy, ferns, mosses, grasses or other types of
vegetation which normally cover the ground.
GROUND COVER MANAGEMENT: The mowing or cutting of ground cover in order to create an orderly
appearing property so long as such activities do not disturb the root structures on the plants. Ground
cover management shall include the removal of vegetative debris from the property.
GROUNDWATER: Water below the land surface in the zone of saturation.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 211
'.
•
•
4154
55
56
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580 .1 ~~
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
~~ W09
8610
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM: A plan confaining procedures to be followed to assess
ground water quality for concentrations of those chemicals identified in the operating permit.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL: A small-diameter well installed for purposes of sampling and
monitoring ground water.
GROUP FAMILY HOUSEHOLD: A group of individuals not related by blood, marriage, adoption or
guardianship living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common
management plan based on an intentionally structured relationship to provide organization and stability.
GROUP HOME I (REHABILITATION): A facility or dwelling unit housing persons, unrelated by blood or
marriage and operating as a group facility household. A rehabilitative group home may include halfway
houses and substance abuse recovery homes. This definition c;loes not include congregate residential or
secure community transition facilities. (Amd. Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002)
GROUP HOME II (PROTECTIVE RESIDENCY): A facility or dwelling unit housing persons, including
resident staff, unrelated by blood or marriage and operating as a .group family household. Staff persons
provide care, education, and partiCipation in community activities for the residents with the primary goal of
enabling the resident to live as independently as possible. A protective residency may include disabled
(mentally and physically) persons, foster child care, abused women shelter, orphanages and other uses
where residents are deemed vulnerable and/or disabled and are not a threat to self or to public health or
safety. This definition does not include congregate residential or secure community transition facilities.
(Amd. Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA): A law passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 that
mandates comprehensive planning in designated counties and cities statewide (chapter 36.70A 'RCW).
(Ord. 2820,1-14-1974; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4636, 9~23-1996; Ord. 4715;4-6-1998; Ord. 4835, 3-
27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 4854,8-14-2000; Amd. Oi-d. 4963, 5-13-2002),
4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H:
HAZARD TREE: Any tree or tree part that poses a high risk of damage to persons or property as certified
by a qualified arborist and accepted by the City. [IUomfNm~: Based on a City of Spokane Ordinance.
If further interpretation is required, the City of Spokane uses the International Society of Arboriculture's
twelve~point hazard evaluation system.J
. .
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Those chemicals or substances which are physical or health hazards as
defined and classified in Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code·as adopted or amended by the City whether
the materials are in usable or wa~te condition; and any material that may degrade groundwater quality
when improperly used, stored, ~isposed of, or ottierwise misrTianaged. RMC 4-3-050R, Generic
Hazardous Materials List, provides a list of common substances that may be hazardous materials. Article
VI-A of the Uniform Fire Code provides furthe~ information, explanations, and examples of hazardous
materials.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY STATEMENT: A form provided by the Department or the Fire
Prevention Bureau and completed by a facility owner that provides specified information regarding
hazardous materials at the facility.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE: Any liquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any material, substance, product
commodity or waste that exhibits the characteristics of hazardous waste as described in chapter 70.105
RCW.
HAZARDOUS WASTE: All dangerous and extremely hazardous waste, except for moderate-risk waste,
as defined in RCW 70.105.010.
HEALTH HAZARD: See RMC 4-6-100.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 212
I
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
"8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
"8660
8661 8662 "
8663
8664
8665
HEARING EXAMINER: The office of the Hearing Examiner as defined by RMC Title 1. The Hearing
"Examiner is appointed by the Mayor of the City to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in
chapter 4-8 RMC, and prepares a record, findings of fact and conclusions on such applications. (Ord. '.
4522, 6-5-1995)
HEIGHT: See BUILDING HEIGHT or SIGN HEIGHT.
HIGH BLOW DOWN POTENTIAL: An area where field conditions indicate the potential for tree blowdown
is high: Evidence may include the presence of toppled trees in the area. and thin or saturated soils.
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV): A vehicle carrying more than a specified minimum number of
people (usually two (2) or three (3) persons). .
. Hll~Iit'~~6141$f~Il!ID~IexCWCfM~~tl~(l5jjJii\Ii~igJ.ift
HILLSIDE: An inclined landform which may include one or more classes of slope: steep (sensitIve and/or
protected) and non-steep (Le., less than twenty five percent (25%».
HILLSIDE SUBDIVISION: A subdivision in which the average slope is twenty percent (20%) or in which
any street in the subdivision has grades greater than fifteell percent (15%) at any point.
HOME OCCUPATION: Any commercial use conducted entirely within a dwelling or accessory structure
and carried on by persons residing in that dwelling unit, "but is clearly incidental and secondary to the use
of the dwelling as a residence.
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION: An incorporated nonprofit organization formed or qualified under the
laws of the State of Washington, operating under recorded land agreements through which: (a) each land
owner is automatically a member, (b) each land owner is automatically subject to a proportionate share of
the expenses for the organization's activities, such as maintaining common property and facilities, and (c)
such charge; if unpaid, becomes a lien against the property of the land owner .. '
HOTEL: A building or portion thereof designed or used for transient rental for sleeping purposes. Hotel
structures are at least two (2) stories in height, with lodging space above the first floor. Lodging space
rriay also be located on the first floor. Individual rooms are typically accessed from a common hallway. A
. central kitchen and dining room "and accessory "shops and services catering to the general public may be
provided. Not included in this definiti~n are multi-family dwellings, bed and breakfasts, or motels.
.HOUSEHOLD: A family living together in a single dwelling unit with common access to, and common use
of, all living, sanitation facilities, and all areas and facilities for the preparation, consumption and storage
of food within the dwelling unit.
HUMAN SCALE ELEMENTS: Architectural elements such as railings, windows with multiple panes,
doorways, or fences, that are scaled for human use and convey the idea of human activity or human
occupancy.
HYPORHEIC ZONE: The saturated zone located beneath and'"adjacentto streams that contains some
portion of surface waters. serves as a filter for nutrients. and maintains water quality. riI2<tit~~ii0t~l OCD
Model]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 213
•
•
•
8666
•
67
68
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
•. ,3 ~~
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705·
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719 .~
8722
(Ord. 3758.12-5-1983; Ord. 4517.5-8-1995; Ord. 4522. 6-5-1995; Ord. 4665.5-19-1997; Ord. 4716. 4-
13-1998; Ord. 4821.12-20-1999; Ord. 4835.3-27-2000; Ord. 4851.8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963.5-13-
2002)
4-11-090 DEFINITIONS I:
ILLUMINATION. INTERNAL: A light source that is concealed or contained within a sign and becomes
visible in darkness through a translucent surface.
ILLUMINATION. TUBE: A light source supplied bya tube that is bent to form letters. symbols, or other
shapes. Tube illumination does not include exposed fluorescent lights.
IMPACTS: The effects or consequences of actions. Environmental impacts are effects upon the elements
of the environment listed in WAC 197-11-444. '
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of
stormwater into the surface of the ground, including graveled surfaces.
IMPORTED FILL: Earth material acquired from an off-site location for use in grading on a site.
. .
INCOMBUSTIBLE AND NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL: Shall be as defined in the Uniform Fire Code.
INDUSTRIAL USE: A type of land use characterized by production, manufacturing, distribution or
fabrication activities.
INDUSTRIAL USE. HEAVY: A type of land use including manufacturing processes using raw materials,
extractive land uses or any industrial uses which typically are incompatible with other uses due to noise,
odor, toxic chemicals,or other activities posing a hazard to public health and safety. .
INDUSTRIAL USE, liGHT: A type of land use including small scale or less intensive production
manufacturing, distribution or fabricating activities. May also ihclude office and supporting convenience
retail activities.
INDUSTRIAL WASTES: See RMC 4-6-100.
INFILL: Development that occurs on vacant land within urbanized areas.
INFILTRATION: See ~MC 4-6-100.
INTERVAL: An intervalisthemeasure of articulation -: the distance before architectural elements repeat.
• • " l' ".. '
INTERMITTENT means water is not present in the channel year round during years of normal or above
normal rainfall.
. .
jOrd. 3719.4-11-1983; Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 4577.1-22-1996; Ord. 4740,7-19-1999; Ord. 4720,
5-4-1998; Ord. 4821.12-20-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963.5-13-2002)
4-11-100 DEFINITIONS J:
JAILS. EXISTING MUNICIPAL: City-operated and owned facilities that hold criminals serving sentences
and/or suspected criminals while they are awaiting the outcome of their trials.
(Amd. Ord. 4963.5-13-2002)
4-11-110 DEFINITIONS K:
KENNEL: A commercial facility for the care and/or breeding of dogs and/or cats.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13. 2004 214
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
KENNEL, HOBBY: A noncommercial facility for the care and/or breeding of four (4) to eight (8) adult
dogs, cats or combination of dogs and cats, older than four (4) months in age, excluding small animal
hospitals, clinics, pet shops, or grooming services. Hobby kennels are only operated by persons residing
in the primary dwelling unit on. the property on which the hobby kennel is kept.
(Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L:
LABORATORIES, LIGHT MANUFACTURING: A facility in which scientific research, investigation, testing,
or experimentation occur. Manufacturing of and sale of products may also occur.
LABORATORIES, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING: A facility in which scientific research,
investigation, testing, or experimentation occur but not including manufacture and sale of products.'
LAKES: Natural or artificial bodies of water of two (2) or more acres 'and/or where the deepest part of the
basin at low water exce,eds two (2) meters (6.6 feet). Artificial bodies otwater with a recirculation system
approved by t~e Planning/Building/Public Works Department are not included in this definition.
LAND CLEARING: The act of removing or destroying trees or ground cover including grubbing of stumps
and root mat.
LAND-CLEARING WASTE: Stumps, brush, tree branches, and other vegetation associated with land
clearing. '
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: An approved preliminary or final plat for single family residential project,
, a building permit, site plan, or preliminary or final planned unit development plan.
LAND USE DECISION: A land use decision for purposes of a land use appeal under RMC 4-8-110, '
Appeals, means a final determination by a City body or officer with the highest level of authority to make
the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals on: . ' '
1. An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property
may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred or used, but excluding applications for permits or
approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and other similar types of public property; excluding
-applications for legislative approval such as area-wide rezones and annexations; and excluding
, applications for business licenses; "
2. An interpretive or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other
ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real
property;
3. The enforcement by the City of codes regulating improvement, development, modification,
maintenance oruse of real property. However, when the City is required by law to enforce the code in a
court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under RMC 4-8-110.
LAND USE ELEMENT: A plan designating the location and extent of use for agriculture, timber
production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, public utilities, public facilities, and
other land uses as required by the Growth Management Act.
LANDS COVERED BY WATER: Lands underlying the water areas of the state below the ordinary high
water mark, including salt waters, tidal waters, estuarine waters, natural watercourses, lakes, ponds, '
artificially impounded waters, marshes, and swamps.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 215
•
•
•
~80
81
82
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795 .
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806 t 7
80~
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
~~ .5
8836
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: A professional landscape architect licensed to practice by the State of
Washington. .
LANDSCAPE BUFFER: An on-site strip abutting a property line which provides a physical, visual, and/or
noise buffer and transition between land use of varying compatibilities.and/or the street. Landscape
buffers consist primarily of natural landscaping and selected hard surface elements, when deemed
appropriate by the reviewing official.
LANDSCAPED VISUAL BARRIER: Evergreen trees, and/or evergreen shrubs providing equivalent
buffering, planted to provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting.
LANDSCAPING: The installation of lawns, trees, shrubs, flowers, ground cover and similar items to
enhance a property's attractiveness, prevent erosion, improve security or for similar purposes.
LIGHT DEFINITIONS: The following definitions are utilized in the Exterior Onsite Lighting Regulations,
RMC 4-4-075:
A. Cutoff: The point at which all light rays emitted by a light source are completely eliminated (cut off) at a
specific angle above the ground.
B. Cutoff Angle: The angle formed by a line drawn from the direction of light rays at the light source and a
line perpendicular to the ground from the light source, above which no light is emitted.
C. Cutoff Type Luminaire: A unit of illumination with elements such as shields, reflectors, or refractor
panels that direct and cut off the light at a cut off angle less than ninety degrees (90 ).
D. Light Trespass: Tne shining of light produced by a light source beyond the boundaries of the property
on which it is located. . . . .
E. Luminaire: The complete lighting unit, including the lamp, the fixture, and other parts.
LOAplNG AREA: A specially designed off-street place intended to be used by vehicles for depositing
and/or receiving passengers and goods.
LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: See RMC 4-6-100.
LOT: A specifically described parcel of land with boundary lines defining the extent of the lot in a given
direction.' .
LOT: A fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to
meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include "tracts· or "parcels." See
LOT TYPES.
LOT COVERAGE: The horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal
and accessory buildings on a lot including all covered decks and porches.
LOT, DEVELOPED: (This definition for RMC 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, only.)
A lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, which cannot be more intensely developed
pursuantto the City Zoning Code, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to City subdivision
regulations.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 216
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
'8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: A lot line adjustment is the adjusting of common property line(s) or boundaries
between adjacent lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose of accommodating a transfer of land, rectifying a
disputed property line location, or freeing such a boundary from any difference or discrepancies. The
resulting adjustment shall not create any additional lots, tracts or parcels and all reconfigured lots, tracts
or parcels shall contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for zoning and
building purposes.' .
LOT LINES: The property lines bounding the lot.
LOT MEASUREMENTS:
A. Lot Depth: Depth ota lot shall be considered to be the average distance between the foremost points
of the side lot lines in front (Le., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way
line) and the rear-most points of the side lot lines in the rear. In the case of pipestem lots, the pipestem
portion of the lot shall be ignored for purposes of the calculation of average depth.
B. Lot Width: Width of a lot shall be considered to be the average distance between the side lines
connecting front and rear lot lines; except for pipestem lots, where the pipestem portion of a lot shall be
ignored for purposes of calculating the average width.
LOT, PARTIALLY DEVELOPED: (This definition for RMC 4-4:..130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
Regulations, only.) A lot or parcel of land upon which a structure is located and which is of sufficient area
so as to be capable of accommodating increased development pursuant to the Renton Zoning Code; or
which may be subdivided in accordance with the City subdivision regulations. .
LOT TYPES:
. A. Lot, Corner: A lot abutting upon two (2).or more streets at their intersection, or upon two (2) parts of the
same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of less than one hundred.·
thirty five degrees (135 ) within the lot lines ..
B. Lot, Flag: A lot with access to a public road only by a private accessway le~s than thirty feet (30 )in
width. See Lot, Pipestem. . . .
C. Lot, Int~i"ior: A lot that generally abuts or has frontage on only one street, although on through lots that
run from one block face to another, such lots could abut two (2) streets. .
D. Lot, Pipestem: A lot not meeting minimum frontage requi~ernents.
E. Lot, Through: A lot that has both ends fronting on a street.
LOT, UNDEVELOPED: A platted lot or parcel of land upon which no struCture exists.
LOW IMPACT LAND USE: Land uses which are not likely to have a Significant adverse irripact on critical
areas because of the low intensity of the use, minimal levels of human activity, limited use of machinery
or chemicals, site design or arrangement of buildings and structures, incorporation of mitigation
measures, or other factors. .
. . . .
LOWEST FLOOR: The lowest floor of the lo~est enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
. flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area
other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest flo.or; provided, that such enclosure is
not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of
RMC 4-3-050J. 3.a.ii. [gQrt0f,{~t~t:l.t~: Addresses DOE comment as part of community assistance review.] . .
(Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983;Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 4056, 4-30-1987;Ord. 4071, 6-1~1987; Ord. 4351,5-
4-1992; Ord. 4522, 6-5-1995;Ord. 4740,7-19-1999; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord.
Draft Best Available SCience Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 217
•
•
•
8894
•
95
96
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
~~ ~3
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
.~
8950
4522,6-5-1995; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4751,11-16-
1998; Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000; Ord. 4854, 8-14-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-130 DEFINITIONS M:
MANUFACTURED HOME: A residential structure, transportable in one or more sections, that is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to
the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle" or mobile
home. ' .,
MANUFACTURED HOME, DESIGNATED: A residential manufactured home that meets the following
requirements: '
1. It is comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each not less than twelve feet (12 )
wide by thirty six feet (36 ) long,
2. It has a composition, wood shingle, coated metal or similar roof of not less than three to twelve (3:12)
pitch, and
3. It has exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used for conventional site-
built single family residences.
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land "divided"
into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
MANUFACTURED" HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION, EXISTING: A manufactured home park:subdi~ision
for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes 'are to be ,
affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site
grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of adopted floodplain
, management regulations.
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION, NEW: A manufactured home park or subdivision for
which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be
affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site
grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain
management regulations.
MANUFACTURING AND FABRICATION, HEAVY: The transformation of materials or substances into
new products" including construction and assembling of component parts, and the blending of materials
such as lubricating oils, plastics, resins or liquors. Heavy manufacturing and fabrication is often
characterized by need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations and typically results in
environmental impacts beyond their own sites. This definition includes but is not limited to manufacture
and fabrication of aircraft and aircraft parts, automotive vehicles and their parts, cement, brick, lime,
gypsum, asphalt, and other manufacturing and fabrication uses as determined by the reviewing official.
This definition excludes slaughterhouses, manufacture of shellac, varnish or turpentine, paper, pulp,
rubber from crude material, refining and/or manufacturing of petroleum by-products except as an
accessory use of less than fifty thousand (50,000) gallons.
MANUFACTURING AND FABRICATION, LIGHT: The transformation of materials or substances into new
products including construction and assembling of component parts, and the blending of materials such
as lubricating oils, plastics, resins or liquors. Light manufacturing and fabrication is characterized by the
use being contained within buildings, and materials or equipment used in production not being stored
outside. Light manufacturing and fabrication activities do not generate external emissions ,such as smoke,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 218
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973"
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
.8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
odor, noise, vibrations or other nuisances outside the building. This definition includes but is not limited to
manufacture and fabrication of electronic components, office products, furniture, glass products, and
other manufacturing and fabrication uses as determined by the reviewing official. This definition excludes
slaughterhouses, manufacture of shellac, varnish or turpentine, paper, pulp, rubber from crude material,
refining and/or manufacturing of petroleum by-products except as an acce!?sory use of less than fifty
thousand (50,000) gallons.
MANUFACTURING AND FABRICATION, MEDIUM: The transformation of materials or sUbstances into
new products including construction and assembling of component parts, and the blending of materials
such as lubricating oils, plastics, resins or liquors. Medium manufacturing and fabrication is characterized
by need for only very limited areas of outdoor storage and may create minor external environmental"
impacts during the conduct of operations but most impacts are contained on-site. This definition includes
but is not limited to manufacture and fabrication of, alcoholic products, paints, printing ink, leather goods,
and other manufacturing and fabrication uses as determined by the reviewing official. This definition
excludes slaughterhouses, manufacture of shellac, varnish or turpentine, paper, pulp, rubber from crude
material, refining and/or manufacturing of petroleum by-products except as an accessory use of less than
fifty thousand (50,000) gallons.
" "
MARINA: A facility for storing, servicing, fueling, berthing, and securing and launching of private pleasure "
craft that may include the sale of fuel and incidental supplies for the boat owners, crews, and guests.
MARQUEE: A permanent roof structure, usually incorporating a sign, attached to and slJpportedby the
" building and projecting over public property.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET: Written or printed information concerning a hazardous material which
is prepared in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1200. . .
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: Includes all motorized equipment used for eart~ moving, trenching,
excavation, gardening, landscaping, and general property maintenance exceeding twenty seven (27)
hors~p0"Yer in siz~:" .
MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS: An facility providing physical or mental health services, in-patient
accommodations, and medical or surgical care of the sick orinjured. This definition includes hospitals,
clinics, and sanitariums. This definition excludes medical and dental offices, convalescent centers,
retirement residences, and group homes I and II. " "
MEMBRANE LINER: See RMC 4-5-120G.
MINI-MART: A small retail establishment, usually located within or associated with another use," that
offers for sale convenience goods such as food items, tobacco, periodicals and household goods.
MITIGATION BANK: Sites that, when approved by the City, may be used for restoration, creation and/or
mitigation of wetlands altered on a different piece of property, but located within the same drainage basin.
MIXED USE: A building or site with two (2) or more different uses such as residential, office,
manufacturing, retail, public or entertainment.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2064 219
•
•
•
ti°7
08
009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033 .4 To3~
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
~~
• 2
MOBILE HOME: A factory-built structure, transportable in one or more sections, built on a chassis and
designed to be a dwelling without a permanent foundation, that was constructed prior to the enactment of
the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. This definition does not
include recreational vehicles, manufactured homes, or designated manufactured homes.
MOBILE VENDOR: Retail sale of goods from a vehicle or mobile cart.
MODULATION: A measured and proportioned inflection or setback in a building's face that breaks up an
otherwise larger flat vertical plane into multiple offset sub-elements so as to reduce the apparent bulk.
MOTEL: A building or group of detached or connected buildings designed or used primarily for providing
sleeping accommodations for automobile travelers and typically having a parking space adja'cent to a
sleeping accommodation. This definition excludes multi-family dwellings, bed and breakfasts, and hotels.
MOVIE THEATER: An indoor facility for showing movies, including accessory retail sales of food and
beverages. This definition excludes adult entertainment businesses; entertainment clubs; and cultural
facilities.
MULTI-FAMILY: See DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY.
(Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987; Ord. 4219, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4346, 3-9-
1992; Ord. 4577,1-22.,.1996; Ord. 4665,5-19-1997; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Ord. 4716,4-13-1998; Ord.
4777,4-19-1999; Ord. 4821,12-20-1999; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-
13-2002)
4-11-140 DEFINITIONS N:
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED INDEPENDENT TESTING ORGANIZATION: See RMC 4-5-120G.
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT: A restrictive area where all native, predevelopment
vegetation shall not be disturbed or removed except for removal pursuant to an approved enhancement
program. The purpose of an easement is to protect steep slopes, slopes and/or riparian corridors.
NATIVE VEGETATION: Plant species that are indigenous to the area in question and could reasonably
be expected to have occurred on site.
NATURAL: A Shoreline Master Program land use designation identifying an area as unique and fragile. It
is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation.
NATURAL OUTLET: See RMC 4-6-100.
NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION/RECOVERY: Land used for timber harvesting consistent with the
Forest Practices Act or silviculture, mineral extraction, or natural resource recovery such as mining
reclamation or reforestation. This definition excludes Christmas tree farms, nurseries, and agriculture.
NATURAL WATER SYSTEM: Any and all parts of the hydrologic cycle independent of size and residence
time. The meaning includes "waters of the state" as defined in RCW 90.48.020 .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 220
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
. 9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
I 9097.·
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
·9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
NEIGHBORHOOD: A sub-area of the City in which the residents share a common identity focused around
a school, park, community business center or other feature.
NEW UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITY: See RMC 4-5-120<3.
NEWS STAND: A use consisting of the retail sale of newspapers and magazines. This definition excludes
adult retail uses.
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE: A lawful structure that does not comply with the current development
standards (yard setbacks, lot size, lot coverage, height, etc.) for its zone, but which complied with'
applicable regulations at the time it was established. Such structures mayor may not be in compliance
with other relevant building codes and regulations.
NONCONFORMING USE: A lawful use of land that does not comply with the current use regulations
(primary, secondary, conditional, etc.) for its zone, but which complied with applicable regulations at the
time the use was established.
NONSTRUCTURAL TRIM: The molding, battens, caps, nailing strips, latticing, cutouts or letters and
walkways which are attached to the sign structure. .
NO-PROTEST AGREEMENT: A restrictive covenant signed by the property owner signifying consent to
the future formation of a local improvement district by the City of Renton or by property ownersfor·
constructing and paying for. street improvements.
. .
NORMAL RAINFALL is defined as rainfall that is at the mean or within one standard deviation of the
mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record, based upon the water year for King County as recorded
at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport by the graph shown at King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks' Water and Land Resources Division's Hydrologic Information Center
(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/hydrodat/seatacprecip.asp). . .
IJ¥aoofld;lfJO'tEl: Nothing other than the common statistical use of !'standard deviation!' is meant.]
~ Modified definition to state where this information is kept graphically for those who do not
have web access or for when the website is changed and the link shown does not work any longer.]
NURSERIES, HORTICULTURAL: Any land used to raise, store, or sell trees, shrubs; flowers, and other
plants for sale or for transplanting. This definition does not include the sale of any of the above for
consumption. Associated retail space is allowed as an accessory to this use.
(Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983;Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995;Ord. 4577,1-22-
1996; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-150 DEFINITIONS 0:
OFF-SITE SERVICES: See SERVICES, OFF-SITE.
OFFICE, GENERAL: A place at which the affairs of a business, profeSSion, service, or industry are
conducted and generally furnished with desks, tables, files and communication equipment. This definition
includes associated accessory uses including but not liniited to exercise rooms and cafeterias for use by
employees.and clients. This definition excludes conference centers, medical and dental offices, veterinary
offices/clinics, city government offices, other government offices and facilities, service and social
organizations, and construction/contractor's offices.
•
•
OFFICE, MEDICAL AND DENTAL: Any office used by physicians, dentists, and/or other medical
professionals to examine, diagnose, and treat patients, and to administer day-to-day accessory office •
functions relating to the medical or dental practice.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 221
~19
20
121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
•
46
47
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161 9162 .
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
.u~ ~74
9175
ON-SITE SERVICES: See SERVICES, ON-SITE.
OPEN RECORD APPEAL: An administrative appeal to a local governmental body or officer, including the
legislative body, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of
evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by RMC 4-8-110.
OPEN SPACE: Any physical area that provides visual relief from the built environment for environmental,
scenic or recreational purposes. Open space may consist of developed or undeveloped areas, including
urban plazas, parks, pedestrian corridors, landscaping, pastures, woodlands, greenbelts, wetlands and
other natural areas, but excluding' driveways, parking lots or other surfaces designed for vehicular travel.
OPERATOR: See RMC 4-5-120G.
ORDINANCE: See RMC 4-9-070R.
OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AREAS: Specially designed areas for the retail sale of automobiles, small
trucks, vans or other similar type motor vehicles. It does not generally include commercially licensed
motor vehicles such as buses or trucks.
OUTSIDE STORAGE: See STORAGE, OUTSIDE.
OWNER: See RMC 4-5-120G.
OWNER: (F'or purposes of the aquifer protection regulations in RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations,
and RMC 4-9-015, Aquifer Protection Area permits, only.) May include a duly authorized agent or
attorney, a purchaser, fiduciary, and/or a person having vested or contingent interest in the property
and/or facility in question.
(Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4851, 8-
7-2000; Ord. 4857, 8-21-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P:
PARK: For purposes of the application of setback requirements for uses regulated by the provisions of
RMC 4-3-010, a "park" is defined as a tract of land provided by a unit of government to meet the active
and/or passive recreational needs of people .
PARK, COMMUNITY/REGIONAL: Larger than neighborhood parks, these are designed for organized
activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Where there are no
neighborhood parks, the community or regional park can serve this function. Larger parks often include
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 222
I
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
one specific use or feature that makes the park unique. This definition includes but is not limited to
community and regional parks as defined by the City of Renton Parks Plan, trails for nonmotorized travel,
and accessory uses normal and incidental to parks.
PARK, NEIGHBORHOOD: A combination playground and park designed primarily for nonsupervised,
nonorganized recreation activities. They are generally small in size. This definition includes but is not
limited to community gardens and other accessory uses normal and incidental to parks.
PARKING: OFF-SITE: Parking for a particular land use on land separate from the land on' which the use
occurs. The use for parking is subject to a lease or other agreement ensuring the perpetual use of the off-
site land for parking.
PARKING, SURFACE: Open lots or grounds with at-grade parking improvements.
PARKING, TANDEM: The parking of one motor vehicle behind another, in a space two (2) car lengths
long, but only one car length wide.
PARKING GARAGE, STRUCTURED: A building or structure which may be located above or below
ground, with stalls accessed via interior aisles, and used for temporary storage of motor vehicles.
Structured parking can be a stand-alone use or a part of a building containing other uses.
. PARKING SPACE or PARKING STALL: A parking space is any off-street space intended for the use of
temporary vehicular storage for durations of less than seventy two (72) hours with ingress and egress to
the space easily identifiable. Included in this definition are the permanent surface, striping, landscaping
and other features required by RMC 4-4-080.
PASSIVE RECREATION: Nonorganized, low impact use such as hiking, walking, picnicking. It does not
include organized sport 'activities such as baseball, soccer, etc.
PAVED: Surfaced with a hard, smooth surface, usually consisting of concrete or asphalt underlain by a
subgrade of crushed rock. ' , .
PAVEMENT WIDTH: Width of paved driving and parking surface, including street gutters as measured
from face of curb to face of curb, or from edge of pavement where there are no curbs.
PEAK DISCHARGE: The maximum surface water runoff rate (cfs) at point of discharge, determined from
the design storm frequency. '
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS: Areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as primary routes for
pedestrian use to connect sub-areas of the City or regional trail systems, and to provide access to public
facilities.
PERENNIAL: Waters which flow continuously: rEfi:rf()~§lmam: Based on StreamneLorg]
PERFORMANCE BOND OR GUARANTEE: That security which may be accepted in lieu of a requirement
that certain improvements be made before the City Council approves the final plat, including performance
bonds, escrow agreements, and other similar collateral or surety agreements.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 223
•
•
433
34
35 . 9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
•
60
61
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
486
87
88
9289
PERMITTED USES: See USES, PERMITTED.
PERSON: Any person, individual, public or private corporation, firm, association, jOint venture, .
partnership, municipality, government agency, political subdivision, public officer, owner, lessee, tenant,
other legal entity, or any other entity whatsoever or any combination of such, jointly or severally.
PETS, COMMON HOUSEHOLD: Dogs, cats, and other similar-sized animals, as determined by the
Development Services Division Director, typically sold in pet stores.
PIPELINE: Buried pipe systems (including all pipe, pipe joints, fittings, valves, manholes, sumps, and
appurtenances that are in contact with the substance being transported) utilized for the conveyance of
hazardous materials. Pipelines include, but are not limited to, sanitary sewers, side sewers, storm sewers,
leachate pipelines, and product pipelines.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): Any development approved and developed in accordance with
the terms of RMC 4-9-150, ,including a subdivision of such land, which development may occur at one
time or in phases .
PLANNING COMMISSION: That body as defined in chapters 35.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW as
designated by the legislative body to perform a planning function or that body assigned such duties and
responsibilities under a city or county charter. .
PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INFREQUENT OCCURRENCE: One or more plant species in a landform
type that, because of the rarity of the habitat or the species involved, or both, or for other botanical or
environmental reasons, do not often occur in King County.
PLAT: A map or representation of a subdivision, showing thereon the division of a parcel of land into lots,
blocks, streets, and alleys or other division and dedications.
PLAT, FINAL:.The final drawing of a subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the
County Auditor and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this Title and chapter 58.17
RCW.
PLAT, PRELIMINARY: A drawing of a proposed subdivision of land into ten (10) or more individual lots
showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision
consistent with the requirements of the City subdivision regulations and chapter 58.17 RCW. The
preliminary plat shall be the basis for the approval or disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision.
PLAT, SHORT: The division or redivision of land into nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or
divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership.
POTABLE WATER: See RMC 4-6-100.
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS: Areas within the Urban Growth Area that have been deSignated for
annexation to the City within the twenty (20) year planning horizon by agreement with King County as
required by the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 224
I
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303 ·9304
9305
9306 .
. 9307
.9308
9309
9310
9311
9312·
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326.
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
PREAPPLICATION MEETING: A conference held with a project applicant and City representative(s) in
advance of the proposed land use project application. During the conference, the City representative(s)
inform the applicant of applicable policies,plans, and requirements as they apply to the proposed .
development project.
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL: The official favorable action taken on the preliminary plat of a proposed
subdivision, metes and bounds description, or dedication, by the City Council following a duly advertised
public hearing.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: See PLAT,PRELIMINARY.
PRESCHOOL: Nursery schools or kindergartens which are engaged primarily in educational work with
children and in which no child is enrolled on a regular basis for more than four (4) hours per day.
PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKER: See RMC 4~6-100.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT: See RMC 4-5-120G .
PRIORITY HABITAT AND SPECIES: Habitats and species of importance andconcem as identified by the
Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program. "Priority habitats" are
habitat types with unique or significant value to many. species. An area classified and mapped as priority
habitat musthave one or mQre of the following attributes: .
1. Comparatively high fish and wildlife density.
2. Comparatively high fish and wildlife species diversity.
3. Important,. fish and wildlife breeding habitat.
4. Important fish and'wildlife seasonal ranges.
5. Important fish and wildlife movement corridors.
6. Limited availability. .
7. High vulnerability to habitat alteration.
8. Unique or dependent species.
"PrioritY species" are fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management
guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. .
PRIVATE HYDRANT: A fire hydrant situated and maintained to provide water for firefighting purposes
with restrictions as to use. The location may be such that it is not readily accessible for immediate use by
the fire authority for other than certain private property.
PRODUCT TIGHT: See RMC4-5-120G.
PROJECTION: The distance by which a sign extends over public property or beyond the building line.
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: See HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.
. PROPONENT: See APPLICANT.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 225
•
••
.• '
447
48
49
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
•
74
75
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
400
01
'402
PUBLIC FACILITIES: Streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals,
domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreation facilities, schools, public
buildings.
PUBLIC USE SUFFIX: A mapping overlay designation used to identify publicly owned, operated, or
leased land and facilities and the uses contained therein.
(Ord. 3719,4-11-1983; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4007, 7-14-1986; Ord. 4039,1-19-1987; Ord. 4346, 3-
9-1992; Ord. 4351,5-4-1992; Ord. 4367, 9-14-1992; Ord. 4517,5-8-1995; Ord. 4521,6-5-1995; Ord.
4522,6-5-1995; Ord. 4577,1-22-1996; Ord. 4827,1-24-2000; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4840, 5-8-
2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) .
4-11-170 DEFINITIONS Q: {Re-seFVeG}
QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL: A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline.
and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant subject in accordance
with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or BA or equivalent
degree in biology. and professional experience related to the subject habitat or species. rEOtf~Slffl'0m: In
part -State Example Code.]
4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R:
RAILROAD YARDS:' An area for the switching, storing, assembling, distributing, consolidat!ng, moving,
repairing, weighing or transferring of cars, trains, engines, locomotives, and rolling stock.
REAR YARD: See YARD REQUIREMENT.
REASONABLE USE: A legal concept that has been articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory
takings issues.
RECEIVING BODIES OF WATER: Creeks, streams, rivers,'lakes, storm sewers, wetlands and other
bodies of water into which surface waters are directed, either naturally or in manmade ditches or open
and closed systems.
RECOGNIZED HIGHER RISK: The handling, processing or storage of flammable, explosive, blasting or
toxic agents and their related processes and/or activities which are generally considered as high hazard
occupancy by agencies and/or publications, which include but are not limited to the Washington
Surveying and Rating Bureau, the American Insurance Association as per its Fire Prevention Code and
National Building Code, as the same may be amended from time to time as posing a higher risk on its
neighbors and/or adjacent or nearby properties natural or manmade waterways, or which may tend to
endanger environmental qualities before special actions are taken to mitigate adverse characteristics.
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, INDOOR: A place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports and
leisure-time activities within an enclosed space. Examples include gymnasiums, amusement arcades,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 226
I
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436·
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442.
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
·9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
,9459
health and fitness clubs, indoor tennis and racquetball courts, bowling alleys, and indoor swimming pools,
This definition excludes indoor sports·arenas, auditoriums, and exhibition halls,
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, OUTDOOR: A 'place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports and
leisure-time activities with little or no enclosed space. Examples include: private (commercial or private
club) outdoor tennis courts, private outdoor swimming pools, batting cages, ar:nusement parks, miniature
golf courses, golf driving ranges, and playgrounds. This definition excludes marinas, parks, golf courses
and outdoor sports arenas.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle that is:
'1. Built on a single chassis; and
2. Four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; and
3. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
4. Designed primarily not for use asa permanent dwelling but as temporary quarters for recreational,
camping, travel, or seasonal use.
This definition includes, but is not limited to, motor homes and travel trailers.
." .
RECYCLABLES: Newspaper, uncoated mixed paper, aluminu~, glass and metai food and beverage
containers, polyethylene terepthalate (PET #1) plastic bottles, high density polyethylene (HOPE #2)
plastic bottles, and such other materials that the City and contractor determine to be recyclable.
, RECYCLABLES DEPOSIT AREA: In multi-family residences, commercial, industrial and other
nonresidential development, the area(s) where recyclables will be stored.
RECYCLING COLLeCTION STATION: Acontainer or containers for the collection of secondhand goods
and recyclable materials.
RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING CENTER: A facility where collected recyclable items
are brought for sorting, compaction, transfer, and/or processing including changing the form of materials.
REFUSE: A term synonymous with municipal solid wast~ (MSW) including all accumulations of waste
matters discarded as of no further value to the owner, such as kitchen and table waste, wrappings and
small discarded containers, ,and small dead animals weighing not over fifteen (15) pounds, but shall
exclude all manure, sewage, large dead animals, petroleum products, cleanings from public and private
catch'basins, washracks or sumps, bulk waste,recyclables, yard waste arid special or hazardous wastes.
REGULATED ACTIVITY: (For chapter 4-3 RMC, Critical Area Regulation Use only.) All existing and
propos'ed activities located within a regulated critical area or critical. area buffer.
REGULATED SUBSTANC~S: See RMC 4-5-120G.
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS: Churches, synagogues, temples and other places where gathering for
worship is the principle purpose of the use. Typical accessory uses associated with this use include
licensed day care facilities, playground, community meeting facilities, and private schools, rectory or
convent, and offices for administration of the institution.
REMOVAL OF VEGETATION: The actual removal or causing the effective removal through damaging;
poisoning, root destruction or other direct or indirect actions resulting in the death of a tree or other
vegetation.
RENTAL UNIT: Any dwelling unit-which is occupied pursuant to a lawful rental agreement, oral or written,
express or implied, which was not owned as a condominium unit or cooperative unit on the effective date
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 227
•
'.
•
· 9460
"'61
-.462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
487
88
~89
.9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
~~~ ~5
of RMC 4-9-040, Condominium Conversion Regulations. A dwelling unit in a converted building for which
there has been no acceptance of an offer of sale as of October 15, 1979, shall be considered a rental
unit.
REPAIR or MAINTENANCE: An activity that restores the character, scope, size, or design of a
serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously existing, authorized and undamaged condition.
Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design are not
included in this definition:·
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT: A restriction on the use of land set forth in a formal binding agreement
running with the land and binding upon subsequent owners of the property.
RETAIL, BIG-BOX: A single indoor retail or wholesale user who occupies no less than seventy five
thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor area, typically requires high parking to building area ratios,
and has a regional sales market. Big-box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to,
membership warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and department stores. This
definition does not include auto sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses.
RETAIL SALES: Establishments within a permanent structure of less than seventy five thousand (75,000)
square feet engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household
consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. This definition excludes adult
retail uses, vehicle sales, big-box retail, outdoor retail sal~s, eating and drinking establishments, and
taverns.
RETAIL SALES, OUTDOOR: The display and sale of products and services primarily outside of a building
or structure, including but not limited to garden supplies, tires and motor oil, produce sales, farmers'
markets, manufactured homes, burial monuments, building and landscape materials, and lumber yards.
This definition. excludes adult retail uses, or vehicle sales. .
RETIREMENT RESIDENCE: A building or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including·
a common kitchen and dining room but witho!Jt full kitchen facilities (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator)
in each unit, for residents sixty two (62) or more years in age, except f()r spouses for whom there is no
minimum age requirement. This definition excludes multi-family (attached) dwelling units, boarding and
lodging houses, convalescent facilities, adult family homes! and group homes I and II.
RIPARIAN AREA: The upland area immediately adjacent to and paralleling a body of water andis
usually composed of trees, shrubs and other plants. Riparian functions include bank and channel stability,
sustained water su I flood stora e recruitment of wood debris leaf litter nutrients sediment and
pollutant filtering, shade, shelter, and other functions thaf are important to both fish and wildlife. uE~ltG~'
~: From Cowlit~ Countyj . .
ROADWAY: That portion of a street intended for the accommodation of vehicuiar traffic, generally within
curb lines.
ROOFS, PITCHED: A shed, gabled or hipped roof having a slope or pitch of at least one foot (1 ) rise for
each four feet (4) of horizontal distance in the direction of the slope or pitch of the roof. .
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT: Tree and other vegetation management undertaken as part of
a regularly scheduled program of maintenance and repair of property.
(Ord. 3366,10-15-1979; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4367,9-
14-1992; Ord. 4426, 11-8-1993; Ord. 4521,6-5-1995; Ord. 4522,6-5-1995; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord.
4851,8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 228
9516
9517
9518 .
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
. 9544 ···9545
9546
·9547
·9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555·
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562. 9563 .
9564
9565
9566
9567 .
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
SALES/MARKETING TRAILERS, ONSITE: Trailers used for· temporary on-site sales and marketing of .
developments and/or construction sites.
. SALMONID MIGRATION BARRIER: An in-stream blockage that consists of a natural drop (no human
influence) with an uninterrupted slope greater than 100-percent (45 degree angle) and a height in excess
of 11 vertical feet within anadromous salmon-bearing waters or a height in excess of 3 vertical feet within
resident trout only bearing waters. MHuman-made barriers to salmonid migration (e.g., culverts, weirs.
etc.) shall be considered barriers to salmonid migration by this definition. only if they were lawfully
installed; permanent: present a complete barrier to salmonid bassage based on hydraulic drop. water
velocity. water depth. or any otherfeature which would prevent all salmonid from passing upstream: and
in the opinion of the City Reviewing Official cannot be modified to provide salmonid passage without
resulting in significant impacts to other environmental resources. major transportation and utility systems.
or to the public. and would have significant expense. For the purposes of this definition significant
expense means a cost equal to or greater than 50% of the combined value of the proposed site buildings;
structures. and/or site improvements. and existing buildings. structures. and/or site improvements to be
retained. f~~ltOlSmate: This definition relates to new 4-3-050.L.1 water body classifications. The
description of the barriers to salmonid migration is intended to avoid interpretations that temporary
features should result in a lower stream class. or that partial barriers should lead to a lower stream class.
or the situation where someone is adding a barrier; the current mapping of barriers by a prior City .
consultant may not have included temporary or partial barriers; but the language here may help guide
future mapping ·updates.) ..
SCHOOLS/STUDIOS, ARTS AND CRAFTS: Schools and studios for education in various arts and crafts
including but not limited to photography, dance, music, and language skills.
Streamnet.org) .
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT: See RMC4-5-120G.
SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY (SCTF): A residential facility for persons civilly
committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under chapter 71.09 RCW. A secure
community transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of
· sex offender treatment services. Secure community transition facilities include but are not limited to the
· facilities established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250 and any community-based facilities established under
chapter71.09 RCW and operated by or under contract with the Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services. (Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002) . .
SEGREGATION: Division of land intolots or tracts each of which is one-one hundred twenty eighth
· (1/128) of a section of land or larger, or five (5) acres or larger if the land is not capable of description as
· a fraction of a section of land.
SENSITIVE AREAS: See CRITICAL AREAS.
SEPA: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (chapter43.21C RCW).
SERVICE AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS: An incorporated or unincorporated nongovernmental or
private association of persons organized for social, education, ·Iiterary or charitable purposes. This
definition also includes community meeting halls; philanthropiC institutions, private clubs, fraternal or
nonprofit organizations, and social service organizations. This definition excludes religious institutions and
offic"es, and government facilities. ..
. SERVICEABLE: Presently usable.
SERVICES, OFF-SITE: Establishments primarily engaged in providing individual or professional services
at the customer's home or place of business. Examples of off-site services include, but are not limited to,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 229
•
••
•
•
573
74
575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599 400
01
602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
~~~ 'lfz8
9629
temporary employment services, janitorial services, and professional house cleaner services. This
definition excludes service and social organizations and on-site services.
SERVICES, ON-SITE: Establishments primarily engaged in providing individual or professioMI services
within the place of business, such as beauty and barber shops, retail laundry and dry-cleaning including
coin-operated, garment alterations and repair, photo studios, shoe repair, pet grooming, photography and
photo reproduction, real estate offices, personal accountants, entertainment media rental or other indoor
rental services, and repair of personal or household items, except for vehicle repair. This definition
excludes adult retail uses, service and social organizations, and off-site services.
SETBACK: The minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line.
SETBACK LINE, LEGAL: The line established by ordinance beyond which no building may be built.
SEWAGE: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT PLANTS: A facility deSigned for the collection, removal,
treatment, and disposal of waterborne sewage. This definition excludes disposal facilities.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWAGE WORKS: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWER: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWER, BUILDING: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWER, PUBLIC: See RMC 4-6-100.
SEWER, SANITARY: See RMC 4-6-100.
SHOPPING CENTER: A group of buildings, structures and/or uncovered commercial areas, or a single
building containing four (4) or more individual commercial.establishments, planned, developed and
managed as a unit related in location and type of shops to the trade areas that the unit serves.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 230
9630
·9631
9632
9633
9634 9635 .
9636
9637
9638 9639·
9640
·9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
·9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
SHORT PLAT: The map or representation of a short subdivision. See PLAT, SHORT.
SHORT SUBDIVISION: See PLAT, SHORT.
SIDE SEWER: See RMC 4-6-100:
SIDE SEWER STUB: See RMC 4-6-100.
SIDE YARD: See YARD REQUIREMENT.
SIDEWALK: A concrete walkway separated from the roadway by a curb, planting strip or roadway
shoulder.
SIGHT TRIANGLE: See CLEAR VISION AREA.
SIGN: Any medium, including merchandise, its structure and component parts, that is used or intended to
be used to attract attention to the subject matter for advertising purposes. Signs do not inciude
sculptures, wall paintings, murals, collages, and other design features determined to be public art by the
City.
SIGN, A-FRAME: See SIGN, PORTABLE.
SIGN, ANIMATED: A sign with action or motion, flashing or color changes requiring electrical energy;
electronic or manufactured source of supply, but not including revolving signs or wind actuated elements
suchas flags or banners.
SIGN AREA: A measurement of the total area of a sign visible from anyone viewpoint or direction,
excluding the sign support structure, architectural embellishments, or, framework that contains no written
. copy, or does not form part of the sign proper or of the display. Freestanding letters or characters, where
no background is specially provided, shall be measured by determining the smallest rectangle or polygon
that encloses the extreme limits of the shapes to be used.
SIGN, COMBINATION: Any sign incorporating any combination of the features of pole, projecti!1g and
roof signs.
SIGN,ELECTRIC: Any sign containing or utilizing electrical wiring, but not including signs illuminated by
an exterior light source.
SIGN, ELECTRONIC MESSAGE. BOARD: Signs whose alphabetic, pictographic, or symbolic
informational content can be changed or altered on a fixed display screen composed of electrically
illuminated segments.
SIGN, FREESTANDING: A sign wholly supported by asign structure in the ground.
SIGN, GROUND: A type of freestanding sign, other than a freestanding pole sign, in which the sign is in
contact with or close to the ground, has a solid base anchor, and is independent of any other structure.
SIGN HEIGHT: Measured as the distance from grade, unless otherwise designated, to the top of the sign
or sign structure.
SIGN, ON-PREMISES: A sign which displays only advertising copy strictly incidental to the lawful use of
the premises on which it is located, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 231
•
•
•
~87
88
89
9690
9691
9692
9693
,9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
414
15
16
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
j!?
services rendered, goods sold or produced on the immediate premises, name of the business, person,
firm or corporation occupying the premises,
SIGN, POLITICAL: Signs advertising a candidate or candidates for public, elective office or a political
party, or signs urging a particular vote or action on a public issue decided by ballot whether partisan or
nonpartisan, .
SIGN, PORTABLE: A sign not permanently affixed which is designed for or capable of movement, except
for those signs explicitly designed for people to carry on their persons or which are permanently affixed to
motor vehicles.
A. Sign, A-Frame: A nonilluminated type of portable sign comprised of hinged panels configured in the
shape of the alphabetic letter U A." These signs contact the ground but not are not anchored to the ground
and are independent of any other structure.
SIGN, PROJECTING: A sign other than a wall sign which projects from and is supported by a wall or a
building or structure, and does not extend above any adjacent parapet or roof of the supporting building.
SIGN, ROOF: A sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or structure.
SIGN STRUCTURE: Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign as defined in this
Title. A sign structure may be a single pole and may not be an integral part of the building.
SIGN, TEMPORARY: Any sign, banner, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric,
cardboard, wallboard or other light materials, with or without frames, or advertising device intended to be
displayed only for a limited period of time including the following types of signs:
A. Advertising Device: Balloons, flags, inflatable statuary and figures, light strings, pennants/streamers,
, portable readerboards, searchlights, wind-animated devices, and similar devices of a carnival nature.
B. Balloon: A spherical, flexible, nonporous bag inflated with air or gas lighter than air, such as helium,
and intended to float in the air.
C. Banner: Any sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole and/or building by
any means. National flags, state or municipal flags, holiday flags, or the official flag of any institution or
business shall not be considered banners. A banner is not defined by shape and may be square,
rectangular, round, triangular/pennant shaped, etc.
1. Banner, Pole, Hung: A banner attached at its top and bottom to a pole or light standard by extensions
from the pole.' ,
2. Banner, Pole/Wall Strung: A banner attached at its top and bottom corners strung between buildings,
poles, and/or light standards.
3. Banner, Wall Hung: A banner attached to a building and where the banner lies flat against the building
surface at all times.
D. Devices of a Carnival Nature: All temporary signs, advertising devices, lights, and other means of
attracting attention, which are commonly associated with carnival settings, and which are not otherwise
specifically identified in the Renton Municipal Code. Fabric or plastic bunting shall be considered one type
of carnival device,
E. Flag: A piece of cloth or plastic, supported by a vertical or horizontal staff, which is intended to flutter in
the wind.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 232
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760·
9761
9762'
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
·9770
9771
9772
9773
·9774"
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
979t"
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
F. Inflatable Statuary: An advertising device that is inflated and the likeness of an animate or inanimate
object or cartoon figure is used to attract attention, advertise, promote, market, or display goods and/or
services.
G. Manual Message Board: Any sign that is designed so that characters, letters, or illustrations can be
changed or rearranged by hand without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
H. Pennant/Streamer: An individuql object and/or series of small objects made of lightweight plastic,
fabric, or other material, which mayor may not contain text, which is suspended from and/or twined
. around a rope, wire, or string. '
I. Readerboards, Portable: A sign which is self-supporting but not permanently attached to the ground or
building and can be moved from one location to another and is typically internally illuminated. Portable
readerboards are also known as "trailer signs."
J. Sign, Rigid Portable: A sign which is not permanently affixed and designed for or capable of movement.
Those signs explicitly designed for people to carry on their persons or which are permanently ·affixed to
motor vehicles are considered to be rigid portable signs. A rigid portable sign is not considered to be a
portable readerboard or "trailer sign."
K. Sign, Window: Any sign, temporary or permanent, designed to communicate information about an
activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window. Interior display of
merchandise for sale, including accessory mannequins and other props, shall not be considered window
signs.
L. Wind-Animated Object: Any device, e.g., windsocks, pinwheels, whirligigs, etc., whose primary
movements are caused by the wind or atmospheric conditions, attached by a tether. A balloon or
inflatable statuary, with or without moveable parts, is not coris,idered a wind-animated object.
SIGN, TRADITIONAL MARQUEE: A sign typically associated with movie theaters, perfor:ming arts
theaters, and theatrical playhouses. The sign is attached flat against and parallel to the surface of a
marquee structure. In addition, a changeable copy area is included where characters, letters, or
illustrations can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
. '
SIGN, UNDER. MARQUEE: A lighted or unlighted display attached to the underside of a marquee
protruding over public or private sidewalks. Under marquee signs may also be called "under awning" or
"under canopy" signs.
SIGN, WALL: Any sign painted, attached or erected against the wall of a building or structure, ""ith the
exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of said wall. In order to be considered a wall sign,
a sign may not extend above any adjacent parapet or the roof of the supporting building.
SIGNIFICANT #2 RATING: A rating assigned to wetlands in King County that are greater than one acre in
size; equal to or less than one acre in size and having a forested vegetation class; or the presence of
heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees.
, SINGLE-WALLED: See RMC 4-5-120G.
SITE PLAN:A detailed plan drawing, prepared to scale, showing accurate boundaries of a site and the
location of all buildings, structures, uses, and prinCipal site'development features proposed for a specific
parcel of land. '
SLOPE: An inclined ground surface the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance
to vertical distance, which may be regulated or unregulated.
SLOPE, STEEP: A hillside, or portion thereof, which falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or
protected. '
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 233
•
, •
•
•
799.
00
01
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825 .,6
~2~
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
~~ 'W54
9855
A. Slope, Protected: A hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope, as identified in the City of
Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater grade
and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15 ).
B. Slope, Sensitive: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (1) an average slope, as identified in
the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to
less than forty percent (40%); or (2) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope
Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than
fifteen feet (15), abutting an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a
method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%). This definition excludes
engineered retaining walls.
SMP: City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program.
SOIL ENGINEER: A licensed civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soil
engineering.
SOIL ENGINEERING: The application of the principles of soil mechanics in the investigation, evaluation
and design of civil works involving the use of earth or other materials and the inspection and testing of the
construction thereof.
SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT: A report including data regarding the nature, distribution, and strength of
existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective
measures when necessary, and options and recommendations covering adequacy of sites to be
developed by the proposed grading.
SOLID WASTE: Shall be defined as per Minimal Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, WAC
173-304-1 00(73).
SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS:
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, anus, pubic region, buttock, or female
breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; or
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES:
1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality;
3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breasts, whether
clothed or unclothed, of oneself or of one person by another; or
4. Excretory functions as part of or in connection with any of the activities set forth in this definition.
SPORTS ARENAS, AUDITORIUMS, AND EXHIBITION HALLS, INDOOR: A large enclosed facility used
for professional, semi-professional spectator sports, arena concerts, expositions, and other large-scale
public gatherings. This definition includes stadiums, concert halls, auditoriums, exhibition halls, and
accessory eating and drinking establishments. This definition excludes sports arenas or stadiums
associated with schools, cultural facilities, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs.
SPORTS ARENAS, OUTDOOR: A large outdoor facility used for professional, semi-professional
spectator sports, arena concerts, and other large-scale public gatherings. This definition includes but is
not limited to stadiums, concert arenas, and accessory eating and drinking establishments. This definition
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 234
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
·9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890 9891·
9892
9893
9894
'9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
excludes sports arenas or stadiums associated with schools. cultural facilities. movie theaters. and
entertainment clubs.
STABLES. COMMERCIAL: A land use on which equines are kept for sale or hire to the public. Breeding.
boarding. or training of equines may also be conducted.
STACKING SPACE: The space specifically de13ignated as a waiting area for vehicles whose occupants
will be patronizing a drive-through business. Such space is considered to be located directly alongside a-
drive-in window. facility or entrance used by patrons and in lanes leading up to the business
establishment. .
START OF CONSTRUCTION: Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit
was issued; provided. the actual start of construction. repair. reconstruction. placement or other .
improvement was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The actual start means either
the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site. such as the pouring of slab or
footings. the installation of piles. the construction of columns. or any work beyond the stage of excavation;
or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction. does not include land
. preparation. such as clearing. grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or.
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement. footings. piers. or foundation or the erection of
temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property as accessory buildings. such as
garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial·
improvement. the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall. ceiling. floor. or other .
structural part of a building. whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
STORAGE. BULK:
1 . The holding or stockpiling on land of material and/or products where such storage constitutes forty
percent (40%) of the developed site area and the storage area is at least one acre. and where at least
three (3) of the following criteria are met by the storage activity:
a. In a bulk form or in bulk containers;
b. Under protective cover to the essential exclusion of other uses of the same space due to special
fixtures or exposed to the elements; .
c. In sufficient numbers. quantities or spatial.allocation of the site to determine and rank such uses as the
principal use of the site; .-
d. The major function is the collection and/or distribution of the material and/or products rather than
processing; and
e. The presence of fixed bulk containers or visib)e stockpiles for a substantial period of a year.
2. Bulk storage facilities include. but are not limited to:
a. Automobile holding and transfer depots;
b. Brick or tile storage and manufacturing;
c. Concrete block and products storage and manufacturing;
d. Contractor equipment yards;
e. Equipment or machinery of the stationary type not in use. not mounted on necessary foundations or
connected as required when during use. not designated and used as portable. and not stored in a
warehouse. This includes operable motor vehicles or wheeled equipment used only periodically where -, .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments. July 13. 2004 235
•
•
•
.4 12
13
914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
•
39
~O
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
~~ ~7
storage durations exceed those provided for parking lots as defined in RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading
and Driveway Regulations;
f. Foundries;
g. Fuel yards, wholesale;
h. Grain or feed sites, elevators, or the open storage of grain and feed;
i. Log, random cut and chipped wood by-products storage;
j. Lumber mills and wholesalers;
k. Sand and gravel yards including sizing, transfer and loading equipment when present;
I. Scrap or junk yards and wrecking yards;
m. Solid waste holding and disposal areas;
n. Tank farms including distribution and loading systems.
3. Bulk storage facilities exclude:
a. Land banks, greenbelts, watersheds or public water reservoirs;
b. Parking lots or structures for private licensed automobiles;
c. Ship y~rds;
d. Warehouses alone or in conjunction with manufacturing on the site and when not including any of the .
uses listed above in subsection (2)(a) through (2)(n)of this definition; .
e. Facilities for storage of petroleum or any of its by-products, for use incidental to the primary use of the
property (e.g., heating, boiler or vehicular fuel or lubricants);
f. Retail service stations;
g. Retail sales lots for new ~r used automobiles.
STORAGE, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, ON-SITE· OR OFF:"SITE, INCLUDING TREATMENT: A facility
engaged in storage of materials, produced on-site or brought from another site, that are inflammable,
explosive, or that present hazards to the public health, safety, and welfare including all substances and
materials as defined under hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous waste.
STORAGE, INDOOR: A use engaged in the storage of goods and/or materials characterized by
infrequent pick-up and delivery, and located within a building. The definition excludes hazardous material
storage, self-service storage, warehousing and distribution, and vehicle storage.
STORAGE, OUTDOOR: A use engaged in. outdoor storage, wholesale, sales, rental, and distribution of
products, supplies, and equipment. This definition excludes hazardous material storage, warehousing and
distribution, and vehicle storage.
STORAGE, SELF-SERVICE: A building or group of buildings consisting of individual, self-contained units
leased to individuals, organizations, or businesses for self-service storage of personal property. This
definition excludes indoor storage, warehousing, outdoor storage, and hazardous material storage.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 236·
9968
9969
·9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
·9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
I 10001·
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
STORAGE, VEHICLE: An indoor or outdoor area forparking or holding of motor vehicles and boats or
wheeled equipment for more than seventy two (72) hours. This definition excludes vehicle sales, vehicle •
rental, body shops, tow truck operation/auto impoundment yard, auto wrecking yard, outdoor storage, and
indoor storage.
STORM SEWER and STORM DRAIN: A sewer which carries storm surface water, subsurface water and
drainage. See RMC 4-6-100.
STORY: That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface
of the floor above, except that thetopmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the
upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a
usable or unused under-floor space is more than six feet (6) above grade for more than fifty percent
(50%) of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet (12 ) above grade at any point, such usable or
unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story.
STORY, FIRST: The lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined herein,except that a
floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor
level is not more than four feet (4 ) below grade for more than fifty percent (50%) of the total perimeter, or
not more than eight feet (8 ) below grade at any point.
STREAM ALTERATION: The relocation or change in the flow of surface water runoff flowing in a natural
or modified channel.
STREAM, CREEK, RIVER, OR WATERCOURSE: Any portion of a channel, bed, bank, or bottom
waterward of the ordinary high water mark in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may
pass, and tributary 'Haters ' .... ith defined beds or bank which influence the quality of fish habitat
do\'mstream. This includes watercourses which flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in le\'el
during the year, and applies to the entire bed of such watersourse whether or not the ' .... ater is at peak
level. This definition does not include irrigation of ditches, canals, storm water runoff devices, or other
entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural \'Jatercoursewhich has been altered
by humans or except where there are salmonids. Refer also to RMC 43 05086.' .
STREAM/LAKE CLASS: . The stream and lake waters in the City are defined by class as follows:
1. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are: classified by the
City and State as Shorelines of the State.
2. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one
or more of the following criteria: .
a. Mapped on Figure a.I, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or
b. Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any
stage in the species lifecycle: and/or
c. is a water body (e.g. pond, lake) between 0.5 acre arid 20 acres in size.
3. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal
rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure aJj, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3.
4. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal
rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure a.~, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4.
5. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or
more of the following criteria:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 237
•
•
'
014
15
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
,10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
•
39
~O
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
~~ W67
10068
a. flow within an artifically constructed channel where no naturally-defined channel had
previously existed; and/or
b. Are a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria
for a wetland as defined in Section M.
STREET, ARTERIAL: Streets intended for higher traffic volumes and speeds as designated by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department.
STREET, COLLECTOR: A street providing access with higher traffic volumes than a typical residential, '
commercial, or industrial access street. Collector streets are designated by the Planning/Building/Public
Works Department.
STREET, COMMERCIAL ACCESS: A non-arterial street providing access to commercial land uses.
STREET FRONTAGE: (For purposes of sign regulations.) Business directly abutting a public right-of-way
affording direct access to the busine~s, or having a parking lot used by one business which fronts directly
on and gaining vehicular access from the public right-of-way.
STREET, INDUSTRIAL ACCESS: A non-arterial street providing access to industrial land uses.
STREET, RESIDENTIAL ACCESS: A non-arterial street providing access to residential land uses, and
not designated as a collector street by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department.
STRUCTURE: That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work
artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. '. .
SUBDIVISION: The division or redivision of land into lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose
of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. See also PLAT and PLAT, SHORT.
SUBDIVISION, PHASED.: A subdivision which is developed in increments over a peripd of time.
Preliminary plat approval must be granted for the entire subdivision and must delineate the separate
divisions which are to be developed in increments. The preliminary plat approval shall be conditioned
upon completion of the proposed phases in a particular sequence and may specify a completion date for
each phase. Final plat approval shall be granted for each separate phase of the preliminary plat and any
changes at the preliminary plat stage would require Council approval.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The tract of land which is the subject of the permit and/or approval action.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring
the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market
value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 238
I
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
. 10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
·10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100·
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
.10123
10124
10125
SUBSTANTIAL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Physical improvements, such as residential and/or
commercial structures and their accessory structures, that have a reasonable remaining economic life as
indicated by their assessed valuation.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the costof
which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either:
1. Before the improvement or repair is started; or .
2 .. lfthe structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred.
For the purposes of this definition "substantiallmprovemenr is considered to occur when the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structurc:d part of the building commences, whether or nor that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. .
The term does not, however, include either:
1. Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing State or local health, sanitary, or
safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
2. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State .Inventory of
Historic Places.
SUBTENANT: A person in possession.of rental unit through the tenant with the.knowledge and consent,
express or implied, of the owner.
SURVEY STANDARDS: City of Renton Survey Standards as adopted by the Planning/Building/ Public
Works Department. .. .
(Oid.2820, 1-14-1974; Ord. 3366; 10-15":1979; Ord. 3719, 4-11-1980; Ord. 3758; 12-5-1983; Ord. 4071,
6-1-1987; Ord. 4172,9-12-1988; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4367,9-14-1992; Ord.4517, 5-8-1995; Ord ..
4521,6-5-1995; Ord.4522, 6-5-1995; Ord. 4577,1":22-1996; Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 4691,1-6-1997;
Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4720, 5-4-1998; Ord. 4724, 5-11-1998; Ord. 4828,1-24-2000; Ord. 4832,3-6-
2000; Ord. 4835,3-27-2000; Ord. 4848, 6-26-2000; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd.
Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T:
TANK VEHICLE: A vehicle other than a railroad tank car or boat, with a cargo tank mounted thereon or .
built as an integral part thereof used for the transportation of flammable or combustible liquids, LP-gas, or
hazardous chemicals. Tank vehicles include self-propelled vehicles and full trailers and semi-trailers, with
or without motive power, and carrying part or all of the load.
TAVERN: An establishment used primarily for the serving of liquor by the drihk to the general public that···
holds a Washington State tavern license. Establishments in this category limit their dedicated dining area
to less than fifteen percent (15%) of the total establishment and restrict entry to the premises to persons
twenty one (21) years of age and older. This definition excludes restaurants, cafes, fast-food
establishments, microbreweries with restaurants, and espresso stands ..
TAXI STAND: A facility for pick-up and drop-off of taxi patrons, typically characterized by an area for
queuing passengers and taxis. . .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments; July 13, 2004 239
•
••
•
41 26
27
28
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
~3 'Mrs1.
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164.
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
~6
TEMPORARY OR MANUFACTURED BUILDINGS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION: Construction site
buildings housing the office of construction/development management and sales staff for duration of
construction.
TEMPORARY USE: A use of limited term. Temporary uses may be established under special
circumstances for some temporary time period.
TENANT: Any person who occupies or has a leasehold interest in a rental unit under a lawful rental
agreement whether oral or written, express or implied.
TERRACE: A relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and
maintenance purposes.
THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE (TLV): The concentration of certain airborne materials representing
conditions under which,it is believed and adopted by the American Conference of Govemmentallndustrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed day after day without adverse
effects ..
TOE OF SLOPE: A point or line at the low point of a natural slope or slope created through an excavation
or cut where the lower surface changes to horizontal or meets the existing ground surface. The toe of a
slope may be a distinct topographic break in slope gradient or the pOint in which the lower most limit of a
steep slope is inclined at less than the gradient of that steep slope for a horizontal distance of a minimum
of twenty five feet (25 ).
TOP OF SLOPE: A point or line on the upper surface of a.natural slope or slope created through an
excavation or cut where it changes to horizontal o~ meets the existing ground surface. The top of a slope
may be a distinct topographic break in slope gradient or the point in which the upper most limit of. a steep .
slope is inclined at less than the gradient of that steep slope for a horizontal distance of a minimum of
twenty five feet (25 ): . .
A. Top of Excavation or Cut: The upper surface point where the excavation meets the original ground
surface.
B. Top of Embankment: The upper surface point or line to which the side slope changes to horizontal or
meets original ground surface.
TOW TRUCK OPERATION/AUTO IMPOUNDMENT YARD: A facility that dispatches tow trucks for hire
with associated automotive. storage area for impounded vehicles.
TOWNHOUSES: See DWELLING, MUL H:FAMIL Y.
TOXIC SUBSTANCE: Those materials listed and documented by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), '
TRADE OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL: A school that provides post secondary education including
industrial and technical processes and may include continuing education courses as an accessory use.
This definition does not include arts and crafts schools/studios, or other higher education institutions such
as colleges, universities, or professional schools.
TRAILER, TRAVEL: See RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
TRANSIT CENTER: Any facility designed for accommodating large numbers of public transportation
passengers to wait, board, and disembark at the intersection of multiple transit routes.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 240
I
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
. 10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN: A plan developed by the occupant of a building or land use,
or by the developer of a proposed project, designed to provide mechanisms for reducing the vehicle
demand generated by an existing or proposed land use.
TREE: Any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a
caliper of six inches (6 ) or greater, or a multi-stemmed'trunk system with a definitely formed crown.
TREE CUTTING: The actual removal of the aboveground plant material of a tree through chemical, .
manual or mechanical methods.
TREE TRIMMING: The pruning of the tree in order to reduce the canopy of the tree provided that no more
, than forty percent (40%) of the live crown shall be removed during any pruning.
TRUCK TERMINALS: A building or area in which ,semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and
other trucks are parked, stored for seventy two (72) hours or less, and dispatched. This facility may
include incidental servicing and washing facilities. '
(Ord. 2820,1-14-1974; Ord. 3366,10-15-1979; Ord. 3746, 9-19-1983; Ord. 4351,5-4-1992; Ord. 4517, 5-
8-1995; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
4-11-210 DEFINITIONS U:
UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE: Any spilling, leaking, emitting, discharging, escaping, leaching, or disposing
of a hazardous material into the air, into groundwater, surface water, surface soils or subsurface soi,ls.
Unauthorized release does not include: intentional withdrawals of hazardous materials for the purpose of
legitimate sale, use or dispos~l; and discharges permitted under Federal, State or local law.
UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK: See RMC 4-5-120G .
UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITY: See RMC 4-5-120G.
UNDERWRITERS' LABORA 10RI ES: The Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: The adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials.
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS: The adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code
Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials.
UNIQUE/OUTSTANDING #1 RATING: A rating assigned to wetlands in King County which have species
that are listed as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those
species; wetlands having forty to sixty percent (40% to 60%) permanent open water in dispersed patches
with two (2) or more vegetation classes; "Yetlands equal to or greater than ten (1.0) acres in size and
having three (3) or more Wetland classes, one of which is open water; or the presence of plant
associations of infrequent occurrence.
URBAN: A Shoreline Master Program land use designation identifying an area for high intensity land
uses. It is suitable for those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive land use pressures, as well
as areas planned to accommodate future intensive urban expansion. .
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 241
•
•
•
1 36
37
38
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
163
64
1 265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
1 9
I 9~
URBAN GROWTH AREAS: Areas deSignated by a city and county for urban development over the next
twenty (20) years as required by the Growth Management Act beyond which urban growth should not
occur.
USE:
A. Uses, Permitted: Land uses allowed outright within a zone. Uses accessory to permitted uses are
treated in RMC 4-11-010 and 4-2-050.
B. Uses, Prohibited: Any such use not specifically enumerated or interpreted as allowable in that district.
See RMC 4-2-050.
D. Uses, Unclassified: A use which does not appear in a list of permitted, conditional, or accessory uses,
but which is interpreted by the Responsible Official, as similar to a listed permitted,conditional, or
accessory use and not otherwise prohibited. See RMC 4-2-050 ..
USED: The word "used" in the definition of "adult motion picture theater" herein describes a continuing
course of conduct of exhibiting "specific sexual activities" and "specified anatomical areas" in a manner
which appeals to a prurient interest. ,.,
UTILITIES: Utility lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or
disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, and telephone cable, and includes facilities
for the generation of electricity. This definition does not include sewage wastewater treatment plants,
wireless communication facilities, or solid waste disposal/recycling facilities.
A. Utilities, Large: Large scale facilities with either major above-ground visual impacts, or serving a .
regional need such as two hundred thirty (230) kv power transmission lines, natural gas transmission
lines, and regional water storage tanks and reservoirs, regional water transmission lines or regional sewer
collectors and interceptors.
B. Utilities, Medium: Moderate scale facilities serving the City, including subregional switching stations
(one hundred fifteen (115) kv and smaller), and municipal sewer, water, and storm water facilities not
included in a Council-adopted utility system plan.
C. Utilities, Small: Small scale facilities serving local areas within the City, including underground power
lines,.water, sewer, and storm water facilities included within a Council-adopted utility system plan, fiber
optic cable: 'pump stations arid hydrants, switching boxes, and other structures normally found in a street
right-of-way to serve adjacent properties.
UTILITY STANDARDS: For purposes of the aquifer protection regulations contained in RMC 4-3-050,
Critical Area Regulations, standard design and construction practices adopted by the Renton Water
Utility. .
(Ord. 3719,4-11-1983; Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4007, 7-14-1986; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4577,1-
22-1996; Ord. 4716, 4-13~1998; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-220 DEFINITIONS V:
VARIANCE: A grant of relief via departure from any provision of the requirements of this Title for a
specific parcel, except use, without changing the Title regulations permanently or the underlying zoning of
the parcel. The definition of variance does not include variations to provisions related to "use" including:
size limits, units per structure, or densities.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 242
I
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
.. 10343
10344
10345
·10346
10347
10348
VEGETATION TYPES: Descriptive classes of the wetlands taxonomic classification system-of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. FWS/OBS
-79/31 (Cowardin, et aI., 1979). .
VEHICLE:
A. Vehicle, Large: Motor vehicles including, but not limited to, trucks, recreational vehicles, buses, boats,
and heavy equipment, and similar size vehicles which have gross vehicle weights greater than ten
thousand (1 O,OOO) pounds, but excluding aircraft.
B. Vehicle, Small: Motor vehicles including, but not limited to, motorcycles, passenger cars, light trucks,
vans, and similar size vehicles which have gross vehicle weights less than ten thousand (10,OOO) pounds.
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LARGE: Rental and incidental servicing of motor vehicles
including but not limited to, trucks, recreational venicles, buses, boats, and heavy equipment, and similar
size vehicles which have gross vehicle weights greater than ten thousand (10,000) pounds, but excluding
airplanes or aircraft. This use excludes small vehicle rentals, and large and·small v~hicle sales.
. VEHICLE FUELING STATION: An establishment which supplies and dispenses motor fuels at retail as
well as ordinary accessory uses, including but not limited to, retail sales of food, groceries, and auto
accessories, and eating and drinking establishments~ .
VEHICLE RENTAL, SMALL: Rental and:jncidental storage and servicing of motor vehicles including but
not limited to motorcycles, passenger cars, watercraft, light trucks, vans, and similar size vehicles which
have gross vehicle weights less than ten thousand (10,OOO)"pounds. This use excludes large vehicle .
rentals, and large and small vehicle sales. . .
VEHICLE SALE$, LARGE: Sales, leasing, and incidental servicing of motor vehicles including, but not'
limited to, trucks, recreational vehicles, buses, boats, and heavy equipment, and similar size vehicles
which have gross vehiCle weights greater than ten thousand (10,OOO) pounds, but excluding airplanes or
aircraft. This use excludes small vehicle sales, and large and small vehicle rentals. . ..' .
VEHICLE SALES, SMALL: Sales, leasing and incidental servicing of motor vehicles including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, passenger cars,watercraft,light trucks, vans, and similar size vehicles which
have gross vehicle weights less than ten thousand (10,OOO) pounds. This use excludes large vehicle
sales, and large and small vehicle rentals.
VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR: Maintenance of motorized vehicles including exchange of parts,
installation of lubricants, tires, batteries; and similar vehicle accessories, minor customizing and detail
operations, but e?,cluding operations assoCiated with body shops, ari~ industrial engine or transmission
rebuild operations.· .
VEHICL~ STORAGE: See STORAGE, VEHICLE.
VETERINARY OFFICES/CLINICS: A place where common household pets are given medical care and
the accessory indoor boarding of animals is limited to short-term care incidental to the hospital use .
. . .
VOLCANIC HAZARDS: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from
post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II, Map D. in the report U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S, Geological Survey (Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier,
Washington. Open-File Report 98-428.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 243
•
•
•
1349
50
51
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
1 6
1 7~
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
i40~
04
(Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4715, 4-6-1998; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-230 DEFINITIONS W:
WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION: A use engaged in storage and distribution of manufactured
products, supplies, and equipment. This use excludes hazardous material storage, indoor storage,
outdoor storage, self-service storage, vehicle storage, and warehousing, storage, or distribution for
commercial laundry operations within the City of Renton Urban Center.
WASTE RECYCLING AND TRANSFER FACILITIES: Facilities for the collection of solid waste for either
recycling or transfer to a landfill or disposal facility. This definition includes but is not limited to concrete
and construction material recycling operations.
WATER AUTHORITY: The City of Renton Water Utility, or any other municipal or quasi-municipal entity
distributing water to fire hydrants within the City of Renton.
WATERCOURSE: See RMC 4-6-100.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 244
I
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
.10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441·
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
WELL: A pit or hole dug into the earth to reach an aquifer.
WELL FIELD: An area which contains one or more wells for obtaining a potable water supply.
WETLAND: For the purposes of inventory, incentives, and nonregulatory programs, those lands
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface
or the landis covered by shallow water. For the purposes of regulation, wetlands are defined by
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M4a.
Wetlands created or restored as part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Wetlands do not
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches,grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, .
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, or 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.
Drainage ditches are·not considered regulated wetlands. Also refer to RMC 4-3-050B7.
WETLAND BUFFERS or WETLAND BUFFER ZONES: Areas that surround and protect a wetland from
adverse impaGts·to its functions and values. Buffers are deSignated areas adjacent to a regulated wetland
which protect the wetland from changes in the location of the wetland edge. Wetland buffers minimize the
short and long term impacts of development on properties adjacent to wetlands, preserve important.
wildlife habitat, allow for infiltration and water quality improvement, protect buildings, roads and other
infrastructure as well as property owners from flood dClmage in years of high precipitation.
WETLAND CATEGORY: A classification system used for the purpose of regulating wetlands in the City .
. The criteria for determining a wetland's category are listed in RMC 4-3-1101.
WETLAND CREATION (OR ESTABLISHMENT): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics present to develop a wetland that did not previously exist on· an upland or deepwater site.
Establishment results in again in wetland acres.vIJETLAND CREATION: Actions performed to ... ..
intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist.
WETLAND, DISTURBED: Wetlands meeting the following criteria:
1. Are characterized by.hydrologic isolation, hydrologic alterations such as diking, channelization, and/or
outlet modification; and
. . .
2. Have severe soils alterations such as the presence of large amounts of fill, soil removal and/or
compaction of soils.
WETLAND EDGE: The boundary of a wetland as delineated using the Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M4a.
WETLAND, EMERGENT: A regulated wetland with at least thirty perce~t (30%) of the surface area
covered by erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost veg'etative strata.
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a
wetland (undisturbed or degraded) site the heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or for a
purpose such as water quality improvement. flood water retention or wildlife habitat. Enhancement
results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline in other wetland function, but does not
result in a gain in wetland acres. This term includes activities commonly associated with the terms
enhancement, management. manipulation. directed alteration.AGtions performed to improve the
ful::l€tien.iRg of an existing weUa~ase the. area-Gf-tHe wetiaHti-:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 245
•
•
•
161
62
63
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
."~ 10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
• 1
10516
WETLAND, FORESTED: A vegetation community with at least twenty percent (20%) of the surface area
covered by woody vegetarian (trees) greater than twenty feet (20 ) in height.
WETLAND, IN-KIND COMPENSATION: To replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose
characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity.
WETLAND, ISOLATED: Those regulated wetlands which:
1. Are outside of and not contiguous to anyone hundred (100) year floodplain of a lake, river, or stream;
and
2. Have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water.
WETLAND, OFF-SITE COMPENSATION: To replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland
has been impacted by a regulated activity. .
WETLAND, ON-SITE COMPENSATION: To replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a
wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity ..
WETLAND PROTECTION/MAINTENANCE: The removal of a threat to. or preventing decline of, wetland
conditions be an action in of near a wetland. Includes purchase of land or easement, repairing water
control structures or fences, or structural protection such as repairing a barrier island. This term also
includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Protection/Maintenance does not
result in a gain of wetland acres or function.
WETLAND, REGULATED: See RMC 4-3-050M1a.
WETLAND RESTORATION: The manipulation of the physical, chemical; or biological characteristics of a
site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of
tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: .
Re-establishment: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with
the .goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding
a former wetland and results in a gain in wetland acres.
Rehabilitation: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of repairing natural/historic functions of degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland
function, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Actions performed to Fe establish wetland functional characteristics and processes thatha'lebeen lost by
alterations, activities, or catastrophic events 'Nithin an area that no longer meets the definition of a
wetland.
WETLAND, SCRUB-SHRUB: A regulated wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) of its surface area
covered by woody vegetation less than twenty feet (20 ) in height at the uppermost strata.
WETLANDS: (This definition forRMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) Areas
that are inundated or saturated by s·urface 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 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after
July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of
wetlands .
WETLANDS, NEWLY EMERGING:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 246
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
·10546
10547
·10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
1 . Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and .
2. Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness, and used minimally by wildlife.
These wetland~ are generally, found in the Black River Drainage Basin.
WILDLIFE HABITAT: An area characterized by wildlife that forage, nest, spawn, or migrate through in
search of food or shelter.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.,.. TERMS RELATED TO:
A. Accessory Antenna Device: An antenna which is less then twelve inches (12 ) in height or width,
excluding the support structure (examples: test mobile antennas and Global Positioning System (GPS)
antennas).
B. Antenna: Any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the
transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. Antennas include the following types:
1. Dish Antenna: see Parabolic Antenna. .
2. Omni-Directional Antenna (also known as a "Whip" Antenna): transmits and receives radio frequency
signals in a three hundred sixty degree (360) radial pattern, and which is up to sixteen feet (16) in height
and up to four inches (4 ) in diameter. '
3. Directional Antenna (also known as a "Panel" Antenna): transmits and receives radio freque~cy signals
in a specific directional pattern of less than three hundred sixty degrees (360 ).
4. Panel Antenna: see Directional Antenna ..
5. Parabolic Antenna (also known as a "Dish" Antenna):' is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or
transmission radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern.
6. Whip Antenna: see Omni-Directional Antenna.
C. Attached Wireless Communication Facility: A wireless communication facility that is affixed to an
existing structure, for example, an existing building, tower, water tank, utility pole, etc., which does not
include an additional wireless communication support structure.
D. Collocation: The use of a single support structure and/or site by more than one wireless
. communications provider. .
E. Equipment Shelter or Cabinet: A room, cabinet or building used to house equipment for utility or
service providers.
F. FAA: The Federal Aviation Administration, which maintains stringent regulations for the siting, building,
marketing and lighting of cellular transmission antennas near airports or flight paths.
G. FCC: The Federal Communication Commission, which regulates the licenSing and practice of wireless,
wireline, television, radio and other telecommunications entities. .
H. Guyed Tower: A freestanding or supported wireless communication support structure which is usually
over one hundred feet (100 ) tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and is steadied by wire
guys in a radial pattern around the tower.
I. Lattice Tower: A self-supporting wireless communication'support structure which consists of metal
crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 247
•
•
•
t 73
74
575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589 ·10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
•
00
01
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
I ~
28
10629
J. Macro Facility: An attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less
than sixteen feet (16 ) in height or a parabolic antenQa up to one meter (39.37 ) in diameter and with an
area not more than one hundred (100) square feet in the aggregate as viewed from anyone point.
K. Micro Facility: An attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less
than six feet (6 ) in height or a parabOlic antenna with an area of not more than five hundred eighty (580)
square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one foot (1 ) diameter parabola or two feet (2 ) x one and one-half
feet (1-1/2) panel) as viewed from anyone point. Also known as a Microcell.
L. Mini Facility: An attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less
than ten feet (10 ) in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 ) in diameter and with an area
not more than fifty (50) square feet in the aggregate as viewed from anyone point.
M. Monopole I: A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support
structure, less than sixty feet (60 ) in height, erected to support wireless communication antennas and
connecting appurtenances.
N. Monopole II: A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support
structure, sixty feet (60 ) or greater in height, erected to support wireless communication antennas and
connecting appurtenances.
O. Provider: A company providing telephone or other communications service.
P. Related Equipment: All equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception of voice and data via
radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors.
Q. Support Structure: see Wireless Communication Support Structure.
R. Tower: see Wirel~ss Communication Support Structure.
S. WCF: see Wireless Communication Facility (WCF).
T. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF): An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of low-
power radio signals usually consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support structure, antennas
(e.g., omni-directional, panel/directional or parabolic) and related equipment, generally contained within a
compound. For purposes of this Title, a WCF includes antennas, support structures and equipment
shelters, whether separately or in combination.
U. Wireless Communication Support Structure: The structure erected to support wireless communication
antennas and connecting appurtenances. Support structure types include, but are not limited to, .
stanchions, monopoles, lattice towers, wood poles or guyed towers.
WRECKING YARD, AUTO: A facility for the dismantling or wrecking of used motor vehicles or trailers, or
the storage, sale, or dumping of dismantled or wrecked vehicles or their parts.
(Ord. 3758,12-5-1983; Ord. 4007,7-14-1986; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4351,5-4-1992; Ord. 4689,11-
24-1997; Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002)
4-11-240 DEFINITIONS X: (Reserved)
4-11-250 DEFINITIONS Y:
YARD: An open space between a building and a lot line.
YARD REQUIREMENT: An open space on a lot unoccupied by structures, unless specifically authorized
otherwise. The required yard depth is measured perpendicularly from a lot line to the outer wall of the
structure. In the case where a structure does not have an outer wall, such as a carport, the measurement
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 248
I
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637 '
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
'10654
10655
10656
10657
,10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
'10664
10665
10666
10667
shall be to the posts of such structure, unless otherwise de~ermined by the Development Services
Division. The Development Services Division shall determine the various requirements for uniquely
. shaped lots and pipestem lots. '}'
A. Front Yard: The yard requirement which separates the structure(s) from public right-of~way. For
through lots, corner lots, and lots without street frontage; the front yard will be determined by the
DevelopmentServices Division Director.
, , ,
, B. Side Yard along a Street: The yard requirement which is neither a front yard nora rear yard, yet it
abuts a street right-of-way.
C. Rear Yard: The yard requirement opposite the front yard. Where a lot abuts an alley, the.rear yard
shall always be the yard abutting the alley. For irregularly shaped lots, the rear yard shall be measured
from an imaginary line at least fifteen feet (15 ) in length located entirely within the lot and farthest
removed and parallel to the front lot line or'its tangent. .
D. Side Yard: The yard requirement which is not a front yard, a side yard along a street, or a rear yard.
(Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13-2002; Ord. 4999,1-13-2003)
4-11-260 DEFINITIONS Z: '
-ZERO,L:OT LINE: A siting technique which allows single family houses to be built along one lot line . ./' '
ZIP4R LOTS: A division of property using smaller lots with offset rear lot lines to allow a usable rear yard. ~, ' , " '
ZONE: A portion of the City towhich a uniform set.of regulations applies controlling the types and
intensities of land uses.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designated,
representative. , '
, ZONING, AREAWIDE: Zoning adopted for all properties within a district consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, rather than on a lot-by-Iot basis.
(Ord. 4523, 6-5-1995; Ord. 4549, 8-21-1995; Ord. 4584, 2-12-1996; Ord. 4587, 3-1'8-1996; Ord. 4595, 4-
8-1996; Ord. 4773, 3~22-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963,5-13';'2002)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 249
•
••
•
ST ATE OF 'V ASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter -referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Friday, 2/18/05
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $82.00 at the rate of $16.00 per inch for the first publication and N/A per
inch for each.subsequent insertion.
Lily Ngu
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal
~ '" 'worn to me thi, 18th d,y ofFebrWU)'. 2005. \\ \ \ \\ \1111/ /JIIII ~,,\\ W',EAG III//. ~ ~ .......... Ij~.t't~ ~ ~ •• ··~9\On El(;·.· •• ·r ~ ..::: 0 •. -~'\ '1'6 '\ ':-
2J....i! r.,RY"'\ ~ Tom A. Meagher == : CJ ~r::;-r.. _ i z ~
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, WashjJgto~ _e ,<::,. ; 0 :: -• pue\..:' : J.... ::: Ad Number: 858359 P.O. Number: -:::. (j)~'" r::.".' 0 ~ ""'" ().,~, Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. % .., ;.: .. ~~;.'!;:.~ •• ~-?-" .j'
1//1 S' OF W ~c;, ,\'~ II/ \\\ III/ 1/ 11111 \\ \\\
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF RENTON BEST'
AVAILABLE SCIENCE cRiTICAL
AREAS REGULATIONS AND
SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM GMA INTEGRATION,
FEATURING NEW STREAM,
RIVER, AND. LAKE
REGULATIONS (LUA-04-084)
Notice is hereby given that the
Renton Planning Commission will
hold a Public Hearing Wednesday,
March 2, 2005, 6:00 PM. at the
Renton City Hall, City Council
Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, 7th
Floor, Renton, WA.
The purpose of the praposal is to
meet .the Growth Management Act,
Shoreline Management Act, and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical
area protection in the City of Renton
context. The proposal includes:
Renton Comprehensive Plan policy
amendments; Shoreline Master
Program policy, map, and regul~tion
amendments; and Title IV ,code
amendments including amendinents
that address streamslriversllakes as
well as refinements to other critic8I
area sections, variance and permit
procedures, and other interrelated
codes.
All interested parties are invited to
the Hearing to express their opinion.
Written comments may also be sub-
mitted prior to the Public Hearing at
the above address.
Nancy G. Osborn, Secretary
Renton Planning Commission
Published in the King County Journal
February 18,2005. #858359
J:~.
&
\---=
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The noti~e in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below 'stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Friday, 11/5/04
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $56.38 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and NIA per
inch foveoch-S~ertion.
Lily NgyYen
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal
Subscribed and sworn to me this 5th day of November, 2004. \\ \ \ 1\ \ 1111 l/fllil \\\\\\ ~EAG .II///. ~ ?-. ~;." .•• !-to$: ~ ~' ~ , •• ~·~~\on Ex~· ... ~ ~ ~ ... ....... 0 .'~' I,. • ",
Tom A. Meagher f J.... /l-' '\ Jl.,R Y "'", \ %.
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, ~shiqgto~': e -i z ::
Ad Number: 847421 P.O. Number: ~ \. PUS\. . .'\; j E §
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. ~ tl). ... ",,,,"'/ c, ~ 'l '1).. •••• ~A.y 2,~"" ~ $' 'l 't: ......... ~" " ~//II 0 F W f>. CO \\\\\'Y-
1111111/11\\1\\\\
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A public hearing will be held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner in the
Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington, on
November 16, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., to
consider the following petition:
APPEAL
Renton Environmental Review
Committee's Determination of
Non·significance for the:
"City of Renton Best Available
Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration
Proposal, Featuring New Stream,
River, and Lake Regulations," File
LUA04-084, ECF.
All interested persons are invited to
be present at the Public Hearing.
Questions should be directed to the
Hearing Examiner at (425) 430-6515.
Published in the King County Journal
November 5, 2004. #847421
•
••
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and ha.s been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Friday, 1115/04
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $56.38 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and N/A per
inch fOI:-each subse~uent insertion. ~ ~.
LilyNgu~n
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal
Subscribed and sworn to me this 5th day of November, 2004. \\\\\1111 I liI/J/II' ~~ ,,\\\\ \>JIEAG.J.y IIIII/. • ~ ~ ~-.. ~··"" .. ·.f:~ ~ _~ ~~"·c:.,onE~IJI··' ~ --ooL-...::....;...:;...,"'"6''---==-~,--------~ 0'" .... $",t; .l"6).ro -', -::::.
Tom A. Meagher ~ '-/0<: \:)\ r:-,RY \ ~
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, WiiShinirtb~ @--:OZ== -I" __ ~.-
Ad Number: 847421 P.O. Number: ~ \ PU'?>\..\ .I '-2
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. ~ <.Jl ..... \. 'l-(l'::" ~0 ~ 'l .-<f '. MAY 2. , ••• .;:.:. ~ 'l '1'1:: ........... s ~. "
//1111 0 F \f'J P' \\\\"
1111/1/1111\1\\\\\ .
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A public hearing will be held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner in the
Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington, on
November 16, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., to
consider the following petition:
APPEAL
Renton Environmental Review
Committee's Determination of
Non-significance for the:
"City of Renton Best Available
Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration
Proposal, Featuring New Stream,
River, and Lake Regulations," File
LUA04-084, ECF.
All interested persons are invited to
be' present at the Public Hearing.
Questions should be directed to the
Hearing Examiner at (425) 430-6515.
Published in the King County Journal
November 5, 2004. #847421
'.
-
•
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
December ) 6, 2004
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANTS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
James C. Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
Representing: J. H. Baxter & Co.
A California Limited Partnership
Traci Shallbetter
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
2600 Century Square
1501Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Representing: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.,
Barbee Mill Co., Inc. and
Altino Properties
Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance for City of
Renton Best Available Science Critical Area Regulations
And Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration.
File No.: LUA 04-084, ECF
After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the November 16, 2004 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 16,2004, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Parties present: Zan etta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney
James C. Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, W A 98104
Traci Shall better
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
2600 Century Square
1501Fourth Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
I
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 2
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original
lication, various re orts, and letter of ap eal.
•
Exhibit No.2: Map of the area with four parcels
Traci Shall better stated that on the behalf of Barbee they were asking that the Examiner hold that the City erred
in issuing a DNS for its Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program amendments. They are asking
that the Examiner require the City to actually and adequately consider the probable significant impacts of these
CAO amendments on the environment through an EIS. SEPA requires that the City actually consider likely
impacts of the amendments. The City in an effort to comply with the growth management act requirements to
update its critical area regulation based on the best available science has proposed these amendments. Among
other things these amendments significantly increase the buffers around critical areas which include wetlands,
geologically hazardous areas, aquatic areas, and the shoreline of Lake Washington. The City has concluded that
because these regulations are designed to increase the protection of the environment, increase the protection of
critical areas, they are not going to have a significant impact on the environment and it appears that the City has
done its SEPA threshold determination with that lens on. SEPA requires actual consideration ofthe impacts,
and a proposal does not justify a DNS merely because it is designed to protect or improve the environment. She
cited a few cases in support of this fact. The City concluded that the CAO amendments around critical areas are
not going to have impacts despite the fact that Class I streams and waters, including May Creek and Lake
Washington, and constitute approximately 18 miles of Class 1 waters in the City, are going to be increased in
buffers from 25 feet to 100 feet. The City quadruples the size of buffers, it quadruples the "no build zone", and
this is just on Class I waters. Using this formula, the City is rendering nearly 19 million square feet of land that
is unbuildable. This will have a potential impact on the environment.
The City says no, no potential impact on environment, and it gives two reasons, first the reduction of buildable
land is not going to have an adverse impact because the City's 2002 buildable lands analysis says the City has
plenty of room for development. That 2002 buildable lands analysis did not consider streams and buffers. The
buffers do not need to be taken into account because when the density is calculated on a piece of property, that
density is calculated as if the buffers were developable. The result of that is to require the same density of
development on a far smaller piece ofland, the impacts of putting more development on a smaller piece ofland
has not been evaluated. Is there a point when development becomes too dense for a given area, or where
increasing the number of units on a given piece of land becomes such that it has adverse impact on the
environment. An example of this is the Barbee plat along Lake Washington, they have proposed 115 units on
approximately 22 acres, whereas in the City around 5 dwelling units per acre is an allowable density. If the 100-
foot buffers along May Creek and Lake Washington are used, there is only about 16 acres that are developable.
Now the 115 units are going to be on 16 acres, for the market and certainly for the environment that is not
feasible. The City has made the assumption, but one that is not allowed under SEPA, that because the CAO
amendments are designed for the good, they have not looked at all of the consequences of this action.
It is being requested that the examiner reverse the DNS, require the City to address in an EIS questions such as
where will the development be allocated, how much development is not going to be able to be constructed on
existing parcels, what will be the impact of increasing densities and allowing building on much smaller
buildable areas.
James Hanken, 999 Third A venue Ste., 3210, Seattle, W A 98104 stated that J. H. Baxter had been involved with
the City of Renton for a long time. They are located on the May Creek Delta and operate a wood-treating plant
since the early 1950's. Adjacent to that was the Riley Car and Chemical Company, and south of that Barbee
Mill operated a sawmill. These properties have been industrial properties on Lake Washington since 1917. Lots
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 3
•
of Lake Washington waterfront property in the City of Renton has been used for industrial purposes, the Boeing
plant is the most prominent nationally. Chemical hazards were released into the environment, they did not
respect the 100-foot line and those contaminations exist within 100 feet of Lake Washington. These p.oblems
exist within the 100-foot line. To create a non-buildable setback within that 100-foot line adversely impacts the
environment, it creates another layer of obstacles to overcome. Because of this and the failure to consider this,
there is no ability to sell this site, they have been working at this for years. Every time they get close there is
another hurtle to overcome. If you create a barrier from a development, the ability to do that, the environment
itself will suffer. That is an environmental impact. It is caused by economics, in order to remediate, money
must be spent, but the environment is the process that is impacted.
The Examiner questioned the process of not disturbing the 100 feet of Lake Washington have an effect on the
rest of the use of the property.
Mr. Hanken stated that it was not the use of the property, but rather the ability to clean up the 100 feet.
Zan etta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Baxter has indicated that the thrust of his argument is that
the SEPA appeal is based upon the fact that they won't be able to generate enough money on this parcel to clean
it up. That is not the way that SEPA operates, there is an existing situation on the Baxter property, they have
contaminated the property, they used creosote that got into the land and now they have to clean it up and
remediate. It is not this non-action project that has put the creosote on the property that pre-exists this non-
action project. The question is, is this non-action project either going to add more creosote or somehow unearth
the creosote to make it a problem or do something with the contamination on that site. Because what is
articulated as the basis of the appeal that really is an economic question and not a SEPA issue. It appears that
they lack standing. As it relates to Barbee there is a potential impact and until an appellant can show actual
impact and that they are actually impacted they lack standing. In that respect she asked the Hearing Examiner to
dismiss this appeal for lack of standing on both parties.
Mr. Hanken stated that the given environmental condition today for much of the property on the industrial sites
along Lake Washington and the Cedar River has contamination. The real issue is, does this process create a
concrete preservation of that environmental negative condition that is contaminated property, does it fix the
contamination in that property so that it cannot be remediated. That is the effect of this 100-foot setback, the
disincentive to remediate. The most common remediation mechanism for contaminated properties is something
called containment and containment is a process by which the contamination which because of its depth and
extent and cost to otherwise remove is held in place in a manner in which prevents its migration. That
containment process is done through various mechanisms, basically building walls around all sides and the top.
Therefore, no action is an environmental impact, it prevents the normal ability to cap.
Ms. Fontes stated that she was unfamiliar with any law that stands for the proposition that SEPA can be used to
make the City a guarantor that a property owner can remediate their land. SEPA is not a tool used to determine
that a non-action would have negative environmental consequences, therefore, the City must act.
The Examiner stated that there is a problem out there, it seems that at this point it does not matter who created
the problem. The standing argument mayor may not be appropriate, but if property is owned other than
contaminated property and property that would be affected by the City's regulations, they probably do have
standing to be here.
Ms. Fontes stated that the problem was that first of all there is no evidence that they own property that is going
to be affected, and to be an aggrieved person, they must show that they are going to be impacted. They then
have the burden of showing that it is going to be a negative impact on the environment.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16,2004
Page 4
•
Rex Allen, PO Box 448, Bothell, W A 98041 stated that he is an architect, project manager, and consultant. He
has worked on the Southport project on Lake Washington. That property was contaminated, which was
basically removed. Containment allows a person to leave contaminants in place that would be prohibitive to
move. An impermeable barrier is placed around and over the material. This is a permitted remediation by the
Department of Ecology. Often times the area that is being contained, a cap of some sort is used to provide a
barrier between the useable areas and the contamination. The type of work was done in the Juanita Park area
adjacent to Lake Washington on a stream that runs into Lake Washington.
The Examiner requested a description of where the three properties are located along Lake Washington and Mr.
Hanken, with the use of a map, explained their locations.
Upon further questioning by Mr. Hanken, Mr. Allen responded that he was familiar with the locations of
contaminations in the sites which J. H. Baxter is a partial owner. Those contaminations are within the 100-foot
line of Lake Washington. The best use of technology would be to utilize the cap as part of either a structure or a
parking lot, some other impervious use that would double up something that is going to be done with the
property in any case. It also provides the barrier that forms the cap. If that type of use were not available, it
would be much less feasible to develop that piece of property.
The Department of Ecology will require that the property be cleaned in its entirety, the remedy is either removal
or capping over the entire site not just behind the 100-foot line. There is a proposal at this point to cap the
bottom of Lake Washington out to a certain point.
The Examiner stated that economics is not the topic here, that is the applicant's separate concern. Economics is
not one of the elements required under SEPA.
It seems this has gone far afield, the site has been under various orders and the fact is cleaning it up or not
cleaning it up is the applicant/owner's responsibility. The economics of the property is not under SEPA.
Mr. Hanken continued asking questions of Mr. Allen. The mechanism for redevelopment on the Quendal
Terminal site would require capping inside the 100-foot line. The site can be remediated without dealing with
the 100-feet, however, the site would still remain contaminated. The entire site will need to be cleaned up. The
100-foot buffer creates another impediment to getting it cleaned up. It makes it more likely that the
contamination will remain. The buffer removes buildable area from the site, and reduces the likelihood that a
project can go forward which would provide a mechanism for the remediation to take place.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Allen responded that he had reviewed an early draft version of the City's
proposed upgrade, the ordinance that is on appeal today. He has not seen the version that has been given a DNS.
His opinions given here today are from the review of the ordinance and his previous experience at a similar site.
He was not aware that the ordinance would allow dredging and landfill in the buffer to accomplish remedial
action plans. He was aware that the ordinance allows for smaller setbacks and for buffer averaging in some
instances. The Southport property was purchased from Puget Sound Energy. The property was not cleaned up
in its entirety by Puget Sound Energy, Southport did have to do some ofthe clean up after the purchase.
He has done no work on the property south of the Quendal Terminal site, parcel #9034, Barbee Mill site, but is
familiar with some of the limitations ofthat site. That site will face some challenges but it can be developed.
There are still some industrial activities taking place on parcel #9002.
Puget Sound Energy primarily used removal on the Southport property as a remediation measure.
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 5
•
Ms. Fontes renewed the motion to dismiss, in particular Baxter, this is an economic consideration, and that is not
an appropriate consideration. Baxter has failed to prove standing.
The Examiner stated that at this point he was not willing to dismiss a party from the case. When he writes his
decision he will determine whether or not they have standing or if they have met their appropriate SEPA appeal
burden.
Ms. Shall better stated that the concern is that the environmental effects within the City of Renton as a property
owner and a resident of Renton they are entitled to a healthful environment. Concentrating more d~nsity in less
land is going to make for a less healthful environment.
Ms. Fontes cited a previous case and asked that the Examiner consider the following, where a two-part test was
applied to determine whether an entity or person was standing a challenge to SEPA determination. What a
person is seeking to protect must be within the zone on interests to be protected or regulated by the statutes for
constitution guarantees in question and that person must allege an injury in fact that they will be specifically
harmed by the proposed action.
Ms. Fontes stated that she was contemplating not putting on any evidence. She has not had an opportunity to
review council's memoranda at the beginning of this hearing. She asked for a break in order to read them and
know whether or not she needs to put forth any evidence.
A 35-minute break was taken.
Ms. Fontes stated that the recess was productive, the City will not be calling any witnesses, but she would ask
for an early lunch so that she could prepare her remarks for oral argument.
After much discussion it was determined that the closing statements would be written and submitted on the
following schedule:
Friday, November 19 Ms. Fontes will submit her written brief.
Tuesday, November 23 Ms. Shallbetter and Mr. Hanken will submit their closing responses.
It was agreed that all materials may be e-mailed to the parties.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11 :09 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The City received two appeals of its Determination of Non-significance for the City of Renton's Best
Available Science Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration. The two
separate appellants in themselves represent a number of associated parties. One appellant represents
Barbee Forest Products, Inc; Barbee Mill Company, Inc. and Altino Properties. The second appellant is
J. H. Baxter & Company Limited Partnership. The first appellant will be referred to herein as Barbee
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal • • File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 6
while the second appellant will be referred to herein as Baxter. The appeals were filed in a timely
manner.
2. The City is in the process of updating its Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program to
comply with the Growth Management Act. The provisions within those regulations that the appellants
have taken special issue with are those increasing the buffers around Class I waters. In that area the
regulations have expanded the buffer width from the current 25 feet to 100 feet. In its environmental
review the City issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for those
regulations on July 19,2004.
3. Both appellants objected to the City's determination. Both appeals allege similar errors and both
contained the exact same language in one particular: "The City appears to have presumed that since its
proposed revisions have the goal of enhancing environmental quality and preserving wetlands and
critical areas, the revisions do not warrant full environmental review." Both went on to quote a portion
of the WAC. Baxter than goes on to "join with and adopts Barbee & Altino Properties' appeal filed
contemporaneously."
4. Barbee noted nine objections, which can be summarized in part as:
1. The environmental analysis is inadequate since it did not identify and explain the economic and
socio-economic impacts of development.
2. Inadequate analysis of the impacts on existing land and shoreline uses including pllpulation
allocations.
3. Inadequate analysis of the impacts on private use and enjoyment.
4. Inadequate analysis of the natural and built environment associated with concentrating densities
elsewhere.
5. Inadequate analysis of the "reasonable use exceptions" baseline limitations.
6. The updates appear likely to have "more than a moderate effect on the quality of the
environment.
7. The updates are unconstitutional as they impose burdens on a few private landowners for the
public benefit.
8. SEPA requires unquantified environmental amenities and values be given appropriate
consideration which the City's analysis fails to do.
9. The City failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the updates including marginal impacts
thatmight amount to a greater overall impact.
5. The gist of the appeals is that the City proposes changing the buffer area that protects Clas3 I waters
from an existing setback of 25 feet to a setback of 100 feet. This, the parties maintain, will diminish the
amount of property that can be developed by them and other similarly situated shoreline owners. The
effect of this diminishment is that in order to support a certain population goal, additional density will
be necessary on other properties elsewhere in the City or increased density on the remaining portions of
the appellants' properties not affected by the buffer limitations.
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal • • File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 7
6. The Baxter appellants own approximately 20 acres of Lake Washington waterfront property that is
heavily contaminated. Baxter claims that their contaminated properties, and by extension, other
similarly contaminated properties cannot be cleaned up, decontaminated if you will, until economically
viable redevelopment plans are put forth. These plans are necessary to create the economic wherewithal
to fund such cleanup. The claim is that some or much remediation occurs as caps. If this can occur
within 100 feet of the shoreline, contaminated areas within that 100 feet, or 75 feet outward from the
existing 25 foot buffer, could be utilized for development of paved parking or building foot prints that
now would be foreclosed and left contaminated.
7. Barbee noted that it calculated that there were approximately 18 miles of Class 1 waters in the City.
They then figured those shorelines have two banks, calculated that the amount of land that would now
be limited would be twice that mUltiplied by the additional buffer width arriving at a figure of between
9.5 million and 19 million square feet of property. These calculations make no allowance for Lake
Washington's having what amounts to only one shoreline and not a double shoreline as a river or creek
would have. Nor does it factor in that some ofthe property might have been encumbered by wetlands or
very steep slopes. It also does not appear to factor in any of the property along those shorelines that
might already be developed and therefore, excluded such as most of downtown RentoIJ along the Cedar
River, the Maple Valley Highway along that same river, development already lining May Creek, the
Boeing complex along Lake Washington, industrial and office development along Springbrook Creek
and any ofthe numerous parks along some of those Class I waters. In other words, the figures are hard
to quantify for this issue.
8. The Barbee appellants own property along Lake Washington and May Creek that could be encumbered
by the proposed regulations.
9. The City noted that there are variances or modifications allowed from the standards that allow increased
densities on remaining areas ofthe property and that the buffers are not necessarily subtracted from
formulas that calculate the density of various properties. The City also noted dredging and cleanup are
also permitted in the buffer areas. None of these particulars were very much described at the hearing or
in submittals. That is a socio-economic argument.
10. W AC-I97-11-448 excludes socio-economic issues:
WAC 197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations.
(I) SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic; and other requirements
and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing
alternatives and in making final decisions. However, the environmental impact statement is
not required to evaluate and document all of the possible effects and considerations of a decision
or to contain the balancing judgments that must ultimately be made by the decision makers.
Rather, an environmental impact statement analyzes environmental impacts and must be used
by agency decision makers, along with other relevant considerations or documents, in making
final decisions on a proposal. The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and
officials can make the balancingjudgment mandated by SEPA, because it provides information
on the environmental costs and impacts. SEPA does not require that an EIS be an agency's only
decision making document ..
(2) The term "socioeconomic" is not used in the statute or in these rules because the term does
I
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal • File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 8
not have a uniform meaning and has caused a great deal of uncertainty. Areas of urban environmental
concern which must be considered are specified in RCW 43.2 IC.I 10 (I)(t), the environmental
checklist (WAC 197-I I -960) and 197-I I -440 and 197-I 1-444.
(3) Examples of information that are not required to be discussed in an EIS are: Methods
of financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal income and wages, and
social policy analysis (such as fiscal and welfare policies and non-construction aspects of
education and communications). EISs may include whether housing is low, middle, or high
income.
"The purpose of restricting the definition of environment, and hence mandatory EIS coverage, through
the listed elements of the environment, was to limit compulsory inclusion of so-called socio-economic
impacts." RICHARD L. SETTLE, THE WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLlCY ACT
§ 14.0 1[2] (14 ed. 2002).
CONCLUSIONS:
I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error.
2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be
reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port
Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous'
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
3.
Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.
For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in aONS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination ofthe
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (OS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly
flies in the face of reason since a OS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality ofthe environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-I I -794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood
of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity .. .Intensity depends on tlie
magnitude and duration of an impact.. .. The severity of the impact should be
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
•
Page 9
weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be
significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental
impact would be severe if it occurred.
5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...
Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely
have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782).
6. First, the City challenges the standing of both parties in this action. The City claims that neither
appellant can show any actual harm. This office is of the belief that the two appellants have standing in
this matter. In a change as substantial as increasing the waterside buffers along May Creek and Lake
Washington and other Class 1 waters, the general citizenry may have standing to argue on behalf of or
opposition to such changes. Ifthe public did not have any standing then substantial changes could be
implemented in the City's land use action and be immune from environmental challenge. That seems
contrary to the stated aims of the SEPA Statute. But that is not even the issue here. Here we have
parties who own substantial acreage that would be affected by the proposed buffer changes. Those with
property rights abutting those very shorelines have a more immediate need to be able to challenge an
environmental determination that will affect the way they may use their property. Ignoring for the
moment the environmental impacts of locating uses closer to the water's edge or further frum that edge,
the desirability ofthe final product could be affected by the distance a use is from the water's edge.
Many people would prefer being intimately associated with the water and increasing the buffer could
affect that. The appellants could be adversely affected by the increase in the buffers. Their property
could be diminished in economic value (although that is not a determination that can or will be made in
this decision). The appellants have standing to challenge the City's determination in this matter.
7. The appellants urge the Examiner to find that the City has the burden of demonstrating that it complied
with the SEPA requirements. The burden though is on the appellants to show sufficient facts that shift
the burden to the City. The appellants did not provide much in the way offacts that could be used to
reverse the City's determination.
8. The Barbee appellant argues almost strictly as a matter of law that the reduction in developable land and
the increased density necessary to counter the reduction has a significant impact on the quality of the
environment and, therefore, requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The only
factual matter actually presented is that Barbee owns land that will be affected. Their attorney herself
introduced information on how many square feet of land would be affected by the buffer change. Those
numbers ranged from approximately 9 million square feet to 19 million square feet. That is a fairly
wide range. Barbee noted that their figures err on the conservative side. How is one to determine that
from the information submitted? There was no comparison to how much other land in the City would
still be suitable for development. The absolute number standing alone is not very compelling. In
addition, the City countered that while the land might be limited by the buffer restrictions, exceptions
might be available, density could be shifted and other options were provided by the new regulations.
There is nothing in the record to substantiate the numbers. As noted above, those numbers may not
reflect the current uses on some portions of the area that would now be limited. The value of the data is
questionable in the way it was presented and the numbers themselves do not necessarily amount to
demonstrating the substantial impacts needed to require an EIS' preparation. The numbers are bandied
about but little factual basis was given other than some basic formulas. The appellant also alleges the
impacts on density elsewhere in the City will be significant and need full environmental analysis. There
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal • File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 10
•
is nothing in the record that even attempts to demonstrate this argument. It is merely asserted and its
significance is implied by the argument but left undocumented.
9. The Baxter appellant alleges that the enlarged buffer makes it more difficult for it to find a suitable
buyer who has the financial wherewithal to clean up the contaminated site. They conclude that this
inability to sell the property to someone who can clean it up will result in it remaining contaminated and
that is a significant environmental consequence. The argument is hollow. The appellant has been
required to clean up the site and remains under that legal obligation. The absence of these new
regulations in the past did not appear to lead to the remedy they now claim would now be harder to
achieve. They posit their argument in the following fashion: the enlarged buffers make it less likely that
someone will invest in this property and/or that the enlarged buffers will reduce the total economic
return of the property basically scaring off potential deep-pocketed investors who could afford to clean
up the site.
10. As noted above, the socio-economic impacts are not considered directly when making an environmental
determination. The economics of contaminant remediation was what Baxter stressed with its argument
that reducing the land available for development or for capping contaminated parcels would reduce the
pool of purchaser-developers and make remediation less likely reSUlting in significant environmental
impacts. The impacts of contamination already exist and the lesser buffer regulations now in effect
have not allowed Baxter to find a willing buyer. The existing contamination may have played a role in
the failure to sell and/or redevelop the site but it cannot be used as justification for requiring the
preparation of an EIS.
11. The appealing party or parties have a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the
ERC must be affirmed.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 16th day of December, 2004.
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of December, 2004 to the parties of record:
Jennifer Henning
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Traci Shall better
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
James C. Hanken
999 Third Ave., Ste. 3210
Seattle, W A 98104
Zan etta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
Renton, W A 98055
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal •
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
December 16, 2004
Page 11
•
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of December, 2004 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
All Parties of Record
Larry Rude, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transpiration Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City'S Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 30, 2004. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 30,2004.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation ofthe request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
•
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor·
September 28, 2004
James C, Hankeri
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, W A 98104
Hearing Examiner
. FredJ. Kaufman
. Re: Appeal of Determination of non-Significance for City of Renton Best Available Science
,Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, LUA-04-084, ECF
Dear Mr, Hanken:
Please be advised that the appeal hearing you requested in the above matter has been
scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the
Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady
Way in Renton.
Ifthis office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
·Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FI<Jnt
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Rebecca Lind, Development Services
Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton
----10-5-5-S-ou-th-G-ra-d-y-W-ay--R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-5-1-5 ----~
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consum~r AHEAD OF THE CURVE
•
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
October 11, 2004
James C. Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Re: Appeal of Determination of non-Significance for City of Renton Best Available Science
. Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, LUA-04-084, ECF
Dear Mr. Hanken:
Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been rescheduled for
Tuesday, November 9,2004 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FK1nt
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Rebecca Lind, Development Services
Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton
All Parties of Record
----1-05-5-S-0-u-th-G-r-ad-y-W-ay---R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-g-0-55--(-4-25-)-4-3-0--6-5-15----~
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
4~~
~~
5001 --6.2 ., -,o"C,
~~d
ishing
ONDI"-MAIL AD CAMPAIGNS,
PRETTY BAD:
. WE HOPE OUR NEW
PRODUCTS WILL REDUCE
YOUR INTEREST.
o Cash
• CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk .Division
1055 Bouth Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
425-430-6510
•• Receipt N~ 163
Date C\ /l/Otj
o Notary Service o Check No. _____ _
o Copy Fee
~ppealFee 0 __________ _
Description: A~\)fa\ -l\)A -()L\:084 '~S)n\!nrr "1\\\ .
Funds Received From:
l0,\d ., CL 'n'-' '" '\ I Amount $ 5 o~ I Name
Address
City/Zip
,': ," ~1; ',,' ,',
q\.AW UT1\~b o-t\11I'ne-5 C t o..",Vtn l· .
/ ~~f{f!:.~~.~h,tt;ll/l/lL-A...
. ~ ,.':'.! .. :, .'.->;.;~;. , -' ':~:,,;. .•• .;.".;': ·f "d :f;.-" .:: #,; ;,! ,,:,'" .; :,: ~., '!;;,,: ;"~; ... ;~:. ' . ., ·.~·i •. ,;.~il·,·&j~·~~~:,~<t~~:;-;:~~~I,~~.l,t.·~..'j-.. ~·n~1..'·;.!:.~,!.~~~~:;:.:;~~d:;;.:~.::::'!
•
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Renton Municipal Building
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C HANlCEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
F~(206)381-3574
September 7, 2004
•
CITY OF RENTON ;;, ; be \ '\i i 3 ·.55pffi
SEP 07 2004
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Re: Notice of Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance for City of Renton Best
Available Science Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration, LUA04-084, ECF
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
J. H. Baxter & Co., a California Limited Partnership, (" Baxter"), ("Appellant")
respectfully appeals the issuance of the Determination of Non significance ("DNS") issued on
August 18,2004 for the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Area Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration ("Updates"). A filing fee of $75 is enclosed ..
B~ter, as a long time Renton property owner which will be directly affected by the
Updates and the City's failure to adequately consider the potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Updates, finds it necessary to challenge this determination. 1
The City appears to have presumed that since its proposed revisions have the goal of
enhancing environmental quality and preserving wetlands and critical areas, the revisions do not
warrant full environmental review. As a result, the City's analysis of the impacts of the Update·
on land use and shoreline use, transportation, public services and utilities, economics,
socioeconomics, and private property has been superficial and insufficient. See WAC 197-11-
235(5)(b); WAC 197-11-330(5); WAC 197-11-444; WAC 197-11-448. In this respect, the City
has failed to comply with the express mandate of SEP A that reads:
A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial
aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall
consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse
environmental impacts under the rules stated in this section.
Baxter joins with and adopts Barbee & Altino Properties' appeal filed contemporaneously.
1 Baxter is a partner in Quendall Terminals, Inc.-the owner of the property at 4503 NE Lake Washington Boulevard in
Renton, W A under tax parcel # 292405-9002.
Fred J. Kaufman
September 7, 2004
Page 2
• •
More specifically, appellant objects to the DNS on the following bases:
As WAC 197-11-448 states "The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible
agency and officials can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEP A, because it provides
information on the environmental costs and impacts". The City does not provide any basis by
which the many industrially contaminated properties can achieve successful remediation oftheir
contaminated sites by development prohibited by this ordinance. Thus the "balancing jUdgment"
does not consider or evaluate such import on the waterfront industrial properties.
We also submit the reasons itemized by Barbie and Altino Properties.
Environmental factors are not readily subject to standardization or quantification and
hence there is great potential for abuse in rendering threshold determinations. See id. at 272-73.
Such potential for abuse, together with a need to ensure that an appropriate balance between
economic, social, and environmental values is struck, requires a higher degree of judiCial scrutiny
of SEP A threshold determinations than is normally appropriate for administrative action. Id.
Reviewing the City's DNS under applicable standards, with the purposes and policies of SEP A
in mind, reveals that the City's issuance of a DNS was clearly erroneous.
Thus, appellants respectfully request that the Examiner find that the City's issuance of a
DNS was clearly erroneous, such that the City will be obligated to fully and objectively consider
and evaluate the likely adverse environmental impacts of the Updates.
cc: Jennifer Henning, City of Renton .
Neil Watts, City of Renton
Larry Warren, City of Renton
Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton
Georgia Baxter
RueAnn Thomas
Robert Cugini
Crissa Cugini
Respectfully submitted,
Law Offices of James C. Hanken
LL_"IA~ ~JHanken
• CITY·OF RENTON ...
City Clerk Dirision
1055 South 'Grady Way.'
Renton, W A 98055
425-430-6510
• Receipt .N~ :162
Date 9/1/01-\.
o Cash 0 Copy Fee . 0 Notary Service o Check No. ~ppealFee .'. ···.·D __ -:--~ ___ _
Description: \) O\} \ ') \tJ~ \ j'x\ -\-, \ I:e ,,flO! 'l\ eLL P r \ p P l Ql \
LUA-04-08i\. \ \jQWo~~~<h \\ .'
FundS Received From:
Name
Address
City/Zip
..
':
\"\; I \' cW) C! IY)~. .:'.: ','
l'?OI.Y% Av.(; ..
wA ~~\O\ -lro66
I A,munt$l5'o .
y....... / ~~#~~ ((fi)H/L --------. ------
." City Staff Signature'
.'::;,... '. .. :'.'. ' .• :: '.. ',. ,,:~ ,;:,:,~,_:, . '''''''' "'·';"';.,.J:,£i, .'/,.';:d~:;; :(~ .. ;l; .. ;; ~,~; :.,,;;i'i';;'i'~;~·~i;;:;.';i.;J.:i':":~'!:"~I! " :~0;~./i,:;~".:,l,ij; •. 'i;~:";'f::;': .):~ :;'::i'j;l:p::,'X;1;;:*i';l,~;~)~;.,;~.;.l;1~/ij,~,,~tl.j,:".;iLr..: •. ,c., ".:,.!! .i, t,., I,.
• • LAWYERS
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C.
TRACI SHALLBETTER
DIRECT (206) 628·7633
tracishallbetter@dwt.com
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Renton Municipal Building
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
2600 CENTURY SQUARE
1501 FOURTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688
September 7, 2004
TEL (206) 622-3150
FAX (206) 628-7699
www.dwt.com
CITY OF RENTON
/:3&p,rn .
SEP 07 2004
R~CEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
381:1:10 S.)lH318A I ,.
03!\I3838
,00l. L 0 d3S
N01N3H:l0 A.U:
Re: Notice of Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance for City of Renton Best
Available Science Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration, LUA04-084, ECF
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
On behalf of Barbee Forest Products, Inc.; Barbee Mill Co., Inc.; and Altino Properties,
(together, "Appellants"), we respectfully appeal the issuance of the Determination of
Nonsignificance ("DNS") issued on August 18,2004 for the City of Renton Best Available
Science Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration ("Updates'}
A filing fee of $75 is enclosed.
As companies doing business and owning a significant amount of developable property in
the City of Renton, Appellants will be directly affected by the Updates and the City's failure to
adequately consider the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Updates. I
The City appears to have presumed that since its proposed revisions have the goal of
enhancing environmental quality and preserving wetlands and critical areas, the revisions do not
I Barbee Forest Products, Inc. owns the property at 4101 NE Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, WA under tax
parcel # 322405-9034 ("Barbee Mill").
Barbee Mill Co., Inc. owns the improvements and runs the sawmill operations at Barbee Mill.
Altino Properties is a partner in Quendall Terminals, Inc.-the owner of the property at 4503 NE Lake Washington
Boulevard in Renton, W A u~der tax parcel # 292405-9002.
SEA I 544907vl 26266-4
Seattle . 1 .
91 COPCI fo I\\ed \N~ S c, C 1111 /~ito-gntLi
September 7, 2004
Page 2
• •
warrant full environmental review. As a result, the City's analysis of the impacts of the Update
on land use and shoreline use, transportation, public services and utilities, economics,
socioeconomics, and private property has been superficial and insufficient. See WAC 197-11-
235(5)(b); WAC 197-11-330(5); WAC 197-11-444; WAC 197-11-448. In this respect, the City
has failed to comply with the express mandate of SEP A that reads:
A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial
aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall
consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse
environmental impacts under the rules stated in this section.
More specifically, Barbee objects to the DNS on the following bases.
1. The City's environmental analysis has been woefully inadequate in identifying
and explaining the impacts of the Updates, particularly the minimum buffer standards, on
economic and socioeconomic development. "SEP A contemplates that the general welfare,
social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be
taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions." WAC
197-11-448.
2. The City has failed to adequately consider the impacts that the Updates will have
on existing land and shoreline uses, including but not limited to popUlation allocations.
3. The City has failed to adequately consider the impacts that the Updates will have
on private use and enjoyment of property and the waterfront, including impacts to recreation, and
movement/circulation of people or goods.
4. Impacts on the natural and built environment (i.e., traffic, air, water, soils, public
services) associated with concentrating densities elsewhere within the City to offset the
elimination of buildable lands under the proposed amendments have not been adequately
disclosed or considered.
5. The "reasonable use exception" for certain minimum buffer standards retains
certain baselines below which development may not occur-regardless of whether development
below such baseline would have any adverse impacts on the critical areas and regardless of what
is revealed through best available science. As such, the reasonable use exception does not
remedy the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the Updates.
6. The Updates appear likely to have "more than a moderate effect on the quality of
the environment," and hence a DNS was inappropriate. Where there is doubt concerning
whether a probable significant adverse effect exists, the threshold determination should be in
favor of preparing an EIS. See Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Assoc. v. King County
Council, 87 Wn.2d 267,273,552 P.2d 674 (1976).
SEA 1544907vl 26266-4
Seattle
September 7, 2004
Page 3
• •
7. The Updates unconstitutionally force a few private land owners to bear burdens
for the public benefit.
8. According to Washington law, "what SEPA requires, is that the 'presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given Appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations.' See RCW
43.21C.030(2)(b); Norway Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 272. "It is an attempt by the people to shape their
future environment by deliberation, not default." Id. The City's DNS fails to reflect and comply
with the purposes and policies of SEP A.
9. The City has failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the Updates
on land use, development, economics, and socioeconomics. As noted in WAC 197-11-330(3):
"[t]he absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a
significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment." "Several
marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact," and the
City'S DNS evidences a failure to have considered such fact.
Environmental factors are not readily subject to standardization or quantification and
hence there is great potential for abuse in rendering threshold determinations. See id. at 272-73.
Such potential for abuse, together with a need to ensure that an appropriate balance between
econorni~, social, arid environmental values is struck, requires a higher degree of judIcial
scrutiny of SEP A threshold determinations than is normally appropriate for administrative
action. Id. Reviewing the City's DNS under applicable standards, with the purposes and
policies of SEPA in mind, reveals that the City's issuance of a DNS was clearly erroneous.
Appellants respectfully request that the Examiner find that the City'S issuance of a DNS
was clearly erroneous, such that the City will be obligated to fully and objectively consider and
evaluate the likely adverse environmental impacts of the Updates.
SEA I 544907vl 26266-4
Seattle
Respectfully submitted,
September 7, 2004
Page 4
• •
cc: Alex and Norma Cugini, Barbee Mill Company/ Altino Properties
Crissa Cugini, Barbee Mill Company/Barbee Fotest Products
Robert Cugini, Barbee Mill Company/ Barbee Forest Products
Jennifer Henning, City of Renton
Neil Watts, City of Renton
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Steven Wood, Century Pacific
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific
Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton
Matt Hough, Otak
Tom Goeltz, Davis Wright Tremaine
SEA l544907vl 26266-4
Seattle
STA TE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the .English langu~ge
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, WashlOgton. The KlOg
County Jour~al has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) w~ich was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated penod. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Friday, 9/10/04
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $412.88 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and N/A per
Lily Nguyen .
Legal Adve sing Representative, King County Journal Z S2;::" 10 me lhi, 10th day of Septembcr, 2004.
"'_,L.....:....:..::..:......:.....--------..:... -----:;,\\\\\1111111//1//
Tom A. Meagher "",,'\ f(;.p..GH~ III/,'. .
Notary Public for the State of Washingto~-Res.Mljlg"'E· .if¥.tmo~ WashlOgton
......: ~ •• -0'(\ 'X..IJ" -. ~ Ad Number: 846907 P.O. Number: 2' ~ ......... ;.\ &. \ ':§.
Cost of publishing this notice includes ~affiPfvi~!\~'\rge. \ f> ~ = I-: 0 ~./ : I-= ::: ~o ..... ~ : = :::'. IjfQ~~! C!J ::: ~ .• P ftt:).·~ ~
/. -. . ...... ~" ~ ~ tS' •••• M'A"f "".'. •• ""<.-S:f 'l. 1'.J!I ••• •• ····: .. I ..... CO .§' 'l. -~,.~ f 't' ~-~ "//1; 0;;: 0 \\\'\
IIII/IIIIIII\\\\\\:
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
CITY OF RENTON 2004 GMA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE AND BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE CRITICAL AREAS
REGULATIONS AND .
SHOREUNE MASTER
PROGRAM GMA INTEGRATION
Notice is hereby given that the
Renton Planning Commission will
hold a Public Hearing Tuesday,
September 21, 2004, 6:00 PM. at the
Renton City Hall, City Council
Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, 7th
Floor, Renton, WA.
The purpose of the Public Hearing
is to consider the 2004 Growth
Management Act mandated
amendments to the Renton
Comprehensive Plan. These proposed
amendments include text updates to
the Vision, and the Land Use,
Housing, Transportation, Utilities,
Capital Facilities, Environment, and
Economic Development Elements.
Three new Elements are proposed:
Community Design, Human Services,
and Parks, Open Space, Trails and
Recreation. ·Changes in the Land
Use Element include reorganization
of the Commercial and Residential
designations and incorporation of the
existing Downtown Element section
into policies shaping development of
the City's Urban Center. In addition,
the Planning Commission will
consider amendments to the Land
Use Element Map to implement the
proposed text amendments and to
consider private land use/concurrent
rezone proposals described below.
The Commission will also hear the
proposed Best Available Science
Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration.
#2003-M-02 (LUAoOl-167): King
County Public Health
Department NE 4th Street
Facility
Applicant: City of Renton
Property Owner: King County
Proposal: Change the
Comprehensive Plan designation
from Center Institution to
Commercial Corridor and rezone
from Light Industrial to Commercial
Arterial.
#20M-MoOl (LUA-03-118): Jones
Rezone on Maple Valley Highway
Applicant: Troy Jones
Property: 2904 Maple Valley
Highway
Proposal: Consider Land Use Map
Amendment from Residential
Options to Neighborhood
Commercial and rezone from R-I0 to
Commercial Arterial. .
#2OO4-Mo02 (LUA-03-120): Sunset
Heights Retirement
Applicant: Hendrickson Family
Property: 141st Ave SE to 146th
Ave SE between NE Sunset Blvd and
NE 112thPI
Proposal: Request Land Use Map
Amendment from Residential Rural
to Residential Medium Oensity with
concurrent rezone from Residential
Rural to R-10.
#2OO4-M-03 (LUA-03-119):
AnMarco I Old Stoneway
Concrete Plant Site
Applicant: AnMarco
Property: 1920 Maple Valley
Highway
Proposal: Land Use Map
Amendment and Rezone from COR
to Commercial Corridor designation
and Commercial Arterial zoning.
#2OO4-M-04 Revisions to the
Employment Area-Valley and
Automall
Applicant: City of Renton
Property: Southwest Renton area
Proposal: Expand the Automall to
Oakesdale Avenue SW on the west
and Williams Avenue S on the east.
This expansion will require adjusting
the designations for land currently in
the .Employment Area -Valley to
Employment Area -Industrial.
#2004-Mo05 Revisions to
Centers, Institutional, and
Residential Designations and
Associated Zones
Applicant: City of Renton
Property: Citywide
Proposal: Commercial Areas -
Eliminate the Center Suburban and
Center Neighborhood designations
and replace them with a Commercial
Corridor designation. The
underlying zoning would be
Commercial Arterial. Change the
Convenience Commercial designation
and zoning to Neighborhood
Commercial. Residential Areas -
Consolidate the Residential Multi-
Family Center Suburban, Residential
Multi-Family Neighborhood Center,
and Residential Multi-Family Infill
into a single Residential Multi-
Family designation and zone.
ConSolidate the Residential Options
and Residential Planned
Neighborhood designations into one,
Residential Medium Density. The
underlying zoning remains
Residential 10 and Residential 14.
Incorporate the Center
Institution designation into the new
Commercial Corridor designation for
Valley Medical Center and the
Renton Technical College, and
change the Institutional designation
to Employment Area Industrial for
the 'King County properties (adjacent
to NE 3rdl4th and Monroe and NE
2nd) with existing industrial zoning.
#2OO4-M-06 SW Sunset
Boulevard
Applicant: City of Renton
Property: 600 Block of SW SUllset
Boulevard and portions of the 400
and 700 Blocks, and a portion of the
300 Block of Stevens Avenue SW
Proposal: Redesignate a portion of
single-family designated and zoned
land, Single Family Residential· and
Residential 8, respectively, to the
Comprehensive Plan designation
Commercial Corridor with
Commercial Arterial zoning.
#2OO4-Mo07: Residential 4
Zoning (Citywide)
Applicant: City of Renton
Property: Citywide
Proposal: Review zoning in the
Residential Rural Land Use
designation (proposed Residential
Low Density). Existing R-l, R-5
zoning will be evaluated to
determine if R-4 zoning is
appropriate on the sites. ~~'he
Commission will also consider two
groups of parcels in the Single
Family designation to determine if
the properties should be considered
for redesignation in the proposed
Residential Low Density designation.
Group #1 includes the
unincorporated area on SR 900
adjacent to 142nd Street and
includes King County PID #s
0323059078, 0323059119,
0323059054, 0323059155 &
0323059161. Group #2 inclmles:
multiple properties in the
unincorporated area between SE
95th Way on the north and the City
of Renton boundaries on the south,
mostly west of Union Avenue NE
except for the area north of NE 27th
and east of Union Avenue NE, also
south of SE 95th Way. The area is
generally south of May Creek and
north of Honey Creek.
City of Renton Best Available
Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA
Integration, Featuring New
Stream, River, and Lake
Regulations (LUA-04-084): The
purpose of the proposal is to meet
Growth Management Act, Shoreline
Management Act, and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical
area protection in the City of Renton
context. The proposal includes:
Renton Comprehensive Plan policy
amendments; Shoreline Master
Program policy, map, and regulation
amendments; and Title IV code
amendments including amendments
that address streamslrivers/lakes as
well as refinements to other critical
area sections, variance and permit
procedures, and other interrelated
codes.
All interested parties are invited to
the Planning Commission Public
Hearing on September 21, 2004 at
6:00 p.m. to express their opinion.
Written comments may also be
submitted prior to the Public
Hearing at the above address.
Jerrilynn Hadley, Secretary
Renton Planning Commission
Published in the King County Journal
September 10,2004. #846907
STA TE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been' approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Monday, 8/23/04
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $71.88 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the fit:St publication and NIA per
inch for eaclb SUbS'C:---
Lily Nguye
Legal Adtertising Representative, King County Journal
Subscribed and sworn to me this 23rd day of August, 2004. \\\\\\111 II 1 It//I ~ ~ ",-,:.' lJ,'f..AGI-( IIII///. ~ ", ............. ~.-9 ~
$' '" .. ".-::\011 ExlJ;,.··.. ~ ~ '-.. -',~ @1oS' -. ~ Tom A. Meagher 2 /? /l ,f:>..RY .... ~
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, ~as~ic8~~ $ ---; 6 ~
Ad Number: 846757 P.O. Number:. ::. \, p ro\'\~",: /-. ~
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. ~ tl''''' U '1-<:><:>/ ~ $ '/ /'0 '" AfAY '2, ••••• ~ $ ~ '1r ............ ,,::>'-"
. /////1 ~ 0 F \['J po.. \\\\~
11//1/1/ II \ \I \ \1\\
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review
Committee has issued a
Determination of Non-Significance
for the following project under the
authority of the Renton Municipal
Code.
City of Renton Best Available
Science . Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration,
Featuring New Stream, River,
Lake Regulations
LUA04-084, ECF
Appeals of the environmental
determination must be fIled in
writing on or before 5:00 PM
September 7, 2004. Appeals must
be filed in writing together with the
required $75.00 application fee with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98055. Appeals to the Examiner are
governed by City of .Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.
Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from
the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)
430-6510:
Published in the King County Journal
August 23, 2004. #846757
e
--
·~ " •
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 15th day of September, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Postponed Public Hearing documents. This information was sent to:
State Agencies See Attached
Parties of Record See Attached
~. _ AdJ"£~ ,/ ,.. ... ," ...... ,'\"
(Signature of Sender): 7~(j' ~ _---~~\\..'lN ~""'t
r i" ~~.:~\s·sio···~o .", .. ..o~ I\t~ •• ~ ~
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) f .... (j ~Ol,q ~ ... ~ ~
) SS ~: _ -9;.";P~ " ~
iJ:,,.. : -m.·' .. VI iO·, CI) ~ COUNTY OF KING ) ~ -t \ vellC .: : ~~.. : ~
I, ~ •• !X<. •• ~ .:
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker "" o~··.~:~.? .... ~o f'
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act f8N~Rod"-
purposes mentioned in the instrument. \""" .........
Dated: q/'<'tDL( ~~~
NotarYPUlCif'land fortheStatW ashington
Notary (print): _____ -iM~A~R~'lYNBtNflKAMCbIffl'I~HmEFFIt7tt""Z!"7!1r;;:;_---------
My appointment expires: ~IAPP8INfMENrtxPIRES 6"29-07
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
Richard Gumpert
IDC
742 1st Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
Dean Radford
King County Journal
600 Washington Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
Lowell Anderson
8225 S 128th Street
Seattle, WA 98178
Suzann Krom
4715 V2 36th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126-4715
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LP
1501 Fourth Avenue #2140
Seattle, WA 98101
Farideh Mastan
13810 SE 42nd Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
Matthew Mega, AICP
Urban Habitat Program Director
Seattle Audubon Society
8050 35th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Penland
Department of Fish & Wildlife
PO Box 43155
Olympia, WA 98504-3155
Elizabeth McNagny
Department of Social & Health Services
PO Box 45848
Olympia, WA 98504-5848
Review Team
Department of Community, Trade &
Economic Development
Growth Management Services
PO Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
-Garrett Huffman
South King County Manager
Master Builders Association
335 116th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Sandra Lange, Planner
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Daniel E. Penttila
Fish Biologist
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100
LaConner, WA 98257-1100
Tom Malphrus
Friends of the Black River
18713 102nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
Renee Schaefer
PGP Inc.
1325 4th Avenue #500
Seattle, WA 98101
Donna J. Bunten
WA Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Traci L. Shall better
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Attorneys for Barbee Mill Co.
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1688
Bill Koss
Parks and Recreation Commission
PO Box 42650
Olympia, WA 98504-2650
Harriet Beale
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
John Aden
Department of Health
Division of Drinking Water
PO Box 47822
Olympia, WA 98504-7822
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
2115 N 30th #203
Tacoma, WA 98403
Richard Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Brad Olschefski
6672 156th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98006
Chad Armour
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
10500 NE 8th Street #1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
James C. Hanken
Law Offices of James C Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
Nancy Winters
Department of Corrections
PO Box 41112
Olympia, WA 98504-1112
Anne Sharar
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47001
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Bill Wiebe
Department of Transportation
PO Box 47300
Olympia, WA 98504-7370
SEPA/GMA Coordinator
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
.. . . ..
Lorinda Anderson
Interagency Committee on Outdoor
Recreation
PO Box 40917
Olympia, WA 98504-0917
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Jamey Taylor
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Acting Community Dev. Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
• WDFW -Stewart Reinbold
clo Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Duwamish Tribal Office
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
KC Wastewater Treatment Div.
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
Environmental Planning Supervisor
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
KC Dev. & Environmental Svcs.
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Gary Kriedt
Senior Environmental Planner
201 S Jackson Street, KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Title Examiner
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-5004
e
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Fisheries Dept.
Attn. SEPA Reviewer
39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources
Program
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Office of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson
Director of Community Development
13020 SE 72nd Place
Newcastle, WA 98059
Puget Sound Energy
Joe Jainga
Municipal Liason Manager
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
e e
City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANA
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas PLAN REVIEW:
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Pro osal, Featurin New Stream, River, and Lake Re ulations
SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA ross: NlA
LOCATION: NlA I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water UghtiGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POL/CY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
SignaCrfj g.~", Rep"."'ta"'" Date
Agencies See Attached
Parties of Record See Attached
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS
COUNTY OF KING
"""""\" ........... oJN "A "~II
...... _"l ,-v,t11.' t ;-.···S .. ,·o····. O..t.", f ~ .... ;t-'S N ~' •• ~ ~ ',1. , :O~ :r..o. "<' ~
: :'CJ ~OTAt«?J.-~\ "1\ ~ ~ : -.-~: ~ ~(J)' f:l ., l "'" \ liBUC .: ! ',~'. ...~: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker '" ~ "'!!:<9-07 .... ··~O /
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volunt~6~~?~es and
purposes mentioned in the instrument. ',\,\\, ............. ~ ...
Dated: ~ 2d),:::o'>¥ ~ry~n~~ington
() MARILYN KAMCHEFF Notary Print :_--...JnW¥'A'~AI2~P9Hg"!ffmMfAf:HNfHEX*f[plfflffl~ES:1::6=~2lj-I"710rTr __________ _
My appointment expires:
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
template -affidavit of service by mailing
Richard Gumpert
IDC
742 1st Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
Dean Radford
King County Journal
600 Washington Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
Lowell Anderson
8225 S 128th Street
Seattle, WA 98178
Suzann Krom
4715 V2 36th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126-4715
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LP
1501 Fourth Avenue #2140
Seattle, WA 98101
Farideh Mastan
13810 SE 42nd Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
Matthew Mega, AICP
Urban Habitat Program Director
Seattle Audubon Society
8050 35th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Penland
Department of Fish & Wildlife
PO Box 43155
Olympia, WA 98504-3155
Elizabeth McNagny
Department of Social & Health Services
PO Box 45848
Olympia, WA 98504-5848
Review Team
Department of Community, Trade &
Economic Development
Growth Management Services
PO Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
e
Garrett Huffman
. South King County Manager
Master Builders Association
335 116th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Sandra Lange, Planner
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Daniel E. Penttila
Fish Biologist
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100
LaConner, WA 98257-1100
Tom Malphrus
Friends of the Black River
18713 102nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
Renee Schaefer
PGP Inc.
1325 4th Avenue #500
Seattle, WA 98101
Donna J. Bunten
WA Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Traci L. Shallbetter
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Attorneys for Barbee Mill Co.
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1688
Bill Koss
Parks and Recreation Commission
PO Box 42650
Olympia, WA 98504-2650
Harriet Beale
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
John Aden
Department of Health
Division of Drinking Water
PO Box 47822
Olympia, WA 98504-7822
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
2115 N 30th #203
Tacoma, WA 98403
Richard Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environ. Asst. Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Brad Olschefski
6672 156th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98006
Chad Armour
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
10500 NE 8th Street #1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
James C. Hanken
Law Offices of James C Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
Nancy Winters
Department of Corrections
PO Box 41112
Olympia, WA 98504-1112
Anne Sharar
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47001
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Bill Wiebe
Department of Transportation
PO Box 47300
Olympia, WA 98504-7370
SEPA/GMA Coordinator
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
.;-.
>-
Lorinda Anderson
Interagency Committee on Outdoor
Recreation
PO Box 40917
Olympia, WA 98504-0917
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Jamey Taylor
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Acting Community Dev. Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, W A 98032-5895
WDFW -Stewart Reinbold
c/o Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Duwamish Tribal Office
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
KC Wastewater Treatment Div.
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
Environmental Planning Supervisor
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
KC Dev. & Environmental Svcs.
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Gary Kriedt
Senior Environmental Planner
201 S Jackson Street, KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Title Examiner
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-5004
e
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Fisheries Dept.
Attn. SEPA Reviewer
39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources
Program
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Office of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson
Director of Community Development
13020 SE 72nd Place
Newcastle, WA 98059
Puget Sound Energy
Joe Jainga
Municipal Liason Manager
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
• •
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: City of Renton Beat Available Science Critical Area. Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA IntegraUon, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-084, ECF
LOCATION: Citywide
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the City of Renton Besl Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA IntegraUon project Is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goal. for critical area protection In the City 01 Renton
context.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Appeal. of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM
September 7, 2004. Appeal. must be flied In wrltlng together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearlng Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional Information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING DATE WILL BE
SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC
HEARING.
i
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT' ............ """'\\,
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. I .............. pS'\LYN ~·"t. r-__ D~O~N~O~T~R~E~M~O;:V~E~T~H~I~S:::N~O:::TI::C~E~W1~T~H~O~UT~P~R~O~PE~R~A~U~TH~O~R~I~Z~AT~I~O;:;:N~_ .. I:-~ ........... .,
Please Include tile"l1raject NI,!M~ERw""ri'c!llllng for,prope' tile Id._8, n,. !Iflcatlon. _.' .~tJ\ISSJ:O··' "
.... ---...... -----.... -.................. --~,j,I-iiI-~;;,;,;--;.;,;,;;,;;.;.;.;;. __ ... : .';9"" ~'. (\ , .. .." N ~' • ..,. ~ ____ 1,_ l O~ +'~ ~ ~ ,"'". _ '9 'O., .. ~ , -4: A) -. '.J,.. $: "TI ~ ~ ~ ~ u~.... 1'r7:"l1: ~ ~ \0'.' 'I.. Ie "".: : I, o'~ ... '" ~ ····~ ... 07 ••••• ;' I, ~ .•.....•.•• o~ --
I, Oeret ~(o&..h ,hereby certify that aC copies oft~,~'~~~~~,'!~ ........... • ......
above document were posted by me in ~C conspicuous places on or nearby
the described property on ~u.&+ l~ ( ~00'-t
Signed:-m~}.,J-. k~~
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn per:e me, a Notary Public, i~ ~ ~ --()()
Washington residing i~~ ,on the ~ day of ~ ~tX/ .
CERTIFICATION
MARILYN KAMCHEFF
MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07
•. !~ .' ,.....
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 30th day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Revised Notice of Application -Extended Comment Period documents. This information
was sent to:
Parties of Record See Attached List
(Signature of .... olnnt':lr/~.,c.~:::Ia:~~:0.....3::;ztl..4..~~~ ___________ _
"''''''''''''\\'' STATE OF WASHINGTON :-_ ...... ~\.~!:' .. ~41.·.ttt SS :~ ~ .... SSIO •••• OL', : ~ •• ~~... N~ ••• ·~',
COUNTY OF KING f /8 ~OTA-9 +~"'~~ ~: J.-m: ~ t1.. ...... en-, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~ Cf) ~ /:JU8 C : :
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act f~~~ ~selAnd ./~ f
purposes mentioned in the instrument. \t ;;···?'!.·.~1.···~A....°_f , "I',~ WASt-\\~ ~, ...... -
Dated: Q M ~ -)0. ;;oos-r .. "",,, •• -
e of Washington
Notary (Print): _____ -i1RAH1B'HMM*fl"l'J!-_________ _ MP.A1l'1N IWJleHEW My appOintment expires: MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 1:_?Q_"7
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
PARTIES OF RECORD
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
Richard Gumpert
IDC
742 1st Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
party of record
Dean Radford
King County Journal
600 Washington Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
party of record
Daniel E. Penttila
Fish Biologist
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100
LaConner, WA 98257-1100
party of record
Suzann Krom
4715 V2 36th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126-4715
party of record
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LP
1501 Fourth Avenue #2140
Seattle, WA 98101
party of record
Farideh Mastan
13810 SE 42nd Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
Garrett Huffman
South King County Manager
Master Builders AssOCiation
335 116th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
party of record
Sandra Lange, Planner
Shorelands & Environ. Asst.
Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
party of record
Lowell Anderson
8225 S 128th Street
Seattle, WA 98178
party of record
Tom Malphrus
Friends of the Black River
18713 102nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
party of record
Renee Schaefer
PGP Inc.
1325 4th Avenue #500
Seattle, WA 98101
party of record
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
2115 N 30th #203
Tacoma, WA 98403
party of record
Richard Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environ. Asst.
Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
party of record
Brad Olschefski
6672 156th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
Chad Armour
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
10500 NE 8th Street #1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
party of record
',,, '411 .'
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 30th day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Extended Comment Period Letter documents. This information was sent to:
Agencies See Attached List
N~'" (Signature of ...... C'1-~'"
'~" ' t\OTA..9L "1\ ~ r ~ S ~.--. ~ S (p \ ~(j8L\C .: l COUNTY OF KING ~ •• .. ~ : ~···~:~9-07 ...... ~o l'
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker .?f:' WAS~\~<:;"~---
Signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary a~t'tol'~~"uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: OMf· .;>0, i;;:lYyl
Notary (Print): ___ ---,~mTiI;m:YN~KAMC~::::.HEfE~------------
My appointment expires: MVAPPOINlMENTEXPIRES 6-29-07
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
Dept. of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Jamey Taylor
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Acting Community Dev. Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Nancy Winters
Department of Corrections
PO Box 41112
Olympia, WA 98504-1112
Steve Penland
Department of Fish & Wildlife
PO Box 43155
Olympia, WA 98504-3155
Elizabeth McNagny
Department of Social & Health Services
PO Box 45848
Olympia, WA 98504-5848
Review Team
Department of Community, Trade &
Economic Development
Growth Management Services
PO Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
JFW -Stewart Reinbold
c/o Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Duwamish Tribal Office
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
KC Wastewater Treatment Division
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
KC Dev. 8t Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Title Examiner
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-500
SEPA/GMA Coordinator
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Bill Koss
Parks and Recreation Commission
PO Box 42650
Olympia, WA 98504-2650
Harriet Beale
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
John Aden
Department of Health
Division of Drinking Water
PO Box 47822
Olympia, WA 98504-7822
.kleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Dept.
Attn. SEPA Reviewer
39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources
Program
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Office of Archaeology 8t Historic
Preservation
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson
Director of Community Development
13020 SE 72nd Place
Newcastle, WA 98059
Puget Sound Energy
Municipal Uason Manager
Joe Jainga
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-Ol W
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Lorinda Anderson
Interagency Committee on Outdoor
Recreation
PO Box 40917
Olympia, WA 98504-0917
Anne Sharar
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47001
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Bill Wiebe
Department of Transportation
PO Box 47300
Olympia, WA 98504-7370
DATE:
LAND USE NUMBER:
July 30. 2004
LUA-04-084. ECF
APPLICATION NAME: Best Available SCience Critical Areas Regulations lind Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration Proposal, Featuring New Stream. River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT DESCRiPTiON: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project ts to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection In the City of Renton context A
summary of the proposal Is as follows:
Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies as part of a "best available science review" in accordance with GMA,
particulaMy the Environment Element along with other elements.
Amend Renton's Critical Areas Regulations:
o Based on a best available science review, amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies
(streams and lakes), apply buffers based on water body class, allow for alterations subject to performance and
mitigation standards, and provide for no-net-Ioss of ecological function.
o Based on a best available science review, provide for appropriate amendments to improve or better document the
wetland review process.
o Based on a comparison wtth example regulations and review 01 currant studies, make limited amendments to
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard. habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations.
Propose Renton Shoreline Master Program amendments to: o Integrate and make limited amendments to Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies.
o Address Shoreline Use Environment text and map inconsistencies for the Black River and Cedar River at the
Maplewood Golf Course and recognize current and planned uses.
o Provide for shoreline protection regulations for regulated riverslstreamsllakes, including buffers, similar to the
critical area streamllake regulations.
As a result of the above, amend other interrelated regulations. including, but not limited to Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting regulations. Title IV variance and permit procedures. as well as others.
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Umlt.
OPTIONAl DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As tho Load Agency. Ihe City 01 Renlon has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore. as
permitted under the RCW 43.21 C., 10. the City of Renton Is using the Optional ONS process to give notice that a DNS is
likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period.
There will be no comment period followtng the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non~Significance (ONS). A 14·
day appeal period will follow the issuance of the ONS.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION:
PennltaIRovlew Requested:
July 15. 2004
July 19. 2004
Environmental (SEPA) Review
Other PennitslApproval8 which may be required: Planning CommiSSion Recommendation, City Councll Legislative
Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Coordination 01 State Agency
Comments (GMA related items). Pugst Sound Regional Council Consultation and Consistency Review, State of
Washington Department of Ecology Approval (Shoreline Master Program Amendments)
Requested StudlesfExlstlng Studle~ or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared.
Other background memos and studies related to the proposal include best available science analysis to establish
streamlriverllake buffers and to review existing wetland regulations; a comparison/analysis of example codes and City
aquifer protection. flood hazard. geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations; and
memos describing Comprehensive Pian and Shoreline policy amendments. Shoreline Use EnVironment mapltext
amendments. and ~~'t1Ii)w.~~n amendments, .;, .... -:.~ KAMe "" -.... ~"' •....... iIY~ ",
.: ~ ... "-.,,;S\ON Ej;:· .... )(>.. 'It. ; ~~ ~e...,.... 'rv';.\~ ~ " .. """ ".:t .... -T"'A ... L ~. , :: "::0 ~\}: ,... .... ~~. ~
PlanninglBulldlnglPubl1c Wor1ca DMslon
Development Services Department •
1055 South Grady Way. Ronlon. WA 98055
Comments on the above application must be submitted In wr! '
Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. by 5:00 PM on August tlng Development Services Division. 1055 South ~~5h7t50 beA made a party of record and receive addltlon!'n~~~!;tl~~~Uy ~vlel questions about this proposal. , nyone who submns written t wi a • contact Judy Wright .t (425) notified of any decision on this project. comman s II automatically become a party of record and will be
CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wrlghl. lei: 425043D-6575 eml' Jwrlghl@cl renl ,. . on.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE TliE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to be made a party of record to rae . . .
this fonn and return to: City of Renton, Development e~~:nf~~~e; ~n~~at~n on this proposed project, complete
File NoJName: LUA04-Q84 I Crit' I A • 0, rady Way. Renton. WA 98055, lea reas Code Amendments 2004
NAME:~ ______________________________________________ __
ADDRESS:~~ __________________________________________ _
TELEPHONE NO,: ____________ _
~ : Q '!~ ~ ... ~ .. ~
~ . ., ~ • ,. PU ... ·\..,"-' : <:" : ". ... . 0 .. ,. CERTIFICATION
~d'I~... .'-" ~ Itt "1 .. •· •.. 6-29·0~ .. ·~~ : t, '~ ••••••••• J.., .... _-
ff.. OF W/l-S'P ...... --""\'n~~"""''''''''I Dere-lL. j,.. ,/ ,'"'\ .... , , O. ~ , hereby certIfy that ~ copies of the
above do~ument were posted by me in ~o conspicuous places on or nearby
the descnbed property on ~ (.b(, t 0\ l ~0Ot-f .
. , Signed~)u:L *~.-t~
ATTEST: SUbSCnbed~ me, a Notary Public in and for the St/te;f ~. ~---,
W""hiogton<esiding ,onthe ~ iA day OfO<:t;(A , ~ ~ .
. MARl!.: KAMCHEFF
MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-084, ECF
LOCATION: Citywide
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project Is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton
context.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM
September 1-, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING DATE WILL BE
SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC
HEARING.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA04-084, ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT NAME: Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to
meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shore line Management Act
(SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in
the City of Renton context.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
Citywide
City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be
involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 2004.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal code
Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
August 23, 2004
August 17,2004
A}ida/itt! -fIJI Gle,,~ Z,W1njN'n1tM
Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator I
Department of Plannin uilding/P blic Works
eeheeiei,Fiie Chief
Renton Fire Department
To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator
Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief
From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
Agenda listed below.
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004 (Lind)
LUA04-084, ECF
The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shore line
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of
Renton context.
cc: K. Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
A. Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator ®
B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ®
J. Gray, Fire Prevention
N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ®
F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
S. Engler, Fire Prevention ®
J. Medzegian, Council
S. Meyer, PIB/PW Transportation Systems Director
R. Lind, Economic Development
L. Warren, City Attorney ®
., , 1
STAFF
REPORT
A. BACKGROUND
ERC MEETING DATE:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
e
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
August 17, 2004
City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake
Regulations
LUA-04-0B4, ECF
City contact -Judy Wright (425-430-6575); Alternative City Contact -Rebecca
Lind (425-430-6588)
Project Description: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton
context. Specific objectives are to:
• Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the Environment
Element.
• Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes, and based upon
the literature review develop buffer requirements. The review program includes recommendations to
amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies, apply buffers, and provide for no-
net-loss of ecological function.
• Document a best available science review of the City's wetland regulations, and provide for appropriate
amendments to improve or better document the wetland review process.
• Compare the City's aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation
regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as appropriate.
• Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan
pOlicies, address text and map inconsistencies, and provide for shoreline protection regulations. These
limited amendments would apply in the interim until full Shoreline Master Program Update is
accomplished in accordance with the new SMA schedule (2009 for the City of Renton):
o Integrate Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive Plan, essentially intact.
Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities ofRCW 90.58.020 (differentiate between
Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all other Shorelines of the State that are found in the City).
o Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course to address
Shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified annexed area. Field review and analysis were
conducted for the limited map amendments. For these areas regulations would be applied consistent with
environmental limitations and existing uses.
o Address shoreline protection regulations, including buffers, in the Shoreline Master Program to provide for
equivalent protection per State legislation (ESHB 1933), while responding to use priorities ofRCW 90.58.020.
Project Location: Would apply citywide.
Exist. Bldg. Area gs(: non-applicable Site Area: non-applicable
B. RECOMMENDATION
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
C of Renton BAS Critical Areas
REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 2004
&SMP GMA ration
Enviro~tal Review Committee Staff Report
. . LUA-04-084 ECF
Page20/4
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials
make the following Environmental Determination:
x
DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
None proposed. See Section D.
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED.
Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period.
Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period
followed by a 14 day Appeal Period.
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental
determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal
process for environmental determinations
Non-applicable.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those
project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and
environmental regulations.
Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development?
The proposal adds stream regulations expanding the buffer width from 25 feet in most instances to 35 to 100 feet
depending on water class; it enhances the coordination of the Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan; it
makes minor adjustments to other critical areas such as addressing volcanic hazards; and it modifies review
procedures generally. The proposal is a non-project action. The proposal has been developed by the City. No
mitigation measures are proposed.
The proposal includes several features intended to balance environmental protection with the varying environmental
conditions -urban, suburban, natural -found in the City. Buffer widths vary by classification based on the quality of
the critical area. Addressing the variable environmental conditions and need to allow reasonable use of property are
the following measures:
• Existing development would be recognized, and in cases where the buffers are largely developed, they would be
treated as setbacks;
• Density credits in buffers (same development potential, clustered away from critical area);
• Buffer reductions where enhancement or other mitigation is included; some would be allowed administratively
provided criteria are met; further reductions allowed by variance;
• Buffer averaging provided enhancement or other mitigation is included: averaging the total area required with the
reduced areas up to ,half of standard width; further reductions allowed by variance.
• On and off-site mitigation allowed where buffer reductions, buffer averaging, or impacts to critical area are
identified; and '
• Modifications and variances.
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
of Renton BAS Critical Areas & SMP GMA Into/,r,;,tinn
EnViro.tal Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-04-084 ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 2004 Page30f4
The chart below summarizes the environmental analysis in the SEPA Checklist associated with the DNS.
Topic Summary Analysis
Earth Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposal
will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The regulations maintain
development precautions in areas of geologic hazards. Minor improvements to the City's geologic hazard
regulations are proposed:
• Additional review criteria are proposed to ensure development is safely accommodated .
• The proposed regulations would newly address volcanic hazards and require critical facility proposals
(e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS
to demonstrate adequate engineering standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and prepare an
evacuation and emergency management plan.
Air Quality Not applicable to this non-proiect action.
Water The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The
proposal adds new stream, river, and lake regulations, including amendments to classify water bodies,
protect streams and lakes with buffers, and provide for no-net-Ioss of streamJIake ecological.function.
The regulations maintain development precautions in aquifer protection areas. Amendments include
minor modifications to improve or better document the City's decision-making process with respect to
wetland protection as site-SI!ecific develcmments are reviewed ..
Plants/Animals The proposal will increase protection of aquatic life, particularly salmonids with new stream, lake and river
buffers and related standards. The proposal will continue habitat conservation regulations, which may be
used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The City deSignates habitat conservation
areas, primarily by referencing State and Federal designated endangered, threatened, sensitive, and
priority species. It requires a habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that
require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and Federal Agency input. The
City may condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas.
Energy Not applicable to this non-project action.
Environmental Health Not applicable to this non-project action.
Noise Not applicable to this non-project action.
Land Use The pLirpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the context of
the City of Renton environmental and planning conditions. The non-project proposal would increase the
compatibility of the City's plans and regulations with State planning requirements. It would allow for
mitigation of future site-specific land use proposals with the potential to impact critical areas and shoreline
ecological functions.
Housing At a programmatic level the development regulations would affect how development occurs. Existing
residential development can continue. New residential development is generally required to be clustered
away·from the critical area and any required buffer. Regulations would continue the City's practice of
excluding critical area buffers from net density calculations, which means density in buffers is "credited"
for a development and density would not necessarily be limited by the buffer regulations. Future site-
specific development would be sublect to environmental review as appropriate.
Aesthetics/Light and Not applicable to this non-project action.
Glare
Recreation The proposal will facilitate shoreline permitting for some City park and recreation facilities by addressing
the City's golf course and parks in the SMP Use Environment Map, rather than relying on the King County
SMP. It will allow for consideration of appropriate levels of passive and activity recreation in the Use
Environment regulations.
Historic/Cultural The proposal continues and cross-references historic and cultural preservation policies as part of the
integration of Renton SMP and Comprehensive Plan Policies.
Transportation Proposed stream and shoreline regulations address road and utility crossings and criteria intended to
allow for needed public infrastructure while promoting non-net-Ioss of ecological function. These
measures are intended to address the environmental impacts of future development and infrastructure
proposals.
Public Services/Utilities Not applicable to this non-project action. (Also see Transportation.)
Also as part of the environmental review record, the ERC reviewed a discussion of buildable lands capacity in relation
to the stream regulations. Stream buffers are proposed to be increa~ed, but the .incre<;lsed buffers are not antiCipated
to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has SUbstantial growth
capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning
districts, particularly multifamily, commercial, industrial and mixed use districts, offer flexibility in building heights,
CAO_ERC_Aug17 Jdoc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
of Renton BAS Critical Areas & SMP GMA ration
EnViro.tal Review Committee Staff Report
. LUA-04-084 ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 2004 Page4of4
setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations
allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for
reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function. The
analysis is contained in the project file.
Also considered in the issuance of the threshold determination were several documents produced as part of
developing the non-project action:
• "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration,"
Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," prepared
by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27,2003.
• Stream/lake classification results are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map prepared by AC Kindig
& Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning staff.
• "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments," Jones & Stokes,
July 13, 2004.
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," Jones & Stokes, March 8, 2004.
• "Transmittal of Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004; together with "Best
Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat Conservation Regulations to
State Example Critical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004. Includes proposed code amendments. Includes example sites
and how proposed stream regulations would apply.
Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic
DevelopmenVNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, as well as the City of Renton website
(www.ci.renton.wa.us/. under the Department name).
E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS
The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where
applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or
Notes to Applicant.
-1L-Copies of a/l Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
__ Copies of a/l Review Comments are attached to this report.
ERC considered public comments made during the comment period for the Notice of Application and Proposed'
Determination of Non-significance (DNS), and are part of the Official File. The comment period began July 19, 2004
and concluded on August 9,2004, and included a one-week extension of the comment period to allow additional
opportunity for public comment.
The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Parties
of record are on a mailing list to be notified of upcoming public hearings. The public may also contact the Renton
Economic DevelopmenVNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, or view the City of Renton website
(www.ci.renton.wa.us/. under the Department name) for upcoming meetings.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be
filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7,2004.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425}-430-6510.
Effect of Proposed Stream Regulations on the City's
Buildable Lands Analysis
August 12, 2004
Overview
Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly
affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has substantial growth
capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The
City's zoning districts, particularly multifamily, commercial, industrial and mixed use districts, offer
flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate SUbstantial development.
Last, the proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer
averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels
provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function.
Buildable Lands Analysis Summary
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a Citywide capacity for 10,620 housing units
based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme, not including the new Urban Center zone
adopted in 2003 which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings through the year
2030. This is 71 % to 154% above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target of 6,198 units. The
buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for critical areas (steep slopes and wetlands).
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205
jobs, not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to
41,400 additional jobs. This is 17% to 166% above the City's assigned 2022 employment target of
27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed reductions for critical areas as noted above.
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces
(buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with partially
developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite. However, City regulations for
the commercial, office, and industrial zones allow substantial heights and minimal setbacks, which
should allow flexibility in arranging developments 1. For residential developments, it is important to
note that in accordance with net density defintions buffers are not subtracted from net density
calculations, meaning unit potential within the buffers remains for each site allowed residential uses,
and units may be clustered onsite. For example the maximum density in the COR 1/2 zone without
bonuses is 25 units per net acre, and bonus densities are also possible. The number of units would
be determined by calculating densities on all buildable areas and buffers, but not critical areas
themselves such as in-water or in-wetland areas. The COR standards do not prescribe a minimum
1 For example, the following mixed use, industrial, and commercial zone summaries give a sampling of flexible standards:
• The COR zone allows up to 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard, no standard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot
sizes.
• Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibility include: no minimum lot depth, no lot coverage standards, no minimum
side or rear yards unless abutting residential zones, 50 foot building heights in the IL zone with the ability to request conditional
use permits for greater heights, and no building height limits in the 1M and IH zones.
• The CA zone has the following features: 50 foot height limit with ability to request additional height with conditional use permits;
no minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths; front yard setbacks of 10 feet; and no minimum rear or side yard widths for
properties that do not abut residential zones.
August 11,2004 Page 1 of 3
lot size, width, or depth. Building heights, densities, and use allowances would accommodate a
variety of structures including multi-storey attached units.
Since the 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes, but not streams
outside of wetlands, City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information for ERC consideration.
The general approach was to 1) determine the area of the stream corridors, 2) calculate the ratio of
developed versus undeveloped and redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for
single family zones; 3) determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4)
determine the change in the number of possible units. Multifamily zones, commercial zones, and mixed
use zones were not included in this analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these
zones were based on recent achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed
which is conservative. Also, these zones allow greater height to express the density/intensity potential.
The table below identifies the outcome of discounting streams in the buildable lands analysis.2
Stream Reductions -Single Family Buildable Lands
R-5 Linear Feet of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of Stream R-8 Area R-10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct.
meters ft. class meters ft. class meters ft. class
98.09 321.84 4 643.68 168.47 552.75 1 16,582.42 71.33 234.02 3 1,170.10
288.66 947.10 1 28,412.96 1,11.71 366.53 4 733.05
216.72 711.06 1 21,331.78 47.56 156.05 4 312.10
56.37 184.94 1 5,548.12
438.34 1438.19 1 43,145.83
16.52 54.19 2 1,625.83
34.37 112.75 2 3,382.55
57.33 188.09 2 5,642.67
17.87 58.63 2 1,758.89
78.40 257.24 2 7,717.16
40.06 131.44 2 3,943.25
75.04 246.19 3 1,230.96
141.90 465.59 3 2,327.94
58.48 191.89 3 959.44
30.65 100.55 3 502.76
59.16 194.12 3 970.59
88.14 289.20 3 1,445.99
57.16 187.55 3 937.76
138.80 455.41 3 2,277.05
22.95 75.30 3 376.50
22.00 72.19 4 144.38
44.72 146.73 4 293.47
25.01 82.07 4 164.13
12.80 41.99 4 83.98
186.36 611.46 4 1,222.93
45.15 148.13 4 296.25
77.15 253.12 4 506.23
2 The City's buildable lands analysis removed critical areas, but not buffers as these are credited for density, and in nonresidential
zones, flexibility in heights and other development standards allow development potential to be expressed.
August 11, 2004 Page 2 of3
R-5 Linear Feet of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of Stream R-8 Area R-10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct.
meters ft. class meters ft. class meters ft. class
8.72 28.60 4 57.20
94.84 311.17 4 622.34
SF 643.68 153,511.33 2,215.26
Acres 0.01 3.52 0.05
Unit Reduction 6 dulac 0.09 6.7 dulac 23.61 9.53 dulac 0.48
Notes:
Stream area deducted from buildable lands considered in September 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report.
Stream buffers are credited for densities in the net density definition, and are not deducted.
R-1, No stream removals per City GIS.
R-14, not estimated; not likely to have further reductions, and streams are not mapped.
Multifamily, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use zones, not estimated since there are greater heights allowed and since dwellings
(where allowed) were not calculated at maximum densities in the buildable lands model.
Stream width assumptions:
Class 1, 30 feet, measurement of Cedar River at Maple Valley Road at the R-S zone, per King County I-Map.
May Creek at R-S along 1-405 is less wide, but 30' used for conservative estimate.
Class 2, 30 feet, measurement at Honey Creek Estates II plat, although that includes associated weUands, and is likely
conservative.
Class 3, estimated 5 feet wide.
Class 4, estimated 2 feet wide, from sample development site on SE 12Sth, an upstream segment of Maplewood Creek.
Given the City's substantial growth capacity above targets and the City's net density approach, the
general conclusions above did not substantially change as a result of the stream and buildable lands
review.
References
City of Renton. July 8, 2003. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS.
King County. September 2002. King County Buildable Lands Evaluation Report.
August 11,2004 Page 3 of3
24.19
City of Renton
Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration
LUA-04-084, ECF
Citizen Comments and Responses: August I ~ 2004
Table of Contents
Summary Table of Comments and Responses ............................................................................ 2
Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential
Responses ............................................................................................................................... 7
Comments by James C. Hanken on behalf of JH Baxter and Potential Responses .................. 11
Comments by Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company, and Potential
Responses ............................................................................................................................. 14
Comments by Seattle Audubon Society and Potential Responses ............................................ 20
Renton Shoreline Master Program Definitions of
Water OrientedINon-Water Oriented Uses .......................................................................... 22
Summary Table of Comments and Responses
The following chart summarizes comments and responses that are more fully described later in
this document. All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The comments will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings.
The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council who
will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may
entertain.
Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are
further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring
with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public
comments as well.
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
Davis Wright Tremaine for Barbee • Proposed regulations appear to • Stream buffers are proposed to be
Mill, August 2, 2004 have significant adverse impacts increased, but the increased
on existing land use plans and buffers are not anticipated to
population allocations, significantly affect the City's
recreational and development existing land use plans and
opportunities, and private use and population allocations. The City
enjoyment of the waterfront. has substantial growth capacity
• Traffic and pollution associated above its targets.
with concentrating densities • The City's zoning districts offer
elsewhere within the City to flexibility in building heights,
offset the elimination of buildable setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc.
lands under the proposed In addition, the proposed stream
amendments have not been regulations allow for
disclosed or considered. administrative buffer reductions,
• The proposed revisions appear to administrative buffer averaging,
and modifications or variances for force a few private landowners to reductions! averaging below the bear burdens for the public administrative levels provided benefit but should be borne by the there is no-riet-Ioss of stream public as a whole. The proposed ecological function. Some of the minimum buffer standards have reduced buffer widths allowed significant adverse impacts on the administratively are comparable ability to develop land translating to current shoreline setbacks and into impacts on economics and stream buffers in current land use more generally. regulations.
• The City'S net density calculation,
which retains the dwelling unit
potential for critical area buffers,
is an "onsite" calculation and is
not transferable to other sites.
• The regulation amendments are
intended to meet the goals and
2 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
purposes of the State Growth
Management Act (GMA) to
consider best available science in
regulations and policies, to
provide for Shoreline
Management Act use priorities as
part of the public trust, as well as
to meet other GMA and City
goals for management of growth.
Flexibility in terms of
administrative buffer reductions,
averaging, and modifications or
variances are a part of the
regulations to provide for
reasonable use of property. The
ordinance as a whole, both
standard buffers and requirements
and provisions for flexibility,
have been considered in the
City's environmental review.
• SEPA focuses on environmental
impacts. Fiscal and economic
impacts, while they may be
important to consider as part of
the planning process, are not a
required SEPA topic (WAC 197-
11-752,197-11-444, and WAC
197-11-450).
James C. Hanken for JH Baxter, • The determination of • See Davis Wright Tremaine
August 9, 2004 environmental impacts must response above regarding zoning
accommodate the urban and flexibility and stream regulation
industrial nature of many of these flexibility.
properties that have current • The regulations recognize that environmental issues such as
hazardous cleanup requirements. landfill and dredging and stream
Saddling these properties with alteration may be required to
further economic constraints such accomplish site remediation in
as proposed may well defeat the urban shoreline (Class 1 urban
positive environmental objectives shorelines). These activities can
the City wishes to advance. No occur in the water body and
evaluation or study as to the effect buffer area according to the
of such regulation on the proposed regulations subject to a
economic viability of such streamllake study and mitigation
remediation efforts have been plan, as well as compliance with
included or considered in this Shoreline Master Program criteria
process, which makes the for these activities.
proposal under consideration • See Davis Wright Tremaine
fatally flawed. response that SEP A focuses on
environmental impacts, rather
than fiscal and economic impacts.
3 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
Richard Gumpert, Independent • Density of development within • The CA zone provides flexible
Development Company, August 9, certain urbanized growth areas is development standards. See
2004 a critical issue and a major policy Davis Wright Tremaine response
objective of the GMA and above regarding stream regulation
Comprehensi ve Plan. The need flexibility.
for services as contemplated by
the CA zoning remains material, • The regulation amendments are
and the location of such intended to meet the goals and
development at the intersection of purposes of the State Growth
two prime arterials serves Management Act (GMA) to
important traffic and other policy consider best available science in
concerns. Reduced density, and regulations and policies, to
thereby the reduced services to be provide for Shoreline
provided at my Property by virtue Management Act use priorities as
of an expansion of the buffer from part of the public trust, as well as
Springbrook Creek, has not been to meet other GMA and City
given adequate consideration in goals for management of growth.
the draft ordinance. The benefit Flexibility in terms of
to the shoreline of an imposition administrative buffer reductions
of an additional buffer given the administrative buffer averaging:
current state of the land, pales and modifications or variances for
with the other objectives of the reductions/averaging below the
GMA and Comprehensive Plan administrative levels are a part of
including, without limitation, the regulations to provide for
density and the utilization of the reasonable use of property.
stock of CA zoned land for the • The proposed regulations allow
creation of livable-wage jobs. for already developed stream
• By complying with these various buffers to maintain impervious
conditions, including using my surfaces (buffers would function
private property for a public-as setbacks in this case). For
access trail and natural vegetated developments on shorelines with
buffer, this Property is vested and partially developed or natural
my company should not be buffers, development would need
required to dedicate more land as to cluster onsite.
a buffer. A landowner who fully • Based on discussions with the
complies with and has satisfied all City Attorney, new materially
the conditions imposed by the
City should not be subject to new
complete permit applications vest
~ conditions.
to the regulations in place at the
time of application. Recent case
• I did not perceive any significant law has affirmed this strict
scientific information, new or definition of vesting. If a
previously existing, that supports materially complete application is
the imposition of an additional received by the City prior to the
buffer at the Property under the adoption of the proposed
current situation. As such, any regulations (expected by the end
ordinance that serves to impose of 2004), that application would
an additional setback at the be vested to the regulations in
Property is too broad in its place at the time of application,
application and should be deemed i.e. the current Shoreline Master
inappropriate given the other Program and Critical Areas
policy objectives and the Regulations and other City
Constitutional rights of private development regulations.
landowners. • An alternative approach could be
4 ReVIew Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
• The regulation of this specific a development agreement. The
Property by the draft ordinance is agreement has to be consistent
not fair, disproportionately with the City's development
burdensome and inconsequential regulations, meaning one would
in furtherance of any legitimate need to put an agreement together
objectives. It is tantamount to a hefore the new rules go into
taking by regulation without effect. It would require a public
legitimate public justification. hearing.
The ordinance should be carefully
drafted to promote its ends and
not disproportionately impact
private rights without reason.
Seattle Audubon Society, August 9, The commenter supports the • Surety Mechanisms -
2004 following provisions: Performance Criteria: Mitigation
• Regulations protect critical areas plan contents are defined in 4-8-
meeting definitions/criteria, even 120.D. For example the wetland
if unmapped mitigation plan requirements
• Conservation easements or other include establishing goals and
mechanisms for native growth objectives, preparing a monitoring
areas program, and a contingency plan.
• Priorities for mitigation -avoid; • Habitat Assessment Evaluation -
Citywide. The use of State PHS minimize, and compensate data will help the City define
• Peer review of habitat blocks of habitat, including those
assessments at City's discretion, that provide connections, such as
particularly for controversial the PHS program category of
development cases. "urban natural open space." Also, -the City's proposed Environment Recommendations for changes to the Element amendments include a
proposed regulations, or policy regarding adaptive recommended studies: management.
• Surety mechanisms for wetland
mitigation plans -agree but • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
recommend a list of performance Purpose to Protect Habitat.
criteria. Because the primary citywide
• Habitat assessment requirements
regulation addressing streams is
currently found in this ordinance, -agree. Suggest that the City but is proposed to be
conduct an overall health habitat substantively amended and assessment, particularly looking contained in the critical areas
at corridors and areas of regulations, and because the tree
interconnection. cuttinglland clearing regulations
• Tree Cutting and Land Clearing cross reference rather than repeat
Ordinance keep purpose critical area and habitat
statement to preserve wildlife conservation regulations, the
habitat and other important areas purpose statement was proposed
rather than delete. Leave it in to to be amended.
draw attention to the importance • Hazard Trees -Criteria or List of of trees as a major component of Arborists. The City wishes to
habitat. provide some consistency in its
• Tree Cutting and Land Clearing review of hazard trees, and has
Ordinance -Exemption for proposed a definition as follows:
Hazard Trees. City should clearly "[a]ny tree or tree part that poses
5 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
establish criteria and/or establish a high risk of damage to persons
a list of reputable arborist to or property as certified by a
ensure such trees meet the qualified arborist and accepted by
definition of "hazard" so that the the City."
label is not misused and becomes • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing an excuse for easy tree removal. Ordinance -Land Development
• The Tree Cutting and Land Permits Criteria for Tree Cutting.
Clearing Ordinance includes The focus of the City's regulation
performance standards for land amendments proposal is related to
developmentlbuilding permits. critical areas. The City has the
The criteria for tree cutting is ability to protect designated
incomplete and contains critical habitat through its critical
loopholes. area regulations. Outside of
critical areas, the tree cutting and
land clearing regulations ensure
that there is no indiscriminate tree
removal. All proposals are
required to meet the general
st~ndard that "trees shall be
maintained to the maximum
extent feasible on the property
where they are growing ... " and
the City has the ability to
condition plans.
6 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summary -August 4 2004 Comments by Oavis Wrigllt Tremaine on
bellalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses
Comment 1. The City's proposed DNS fails to adequately consider the magnitude of
potential significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area regulations. Projects ultimately designed to benefit
the environment may need to undergo SEPA review and SEPA recognizes this (WAC 197-
11-330(5». Specifically, the proposed revisions appear to have significant adverse impacts
on existing land use plans and population allocations, recreational and development
opportunities, and private use and enjoyment of the waterfront. For example, the
amendments reduce the availability of buildable lands on privately owned waterfront
property, resulting in a shift of densities elsewhere (outside of the critical areas). The
reduction of buildable lands may conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and this is
apparently ignored in the City's documents.
The proposed regulations retain critical area restrictionslbuffers for certain geologic hazards imd
wetlands. In developing the new stream buffer regulations it is important to note that the City
considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example sites. (See "Revised Review
Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004, updated from memos with similar information in
2003 and Spring 2004.) These were listed as supporting documents in the SEPA checklist.
Buildable Lands. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not
anticipated to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations.
The City has substantial growth capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach
credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning districts, particularly mixed use districts as
applied to the Barbee Mill property, offer flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes,
densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations
allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or
variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss
of streaIIl ecological function.
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a Citywide capacity for 10,620 housing
units based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme, not including the new Urban Center
zone adopted in 2003 which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings
through the year 2030. This is 71 % to 154% above the City'S assigned 2022 dwelling target
of 6,198 units. The buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for critical areas (steep
slopes and wetlands).
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for
32,205 jobs, not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially
between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs. This is 17% to 166% above the City's assigned
2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed
reductions for critical areas as noted above.
7 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite.
However, City regulations for the commercial, office, and industrial zones allow substantial
heights and minimal setbacks, which should allow flexibility in arranging developments (e.g.
COR zone for the Barbee Mill property allows up to 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front
yard, no standard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot sizes). For residential
developments, it is important to note that, per the City's net density definition, buffers are not
subtracted from net density calculations, meaning unit potential within the buffers remains
for each site allowed residential uses, and units may be clustered onsite (see response to
Comment 2). For example the maximum density in the COR 112 zone without bonuses is 25
units per net acre, and the ability to achieve bonus densities is not cumbersome. The number
of units would be determined by calculating densities on all buildable areas and buffers, but
not critical areas themselves such as in-water or in-wetland areas. The COR standards do not
prescribe a minimum lot size, width, or depth. Building heights, densities, and use
allowances would accommodate a variety of structures including multi-storey attached units.
• The proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative
buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the
administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function. This is
intended to provide for a variety of site conditions where standard buffers cannot be met.
Some of the reduced buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current
shoreline setbacks and stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-oriented
uses (generally mixed use developments or other developments that incorporate significant
public access, visual or physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone
applicable to the Barbee Mill property) may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable
to the current commercial setback along Shorelines of the State.
Since the 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes, but not
streams outside of wetlands, City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information for City
Environmental Review Committee consideration. The general approach was to 1) determine the
area of the stream corridors, 2) calculate the ratio of developed versus undeveloped and
redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for single family zones; 3)
determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4) determine the
change in the number of possible units. It is estimated there would be a 24 unit reduction by
removing streams from single family buildable land acres, which does not alter the conclusions
above. Multifamily zones, commercial zones, and mixed use zones were not included in this
analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these zones were based on recent
achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed which is
conservative. Also, these zones allow greater height to express the density/intensity potential.
Recreation. Proposed stream regulations address recreation. Trails are possible exemptions in
Class 2 to 4 buffers if exemption criteria are met. Other recreation uses would be subject to the
same critical area stream regulations as other public or private property development. For Class
1 shorelines, where the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) does not permit exemptions to
regulations, the proposed regulations do address public access, a shoreline priority use. Buffer
8 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
reductions for public access are possible due to the need for a shoreline location. Also based on
the SMA use preferences, water-oriented uses (that incorporate significant public access, visual
or physical as described above) may be granted greater buffer reductions subject to criteria.
Private Development. See Response to Comment 3.
Comment 2. Traffic and pollution associated with concentrating densities elsewhere within
the City to offset the elimination of buildable lands under the proposed amendments have
not been disclosed or considered.
The City's net density definition/calculation, which retains the dwelling unit potential for critical
area buffers, is an "on site" calculation and is not transferable to other sites. The City's flexible
development standards in terms of lot widths, setbacks, size, coverage, etc. are intended to allow
for flexibility onsite, such as where critical areas are present. Also, the regulations allow for
administrative buffer reductions and administrative buffer averaging to address differing site
conditions. Last modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative
levels are possible.
The City has conducted environmental review of its overall land use plan and annual
amendments as appropriate, including traffic and associated impacts. For example a thorough
review of City development capacity with· the Boeing redevelopment plans and Urban Center
zones was conducted in 2003. The City's analyses address a range of future development
scenarios consistent with the City's planning efforts. See Comment 1 for related buildable land
information.
Comment 3. The proposed revisions appear to force a few private landowners to bear
burdens for the public benefit but should be borne by the public as a whole. The proposed
minimum buffer standards have significant adverse impacts on the ability to develop land
translating into impacts on economics and land use more generally. The City's "reasonable
use exceptions" retain certain baselines under which development may not occur even if
there are no adverse impacts regardless of best available science.
See responses to Comments 1 and 2. The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals
and purposes of the State Growth Management Act (GMA) to consider best available science in
regulations and policies, to provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the
public trust, as well as to meet other GMA and City goals for management of growth. Flexibility
in terms of administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications
or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels are a part of the regulations
to provide for reasonable use of property. The ordinance as a whole, both standard buffers and
requirements and provisions for flexibility, have been considered in the City's environmental
review.
It should be noted that SEP A focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts,
while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process, are not a required SEPA
topic (WAC 197-11-752, 197-11-444, and WAC 197-11-450).
9 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Public Process -Advisory Note
All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC). The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning
Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is
charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible
for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related
to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to
State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE
through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well.
10 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summary -August 9, 2004 Comments by James C. Hanken on belJalf
of JH Baxter and Potential Responses
Comment 1. Support for Comments made on behalf of Barbee Mill Company by their
counsel, Traci Shalbetter.
See responses to comments "Summary -August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine
on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses" above.
Comment 2. The determination of environmental impacts must accommodate the urban
and industrial nature of many of these properties that have current environmental issues
such as hazardous cleanup requirements. These require substantial economic investment
to achieve that objective. Saddling these properties with further economic constraints such
as proposed may well defeat the positive environmental objectives the City wishes to
advance. No evaluation or study as to the effect of such regulation on the economic
viability of such remediation efforts have been included or considered in this process,
which makes the proposal under consideration fatally flawed. The properties that are
zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact of such
regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue
from the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than
current industrial uses.
The City's zoning districts, particularly the COR district as applied to the Baxter property, offer
flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial
development, particularly appropriate when there are environmental constraints. Features of the
COR zone that result in flexibility include: range of densities with the potential for density
bonuses, 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard, no standard rear or side yards, and no
minimum lot size or width.
Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibility include: no minimum lot depth, no lot
coverage standards, no minimum side or rear yards unless abutting residential zones, 50 foot
building heights in the IL zone with the ability to request conditional use permits for greater
heights, and no building height limits in the IM and ill zones.
The proposed shoreline buffer regulations would apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require
preparation of stream studies. The proposed ordinance drafted to date includes the following
measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions:
• Density is credited in shoreline buffers. See responses to comments "Summary -August 2,
2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential
Responses" above.
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite.
11 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
• If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet, provided it is "made
up" elsewhere on site.
• The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site
mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possible. For non-water oriented uses as defined in the
Shoreline Master Program, the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through
administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently the proposed regulations structure the Class 1
buffer reductions based on Shoreline Management Act priority uses. Some of the reduced
buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable tO,current shoreline setbacks and
stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-oriented uses (generally mixed use
developments or other developments that incorporate significant public access, visual or
physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone applicable to the Baxter
property) may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable to the current commercial
setback along Shorelines of the State. Water dependent development, including water
dependent industries, can have as little as 0 foot setbacks.
• The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads
and utilities, as well as for public access, subject to criteria.
• The regulations recognize that landfill and dredging and stream alteration may be required to
accomplish site remediation on urban shorelines (Class 1 urban shorelines). These activities
can occur in the water body and buffer area according to the proposed regulations.
Applicants for such activities would need to submit a stream/lake study and mitigation plan,
as well as comply with Shoreline Master Program criteria for these activities ..
It should be noted that SEP A focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts,
while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process, are not a required SEPA
topic (WAC 197-11-752, 197-11-444, and WAC 197-11-450).
Comment 3. Urge consideration of same comments in opposition to DNS posed by Barbee
Mill, as well as comments here regarding the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of the
. proposed regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites. Absence of a full
environmental impact determination is a fatal defect.
See responses to comments "Summary -August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine
on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses" above.
Regarding clean up of sites, please note the flexibility of zoning regulations and proposed stream
regulations identified under Comment 2. The regulations allow for clean up of hazardous
materials as noted above under Comment 2.
Public Process -Advisory Note
All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC).
12 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the
City Council. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council
since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline
. Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to State Department of
Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this
process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well.
13 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summary -August 9, 2004 Comments by Richard Gumpert,
Independent Development Company, and Potential Responses
1. Growth Management Act (GMA) and Comprehensive Plan Objectives -Density of
development within certain urbanized growth areas is a critical issue and major policy
objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The need for services as contemplated by
the CA zoning remains material, and the location of such development at the intersection of
two prime arterials serves important traffic and other policy concerns. Reduced density,
and thereby the reduced services to be provided at my Property by virtue of an expansion
of the buffer from Springbrook Creek, has not been given adequate consideration in the
draft ordinance.
The City's stock of CA zoned land is a part of the balance that was created relative to the
contemplated jobs that would be created within the City. Currently my company is under
construction of a 60,000 square foot medical office building that is planned to include
physicians' offices, a surgery center, a medical lab and other medical-related lises. It is our
current plan to build additional phases that ultimately will create a medical campus with
multiple medical buildings and a parking structure. This plan, if implemented, will create
livable-wage employment in the City and increase the healthcare services available to the
region. These are certainly important objectives of the City planning process that have
been subordinated to other policies without adequate consideration or public input. Other
objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan likewise need to be weighed in these
considerations.
Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipated to
significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and citywide growth targets. The City has
substantial employment growth capacity above its targets. The City's buildable lands analysis in
2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205 jobs, not including the new Urban
Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs. This is
17% to 166% above the City's assigned 2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs.
The City's zoning districts, such as the CA zone applied to the subject property, offer flexibility
in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial developm~nt,
and this flexibility is particularly important for sites with environmental features, such as creeks.
The CA zone has the following features:
• 50 foot height limit with ability to request additional height with conditional use permits
• No minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths
• Front yard setbacks of 10 feet
• No minimum rear or side yard widths for properties that do not abut residential zones
• Greater lot coverage allowances for proposals with parking garages such as that proposed in
the Phase IT preapplication submittal for the subject site.
14 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
In addition to the City's flexible zoning standards, the proposed stream regulations offer
flexibility to recognize different site conditions, such as administrative buffer reductions,
administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below
the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function.
At a localized level, the City considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example
sites. (See "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master
Program Regulation Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004, updated from memos with
similar information in 2003 and Spring 2004.) The potential application of the regulations has
also been discussed related the subject site, and various options have been discussed with the
property owner. Also see the response to Comment 3.
Please also see Response to Comment 5 regarding the ongoing public review process.
2. Vesting by Prior Compliance with Development Conditions -The Property was mapped
in 1998 to create the parcels that currently exist, at which time the City imposed a
requirement that a 50-foot setback be established, a public-access asphalt walking trail
adjacent to the easement be built (it is south of the easement on my Property), and a
private stormwater detention pond and bioswale be established south of the trail.
By complying with these various conditions, including using my private property for a
public-access trail and natural vegetated buffer, this Property is vested and my company
should not be required to dedicate more land as a buffer. A landowner who fully complies
with and has satisfied all the conditions imposed by the City should not be subject to new
conditions.
The proposed ordinance is not intended to reduce vesting rights as determined in State Law and
Case Law.
Based on discussions with the City Attorney, new materially complete permit applications vest to
the regulations in place at the time of application. Recent case law has affirmed this strict
definition of vesting. If a materially complete application is received by the City prior to the
adoption of the proposed regulations (expected by the end of 2004), that application would be
vested to the regulations in place at the time of application, i.e. the current Shoreline Master
Program and Critical Areas Regulations and other City development regulations.
An alternative approach could be a development agreement. The agreement has to be consistent
with the City'S development regulations, meaning one would need to put an agreement together
before the new rules go into effect. It would require a public hearing.
If a new application is submitted after the new regulations are in effect, the proposal would be
subject to the new regulations. We note that the site size and the general types of uses planned
may allow some flexibility to meet the proposed regulations. Following are some questions that
the proponent may consider:
15 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
** Can they redesign the private parking accessway closest to the trail area to reduce the access
width? Can they plant trees between the access/parking and the trail to provide some function for
the stream?
**The proposed standard buffer would be 100 feet. It can be reduced to 75 feet if a proposal
meets reduced buffer criteria and is a "non-water-oriented use." However, "water enjoyment"
uses can go to 50 feet (these are a priority shoreline use). The definition of a water enjoyment
use appears on the last page of this document. Since the site contains a public trail, and a
preliminary site plan includes a mixed office/commercial retail area, could they design it in such
a way as to meet the definition of water enjoyment?
The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines with
partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite.
3. The Ordinance is Inapplicable to My Company's Property and in any Event it is Too
Broad in its Application -The ordinance does not appear to include provisions that
contemplate the situation described above. Specifically, it appears to assume that
''undeveloped land" is all naturally vegetated adjacent to the shoreline. As described
above, the land adjacent to Springbrook Creek is developed -it's just that not all buildings
have yet been built. North of the Creek is a major industrial development that includes
hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings, and only the 50 foot butTer is observed.
On the south side, which is my company's land, although I haven't yet built all the
buildings that ultimately will be at the Property, the natural butTer, the public-access
asphalt trail and the stormwater pond are in situ, and the additional strip just recently
imposed as a condition to the current development will be in place shortly. Consequently,
there is no natural vegetation south of the asphalt trail, and there has not been any in place
for some time. For purposes of protecting the shoreline with existing natural vegetation,
the Property is already protected and it is "developed" and no further butTer should be
imposed. My company should not be required to do a panoply of biological studies and
take other measures in order to attempt to exempt itself, or reduce the impact, from the
new ordinance. Rather, the ordinance should address this situation and expressly
acknowledge that the ordinance does not apply, whether by virtue of prior vesting, or a
definition of development, or given the competing policy objectives, or other reasons.
Precious private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are involved, and the
City must take the time and make the etTort to assure that its ordinance is crafted to
protect those rights to the fullest extent subject only to the furtherance of its legitimate
public purposes. I do not believe that sufficient precision has been used in this instance.
Further, the benefit to the shoreline of an imposition of an additional butTer given the
current state of the land, pales with the other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive
Plan including, without limitation, density and the utilization of the stock of CA zoned land
for the creation of livable-wage jobs.
Please see Comment 2 regarding vesting. Please also see Comment 5 regarding the ongoing
public review process.
16 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). The City Council will
consider the balance of GMA goals as it considers GMA requirements to consider best available
science in its policies and regulations, as well as it considers Planning Commission
recommendations and citizen comments.
Further the City Council will need to consider Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Goals since
Springbrook Creek is a Class 1 Shoreline of the State. SMA goals are considered GMA goals.
Further the City is to provide equivalent protection to critical areas subject to the Shoreline
Management Act as those protected in its GMA critical areas ordinance. SMA goals are
excerpted below for shorelines of the state CRCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings --State policy
enunciated --Use preference; also see WAC 173-26-176):
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to
insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited
reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the
public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public
health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their
aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights
incidental thereto.
***
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest
extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people
generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of
pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or
dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the
shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority
for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational
uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements
facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial
developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the
shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for
substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the
natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the
department.
There are additional, stricter use preferences for Shorelines of Statewide Significance applicable
to Lake Washington.
The proposed shoreline buffer regulations would apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require
preparation of stream studies. The proposed ordinance drafted to date includes the following
measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions:
17 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
• Report preparation requirements may be waived by the City if a barrier exists between the
water body and the proposed activity, or applicable data and analysis appropriate to the
project proposed exists and an additional study is not necessary. (There are other waiver
potentials if the water body or buffer does not exist on a site and the subject activity won't
impact it.)
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite.
• If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet, provided it is "made
up" elsewhere on site. Buffer averaging l>elow the requirements would require a variance.
Based on discussions with Andy Kindig and Carl Hadley, our scientific consultants on
streams, the existing oversized detention pond would provide only a partial benefit for the
stream --the trees/vegetation may provide function for the streams, but not the open water
areas. It could be possible to partially count the detention pond vegetated areas toward buffer
averaging, but this probably won't make up the full area needed.
• The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site
mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possible1• For non-water oriented uses as defined in
the Shoreline Master Program, the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through
administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently th.e proposed regulations structure the Class 1
buffer reductions based on Shoreline Management Act priority uses, and reductions are
possible for other categories of uses such as "water oriented." Similar to the wetland
regulations, there are maximum buffer reductions that can be requested administratively, and
requests for buffers below the administrative level would require a variance. (In this case, a
shoreline variance would be needed and is ultimately approved by the State Department of
Ecology after Renton reviews it.) Definitions of water-oriented development appear on the
last page of this document.
• The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads
and utilities, as well as for public access, subject to criteria.
As described under Comment 5, the public review process for the ordinance is continuing with
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
4. Best Available Science -Having read the consultant's report upon which the proposed
ordinance is based, I did not perceive any significant scientific information, new or
previously existing, that supports the imposition of an additional butTer at the Property
under the current situation. As such, any ordinance that serves to impose an additional
setback at the Property is too broad in its application and should be deemed inappropriate
given the other policy objectives and the Constitutional rights of private landowners.
The proposed buffer standards are based on a review of the best available science by the City's
consulting biologists. The ordinance applies citywide, but is customized in terms of its
1 The City's consulting biologists indicated that planting trees east/south of the trail may provide some function for
the stream, e.g. leaf litter, shade, and temperature.
18 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
classifications of water bodies, and in terms of flexible measures intended to address various
shoreline conditions. Please see response to Comment 3.
5. Fairness and Cooperation -The implementation of land use regulations requires good
faith by both the City and the landowners. The imposition of conditions to development
needs to be fair, related to the development and the consequences it will have, and
reasonably sculpted to further important public purposes. My company has honored the
conditions and fees imposed on its various developments in this City and neighboring
jurisdictions in a spirit of cooperation. However, in this instance it appears that the
regulation of this specific Property by the draft ordinance is not fair, disproportionately
burdensome and inconsequential in furtherance of any legitimate objectives. It is
tantamount to a taking by regulation without legitimate public justification. Rather than
the burden being placed on the landowners in such circumstances to exempt itself from the
ordinance, the ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends and not
disproportionately impact private rights without reason.
The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals and purposes of the State Growth
Management Act (GMA) to consider best available science in regulations and policies, to
provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the public trust, as well as to meet
other GMA and City goals for management of growth. Flexibility in terms of administrative
buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for
reductions/averaging below the administrative levels are a part of the regulations to provide for
reasonable use of property.
The City's Environmental Review Committee has considered the comments and they are part of
the project file. The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning
Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is
charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible
for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain.
Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Springbrook Creek,
are further subject to State Department of ECology approval. As such the City has been
conferring with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and
public comments as well.
19 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summary of August .!1J 2004 Comments by Seattle Audubon Society
and Potential Responses
Comment 1. The commenter supports the following provisions:
• Regulations protect critical areas meeting definitions/criteria, even if unmapped
• Conservation easements or other mechanisms for native growth areas
• Priorities for mitigation -avoid, minimize, and compensate
• Peer review of habitat assessments at City's discretion, particularly for controversial
development cases.
The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council
since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain.
Comment 2. Recommendations for changes to the proposed regulations, or recommended
studies:
• Surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans -agree but recommend a list of
performance criteria and specific courses of action if standards are not met. Could be
tied to adaptive management.
• Habitat assessment requirements -agree. Suggest that the City conduct an overall
health habitat assessment, particularly looking at corridors and areas of
interconnection, to allow for a "big picture" view and not just individual parcels.
• Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance currently includes a purpose statement to
preserve wildlife habitat and other important areas -this is being removed since
critical areas regulations cover. Disagree since not all habitat will be identified in the
critical areas regulations (covers only specific identified areas). Leave it in to draw
attention to the importance of trees as a major component of habitat.
• Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance exempts removal of dead, diseased,
damaged or dangerous groundcover or trees. The proposal inserts the word "hazard"
before trees. City should clearly establish criteria and/or establish a list of reputable
arborist to ensure such trees meet the definition of ''hazard'' so that the label is not
misused and becomes an excuse for easy tree removal.
• The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance includes performance standards for
land developmentlbuilding permits. The criteria for tree cutting is incomplete and
contains loopholes. Significant trees over a certain caliper and trees proposed to be cut
should be identified regardless of circumstance. (Staff note: the section referenced by the
commenter indicates that except for critical areas and zoning setback areas trees to be cut can
be generally indicated with "clearing limits.")
20 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Responses:
The comments are noted. The City's Environmental Review Committee has considered the
comments and they are part of the project file. The comments will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Specific responses are provided below.
Surety Mechanisms -Performance Criteria: The surety clause applies to any mitigation plan
required by the critical areas ordinance. Mitigation plan contents are defined in 4-S-120.D. For
example the wetland mitigation plan requirements include establishing goals and objectives,
preparing a monitoring program, and a contingency plan.
Habitat Assessment Evaluation -Citywide. The City's Habitat Conservation regulations use
the State's Priority Habitat and Species Program in part to define and map critical habitat. The
use of this State data will help the City define blocks of habitat, including those that provide
connections, such as the PHS program category of "urban natural open space." Please also note
that the City's proposed Environment Element amendments include a policy regarding adaptive
management. The recommendation that the City conduct a habitat health evaluation on a
broader basis may be one way to implement the policy in the future.
Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Purpose to Protect Habitat. Because the primary citywide
regulation addressing streams is currently found in this ordinance, but is proposed to be
substantively amended and contained in the critical areas regulations, and because the tree
cutting/land clearing regulations cross reference rather than repeat critical area and habitat
conservation regulations, the purpose statement was proposed to be amended.
Hazard Trees -Criteria or List of Arborists. The City wishes to provide some consistency in
its review of "hazard trees," and has proposed a definition as follows: "[a]ny tree or tree part that
poses a high risk of damage to persons or property as certified by a qualified arborist and
accepted by the City." The City will review submissions by qualified arborists.
Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance -Land Development Permits Criteria for Tree
Cutting. The focus of the City's regulation amendments proposal is related to critical areas.
Amendments to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations were primarily to ensure that
regulations would not conflict and work in concert with one another. The City has the ability to
protect designated critical habitat through its critical area regulations. Outside of critical areas,
the tree cutting and land clearing regulations ensure that there is no indiscriminate tree removal.
While the land development performance standards indicate that, except for critical areas and
zoning setback areas, trees to be cut can be generally indicated with "clearing limits," proposals
are required to meet the general standard that "trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent
feasible on the property where they are growing ... " and the City has the ability to condition
plans.
21 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-0S4, ECF
Renton Shoreline Master Program
Definitions of Water Oriented/Non-Water Oriented Uses
WATER-ORIENTEDINONW ATER-ORIENTED: "Water-oriented" refers to any combination of water-
dependent, water-related, and/or water-enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for
priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. "Nonwater-oriented" serves to describe those uses
which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the
Shoreline Management Act. Examples of non water-oriented uses include professional offices, automobile
sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-family residential development, department stores and
gas stations; these uses may be considered water-oriented where there is significant public access.
WATER-ENJOYMENT: Referring to a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the
shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and
which through the location, design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to
the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific
aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are
not limited to, parks, piers and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state;
and general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums,
scientific/ecological reserves, resortslhotels and mixed use commercial/office; provided that such uses
conform to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
WATER-DEPENDENT: Referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot exist in any other location
and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-
dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge
loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer
outfalls.
WATER-RELATED: Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a
waterfront location, but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
1. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by
water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial activities and the
proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Examples
include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the
products cost, professional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water-
transported foods.
Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood
processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries
where transport is by tanker, and log storage.
22 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
•
BUFFER COMPARISON: STATE, KING COUNTY, RENTON
Jurisdiction/Classification Standard Buffer Width
State DCTED: Type 1 State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft) : Type S King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 1 Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: Type 2 State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): Type F King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 2 Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: Type 3 State DCTED: 150 -200 feet plus 15 ft setback
King County (draft): Type F King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 2 Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: Type 4 State DCTED: 150-225 feetplus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): Type N King County (draft): 65 feet buffer plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 3 Renton (draft): 75 feet
State DCTED: Type 5 State DCTED: 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): Type 0 King County (draft): 25 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 4 Renton (draft): 35 feet
Ability to request reduction administratively? State DCTED: No
King County: Yes (1)
Renton: Yes (2)
DCTED = Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development Example Code
(1) Alterations are allowed to maintain, repair or replace existing structures or infrastructure and to continue existing agricultural
activities. New structures, infrastructure and expansion of agriculture activities may be required to meet new standards or may not
be allowed unless a variance or alteration exception is approved or a farm plan is developed. Subject to listed conditions
reductions allowed for topography/geology/soils; road transects; advanced mitigation. Alterations allowed for in-water facilities;
utilities; roads; flood protection; agriculture.
(2) Reductions for new development including, general uses, shoreline priority uses and sites separated from shoreline (e.g. intervening lots, roads, etc.)
to specific levels provided there is mitigation/enhancement and other criteria. Allowances subject to criteria for dredging; stream
relocation; conservation/enhancement; existing agriculture; existing uses; utilities; roads; trails/open space; emergencies.
~ •
Jones & Stol{es
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: August 16, 2004
To: Renton Environmental Review Committee;
Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, ED/N/SP Department
From: Lisa Grueler, Senior Planner cf.:~.
Subject: Applicability of Regulations to Certain Park Properties in Unincorporated King
County
At the last ERC meeting on August 10, 2004, there was an information request from Dennis Culp
to look at the effect of the proposed City stream and shoreline regulations when two Renton-
owned park/open space properties are annexed:
• Edlund, Property -Carr Road and 103 rd Avenue SE
• Cleveland Property -Talbot Road S west of the City's Springbrook Watershed, between S
194th Street and S 198th Place
Maps of the properties are attached. Based on discussions with Jennifer Henning of
Development Services and Peter Renner of Community Services, as well as County and City
inventory information, including the City's Draft Water Class map, we have a summary of
conditions for both properties.
Edlund Property
The property was historically used as a small farm, and contains two habitable homes, one
uninhabitable home, a bam, two chicken/animal shelters, a food preparation cottage, and an old
covered bridge over a creek. There are wetlands and a stream(s) on the property:
• The wetland is described by City staff as lower quality, dry most of the year. King County
rates it as a potential Class 2 wetland under its current classification system (based on its
IMAP website; 2.5 acres last inventoried in 1992), which would match with the City'S Class
2 wetland category, if confirmed. If it is a Class 2 wetland and if the City's wetland
regulations were applied, the standard buffer would be 50 feet. There are provisions to
request buffer averaging (no less than 25 feet in the least wide buffer area) or buffer
reduction (by 25% administratively). There are also provisions that allow requests to fill
wetlands in exchange for wetland compensation (wetland creation or wetland restoration).
Trails that meet exemption criteria can also be located in the buffers (criteria address width,
location, buffer enhancement, etc. to ensure deminimus impacts).
I
•
August 16, 2004
Page 2 of3
• Community Services staffthought there were up to four streams on the site. King County
GIS mapping shows one unclassified stream trending east/west.
-Draft Water Class mapping for Renton was prepared primarily for the City limits,
although estimated for some streams in the City's Potential Annexation Area as well.
The City's Draft Water Class mapping for the property shows one east-west stteam
identified as a Class 3. Ifthe City's stream regulations were applied to the Class 3 stream
the standard buffer would be 75 feet.
-The classification of other unclassified streams would have to occur. There is a process
to detennine the classification of unclassified streams through an administrative
detennination, and an appeal period.
-There are provisions to request reduced buffer widths (to 50 feet administratively) or to
buffer average (no less than 37.5 feet in the least wide buffer area).
-Trails that meet exemption criteria can also be located in the buffers (criteria address
width, location, buffer enhancement, etc. to ensure deminimus impacts).
Vehicular and non-vehicular (non-exempt) crossings may be approved subject to review
criteria (e.g. no other feasible location, designed to State WDFW requir~Dlents, etc.).
Cleveland Property
The Cleveland Property is largely vacant. It appears to have a stream network that eventually
drains to Springbrook Creek. The streams are unclassified based on King County GIS mapping.
Likewise, the streams are unclassified in the City's Draft Water Class mapping. Based on some
infonnation from the Watershed Company provided to the City in early June, the property to the
north where one of the streams continues may have trout (associated with the Springbrook Trout
Fann).
Speaking with the City's stream inventory consultant Andy Kindig, the City's inventories were
intended to classify known mapped streams, using existing inventories and mapping prepared by
other City consultants, supplemented with targeted field review, and was not an in-depth
inventory.
• The classification of other unclassified streams would have to occur. There is a process to
. detennine the classification of unclassified streams through an administrative detennination,
and an appeal period.
• The stream classification would be either Class 2, 3, or 4. Standard buffer widths would
range from 35 feet to 100 feet depending on if the waters are salmonid bearing, and whether
the streams are intennittent or perennial.
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
.. "
August 16, 2004
Page 3 of3
• There are provisions to request reduced buffer widths or to buffer average to certain levels
administratively.
• Trails that meet exemption criteria can also be located in the buffers (criteria address width,
location, buffer enhancement, etc. to ensure deminimus impacts).
• Vehicular and non-vehicular crossings (non-exempt) may be approved subject to review
criteria (e.g. no other feasible location, designed to State WDFW requirements, etc.).
We hope this information is useful. Please let us know if you have further questions. Thank
you.
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
Map Output Page 1 of 1
® King County Home News Services Comments
--Legend EclI&)w:j , --County BoundalY ... U~
Stlaels !§ill Lakes and La/ge Rivets -l .~ ' ...
~ H~ .N SlJaams S~ ~ ~ Floodway
/ •••• .1/ ~ m Sola SOUIC8 Aquifer
0 PalC8ls 1m SAO Weiland
~ FISh and Cik;h m SAO Landslide
.'. -;:..) Wildlife Network Eml SAO Coal Mine
SAOStlaam ~ SAO Seismic
~ aa.sl Bg~ SAO Erosion
aa.s2~ EI Chinook Distribution
~ aa.s2~aid 2002 Color Aerial Photos twest KC
.N C"",,"3 only)
~cxriI
By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details.
htto://www 5 .metrokc.gov Iservlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceN ame=overview &Client V ersi... 8/1312004
f'
Map Output Page 1 of 1
® King County Comments &.ii9 .•
--Legend *e'c~lU\d County Boundary . U~ , --. . -SlJeets ~ Lakes and Large Rivers
~ Higrr.vay ~ SlJeams -p~~ Ar1erWs ~ FIoodway
/-'';''/ ~ m Sale Source Aquifer
0 ParcelS 1& SAO Wetland
t/ FISh and Ditch ~ SAO landslide
''':.';~ VYIIdife Netwolk ffiII SAO Coal Mine , ...•
SAOSlJeam m SAO Seismic
~ Class 1 f~~:~t~~ SAO EmSion
<:tass 2 Po!!nmizII 1m Chinook OisIribulion
t/ <:tass 2 &itncrid 2002 ColDr Aerial Photos (West KC
;./ C"",,"3 only)
4CD'111
By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details.
http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersi... 8/13/2004
r··-'.""". .~."<. ........ -.~ ......... -. •• .,.,;,--,.
~
.' ",.fAA; t,..-" rJ
.,.:., .....
\ •... ..,. .. , .....
v -,
,
• m
Jones & Stol{es
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: August 16, 2004
To: Renton Environmental Review Committee;
Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, EDIN/SP Department
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner d~:fi .
Subject: Information Update:
City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake
Regulations
We wanted to note a couple of information updates/corrections related to above Renton
policy/regulation proposal.
• Comparison Chart: The comparison of buffer requirements chart provided in the August
17, 2004 packet, should show the following State buffers for Type 2 and 3 streams:
-Type 2 -State buffer is 250 feet rather than 200 feet
-Type 3 -State buffer is 150 -200 feet rather than 150 feet
The corrected chart is attached.
• Shoreline Use Environment Map for Black River. The map amendments intend to correct
the discrepancy between map and text descriptions for the Black River.
-The City's adopted Shoreline Use Environment Map classifies both banks ofthe River as
Natural, but the SMP text states the Environment only applies to the north bank. By
default, according to the text, the south bank is Urban. The proposed amendments would
leave the North Bank as Natural east of Monster Road. It would apply Conservancy to
the South Bank of the Black River east of Monster Road. West of Monster Road, the
north and south banks of the Black River would be urban recognizing urban conditions.
-The draft-amended map shows the Natural environment as occurring not only on the
north bank as intended, but also trending near the Black River Corporate Park.
Unintentionally the Natural environment was applied on the draft map to an area
considered to be part of the Springbrook Creek Urban environment based on the
shoreline substantial development permit File LUA-98-075, SA-H, SM, ECF. We note
the area to be corrected on the attached maps. We will correct the proposed amended
map prior to the State Agency Comprehensive Plan submittal and prior to the upcoming
public hearings.
BUFFER COMPARISON: STATE, KING COUNTY, RENTON
Jurisdiction/Classification
State DCTED: Type 1
King County (draft) : Type S
Renton (draft): Class 1
State DCTED: Type 2
King County (draft): Type F
Renton (draft): Class 2
State DCTED: Type 3
King County (draft): Type F
Renton (draft): Class 2
State DCTED: Type 4
King County (draft): Type N
Renton (draft): Class 3
State DCTED: Type 5
King County (draft): Type 0
Renton (draft): Class 4
Ability to request reduction administratively?
Standard Buffer Width
State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: 150 -200 feet plus 15 ft setback
King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: 150-225 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): 65 feet buffer plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): 75 feet
State DCTED: 150-225 feet plus '15 foot setback
King County (draft): 25 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): 35 feet
State DCTED: No
King County: Yes (1)
Renton: Yes (2)
DCTED = Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development Example Code
(1) Alterations are allowed to maintain, repair or replace existing structures or infrastructure and to continue existing agricultural
activities, New structures, infrastructure and expansion of agriculture activities may be required to meet new standards or may not
be allowed unless a variance or alteration exception is approved or a farm plan is developed. Subject to listed conditions
reductions allowed for topography/geology/soils; road transects; advanced mitigation. Alterations allowed for in-water facilities;
utilities; roads; flood protection; agriculture.
(2) Reductions for new development including, general uses, shoreline priority uses and sites separated from shoreline (e.g. intervening lots, roads, etc.)
to specific levels provided there is mitigation/enhancement and other criteria. Allowances subject to criteria for dredging; stream
relocation; conservation/enhancement; existing agriculture; existing uses; utilities; roads; trails/open space; emergencies.
'" ,.
,
There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of (7 the State within the City of Renton that are not shown on this map. Those
+-=~--'--I associated wetlands and floodways are also governed by the City's
Shoreline regulations.
August 2004
DRAFT
Urban Environment
Conservancy Environment
Natural Environment
Water Class 1
City Lim~s
Ms. Judy Wright
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
F~(206)689-7999
•
RECEIVED
AUG 1 1 200~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS .
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
Re: Proposed Detennination of Non significance ("DNS") for Critical Area Regulation
Updates12004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments using Optional DNS Process
Dear Ms. Wright:
We submit this letter to state our client, J H Baxter's concerns regarding the City of Renton's
proposed Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the Critical Area Regulation portions of
the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. As you know JH Baxter is a member of Quendall
Terminals Joint Venture which holds the property adjacent to Barbee Mill. We join in with the
comments and issues raised on behalf of Barbee Mill through its counsel, Traci Shallbetter,
regarding this issue.
In addition, we would add these further comments. The role of determination of environmental
impacts includes the entire gamut of impacts that are relevant to the environment. It must
accommodate the urban and industrial nature of many of these properties which have current
environmental issues such as hazardous clean up requirements. These require substantial economic
investment to achieve that objective. To saddle these properties that face such burdens vv'ith further
economic constraints such as are proposed here may well defeat the positive environmental
objectives that the City seeks to advance. Yet no such evaluation or study as to the effect of such
regulation as to the economic viability of such remediation efforts have been included or considered
in this process. We believe that the absence of such evaluations or studies are defects of such
magnitude as to make the proposal under consideration to be fatally flawed.
The properties that are zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact
of such regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue
through the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than current
industrial uses. The adoption of such constraints will negate the ability of such property owners to
change the current nature of uses locking such properties into uses that cannot achieve the goals that
the City desires.
(Ms. Judy Wright)
August 10, 2004
Page 2
•
So while we urge the consideration of all the reasons that Barbee Mill presents in opposition to the
Determination of Non significance, we also urge that the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of
such regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites has been overlooked. To do so
without a full environmental impact determination being made is a fatal defect. We urge that the City
conduct a full environmental review taking into account the many concerns raised by Barbee and
Baxter regarding this proposal.
Cc: Georgia Baxter
Robert Cugini
JCH:
Sincerely,
Aug 09 04 03:3010 Harris,Mericle&Waka~ama
Ms. Judy Wright
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
FAX (206) 689-7999
[2061624-8560
Re: Proposed Determination of Non significance ("DNS") for Critical Area Regulation
UpdatesJ2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments using Optional DNS Process
Dear Ms. Wright:
We submit this letter to state our client, J H Baxter's concerns regarding the City of Renton's
proposed Determination ofNonsignificance regarding the Critical Area Regulation portions of
the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, As you know J H Baxter is a member of Quendall
Terminals Joint Venture which holds the property adjacent to Barbee Mill. We join in with the
comments and issues raised on behalf of Barbee Mill through its counsel, Traci Shallbetter,
regarding this issue,
In addition, we would add these further comments. The role of determination of environmental
impacts includes the entire gamut of impacts that are relevant to the environment. It must
accommodate the urban and industrial nature of many of these properties which have current
environmental issues such as hazardous clean up requirements. These require substantial economic
investment to achieve that objective. To saddle these properties that face such burdens with further
econo'mic constraints such as are proposed here may well defeat the positive environmental
objectives that the City seeks to advance. Yet no such evaluation or study as to the effect of such
regulation as to the economic viability of such remediation efforts have been included or considered
in this process. We believe that the absence of such evaluations or studies are defects of such
magnitude as to make the proposal under consideration to be fatally flawed.
The properties that are zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact
of such regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue
through the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than current
industrial uses. The adoption of such constraints will negate the ability of such property owners to
change the current nature of uses locking such properties into uses that cannot achieve the goals that
the City desires.
10.2
Aug 09 04 04:351"
(Name)
August 9, 2004
Page 2
Harris,Mericle&Waka~ama [206]624-8560
So while we urge the consideration of all the reasons that Barbee Mill presents in opposition to the
Determination ofNonsignificance, we also urge that the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of
such regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites has been overlooked. To do so
without a full environmental impact determination being made is a fatal defect. We urge that the City
conduct a full environmental review taking into account the many concerns raised by Barbee and
Baxter regarding this proposal.
Cc: Georgia Baxter
Robert Cugini
JCH:
Sincerely,
1".2
, ..... e e
Seattle. Audubon SocietY-_ ~-for birds and nature
8050 35th Avenue NE
Seattle WA 98115
August 9, 2004
Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager
City of Renton
Department of Planning
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Re: Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Dear Rebecca:
AUG 0 9 200~
TIlank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton Critical Areas
Ordinance Amendments (CAO). A cursory review of the ordinance suggests that the City
has thought extensively about environmental issues and should be commended. Seattle
Audubon encourages the City to use the CAO for guidance not only when reviewing
development proposals on a site-by-site basis, but also as context for the entire health of the
City.
General Comments
Overall the CAO has many strong points Witll a few areas that Seattle Audubon would
. recommend iinproving .
. Seattle Audubon strongly urges the City of Renton to use the CAO to its fullest potential.
TIlis means uSing not only the regulatory aspects of the document but also the
performance standards that are described. The goal of any CAO is not simply to restrict or
regulate development but to seek a balanced approach to development. As stated on lines
59 and 60 tlle purpose of the CAO is to "provide city officials with information to
evaluate, approve, condition or deny public or private development proposals." As such
the City needs to ensure all members of the City Council and Planning Commission
understand the CAO and that this document is not just 'about regulation but ensuring that
development can occur without further degradation of critical areas in the community. All
development proposals should be reviewed in light of the purposes of CAO.
Detailed Ordinance Discussion
To help facilitate the adoption of Renton'sCAO the follOwing section provides specific
line-by-line discussion and suggested changes. Line numbers refer to the PDF version of
"RMC 4-3-050 through 4-10-110, plus chapter 11 Definitions" available on the City's
website.
Line 386 establishes that the reference inap held by the City may not include all critical
areas and each individual site should be evaluated. We agree.
"
Line 878 calls for conservation easements or other permanent protections for native
growth areas. We agree.
Line 1041 establishes surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans and areas. We agree,
however, the City may want to develop a list of performance criteria and specific courses of
action if standards ar~_ not met. This can be accomplished case by case or generally for
different wetland types. This will provide a clear picture of what is expected of developers
when mitigation plans are proposed. This may be tied to adaptive management as
discussed on line 7321.
Line 1978 -1985 discusses habitat assessment requirements, specifically calling for the
need to deternline "extent, function, and value of critical habitat." We agree and hope that
the City maintains the 'big' picture view of all development reviews. lt is imperative to look
beyond individual site developments and consider the overall function of the habitat areas.
The City should conduct an overall habitat health assessment, specifically looking for
corridors and areas of interconnection. If true function is to be maintained
interconnectivity will be critical. One of the hardest jobs for a local government is to move
away from thinking about development as occurring on indh,idual parcels of land. Habitat
spans boundaries and the City 111ust have a comprehensive view of habitat and other
critical areas to ensure the cumulative effects of individual development are addressed.
Line 2000 establishes the priorities for mitigation; avoid, minimize and compensate. We
agree and hope the City holds developers to burden of proof test when claiming a. certain
development proposal cannot avoid impacts. .'
Line 2009 discusses the opportunity for the City to conduct a peer review of the habitat
assessment at the developer's expense. We agree strongly and suggest in all controversial
development cases that the City conducts an independent review of the habitat. While the
value of science cannot be underestimated there seems to be growing incidents of expert
(p~ofessional consultant) disagreement depending on the bias of the consultant.
Anticipating that certain development projects will have controversial elements of science,
the City should coriduct its own analysis. This analysis should ensure the highest level of
neutrality.
Line 5362 is a strike out of previous language stating an important purpose of the tree-
cutting ordinance is to preserve wildlife habitat and other important areas. The editor's
note says this is now covered within the critical areas discussion. Seattle Audubon
recommends leaving this language in this section as part of the tree-cutting ordinance. All
habitat and important areas 'will not be identified in the CAO portion of the document. By
leaving this language in, attention will be drawn to the importance of trees as a major
component of habitat. Individual, groupings and large stands of trees promote healthy
habitat corridors and interconnectivity. The CAO portion will only cover specifically
identified areas.
2
Line 5380 interjects the word 'hazard' tree as an exemption. While hazards trees are a
growing concern within colnmunities it is important to dearly establish criteria that will
designate hazard tree. l1lfoughout the region trees are being labeled hazard as an easy way
to remove wid-lOut consequence. Renton should not foster this precedence. Clearly
establishing hazard tree guidelines and/or identifying reputable a~borists to identify
hazards trees is imperative. The City should retain a qualified arborist to confirm any
hazard tree designation.
Line 5578 -5604 establishes criteria for tree cutting however, the list is incomplete and
leaves too many loopholes. Significant tress over a certain caliper should be identified
regardless of circumstance and the number of trees proposed to be cut needs to be
identified regardless of circumstance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to working with the City
in the future.
;t:e~~2-a/ -~~~--~ ~ / ~.
. Matthew Mega, Al7
Urban Habitat Program Director
3
lW1?JI~
CflYC!=P.!:NTCN
""' r' Gt~ q: [r-.. "" L. , .. \J
AUG 09 2004
INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ~. , .. ntl>'''c'''· .... '''1'~·1 ,I.; V.4.:J.:j •• ~ .v ...... ,,· 4
742 1st Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
Telephone (425) 827-3688
Fax (425) 889-9453
MEMORANDUM
204 East 17th St., Suite 202
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Telephone (949) 764-2679
Fax (949) 764-0105
TO:
CC:
Alexander Pietsch -Department of Economic Development
Development Services Division
FROM: Richard A. Gumpert
DATE: August 9,2004
Rl-:· ~. Comments -LUA-04-084, ECF
The purpose of this memorandum is to follow up on the several conversations that I have
had with you, your staff and your consultant relative to the new critical areas and
shoreline ordinance update that has been proposed, and to provide written comment to the
Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance. As you know,
my company owns the property west of Oakesdale Ave. SW between SW 43 rd Ave. and
Springbrook Creek (Parcels J, H, Nand L) (the "Property"). You consultant has advised
you and me that Springbrook Creek has been classified as a Class 1 stream. Although I
have provided detailed verbal comments to the City's proposal, this shall serve to provide
written comment; however, my discussions have been far more detailed, and those
comments remain.
Growth Management Act CGMA) and Comprehensive Plan Objectives -Density of
development within certain urbanized growth areas is a critical issue and major policy
objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The existing populations, developments
and traffic on SW 43 rd Street and on Oakesdale Avenue SW would make my Property,
located at the intersection of these two main arterials, a prime location for the dense
commercial development that is an objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The
Property is one of the few properties on SW 43 rd Street, one of the busiest east-west
anerials in the City, that is only partially developed. It is one of the few remaining CA
zoned properties in the area. The need for services as contemplated by the CA zoning
remains material, and the location of such development at the intersection of two prime
arterials serves important traffic and other policy concerns. Reduced density, and thereby
the reduced services to be provided at my Property by virtue of an expansion of the buffer
from Springbrook Creek, has not been given adequate consideration in the draft
ordinance.
Additionally, the City's stock of CA zoned land is a part of the balance that was created
relative to the contemplated jobs that would be created within the City. Currently my
company is under construction of a 60,000 square foot medical office building that is
planned to include physicians' offices, a surgery center, a medical lab and other medical-
related uses. It is our current plan to build additional phases that ultimately will create a
medical campus with multiple medical buildings and a parking structure. This plan, if
e Alexander Pietsch -Department of Economic Development
Development Services Division
August 9, 2004
Page 2
implemented, will create livable-wage employment in the City and increase the healthcare
services available to the region. These are certainly important objectives of the City
planning process that have been subordinated to other policjes without adequate
consideration or public input. Other objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan
likewise need to be weighed in these considerations.
Vesting by Prior Compliance with Development Conditions -The Property was mapped
in 1998 to create the parcels that currently exist, at which time the City imposed a
requirement that a 50-foot setback be established, a public-access asphalt walking trail
adjacent to the easement be built (it is south of the easement on my Property), and a
private stormwater detention pond and bioswale be established south of the trail. In
compli,mce with these conditions, the 50-foot easement has been honored and has all
natural vegetation. The public-access asphalt walking trail has been built on my land and
is in-place for the entirety of my land adjacent to the 50-foot natural buffer. The
storm water pond and bioswale is fully vegetated and is sized to accommodate
development of all of my parcels. In other words, every condition imposed by the City
for the protection of Springbrook Creek and access for the public has been satisfied.
Indeed, in addition to the above, the City has imposed another condition earlier this year
in relation to the medical building that is currently under construction on Parcel N. In
relation to this current development, I am establishing yet another 2-foot wide gravel skirt
south of the public-access trail. By complying with these various conditions, including
using my private property for a public-access trail and natural vegetated buffer, this
Property is vested and my company should not be required to dedicate more land as a
buffer. A landowner who fully complies with and has satisfied all the conditions imposed
by the City should not be subject to new conditions.
The Ordinance is Inapplicable to My Company's Property and in any Event it is Too
Broad in its Application -The ordinance does not appear to include provisions that
contemplate the situation described above. Specifically, it appears to assume that
"undeveloped land" is all naturally vegetated adjacent to the shoreline. As described
above, the land adjacent to Springbrook Creek is developed -it's just that not all
buildings have yet been built. North of the Creek is a major industrial development that
includes hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings, and only the 50 foot buffer is
observed. On the south side, which is my company's land, although I haven't yet built all
the buildings that ultimately will be at the Property, the natural buffer, the public-access
asphalt trail and the stormwater pond are in situ, and the additional strip just recently
imposed as a condition to the current development will be in place shortly.
Consequently, there is no natural vegetation south ofthe asphalt trail, and there has not
been any in place for some time. For purposes of protecting the shoreline with existing
natural vegetation, the Property is already protected and it is "developed" and no further
buffer should be imposed. My company should not be required to do a panoply of
biological studies and take other measures in order to attempt to exempt itself, or reduce
the impact, from the new ordinance. Rather, the ordinance should address this situation
Alexander Pietsch -Deptment of Economic Development
Development Services Division
August 9,2004
Page 3
and expressly acknowledge that the ordinance does not apply, whether by virtue of prior
vesting, or a definition of development, or given the competing policy objectives, or other
reasons. Precious private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are involved,
and the City must take the time and make the effort to assure that its ordinance is crafted
to protect those rights to the fullest extent subject only to the furtherance of its legitimate
public purposes. I do not believe that sufficient precision has been used in this instance.
Further, the benefit to the shoreline of an imposition of an additional buffer given the
current state of the land, pales with the other objectives ofthe GMA and Comprehensive
Plan induding, without limitation, density and the utilization of the stock ofCA zoned
land for the creation of livable-wage jobs.
Best Available Science -Having read the consultant's report upon which the proposed
ordinance is based, I did not perceive any significant scientific information, new or
previously existing, that supports the imposition of an additional buffer at the Property
under the current situation. As such, any ordinance that serves to impose an additional
setback at the Property is too broad in its application and should be deemed inappropriate
given the other policy objectives and the Constitutional rights of private landowners.
Fairness and Cooperation -The implementation of land use regulations requires good
faith by both the City and the landowners. The imposition of conditions to development
needs to be fair, related to the development and the consequences it will have, and
reasonably sculpted to further important public purposes. My company has honored the
conditions and fees imposed on its various developments in this City and neighboring
jurisdictions in a spirit of cooperation. However, in this instance it appears that the.
regulation of this specific Property by the draft ordinance is not fair, disproportionately
burdensome and inconsequential in furtherance of any legitimate objectives. It is
tantamount to a taking by regulation without legitimate public justification. Rather than
the burden being placed on the landowners in such circumstances to exempt itself from
the ordinance, the ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends and not
disproportionately impact private rights without reason.
Thank you for the courtesies extended in considering my comments.
_YERS
ECEIVED
AUG 3 2004
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C.
TRAer L. SHALLBETTER
DIRECT (206) 628-7633
t racis hallbetter@dwt.com
August 2, 2004
Ms. Judy Wright
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
2600 CENTURY SQUARE
1501 fOURTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688
TEL (206) 622-3150
fAX (206) 628-7699
www.dwt.com
Re: Proposed Determination of Non significance ("DNS") for Critical Area Regulation
Updates/2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments using Optional DNS Process
Dear Ms. Wright:
On behalf of our client Barbee Mill Company, we attended the community workshop on July 27,
2004 and have reviewed the City's proposed revisions to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
and Critical Areas Regulations. We are concerned that the City's proposed DNS fails to
adequately consider the magnitude of potential significant adverse impacts associated with the
proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area regulations.
The City appears to presume that since its proposed revisions have the goal of enhancing
environmental quality and preserving wetlands and critical areas, the revisions do not warrant
full environmental review. Yet, even proj ects designed to ultimately benefit the environment
may need to undergo SEPA review. SEPA expressly recognizes this. WAC i 97-1 i -330(5).1
I WAC 197-11-330(5) provides:
A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial
aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall
consider whether a proposal has any probably significant adverse
environmental impacts under the rules stated in this section. For
example, proposals designed to improve the environment, such as
sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements, may
have significant adverse environmental impacts.
SEA 1531817v1 26266-4
Ms. Judy Wright
August 2, 2004
Page 2
The fact that the proposed revisions may on first glance appear to be a net improvement over
existing regulations does not excuse full and thorough environmental review of the potentially
significant adverse impacts of the revisions.
The adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments to critical area
regulations and shoreline goals and policies could be substantial. Specifically, the proposed
revisions appear to have significant adverse impacts on existing land use plans and population
allocations, recreational and economic development opportunities, and private use and
enjoyment of the waterfront.
For example, the amendments reduce the availability of buildable lands on privately owned
waterfront property, resulting in a shift of densities elsewhere (outside of the critical areas). The
reduction of buildable lands may conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan; yet, the
environmental checklist and other documents relied upon by the City appear to ignore that
impact.
The adverse environmental impacts resulting from concentrating densities elsewhere may be
significant in other respects. Traffic and pollution associated with concentrating densities
elsewhere within the City to offset the elimination of buildable lands under the proposed
amendments have not been disclosed or considered. In response to the SEP A checklist question
regarding traffic impacts, the City has provided a non-response:
[T]he proposal directs how development may occur in the context
of environmentally sensitive/critical area. It would not be
anticipated to adversely affect transportation, public service or
utility demands.
See Checklist at 17. Based upon a review of the City's support for such proposal, it appears
adverse impacts are not "anticipated" because they were not considered. This lack of
consideration or documentation is inconsistent with the mandates of SEP A disclosure.
Finally, the proposed revisions appear to force a few private land owners to bear burdens for the
public benefit, even though such burdens legally and in all fairness should be borne by the public
as a whole. The proposed minimum buffer standards for critical areas have significant adverse
impacts on the ability to develop land, which translates into impacts on economics and land use
more generally. While the City has proposed a "reasonable use exception" for certain minimum
buffer standards, such exception retains certain baselines below which development may not
occur-regardless of whether development below such baseline would have any adverse impacts
on the critical areas and regardless of what is revealed through best available science. In short,
insignificant, if any, consideration is given to the impacts that the proposed amendments will
have on private landowners and development, particularly in terms of economic impacts.
SEA 1531817vl 26266-4
Ms. Judy Wright
August 2, 2004
Page 3
We urge the City to more fully consider the significant adverse environmental impacts that may
result from the revisions, keeping in mind the breadth of the definition of "environment" and the
mandates of the Growth Management Act.
Very truly yours,
Traci L. Shallbetter
cc: Campbell Mathewson
Alex Cugini
Robert Cugini
Tom Goeltz
SEA 1531817vl 26266-4
·1 e City of Re on Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 19, 2004
APPLICANT: Ci of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas PLAN REVIEW:
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Pro osal, Featurin New Stream, River, and Lake Re ulations
SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA ross: NlA
LOCATION: NlA I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
CITYOFAEN
VEO
JUL 20 2~
BUILD
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water UghtiGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Dati I
DATE:
LAND USE NUMBER:
July 30, 2004
LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMAl, Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context. A
summary of the proposal is as follows:
• Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies as part of a "best available science review" in accordance with GMA,
particularly the Environment Element along with other elements.
Amend Renton's Critical Areas Regulations:
o Based on a best available science review, amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies
(streams and lakes), apply buffers based on water body class, allow for alterations subject to performance and
mitigation standards, and provide for no-net-Ioss of ecological function.
o Based on a best available science review, provide for appropriate amendments to improve or better document the
wetland review process.
o Based on a comparison with example regulations and review of current studies, make limited amendments to
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations.
• Propose Renton Shoreline Master Program amendments to:
o Integrate and make limited amendments to Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies.
o Address Shoreline Use Environment text and map inconsistencies for the Black River and Cedar River at the
Maplewood Golf Course and recognize current and planned uses.
o Provide for shoreline protection regulations for regulated rivers/streamsllakes, including buffers, similar to the
critical area streamllake regulations.
• As a result of the above, amend other interrelated regulations, including, but not limited to Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting regulations, Title IV variance and permit procedures, as well as others.
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is
likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period.
There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-
day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
Permits/Review Requested:
July 15, 2004
July 19,2004
Environmental (SEPAl Review
Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative
Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Coordination of State Agency
Comments (GMA related items), Puget Sound Regional Council Consultation and Consistency Review, State of
Washington Department of Ecology Approval (Shoreline Master Program Amendments)
Requested Studies/Existing Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared.
Other background memos and studies related to the proposal include best available science analysis to establish
stream/riverllake buffers and to review existing wetland regulations; a comparison/analysis of example codes and City
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations; and
memos describing Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline policy amendments, Shoreline Use Environment map/text
amendments, and Renton Title IV regulation amendments.
Location where apPllc.ay
be reviewed:
Planning/Building/Public Works Division, e
Development Services Department
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 9, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal,
or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425)
430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be
notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwrlght@ci.renton.wa.us
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.!Name: LUA04-084 / Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
NAME: ________________________________________________ ___
ADDRESS: ____________________________________________ ___
TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _
rJ i
It e
City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: A6J1~; ~
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
SITE AREA: N1A
LOCATION: N1A
COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 19,2004
PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Und
PLAN REVIEW:
...... , .. &;U
JUL 2"/. 200~
BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A BUILDING DIVISION
I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context. '
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable
Environment Minor Major
Impacts Impacts
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
~OM..L-
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
More
Information
Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
UghtiGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal .
. jA 7[';±~~
oatel I
• City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Rre.. COMMENTS DUE· AI ~II~T" -?nn4 . ' .. ~~ ,
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04·084, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: J t@~9~~ ~ U W~ In\
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: R~5~ a Lind II II
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas PLAN REVIEW: U L
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
JUl 1 9 2004 l0
Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
SITE AREA: NJA BUILDING AREA (gros~ i): NJA Gil y_ut-RENTON
FIRE OEPA'lTI'"H::1H
LOCATION: N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
I
Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth HousinQ
Air Aesthetics
Water UJJhtlGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources PreseNation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
.""" -•• "'!kmaJ "fonnanon is needed Wy..,as "" proposal. 7 h k
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I I
City of Rerln Department of Planning / Building / Public as
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICANT: Cit of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Pro osal, Featurin New Stream, River, and Lake Re ulations
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: N/A
COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 19,2004 R E C FRENTON
PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind
PLAN REVIEW:
BUILDING DIVISION
BUILDING AREA ross: N/A
I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Light/Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources PreseNation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
f0Q'\M.
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
~~
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~<;+ru.{;\-\lt)Y"\
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
SITE AREA: NlA
LOCATION: NlA
COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 19, 2004
RE :!! Ie r~ u;. R,-E~rO~ _ PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Und ~ v .. n -PLAN REVIEW: JUL 20 200~
BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA UUILUING DIVISION
I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water UghtiGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals T ransporlation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energyl Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources PreseNation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where a itional information is needed t~roperly assess this proposal.
v· • 7 /po h't
Datil '
City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ru-k:s COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 2, 2004
APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-084, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 19,2004
APPLICANT: Ci~ of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind
PROJECT TITLE: Best Available Science Critical Areas PLAN REVIEW:
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake ReQulations
SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77287
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available SCience Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water UghtlGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
EnVironmental Health Public Services
Energyl
Natural Resources
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B.
,
C. E-RELATED COMMENTS
f/(L
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional informati needed to properly assess this proposal.
Date
•
I
....
,
DATE: July 19, 2004
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-G4-G84, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master I
Program GMA Integration Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas \
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection In the City of Renton context. A
summary of the proposal is as follows:
Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies as part of a "best available science revIew" in accordance with GMA.
particularly the Environment Element along with other elements.
Amend Renton's Critical Areas Regulations: o Based on 8 best available science review, amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies
(streams and lakes), apply buffers based on water body dass, sllow for alterations subject to performance and
mitigation standards, and provide for no-net-loss of ecological function. o Based on a best available science review, provide for appropriate amendments to improve or better document the
wetland review process. o Based on a comparison with example regulations and review of current studies, make limited amendments to
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations.
Propose Renton Shoreline Master Program amendments to:
o Integrate and make limited amendments to Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies.
Address Shoreline Use Environment text and map inconsistencies for the Black River and Cedar River at the
Maplewood Golf Course and recognize current and planned uses. Provide for shoreline protection regulations for regulated rlversistreamsllakes, Including buffers, similar to the
critical area stream/1ske regulations.
As a result of the above, amend other interrelated regulations, including, but not limited to Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting regulations, Title IV variance and permit procedures, as well as others.
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Umlts
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NDN-5IGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is
likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed eNS are integrated into a single comment period.
There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (ONS). A 14·
day appeal period will fonow the Issuance of the DNS.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
Permits/Review Requested:
July 15, 2004
July 19, 2004
Environmental (SEPA) Review
Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Councii Legislative
Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Coordination of State Agency
Comments (GMA related Items), Puget Sound Regional Council Consultation and Consistency Review, State of
Washington Department of Ecology Approval (Shoreline Master Program Amendments)
Requested Studies/existing Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared.
Other background memos and studies related to the proposal include best available science analysis to establish
streamlriverl1ake bUffers and to review existing wetland regulations; a comparison/analysis of example codes and City
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations; and
memos describing Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline policy amendments, Shoreline Use Environment map/text
amendments, and Renton Title IV regulation amendments.
Location where application may
be reviewed:
•
PlanninglBullding/Public Works Dlvlskln.
Development Services Department
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Public Meetings: The subject proposal is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment process for 2004.
Public meetings and hearings are planned for the proposal along wlth other Comprehensive Plan and related Items in the
Summer and Fa\l2004. The subject proposal will be a topiC at a community meetlnglworkshop, Icheduled for July
27,2004, Highlands Community Center, 6 to 8 p.m., 800 Edmonds Avenue HE, Renton. More information about the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, Including the subject proposal, and public meetings can be found at www c! renton wa us under the Economic OevelopmenVNelghborhoodslStraleglc Planning Department.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, t055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 2, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or
wish to be made a party ~f re~rd and receive a~ditional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430~
6575. Anyone who submits wntten comments Will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425430-9575, eml: Jwrlght@ci.renton.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to be m~de a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
thIS form and retum to: CIty of Renton, Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File NO.IName: LUA04-084 I CrtHcal Areas Code Amendments 2004
NAME: __________________________________________ __
ADDRESS: _________________________________________ _
TELEPHONE NO.: _______________ _
CERTIFICA-TION
""'"'''''''' ......... tf,.AMc "'-.:---4.~ ........ 'J.t~;.." !f ,;-~ "'S\ON E.i-;;.. ,<,' . . . ; ~/~ro ~~" I~ Dera.. Jo~ t"\ , hereby certIfy that . 1 copies of the
; ::E fg ~O'''R'' cP\ a~ve document were posted by me in -,J~ conspicuous places on or nearby ~'O ." • ~ '\ ~ t '" ~ ~ ~ ,v : ah~ described property on ...,"" \!l" .. (!Jo'i ~ \ PUS\': .: 0 ~ ~ ... '. ... •• J.;;;,: ' ~
l,u· .. •• 629'"'' e -. . ~ f; ,--. ..v._ • '. -f}j •••• : ••••••• ~~:-Signed~~ "'~f OF W"~ __ ---ATTEST, Subocribed G¥':J~::"e me. a Notary Public. in md f~ """"",,<0: Washington residing , on the QJV?-day of . ~
MARILYN KAMCHEFF
MY APPOINlMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07
Agencies See Attached
(Signature of .... anlnar/~~~~~~~~::!::C:::=::~~~ _______ ----.l~~
SS
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act tOt,tfi~~~~i-1li~d
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated~ 2£ ~'1 -~--.:...-" :7-7~=-#'--:;--:--~~~~r"*:-:----:--:-----
Notary (Print): __ ---;tMARl1l"f"m:IEll'lVNIlm'lllKAMCHII:IIT'1"'VEFFmffi=;I"":;"";;:~-----------
My appointment expires: M"/ APPUINIMENI EXPIRES 6-29-07
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
template -affidavit of service by mailing
(Stn0.oth.Feed Sheets™ ". -. ...
Nancy Winters
Department of Corrections
Post Office Box 41112
Olympia, Washington 98504-1112
Steve Penland
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Post Office Box 43155
Olympia, Washington 98504-3155
Elizabeth McNagny
Department of Social and Health Services
Post Office Box 45848
Olympia, Washington 98504-5848
Review Team
Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development
Growth Management Services
Post Office Box 42525
Olympia, Washington 98504-2525
Dept. of Ecology *
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
lamey Taylor
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. &. Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
fl,AVERY® Address labels
SEPA/GMA Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
Bill Koss
Parks and Recreation Commission
Post Office Box 42650
Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
Harriet Beale
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Post Office Box 40900
Olympia, Washington 98504-0900
lohn Aden
Department of Health
Division of Drinking Water
Post Office Box 47822
Olympia, Washington 98504-7822
WDFW -Stewart Reinbold
c/o Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Duwamish Tribal Office
1:4235 Ailibetlm BI'(8. SIll FF8At A
w;i~'~'~~~~~r W~5W ~*h. I (j.H1-llf/<Xo-1514-
KC Wastewater Treatment Division
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
City of Newcastle
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson
Director of Community Development
13020 SE 72nd Place
Newcastle, WA 98059
Puget Sound Energy
Municipal Liason Manager
Joe Jainga
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Use template for 5160® e
Lorinda Anderson
Interagency Committee on Outdoor
Recreation .
Post Office Box 40917
Olympia, Washington 98504-0917
Anne Sharar
Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 47001
Olympia, Washington 98504-7001
Bill Wiebe
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 47300
Olympia, Washington 98504-7370
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Fisheries Dept.
Attn. SEPA Reviewer
39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Progran
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Office of Archaeology &. Historic
Preservation
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Acting Community Dev. Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
-eFie ~weflfl3en T ~e. €xo..m' (le.v
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-5004
laser 5160®
~ . ,,.'
.. ' i, , .... '".
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 20th day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Notice of Application -DNS documents. This information was sent to:
Parties of Record See attached list
(Signature of Send
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
~" t\OTA~r ~\
-._ en:
~ \ ,l)UBUC ..:
? .. ". .... ""o~ «-"~:29-07 ....• ~ 5 Ot:" ........ ~C":> _--
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ",\\~AS~~ ......... --
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the \~s~~ and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Da~ l!. ..:a::lO It
ashington
Notary (Print):, _____ -,M~AffiRIL:~YNf.rffiKAMC~H:;;;EFF=_:_::_=_--------
My appOintment expires: MY APPOINTMENTEXPIRFS 11-29-07
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
~'-. '", { ...
PARTIES OF RECORD
Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
LUA04-084, ECF
Richard Gumpert
IDC
742 1st Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
party of record
Dean Radford
King County Journal
600 Washington Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
party of record
Daniel E. Penttila
Fish Biologist
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100
LaConner, WA 98257-1100
party of record
Suzann Krom
4715 112 36th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126-4715
party of record
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LP
1501 Fourth Avenue #2140
Seattle, WA 98101
party of record
Farideh Mastan
13810 SE 42nd Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
Garrett Huffman
South King County Manager
Master Builders Association
335 116th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
party of record
Sandra Lange, Planner
Floodplain Management Section
Shorelands & Coastal Zone Mngt.
Prog.
WADOE
Baran Hall, MS: PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
party of record
Lowell Anderson
8225 S 128th Street
Seattle, WA 98178
party of record
Tom Malphrus
Friends of the Black River
18713 102nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
party of record
Renee Schaefer
PGP Inc.
1325 4th Avenue # 500
Seattle, WA 98101
party of record
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
2115 N 30th #203
Tacoma, WA 98403
party of record
Richard Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environ. Asst.
Prog.
WA DOE -NW Regional Office
32190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
party of record
Brad Olschefski
6672 156th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
Chad Armour
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
party of record
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
10500 NE 8th Street #1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
party of record
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON·SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DATE: July 19, 2004
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-04-084, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration Proposal, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas
Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context. A
summary of the proposal is as follows:
• Refine City Comprehensive Plan pOlicies as part of a "best available science review" in accordance with GMA,
particularly the Environment Element along with other elements.
• Amend Renton's Critical Areas Regulations:
o Based on a best available science review, amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies
(streams and lakes), apply buffers based on water body class, allow for alterations subject to performance and
mitigation standards, and provide for no-net-Ioss of ecological function.
o Based on a best available science review, provide for appropriate amendments to improve or better document the
wetland review process.
o Based on a comparison with example regulations and review of current studies, make limited amendments to
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area proced·ural regulations.
• Propose Renton Shoreline Master Program amendments to:
o Integrate and make limited amendments to Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan policies.
o Address Shoreline Use Environment text and map inconsistencies for the Black River and Cedar River at the
Maplewood Golf Course and recognize current and planned uses.
o Provide for shoreline protection regulations for regulated rivers/streamsllakes, including buffers, similar to the
critical area streamllake regulations.
• As a result of the above, amend other interrelated regulations, including, but not limited to Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting regulations, Title IV variance and permit procedures, as well as others.
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is
likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period.
There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-
day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
Permits/Review Requested:
July 15, 2004
July 19, 2004
Environmental (SEPA) Review
Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative
Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Coordination of State Agency
Comments (GMA related items), Puget Sound Regional Council Consultation and ConSistency Review, State of
Washington Department of Ecology Approval (Shoreline Master Program Amendments)
Requested Studies/Existing Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared.
Other background memos and studies related to the proposal include best available science analYSis to establish
stream/riverllake buffers and to review existing wetland regulations; a comparison/analysis of example codes and City
aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, habitat conservation, and critical area procedural regulations; and
memos describing Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline policy amendments, Shoreline Use Environment map/text
amendments, and Renton Title IV regulation amendments.
Location where a~tl.ay
be reviewed: ,.,
Planning/Building/Public Works Di_ -
Development Services Department ,.,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Public Meetings: The subject proposal is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment process for 2004.
Public meetings and hearings are planned for the proposal along with other Comprehensive Plan and related items in the
Summer and Fall 2004. The subject proposal will be a topic at a community meeting/workshop, scheduled for July
27,2004, Highlands Community Center, 6 to 8 p.m., 800 Edmonds Avenue NE, Renton. More information about the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including the subject proposal, and public meetings can be found at
www.cLrenton.wa.us under the Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 2,2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or
wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-
6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA04-084 I Critical Areas Code Amendments 2004
NAME: ________________________ ~-----------------------
ADDRESS: ______________________________________________ ___
TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _
m
Jones & Stol<es
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 15, 2004
To: Rebecca Lind; Judy Wright, City of Renton
cc: Laureen Nicolay, City of Renton
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
Subject: SEP A Review Draft
DEVEClOPMENT PLANNING
lTV OF RENTON. .
JUL 082004
RECEIVED
Attached are two copies ofthe SEPA Review Draft Document-"City of Renton Best Available
Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring
New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations." One has.a set of original camera-ready documents.
The other is a complete set of documents similar to our DOE early agency review notebook /
City Council review notebook from March. Also enclosed separately is a Response to
Comments matrix. I have also included a CD with originals files and with PDF files.
We have submitted the SEP A Review Draft Document (minus the Introduction memo because it
is duplicative ofthe required "Project Narrative") to the Renton Development Services Division
for processing as a Non-Project SEPA application. Twelve sets have been provided to
Development Services.
Intended Schedule
We are requesting a Notice of Application with an Optional DNS clause. If posted/issued by
Monday, July 19 as we requested, the 14-day comment period would close on August 2,2004.
We are hoping to present an ERCreport at the ERC meeting August 10,2004. Ifissued with just
an appeal period, then the appeal period would close' about August 31, 2004 in advance of the
scheduled Planning Commission public hearing.
Document Distribution
Development Services will address Notice of Application distribution. However, they will need
a list of any parties of record provided to them, and I think Judy is working on this. I would
suggest adding the following names if they are not already on the parties of record list:
Sandra Lange, Planner
Floodplain Management Section
Shorelands & Coastal Zone Management Program
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Baran Hall, MS: PV -11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
1-425-649-7000
360-407-0273
Lange, Sandra [SLAN461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Richard K. Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program
State of Washington Department of Ecology -NW Regional Office
3190 -160th Ave. SE
Bellevue W A 98008-;5A52:o r.w 3!' , .... --,. ' 1'\ . ~ i oF .... " "..., 425-649-4447" 'i:<' f,',;:, ,i. ;..; fI,:
rir0461@ecy.wa.g;oy ! i'. i'it ~.~ ~~~. ~> \t _ \oJ' ~
Daniel E. Penttila·~,!, ~,:'. " .:>.~; ,~ :, ..... ,. ,;r' e ,~~,." Fish Biologist ' . '.' . .
WDFW Habitat Program
PO Box 1100, LaConner W A, (*257
Tel: (360) 466-4345 X242
FAX: (360 466-0515
e-mail: penttdep@dfw.wa.gov
We would suggest sending one complete copy of the SEP A Review Draft packet to Sandra
Lange. Along with it we should send a letter thanking Sandra for her review and coordination of
comments during the early review phase, a Response to Comments matrix and a Notice of
Application.
To Richard Robohm, we would suggest sending the Parametrix wetlands review ("Transmittal of
Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004; together with
"Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004) and
the amended policies and code packets ("Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline
Master Program Policy Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004; and "Revised Review
Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.) We would also suggest sending him a Notice of
Application, and a Response to Comments Matrix, along with a transmittal memo.
To Daniel E. Penttila we could send a Notice of Application and a Responses to Comments
Matrix along with a transmittal memo.
If you are in agreement, I can prepare transmittal memos to these agencies or other items as
needed. We may want to put it on City letterhead.
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 980(i5~i946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
l •
I
I ..
Differences in Notebooks
Compared with the March 2004 notebooks, here are differences in the attached packet:
• Introduction: Memo updated to address all critical areas, the latest list of work program
products, and the schedule status.
• Best Available Science: To this section which has A.c. Kindig & Company's literature
review for streams and the water class map, we have added the following memos:
·"Transmittal ofParametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, july 13,
2004; together with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD,
Parametrix, June 28, 2004; and "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard,
Geologic Hazard, and Habitat Conservation Regulations to State Example Critical Areas
Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• Policies: We have updated the memo and attachments to fold in early State Agency
comments and a Planning Commission change from April 7, 2004.
• Shoreline Map Amendments: No change.
• Code Amendments: This section is fully updated to address the code amendments from the
additional best available science review of wetlands and the code comparison analysis for
aquifer protection, flood hazards, geologic hazards, habitat conservation, and critical area
procedures.
• SEPA Submittal Documents: Includes the Master Application (for Renton only), the Project
Narrative, and the SEPA Checklist. ':~.
,l,j~
You may want to change out Council and Planning Commission notebooks or issue new packets
as you see fit. We may want to wait to give the Council and Commission the SEP A documents
until after the ERC determination.
Please give me a call with any questions. Thank you.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 08 200't
r'~ECEIVED
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
m
Jones & Stol{es
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 15, 2004
OEVELOPME
CITY OF~~~~/NG
,JUL 08200+
RECEIVED
To: Laureen Nicolay, City of Renton
From: Lisa Grueler, Senior Plann~
Subject: SEP A Submittal-Renton Critical Area Regulations
Attached are fourteen copies of the SEPA Review Draft Document -"City of Renton Best
Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master ProgramGMA Integration,
Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations." The following sections are included:
• SEPA Submittal Documents: Includes the Master Application (for Renton only), the Project.
Narrative, and the SEP A Checklist.
• Best Available Science: There are three memos. 1) Draft "City of Renton Best Available
Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig &
Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27, 2003; ·2) "Transmittal of
Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004; together with
"Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004;
and 3) "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat
Conservation Regulations to State Example C~tical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13,
2004. There is also a water class map.
• Policies: "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004.
• Shoreline Map Amendments: "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, March 8, 2004.
• Code' Amendments: "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline
Master Program Regulation Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004. Includes
proposed code amendments.
Please give me a call with any questions. Thank you.
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • t~1. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
•
DEVELOPMENT pLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton
. JUL 0 8 2OO't
RECEIVED
LAND USE PERMIT
MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S) CITY: Renton ZIP:
98055
NAME: N/A
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
425-430-6575
ADDRESS: iwriaht@ci.renton.wa.us
CITY: ZIP: PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: City of Renton Best
TELEPHONE NUMBER: Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream,
River, and Lake Regulations
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
NAME: City of Renton City of Renton Corporate Limits
COMPANY (if applicable):
City of Rel)ton
Economic DevelopmenU
Neighborhoods/Strategic
Planning Department
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
Attn: Reb~cca Lind, Principal
Planner N/A
ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way .EXISTING LAND USE(S): N/A
CITY: Renton ZIP: ·PROPOSED LANDUSE(S): N/A
98055
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESI~NATION:
TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6575 N/A
CONTACT PERSON
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable): N/A
NAME: Judy Wright EXISTING ZONING: N/A
COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton Economic PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A
DevelopmenU
Neighborhoods/Strategic SITE AREA (in square feet):
Planning Department
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED
ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING
THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A
Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglmasterapp.doc 07114/04
" .OJECT INFORMATION coenued
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET PROJECT VALUE: N/A
ACRE (if applicable): N/A
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANYTYPE(6{1.Jl,:1~~i·.1~iC::.,I:i\.'~0
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A ;.ft,.IIt.1,.:lH ,( I V 11:1
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, P.LEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): p~}{l~;) t~ .JUL
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A All critical areas addressed in proposed
policies/regulations. t~.~-~1 t"';' '-'. :'~ -::'t o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE 11' , ~ £, ".~: "
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
N/A o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ,
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o WETLANDS sq. ft.
BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): N/A
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION _, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. N/A
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
I List all land use applications being applied for:
1. SEPA Determination -Non Project 3.
2; 4.
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglmasterapp.doc 07/14/04
Project Narrative:
City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations
and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
July 13, 2004
1. Proposal Overview
Renton Planning and Environmental Context
Renton is a long established community in the heart of urban King County. The City was founded
along the Cedar and Black Rivers and Lake Washington, and incorporated as a City in 1901.
Once dependent upon mining and forestry, it is noted for aerospace and truck manufacturing and
a transitioning diversified economy. It is home to the Boeing Renton plant, PACCAR, Renton
Technical College, Valley Medical Center, the Renton Airport, and many other establishments.
A variety of residential neighborhoods, from the historic and revitalizing downtown to the
suburban Renton Highlands are found here.
With its important regional economy, location at the connection of the I-405, SR-167 and SR-900
highways, active citizens and neighborhoods, and many other features, the City has an extensive
history of long-range and strategic planning. While being a largely urbanized community,the
City has proactively established a park, recreation, and open space system, including the purchase
of environmentally sensitive areas, particularly along the Black River, the Cedar River, and ~.
Springbrook Creek. The City prepared a new Comprehensive Plan consistent with the State of
Washington Grb~ Management Act (GMA) in 1995 addressing land use, transportation,: "
housing, utilities, capital facilities, economic development, downtown, environment, and other
key community topics. The City participates in regional planning forums such as the GroWth .
Management Planning Council of King County and watershed planning efforts (WRIAs).
. The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). GMA requires
protection of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (RCW
36.70A.030).Since the original GMA was instituted in 1991, GMA has been amended with
respect to critical areas, particularly to require the use of "best available science" in critical area
policies and regulations and consideration of anadromous fish species.
Partly in response to GMA, the City of Renton adopted Critical Area Regulations between 1989
and 2000. The City regulations currently address:
• Aquifer Protection Areas
• Geologically Hazardous Areas
• Habitat Conservation Areas
• Frequently Flooded Areas; and
• Wetlands
July 13, 2004 1
DEVELOPMENT PlANNING CITY OF RENTON,
·JUL 0 8 200't
RECEIVED
Jones & Stokes
I
The City Critical Area Regulations "reserve" a section to address the protection of streams and
lakes, which otherwise are minimally addressed in the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
regulations (25 foot setback from waterbodies).
Given the status of the stream regulations, the focus of the City's efforts to comply with the GMA
best available science provisions relates to streams, and a series of recommendations by the
consultant team have been prepared to establish water classifications, buffers, and other related
items. However, to document the City's compliance with best available science for the re~aining
GMA critical area topics and effectively use the City's resources, more limited scope reviews and
evaluations have been conducted. These limited scope reviews include a best available science
evaluation of wetland regulations, as well as a comparison of the City's aquifer, flood hazard,
geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations to the State Department of Community
Devel~pment's Example Critical Areas Code.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose ofthe City of Renton Best Available Science Critical .Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA),
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area
protection in the City of Renton context. Specific objectives are to:
• Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the
Environment Element.
• Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes, and
based upon the literature review develop buffer requirements. The review program includes
recommendations to amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies,
apply buffers, and provide for no-net-Ioss of ecological function.
• Document a best available science review of the City's wetland regulations, and provide for
appropriate amendments to improve or better document the wetland review process.
• Compare the City's aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat
conservation regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as
appropriate.
• Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and
Comprehensive Plan policies, address text and map inconsistencies, and provide for shoreline
protection regulations. These limited amendments would apply in the interim until full
Shoreline Master Program Update is accomplished in accordance with the new SMA
schedule (2009 for the City of Renton):
Integrate Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive
Plan, essentially intact. Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities
ofRCW 90.58.020 (differentiate between Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all
other Shorelines of the State that are found in the City).
Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood
GolfCourse,to1address.shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified "· .. li/d~\;~V,,,,~"'t ; t.·t~l\Ii""C· I h:·~I· annexed area. Field!reyj:(;!w.:an.a·'~'rialysis were conducted for the limited map
amendments. For these areas regulations would be applied consistent with environmental
limitations and existi~gtu~es) 1: l
Address shorelin~ PIRt~f.t~?"I(I~~~lations, including buffers, in the Shoreline Master
Program to provide fdfequivalent protection per State legislation (ESHB 1933), while
responding to use priorities ofRCW 90.58.020.
July 13, 2004 2 Jones & Stokes
-.
The work program has produced a variety of documents and issue papers:
• "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program
GMA Integration," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004.
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on
February 27, 2003.
• Stream/lake classification results are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map
prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning staff.
• "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments,"
Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," Jones &
Stokes, March 8, 2004.
• "Transmittal ofParametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004;
together with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix,
June 28, 2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat
Conservation Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13,
2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program
Regulation Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004. Includes proposed code'
amendments.
Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic
DevelopmentiNeighb()rhoods/Strategic Planning Department, as well as the City ofRentol!
website (www.c1.renton.wa.us/. under the Department name). .
A summary of each amended City Plan or Code -Renton Comprehensive Plan, Renton Shoreline
Master Program, and Renton Critical Area Regulations -is provided below, addressing current
policy/regulatory approaches and proposed amendments.
2. Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program
Policies
Renton's Comprehensive Plan policies provide the framework for the City's regulations. The City
of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program
GMA"Integration project includes a review of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) policies for consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA),
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), particularly SectionsRCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.100,
and basic scientific principles and standards identified in the Draft "City of Renton Best
Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," February 27,2003
by AC Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants.
The proposed policy amendments accomplish the following:
• Growth Management Act (GMA): Per GMA requirements, the SMP policies are
incorporated into the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Environment Elements.
• Shoreline Management Act (SMA) SMP Policy Amendments:
July 13, 2004 3 Jones & Stokes
I
Shoreline "element" topics unaddressed in Renton SMP (per RCW 90.58.100) consisting
of His toricl Cult urall Scientific lEd ucationa I and Flood Damage Prevention are
incorporated.
Additionally; a proposed restructuring of shoreline use priority policies is suggested to
better match the SMA use preferences along both Shorelines of the State and Shorelines
of Statewide Significance. To meet the use preferences in RCW 90.58.020, land use
policy amendments are proposed as follows;
o General provisions that apply to any shoreline activity or use are grouped -e.g.
policies having todo with niinimizingpollution, ensuring public access is respectful
of private property rights, etc.
o Use preferences applicable to Shorelines of the State (all regulated shorelines) except
Lake Washington are grouped, and the language takes much direction from the RCW
90.58.020 use preference policies.
o Use preferences applicable to Shorelines of Statewide Significance, i.e. Lake
Washington, are provided, and follow from the specific use priority order in RCW
90.58.020, as well as Renton SMP regulations and defmitions that indicate how uses
can be allowed within this priority system if they provide significant public access.
• Best Available Science: Policy amendments have been proposed to the Environment
Element primarily as well as to the Transportation, Utilities, DowntoWn, and Economic
Development Elements as a result of Best Available Science Review. Generally the
amendments consist of policy refmements, with the primary changes related to the rivers and
stream policies and floodplain policies of the Environment Element. In particular, these
amendments are intended to lay the groundwork for the regulatory approach to stream.
classifications, buffers, and other items.
The amendments are the result of the City's ESA Task Force review in 2002, the City's project
team for the Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program
GMA Integration, and early State Agency input in May 2004 (State of Washington Department of
Ecology). .
3. Renton Shoreline Master Program -Use Environments .
Shorelines of the State are required to be classified into "use environments" based upon current
development patterns, biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards, and
regulations can be customized by use environment, shoreline, and use depending on needs, and
functions similar to a zoning overlay district. Generally, regulated shorelines include the water
bodies and their shorelands extending landward from thefloodway or ordinary high water mark
for two hundred (200)feet in all directions (whichever is greater). 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 City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project includes amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) Shoreline Use Environments to address some inconsistencies and omissions: .
• Black River: The City's adopted Shoreline Use Environment Map classifies both"banks of
the River as Natural, but the SMP text states the Environment only applies to the north bank.
By default, according to the text,the south bank is Urban.
July 13,2004 4 Jones & Stokes
• Cedar River: The City's annexations of the Maplewood Golf Course property/area in 1985
and 1988 were not reflected in the City's adopted SMP. When an annexation occurs, the SMP
provisions of the adopted plan for that area (i.e. of the prior governing agency -King
County) would apply until amendments are made and approved by the City/State SMP of the
City that annexed the area. (WAC 173-26-160)
• Aquatic portion of the lakes/streams: It is unclear in the text of the SMP regarding what Use
Environment applies to the aquatic portion of the regulated waterbody. To assist with City
decision-making, it should be clarified if shoreline environment classifications extend to the
aquatic portion of the lakes/streams.
Based on a review of the SMP criteria and current shoreline environmental conditions,
recommendations to address the inconsistencies include:
Table 1. Summary of Use Environment Classification Recommendations
Location Current Class Proposed Class
Black River -North Natural (map and text) Natural, e~t of Monster
Bank Road; allow for habitat
enhancement; flood
control, and potentially
limited public access.
West of Monster Road,
Urban
Black River -South Natural (map) Conservancy, east of
Bank Urban (text) Monster Road
West of Monster Road,
Urban
Cedar River along Golf Not classed in Renton Conservancy
Course and Ron Regis SMP. King County
Park -North Bank applies Conservancy.
Cedar River along Golf Not classed in Renton Conservancy; amend
Course and Ron Regis SMP ... King County .use allowances for
Park -South Bank applies Conservancy. active recreation
Aquatic Areas -All Unstated. In practice Amend the SMP text to
Shorelines through permit reviews, indicate that Use
aquatic areas are Environments are
applied the same Use applied to shorelines -
Environments that are extending to both the
applied to "shorelines". shore lands as well as
the centerline of the
watercourse or City
limits as appropriate
(e.g. Lake Washington).
Source: Jones & Stokes
Current and proposed Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Maps are attached.
July l3, 2004 5 Jones & Stokes
4. Renton Critical Areas Regulations (CAR) and Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) Regulations
Aquifer Protection Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton water supply is obtained from four sources:
• The Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer
• Springbrook Springs
• Maplewood Production Aquifer
• We1l5A
These sources are protected by designating aquifer protection area zones (AP A zones) and
restricting land use, limiting and restricting hazardous materials, and establishing construction
activity standards, fill quality reporting, and stonnwater management requirements within the
zones. Renton's AP A zones are defmed as follows:
• Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three
hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour.·
• Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting
a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partialiy
protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are
regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by exemptions.
• Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater
travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field
owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring is
naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an
AP A into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire AP A will be designated as Zone 2.
The City's Aquifer·Protection Area Regulations include the following:
• Designation of Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Areas (APAs) as
described above.
• Establishing Operating and Closure Permit requirements for facilities in all Zones
• Requiring removal of existing facilities in Zone 1 if they storeihandle/treatlproduce hazardous
materials in quantities greater than 500 gallons
• Perfonnance standards, all AP A Zones
Requiring secondary containment
-Requiring hazardous materials monitoring and providing standards for release
restrictions, including in Zone 1 added site monitoring and site improvement standards to
protect against hazardous materials release
Limiting application of pesticides and nitrates near wells and springs
Establishing wastewater disposal requirements
Establishing surface water management requirements
-Regulating pipelines
-Providing construction activity standards and fill material requirements
-Regulating existing solid waste landfills .
• Zone 1 Modified is similar to Zone 1 except that:
Existing facilities are not subject to the 500 gallon hazardous material quantity and they
would not have to relocate or reduce inventory
July 13, 2004 6 Jones & Stokes
Existing septic tanks are allowed and new septic tanks would be allowed if City sewers
were not available
Infiltration of stormwater would be allowed as with Zone 2
Existing facilities would not be subject to site improvements (e.g. groundwater
monitoring, paving, stormwater management improvements, etc.)
The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in intent, and are tailored to the
City's critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the aquifer protection zone map in RMC
Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better distinguish between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2
is proposed. A discretionary code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a
hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a potential to significantly affect groundwater
quantity or quality: Otherwise, amendments or added regulations are not recommended.
Flood Hazard Areas (CAR)
Floodplain hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplain and floodways, are designated along
the City's major streams including:
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Black River
• Springbrook Creek
Additionally floodplains of the Green River extend into the City limits along the western city
limit boundary shared with TukWila.
The City imple~ent.s the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain
Management Regulations (RMC 4-3-0501), which allows flood insurance to be soldin the City .
. It designates areas of flood hazards and applies construction standards for residential and
nonresidential development in the flood hazard areas.
It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard regulations with the following
adjustments:
• Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates to the Federal/State Model
. Flood Da~agePrevention Ordinance, or to address other clarifications, in order to maintain
flood insurance eligibility. These include:
Definitions need to be added or amended, especially "basement" and "development," to
specifically implement the flood hazard regulations. .
RMC 4-3-050.I.3.b.i and ii, Manufactured Homes: Minor revision to indicate that the
foundations be " ... securely anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation
system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement."
RMC 4-3-050.I.3.c, Nonresidential Construction. Subsection c.i needs to be amended as
follows to ensure the City receives credit towards insurance rates: i. Be floodproofed so
that below one foot above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
RMC 4-3-050.I.4.b, the last sentence should be amended to match the most recent State
Model: ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a) before the
repair, reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is
being restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with
July 13, 2004 7 Jones & Stokes
existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places shall-
not be included may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%).
• Require the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. The primary concern is to regulate mapped flood hazard areas and establish base flood
elevations based on federal studies. However, appropriate situations where the City could
require additional future flood information include: development in unmapped areas or bridge
construction proposals.
Geologic Hazard Areas (CAR)
Geologic risks in theCity of Renton include:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine hazards
• Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often
considered to be a landslide hazard)
• To a lesser extent there is apotential for volcanic hazards.
The adopted Geologic Hazard regulations:
• Classify hazards using criteria. Based upon a report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the
City of Renton in 1991, the regulations include criteria for landslide hazards, erosion hazards,
seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Maps of these hazards are to be used as references.
• Address exe~ptions within Geologic Hazard areas.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports for properties with slopes 25% or greater, and
Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards. Independent peer review of geotechnical
reports may be required for properties with High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine,
or High Coal Mine Hazards: For any of the hazards, conditions of approval may include .
modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project size/configuration, or s~asonal
constraints on development.
• Address slopes between 25-40% that do not have identified erosion or landslide
hazards, by requiring peer review of geotechnical reports, erosion control plans, and weekly
erosion control inspections. The regulations would also authorize cOIiditions of approval
which may include modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project
siz~/configuration, seasonal constraints on development, vegetation stabilization, sequencing
or phasing of construction, clearing and grading limits, and other measures. These same
potential conditions of approval apply to lands with Medium and High Landslide Hazards and
High Erosion Hazards.
• Restrict development on slopes over 40%. Exceptions include man-made slopes (e.g. from
legal mining operations) pursuant to a modificatiof!., a single family dwelling on a lot of
record pursuant to a variance; p~blic utilities needed to protect slope stability, and public road
widening where alternative locations are infeasible. Modifications may be allowed such as
allowing fill at the base of a 40% slope. As with other modifications, report submittal, and
review criteria would apply. .
• Restrict the creation of lots h~ving a predominant 40%+ slope.
• Require a buffer of 50 feet from a Very High Landslide Hazard Area, which may be .
increased or decreased administratively based upon a geotechnical report. .
July 13, 2004 8 Jones & Stokes
• Provide a review process for Coal Mine Hazards. The regulations require a report to
document potential Coal Mine Hazards, authorize conditions of approval, and indicate
requirements for mitigation during construction.
• Establish detailed report preparation requirements for each potential hazard located on a
site.
The regulations are comparable to the State Example Code. Minor improvements to the City's
adopted geologic hazard regulations are proposed below.
• To strengthen the City's general performance standards, the following review criteria are
proposed to be added:
The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties
beyond pre-development conditions;
The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas.
The criteria would also state that the development must be safely accommodated,
summarizing other geologic hazard standards in the City's code.
• The regulations would newly address volcanic hazards. The risk is generally low, and could
include inundation due to lahar sedimentation or ashfall (tephra) The proposed regulations
would require critical facility proposals (e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green
River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to demonstrate adequate engineering
standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and an evacuation and emergency management
plan. "
Habitat Conservation Areas" (CAR)
The City of Renton and its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting Wildlife""
species. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and
sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDI:W)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program. Priority habitats in the City of Renton include
wetlands;riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. The lake, rivers, and creeks support
anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and
other waterfowl.
The City's Habitat Conservation Regulations address:
• " Criteria defining "critical habitat." Critical habitat includes: species that are listed as
endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority by Federal or State agencies; heron
rookeries or raptor nes"ting areas, Category 1 wetlands; and shorelines designated as Natural
or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program.
• Habitat assessments. Reports are required, and peer review may be required.
• Native Growth Protection Areas. Critical habitats are to be placed in Native Growth
Protection Areas.
• Disturbance. If a critical habitat area is to be altered, impacts are to be avoided, minimized
or compensated. Mitigation may be required based upon submitted reports, or information
from State or Federal agencies.
The City regulations provide a comparable review process for habitat conservation areas in
comparison to the State Example Code. Potential minor measures to enhance the City's
regulations are suggested -to reference State standards for bald eagles, and to clarify that
activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat conservation areas may be regulated.
July 13,2004 9 Jones & Stokes
I
Also, amendments for streams would remove "shorelines designated as Natural or Conservancy
in the Shoreline Master Program" as habitat conservation areas since streams and shorelines
. would have a separate proposed set of regulations including buffers, and amendments clarify that
Habitat Conservation regulations apply to non-salmonid species, while stream regulations address
primarily salmonid species. .
Streams and Lakes (CAR and SMP)
The proposed major regulatory changes are to add stream and lake buffer requirements to the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Renton Shoreline Master Program. In both sets of
regulations, the regulations address the following key concepts (attached flow charts demonstrate
the regulatory approach):
• Classification: A five-level stream typing system based on whether the water is salmonid-
bearing, and water body flow characteristics. Among the salmonid-bearing classes, the
differentiation is based on whether the water body is a major watercourse versus a tributary.
Among non-salmonid bearing waters, the distinctions are perennial versus intermittent flows,
and artificial channels. A process is included to help classify unclassified streams. As laid
. out in the regulations Class 1 streams are consistent with designated Shorelines of the State
(as well as consistent with mapped Chinook presence) and therefore are addressed in Renton
Shoreline regulations (see below). Class 2 to 4 water bodies, salmonid bearing and non-
salmonid bearing, receive the most attention in the Critical Area Regulations. Class 5 water
bodies are manmade streams and are not regulated. The attached map identifies the draft
water class map.
• I1mer and Outer Buffer Zones: As a result of Best Available Science review, the proposed
stream/lake buffers would increase from 25 feet (required in Tree CuttinglLand Clearing
Regulations today) to a range of 35 to 100 feet depending on stream class and salmonid use.
To allow for' some changing environmental conditions and fimctions in an area, such as that
riparian fimctions diminish with distance or to recognize existing urban development, the
concept of "inner versus outer zones" is proposed. The "outer buffers" standard refers to
standard un-enhanced buffer widths. "Inner buffers" refers to the possibility of reducing the
standard buffer width with enhancement (range of25 to 75 feet). Standards for
redevelopment are also included, i.e. recognizing that a natural buffer may not be possible on
an already highly urbanized sit~ in which case the buffers fimction as setbacks, and standards
indicate no addition of impervious surfaces is allowed although they may be rearranged.
• Defined Rules versus Variable Rules Meeting Environmental Objectives: Two .
regulatory approaches would be incorporated - a Standard path where if a water body is
classified and buffer standards or other regulations are met, development may proceed -or an
Alternative path, either where conditions may not be well known requiring more in depth
review and analysis of appropriate standards or where an applicant wants to vary.a standard
but the City needs to be assured that ecological functions are protected. This is translated into
activities that may proceed according to standard criteria with standard report/analysis
requirements versus those that must provide supplemental analysis/mitigation plans and
respond to discretionary criteria.
• General Principles -Avoidance and No-Net-Loss of Function: The regulations promote:
a) avoidance of the strearnllake and associated buffer and b) no-net-Iossof ecological
functions if avoidance is not possible (or development already exists within the new,larger
. buffers).
Specific to the Shoreline Master Program Regulations, other amendments include:
July 13,2004 10 Jones & Stokes
• SMP Sections E to I: In the Renton SMP Regulations, amendments to sections describing
Shoreline Use Environments are incorporated as noted in Section 3 of this Project Narrative.
Essentially, these amendments address the map environments and use allowances applicable
to the Black River and eastern extent of Cedar River in the City primarily to address text/map
conflicts and an unclassified annexed area.
• SMP Section J: Renton SMP Section J provides for general standards applicable to all
development. It is in this location that shoreline buffers/setbacks are added. Approaches to
the buffer/setbacks are also provided similar to those described above. To address the use
priorities of the Shoreline Management Act while addressing shoreline protection, the ability
to reduce buffers/setbacks requires an evaluation, and the potential reductions vary according
to use priority.
• SMP Section K: Following from Use Environment amendments (sections E to 1) as well as
review of model ordinances, some amendments to development standards for trails, roads and
utilities are included and are similar to the stream/lake standards included in the Critical
Areas Regulations.
• SMP Nonconforming Uses: When nonconforming use and development standards (for
"grandfathered" uses or buildings) do not exist in a local government's Shoreline Master
Program, the definitions and standards of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-
080 apply, and these address continuation of nonconforming structures, nonconforming uses,
replacement after acts of God, and other provisions. Renton's SMP has not contained
nonconforming regulations and to this date would have been subject to the State WAC
requirements which are more strict in terms of procedure (e.g. requirements for a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit in some cases) than the City's standard nonconforming regulations.
However, it is important that the City have some consistency in its nonconforming standards.
Renton's Title 4, Chapter 10 contains the City of Renton's nonconform~g structure and use
standards that generally apply in the City, and it is proposed that.the City's Shoreline Master
Program incorporate these.
Wetlands (CAR)
In 1991, the City inventoried and identified approximately 367 acres of wetlands within the CitY
limits. Within Renton's sphere of influence, approximately 1,067 acres of wetlands were
identified. Wetland types found in Renton and its sphere of influence include bogs, emergent
marshes, shrub/scrub, forested and old growth wetlands. Most of the wetlands are adjacent to
rivers and streams although other smaller concentrations are found elsewhere. Most are located
in the "Valley" area of Renton inside the City limits. Wetland inventories have been updated in.
some portions of the City, such as through the City's 1997 Eastside Green River Wastershed Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement. .
The City's wetland regulations classify wetlands, require wetland assessments, provide buffer
standards, and establish wetland mitigation standards including replacement ratios.
A best available science review of Renton's wetland regulations found that the City's wetland
regulations are supported by current best available science for wetlands in Washington State:
Several amendments are proposed to improve or better document the City's decision-making
process, including:
• Exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands should be modified -those that provide
functions should not be exempt.
July 13, 2004 11 Jones & Stokes
• Exemptions for ongoing agriculture, vegetation management, stormwater management
facilities in buffers, and trails and open space facilities in buffers should be amended to
ensure deminimus impacts. .
• A measure to enhance the City's classification system could be to reference or translate the
State Department of Ecology's rating system to the City's (meaning identify how the State's
four~way system translates to the City's three-way class system). However, at present, the
City's wetland class system was found to be sound. .,
• Wetland classification criteria relying on the County's 1991 inventory should be deleted.
Vague terms in the classification system should be amended (e.g. plant associations of
infrequent occurrence and headwaters).
• Wetland assessments should be required for proposals within 300 feet of a wetland rather
than 100 feet. This is because in some cases the City may wish to expand wetland buffers
beyond standard requirements.
• The City's standard buffers were found to meet best available science. It was recommended
buffer size determinations (particularly buffer reductions, buffer averaging, modifications,
variancesand similar) should document how be,st available science is met. A particular
reference/method is suggested: The Scienc:e o/Wetland BujJersand Its Implications/or the
Management o/Wetlands, McMillan 2000. .
• . Since the City's buffer averaging criteria include science based provisions (e.g. variation in
wetland sensitivity), it was recommended that reasonable use be removed as a criterion for
buffer averaging.
• Review criteria to expand buffers should be amended to remove vague teims.
• Definitions of restoration, creation, and enhancement as well as protection/maintenance
should be revised to be consistent with State and Federal agencies.
• Enhancement criteria should be amended to allow some desirable changes in functions.
• Off-site mitigation may be more desirable than on-site mitigation, and some criteria are
proposed for' amendment.
Critical Area Review Procedures.,
Either in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) or in administrative sections such as
4-1,4-8, and 4-9, Renton's regulations provide comprehensive critical areas procedures, such as
defining regulation purposes, applicability and exemptions, submittal requirements, general
performance standards, review criteria, variances and exceptions, and enforcement.
The City's procedures provide for structured review of development applications and
determination of appropriate conditions. .
To meet Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rules that direct the City to consider best
available science where variations to regulations are proposed, to address common performance
standards in addition to buffers, and to clarify the application of regulations, some amendments
are proposed:
• The City should include best available science review criteria for administrative buffer
reductions, administrative modifications; and administrative and Hearing Examiner variances.
• Submittal requirements for projects that could impact critical areas and propose mitigation
plans, or those that propose buffer reductions, should demonstrate that best available science
was used in determining the reduced standard and/or in developing mitigation plans.
July 13,2004 12 Jones & Stokes
-.
• The City regulations do not specifically require a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement, although the critical area regulations do provide staff latitude to apply
conditions, and SEPA provides another review and mitigation process. There may be
instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback to ensure
long-term maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness. A general
standard allowing the City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback is included. It
would be discretionary.
• It is recommended that the City clarify that applicants are responsible for other permits
outside of the Critical Area Regulations.
Other
As part of incorporating stream and buffer protection requirements and other critical area
amendments, consistency amendments are needed to the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
Regulations, permit submittal requirements, State Environmental Policy Act review,
Nonconforming Uses, Variance procedures, and Definitions.
5. Public Review Process and Schedule
The City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations arid Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project is being reviewed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan
Update in response to the GMA requirements for periodic review ofthe Comprehensive Plan. It
is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan Update including the Renton Best Available Science
Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project will be
adopted by December 2004 to comply with GMA deadlines.
Prior to adoption, opportunities for public review will include:
• Notice of Application comment period in July 2004;,
• Public open houses/meetings in Summer 2004 (particularly July 27,2004, Highlands
Community Center, 6 p.m.);
• Planning Commission and City Council meetings and hearings in Summer and Fall 2004.
Additional information can be obtained at the City's website under the Renton Economic
DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department page (www.ci.renton.wa.usD.
July 13, 2004 13 Jones & Stokes
e.
:SHOJ(ELINE:ENMmON-MENTS
E..NV[.R(j,NME~'
Urb~Il ,."',., :--.
COnser'l~n(:;)'"".f J'rM.i:tra:L .... '/:;.r.,,:'
Figure 5-1 Renton Shoreline Master Program Environments
:lI; • Vi&Hiu;~~~r'
:.~~ l1J~;~;';0J>' 2"'''::isq;.,-'''
'~&ioftfui:siim~ ·~~~(b~...;:~:·;r·'··" ';' ~e·'.I!Ist:etPr·······.' '., it\:thiR~~=~!" ;g~,f~!~'. ····'··,~fn~~\~~~J
Renton Shoreline Master Program, Appendix A Map
City of Renton
Shoreline
Environments Map
There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of
the State within the City of Renton that are not shown on this map. Those
associated wetlands and f100dways are also govemed by the City's
Shoreline regulations.
DRAFT
Urban Environment
Conservancy Environment
Natural Environment
Water Class 1
City Limits
Rentln: Prlposed Relulatlons ollton-bIIlPlld IClhdlles In or AbDUlnl Class 2 tl5 Waters
r--------------
..................................... :
Exemptions Summmy
............................................... ; ............................................ '.
Ilw~~~~~;~J~~tf~~;~~;i~1 ........................
!;M!:~l!~~i~~t;;!~~~;~*;~~';1 '" e
{i!ffit~t~j1~~\~4~fr~1~f :. ..
....
~-----------------------------------------------
Blllln: Pre.oad BIIIlIo ••• I ACIIVIIIS In .r 8l1li1111118 1 Wlters
r---------------------------------Alternative
Standards e
e
-------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Renton -Water classes
~+ Alex Pietsch. Admmlstrdlor e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
+ ~ G. DcI Rosarin DRAFT 15 October 2003
Renton City Boundary
PAA Boundary
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Culvert
o
I
3000
;
1 : 36000
6000
I
'" --\--
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Renton Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
OEVaOPMENT PLANNING . CITY OF RENTO"'"
,JUL 082004
. REr.I=IVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental"agencles to
consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable Significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be'
done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your·
proposal are Significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,
you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need
to hire experts. If you really do not know the ariswer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write
"do not know" or "does not apply". . Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you. .
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your propo~al
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the
checklist to the words "project,'" "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
Environmerital Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc July 13, 2004
I
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration, Featuring New S~eam, River, and Lake Regulations. .
2. Name of applicant: .
)~'1'i'~'1AJ"1 \"v1-:\1\(,40 j:).i{3ti· '.' . . , ,~ .. -"""""J,~ ... r'r~.rr\ t'!~{!eitY oflR:entcin, Economic Devel0I>mentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department
"0" ,) \l I i II . 3. :~,bAdi:iressaf1d phone number of applicant and contact person:
:~A ...... ~. 4'i·t:":\\"""\.~:\·t} t; :~AppliCaIit:,~"
City of Renton
Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoodsiStrategic Planning Department
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Contact:
Judy Wright
425-430-6575
4. Date checklist prepared:
July 13, 2004
5. Agency requesting checklist:
6.
City of Renton'
Proposed timing of.schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration project is being reviewed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update in response to the
GMA requirements for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that the
Comprehensive Plan Update including the Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project will be adopted by December 2004 to comply with
GMA deadlines.
Prior to adoption; opportunities for public review will include:
• Notice of Application comment period in July 2004;
• Public open houses/meetings in Summer 2004 (particularly July 27,2004, Highlands Community
Center, 6 p.m.);
• Planning Commission and City Council meetings and hearings in Summer and Fall 2004.
Additional information can be obtained at the City's website under the Renton Economic
DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department page (www.ci.renton.wa.usD.
1. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal? If yes, explain.
As part of phased environmental review in accordance with SEP A rules, the City or applicants will prepare
site-specific environmental analysis of developm~nt or infrastructure proposals. The applications will be
subject to the proposed City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration policy and regulation amendments when adopted in final form.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SryTP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _ BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
2
.f;
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
The work program has produced a variety of documents and issue papers:
• "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February
27,2003.
• Streamllake classification results are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map prepared by
AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton Neighborhoods & Strategic
Planning staff. .
• "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments," Jones &
Stokes, July 13, 2004. .
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," Jones & Stokes, March
8,2004.
• "Transmittal ofParametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004; together
with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat Conservation
Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004. Includes proposed code amendments.
Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic
DevelopmentJNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, as well as the City of Renton website
(www.ci.renton.wa.us/. under the Department name).
A slllDffiary of each amended City Plan or Code -Renton Comprehensive Plan, Renton Shoreline Master
Program, and Renton Critical Area Regulations -is provided in the attached Project Narrative (Appendix
A). .
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemm~ntal approvals of other. proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Not applicable.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
SEPA Threshold Determination
Planning Commission Recommendation
City. Council Legislative Action
State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Coordination of State
Agency Comments (GMA related items) .
Puget Sound Regional Council Consultation and Consistency Review
State of Washington Department of Ecology Approval (Shoreline Master Program Amendments)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site.
The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton context.
Specific objectives are to:
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
3
• Refme City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particulafIy the
Environment Element.
• . Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes, and based upon
the literature review develop buffer requirements. The review program includes recommendations to
amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classifY water bodies, apply buffers, and provide for
no-net-loss of ecological function.
• Document a best available science review of the City'swetland regulations, and provide for appropriate
amendments to improve or better document the wetland review process.
• Compare the City's aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation
regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as appropriate.
• Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan
policies, address text and map inconsistencies, and provide for shoreline protection regulations. These
limited amendments would apply in the interim until full Shoreline Master Program Update is
accomplished in accordance with the new SMA schedule (2009 for the City of Renton):
Integrate Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive Plan,
essentially intact. Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities ofRCW
90.58.020 (differentiate between Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all other Shorelines of
the State that are found in the City).
Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf
Course to address Shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified annexed area.
Field review and analysis were conducted for the limited map amendments. For these areas
regulations would be applied consistent with environmeritallimitations and existing uses.
Address shoreline protection regulations, including buffers, in the Shoreline Master Program to
provide for equivalent protection per State legislation (ESHB 1933), while responding to use
priorities ofRCW 90.58.020.
A summary of each amended City Plan or Code -Renton Comprehensive Plan, Renton Shor~line Master
Program, and Renton Critical Area Regulations -is provided in the attached Project Narrative (Appendix
A).
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries
of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if
reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this
checklist:
. The policies and regulations would apply to the City of Renton Corporate Limits.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst..:. CARSMP.doc
4
»
It;
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other ______ _
The City contains a variety of topographic features, including flat terrain in the Valley along SR167, hills
and slopes such as the Renton Highlands and Kennydale Hill, and other pockets of steep slopes. Renton's
Steep Slope map is provided.in Appendix B.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
The City has mapped slopes 25 to 40% and greater than 40%, as shown on the Steep Slope map in
AppendixB.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you kqow the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland.
A variety of soil types including clay, sand, gravel, and hydric, are found in the City. As an urban area there
is little fannland that remains.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
The City has mapped the following types of geologic hazards in the City limits:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine hazards
• Steep slopes, iDcluding sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often
considered to be a landslide hazard) .
To a lesser extent there is a potential for volcanic hazards. Appendix B provides mapped hazard areas.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill. .
. Not applicable to this non~project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
5
Measures are not required for the non-project action. The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the
impacts of future site-specific development. The regulations maintain development precautions in areas of
geologic hazards. Minor improvements to the City's geologic hazard regulations are proposed:
• Additional review criteria are proposed to ensure development is safely accommodated.
• The proposed regulations would newly address volcanic hazards and require critical facility proposals
(e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to
demonstrate adequate engineering standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and prepare an evacuation
and emergency management plan.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. .
. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmentaI-review as appropriate.
3. WATER
a; Surface Water:
1 )Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type
. and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
The City contains wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes. See maps in Appendix B.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The proposed policy and regulation amendments would update the Shoreline Master Program, which
governs activities within 200 feet of the Class 1 shorelines, and the amendments would also address
activities in proximity to other streams, rivers, and lakes. Future site-specific development would be subject
to environmental review as appropriate.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _ BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
6
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknown.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan.
The City contains mapped IOO-year floodplains. See Appendix B.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be sUbj'ect to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to' ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known..
The City is dependent upon groundwater for water supplies. It has mapped aquifer protection areas. Site-
specific development proposals are subject to the aquifer protection area regulations. See Appendix B for
the map.
2) Describe waste materialthat will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example:,. Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following ,
chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
,sllch-systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serv~.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environm~ntal review as appropriate.
c. Water, Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water). and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters, If so, describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. Tl:J.e proposal will provide a means to mitigate the
impacts of future site-specific development. The proposal adds new stream, river, and lake regulations,
including amendments to classify water bodies, protect streams and lakes with buffers, and provide for no-
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Bes! Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
7
I
net-loss of stream/lake ecological function. The regulations maintain development precautions in aquifer
protection areas. Amendments iriclude minor modifications to improve or better document the City's -
decision-making process with respect to wetland protection as site-specific developments are reviewed.
4. PLANTS
5.
a. 'Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_X_ shrubs
X grass
_X _ ' pasture
_X_ crop or grain
...:.....-X_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
_X_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
_X_ other types of vegetation
, ,A variety of phmt species are found in the Renton City Limits.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. List threatened or endangered 'species known to be on or near the site.
The State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife has mapped ''priority'' habitats and species in
Renton, including wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. ' Washington State
Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database does not identify rare plant species and high
quality ecosystems in the Renton City limits, although the database is updated regularly.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. The proposal will continue habitat conservation
regulations, which may be used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The City
designates habitat conservation areas, primarily by referencing State and Federal designated endangered,
threatened, sensitive, and priority species. It requires a habitat assessment report and includes general
performance standards that require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and
Federal Agency input. The City may condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas.
ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site:
X Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _
X Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _
X Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ______ _
A variety of birds arid animals are found in Renton, particularly those adapted to an urban and suburban
environment.
, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
8
CAO_SMP _BAS\BAS~Supplemental\CAO_SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst_CARSMP.doc
..
A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and sensitive, is
available from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and
Species (PHS) Program. The City's lakes, rivers, and creeks support anactromous fish runs. Other priority
species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and other waterfowl.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
Migratory birds may be found in Renton.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. The proposal will increase protection of aquatic life,
particularly salmonids with new stream, lake and river buffers and related standards. The proposal will
continue habitat conservation regulations, which may be used to rrntigate the impacts of future site-specific
development. The City designates habitat conservation areas, primarily by referencing State and Federal
designated endangered, threatened, sensitive, and priority species. It requires a habitat assessment report
and includes general performance standards that require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It
allows for State and Federal Agency input. The City may condition proposals that impact habitat
conservation areas.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Wou1d your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe ..
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this· proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
9
I
· Not applicable to this non-project action .. Future site~specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Not applicable to this non-project action .. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
.environmental review as appropriate.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development· would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site·and adjacent properties?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmentatreview as appropriate.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not applicable to this non':project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate. . .
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Scien~\Renton
CAO _SMP _ BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
10
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? '
The Shoreline Master Program would be amended to be consistent with GMA and SMA requirements by
integrating SMP policies with the City's Comprehensive Plan, more clearly addressing SMA use priorities,
addressing Use Environment map and text inconsistencies, and applying stream/lake buffer regulations to
Class 1 shorelines. A description of the proposed amendments is found in Appendix A.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
The City contains several environmentally sensitive areas. See Appendix B. Housekeeping amendments as
part of the proposal clarify the maps and critical areas that are considered "environmentally sensitive" in
terms of SEP A.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
., uses and plans, if any:
The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA),·Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the context of the City of Renton
environmental and planning conditions. The non-project proposal would increase the compatibility of the
City's plans and regulations with State planning requirements. It would allow for mitigation of future site
specific land use proposals with the potential to impact critical areas and shoreline ecological functions.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, ifany? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
No site-specific. proposal would affect housing. At a programmatic level the development regulations
·would affect how development occUrs. Existing residential development can continue .. New residential
development is generally required to be clustered away from the critical area and any required buffer.
Regulations would continue the City's practice of excluding critical area buffers from net density
calculations, which means density in buffers is "credited" for a development and density would not
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration 11
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO_SMP _BAS\BAS_Supplemental\CAO_SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst_CARSMP,doc
I
necessarily be limited by the buffer regulations. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. The proposal would continue the City~s practice of
excluding critical areabuffers from net density calCulations, which means density in buffers, is "credited"
for a development.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
, environmental review as appropriate.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? ' What time of day would it mainly
'occur?
, Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
, environmental review as appropriate.
. ,
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
Not applicable to thiS non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
enVironmental review as appropriate.
c. . What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
, CAO _ SMP _ BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
12
•
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. The proposal will facilitate shorelme permitting for
some City park and recreation facilities by addressing the City's golf course and parks in the SMP Use
Environment Map, rather than relying on the King County SMP. It will allow for consideration of
appropriate levels of passive and activity recreation in the Use Environment regulations.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known.to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
. . .
Measures are not required for the n~n-project action. The prop~sal continues and cross-references hist~ric
and cultural preservation policies as part of the integration of Renton SMP and Comprehensive Plan
Policies;·
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any ..
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
Environmental Checklist: BAS. CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton. City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO_SMP _BAS\BAS_Supplemental\CAO_SEPA_Submil\SEPA\envchlst_CARSMP.doc
13
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private?
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation imp~cts, if any:
Measures are not required for the non-project action. Proposed stream and shoreline regulations address
road and utility crossings and criteria intended to allow for needed public infrastructure while promoting
non-net-Ioss of ecological function. These measures are intended to address the environmental impacts of
future development and infrastructure proposals.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate. .
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
. the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed .
. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to
environmental review-as appropriate.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City ot\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
14
• c. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of illY knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent: ?€~i~f %~~~
Name Printed: ~ b1u.t-~
7/(3)v1 Date: , l .
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submil\SEPA\envchlsl_ CARSMP.doc
15
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, Jor the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than
if the proposal were not implemented. Respond brieflyand in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? .
The policy/regulation proposal would not be anticipated to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. It is intended to
strengthen critical area and shoreline policies and regulations to reduce impacts to critical areas from future
development and infrastructure proposals including water bodies and aquifers. Any modifications or
variances would have to demonstrate consideration of best available science.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development The
proposal adds new stream, river, and lake regulations, including amendments to classify water bodies,
protect streams and lakes with buffers, and provide for no-net-Ioss of stream/lake ecological function. The
regulations maintain development precautions in aquifer protection areas. Amendments include minor
modifications to improve or better document the City's decision-making process with respect to wetland
protection as site-specific developments are reviewed.
2. . How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The policy/regulation proposal would not be anticipated to adversely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life. The proposal will increase protection of aquatic species through increased stream, river, and lake
buffers. Proposals will need to demonstrate no-net-Ioss of ecological function. Any modifications or
variances would have to· demonstrate consideration of best available science.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
The proposal will increase protection of aquatic life, particularly salmonids with new stream, lake and river
buffers and related standards. The proposal will continue habitat conservation regulations which may be
used to mitigate the impacts of future site-spedfic development. The City designates habitat conservation
areas, primarily by referencing State and Federal designated endangered, threatened, sensitive, and priority
species. It requires a habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that require
impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and Federal Agency input The City may
condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal would regulate critical areas and Shorelines of the State. Energy or natural resource depletion
is not anticipated. .
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Not applicable.
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _SEPA_Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
16
•
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic ~ivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? . .
The proposal is intended to continue and strengthen protection of environmentally sensitive areas including
aquifer protection areas, flood hazard areas, geologic hazard areas, habitat conservation areas,
streams/rivers/lakes, and wetlands. In particular stream/river/lake regulations would be newly included,
volcanic hazards would be addressed, and Best Available Science review procedures would be added.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
See discussion above.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow
or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the context of the City of Renton
environmental and planning conditions. The proposal includes the following features that increase land use
and shoreline plan consistency:
• GMA: Refme City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of GMA requirements to consider Best
Available Science particularly the Environment Element.
• GMA: Provide a Best Available Science literature review addressing streams, rivers, and lakes; and
based upon the literature review develop stream buffer requirements. It amends the Renton Critical
Areas Regulations to classify water bodies, protect streams and lakes with buffers, and provide for no-
net-loss of strearnllake ecological function;
• GMA: Documents a Best Available Science review of the City's wetland regulations, andprovide for
appropriate amendments to improve or better document the City's decision-making process with
respect to wetland protection assite~specific developments are reviewed ..
• SMA: Proposes limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and
Comprehensive Plan policies, address text and map iiltonsistencies, and provide for strearnllake
protection regulations. These limited amendments would apply in the interim until full Shoreline
Master Program Update is accomplished in accordance with the new SMA schedule (2009 for the City
of Renton):
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The'non-project proposal would increase the compatibility of the City's plans and regulations with State
planning requirements. It would allow for ~tigation of future site specific land use proposals with the
potential to impact critical areas and shoreline ecological functions.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposal directs how development may occur in the context of environmentally sensitive/critical areas.
It would not be anticipated to adversely affect transportation, public service, or utility demands.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Proposed stream and shoreline regulations address road and utility crossings and criteria intended to allow
for needed public infrastructure while promoting non-net-Ioss of ecological function. These measures are
intended to address the environmental impacts of future development and infrastructure proposals. It would
Environmental Checklist BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
17
also require added consideration of volcanic and other geologic hazards where critical facilities are
concerned to reduce potential health and safety impacts.
7. Identify, if· possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
. As noted in Question 5 above, the proposal is intended to better integrate the City's local requirements for
environmental protection and to meet State laws for consideration of best available science. The City has
considered State guidance and rules on Best Available Science and documented appropriate standards iil the
City's environmental context. In particular, see:
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February
27,2003.
• "Transmittal ofPararnetrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004; together
with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28,2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat Conservation
Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code," July 13,2004
The proposal would not affect the implementation of State or Federal permit requirements for any
development proposal.
SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that· to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full disclosure on y part. ~~~~~ Proponent: .
Name Printed:
Date:
ENVCHLST.DOC
REVISED 6/98
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City of\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _ BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP.doc
18
APPENDIX A
PROJECT NARRATIVE
G:\Projects\Renton, City ot\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _SMP _BAS\BAS_ Supplemental\CAO _SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
•
Project Narrative:
City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations
and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration
Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations
July 13, 2004
1. Proposal Overview
Renton Planning and Environmental Context
Renton is a long established community in the heart of urban King County. The City was founded
along the Cedar and Black Rivers and Lake Washington, and incorporated as a City in 1901.
Once dependent upon mining and forestry; it is noted for aerospace and truck manufacturing and
a transitioning diversified economy. It is home to the Boeing Renton plant, PACCAR, Renton
Technical College,Valley Medical Center, the Renton Airport, and many other establishments.
A variety of residential neighborhoods, from the historic and revitalizing downtown to. the
suburban Renton Highlands are found here.
With its important regional economy, location at the connection of the 1-405, SR-167 and SR-900
highways, active citizens and neighborhoods, and many other features, the City has an extensive
history of long-range and strategic planning. While being a largely urbanized community, the
City has proactively established a park, recreation, and open space system, including the purchase
of environmentally sensitive areas, particularly along the Black River, the Cedar River, and
Springbrook Creek. The City prepared a new Comprehensive Plan consistent with the State of
Washington Gro~h Management Act (GMA) in 1995 addressing land use, transportation,
housing, utilities, capital facilities, economic development, downtown, environment, and other
key community topics. The City participates in regional planning forums such as the Growth
Management Planning Council of King County and watershed planning efforts (WRIAs).
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). GMA requires
protection of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas,' frequ~tly flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (RCW
36.70A.030). Since the original GMA was instituted in 1991, GMA has been amended with
respect to critical areas, particularly to require the use of "best available science" in critical area
policies and reguli:ltions .and consid~r~tion of anadromous fish species. .
Partly in response to GMA, the City of Renton adopted Critical Area Regulations between 1989
and 2000. The City regulations currently address:
• Aquifer Protection Areas
• Geologically Hazardous Areas
• Habitat Conservation Areas
• Frequently Flooded Areas; and
• Wetlands
July 13,2004 1 Jones & Stokes
The City Critical Area Regulations "reserve" a section to address the protection of streams and
lakes, which otherwise are minimally addressed in the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
regulations (25 foot setback from waterbodies). .
Given the status ofthe stream regulations, the focus of the City's efforts to comply with the GMA
best available science provisions relates to streams, and a series of recommendations by the
consultant team have been prepared to establish water classifications, buffers, and other related
items. However, to document the City's compliance with best available science for the remaining
GMA critical area topics and effectively use the City's resources, more limited scope reviews and
evaluations have been conducted. These limited scope reviews include a best available science
evaluation of wetland regulations, as well as a comparison of the City's aquifer, flood hazard,
geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations to the State Department of Community
Development's Example Critical Areas Code.
Purpose and Objectives
. The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA),
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area
protection in the City of Renton context. Specific objectives are to:
• . Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the
Environment Element.
• Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes, and
based upon the literature review develop buffer requirements. The review program inCludes
recommendations to amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies,
apply buffers, and provide for no-net-loss of ecological function. . .
• Document a best available science review of the City's wetland regulations, and provide for
appropriate amendments to improve or better document the wetland·review process.
• Compare the·City's aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat
conservation regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as
appropriate. .
• Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and
Comprehensive Plan policies, address text and map inconsistencies, and provide for shoreline
protection regulations. These limited amendments would apply in the interim until full
Shoreline Master Program Update is accomplished in accordance with the new SMA .
schedule (2009 for the City of Renton): .
Integrate Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive
Plan, essentially intact. Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities
ofRCW 90.58.020 (differentiate between-Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all
other Shorelines of the State that are found in the City).
Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood
Golf Course to address Shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified
. annexed area. Field review and analysis were conducted for the limited map
amendments. For these areas regulations would be applied consistent with environmental
limitations and existing uses.
Address shoreline protection regulations, including buffers, in the Shoreline Master
Program to provide for equivalent protection per State legislation (ESHB 1933), while
responding to use priorities ofRCW 90.58.020.
JUly 13,2004 2 Jones & Stokes
The work program has produced a variety of documents and issue papers:
• "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program
GMA Integration," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004.
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations," prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on
February 27,2003.
• Stream/lake classification r~sults are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map
prepared by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning staff.
• "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments,"
Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," Jones &
Stokes, March 8, 2004.
• "Transmittal ofParametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004;
together with "Best Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix,
June 28, 2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat
Conservation Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13,
2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program
Regulation Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004. Includes proposed code
amendments.
Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic
DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, as well as the City ofRentori
website (W\vw.c1.renton.wa.us/, under the Department name). . .
A summary of each amended City Plan or Code -Renton Comprehensive Plan, Renton Shoreline
Master Program, and Renton Critical Area Regulations -is provided below, addressing current
policy/regulatory approaches and proposed amendinents.
2. Re·nton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program
P9licies
Renton's Comprehensive Plan policies provide the framework for the City's regulations. The City
of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program
GMA mtegration project includes a review of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) policies for consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA),
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), particularly Sections RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.100,
and basic scientific principles and standards identified in the Draft "City of Renton Best
Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," February 27,2003
by AC Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants.
The proposed policy amendments accomplish the following:
• Growth Management Act (GMA): Per GMA requirements, the SMP policies are
incorporated into the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Environment Elements.
• Shoreline Management Act (SMA) SMP Policy Amendments:
July 13,2004 3 Jones & Stokes
Shoreline "element" topics unaddressed in Renton SMP (per RCW 90.58.100) consisting
of His toricl Cult urall Scientific lEd ucationa I and Flood Damage Prevention are
incorporated.
Additionally, a proposed restructuring of shoreline use priority policies is suggested to
better match the SMA use preferences along both Shorelines of the State and Shorelines
of Statewide Significance. To meet the use preferences in RCW 90.58.020, land use .
policy amendments are proposed as follows:
o General provisions that apply to any shoreline activity or use are grouped -e.g.
policies having to do with minimizing pollution, ensuring public access is respectful
of private property rights, etc.
o Use preferences applicable to Shorelines of the State (all regulated shorelines) except
Lake Washington are grouped, and the language takes much direction from the RCW
90.58.020 use preference policies.
o Use preferences applicable to Shorelines of Statewide Significance, i.e. Lake
. Washington, are provided, and follow from the specific use priority order in RCW
90.58.020, as well as Renton SMP regulations and defmitions that indicate how.uses
can be allowed within this priority system if they provide significant public access.
• Best Available Science: Policy amendments have been proposed to the Environment
Element primarily as well as to the Transportation, Utilities, Downtown, and Economic
Development Elements as a result of Best Available Science Review. Generally the
amendments consist of policy refmements,with the primary changes related to the rivers and
stream policies and floodplain policies of the Environment Element. m particular, these
amendments are intended to lay the groundwork for the regulatory approach to stream
classifications,buffers, and other items.
The amendments are the result of the City's ESA Task Force review in 2002, the City's project
team for the Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Progr.am
GMA mtegration, and early State Agency input in May 2004 (State of Washington Department of
Ecology).
3. Renton Shoreline Master Program -Use Environments
Shorelines of the State are required to be classified into "use environments" based upon current
development patterns, biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards, and
regulations can be customized by use environment, shoreline, and use depending 'on needs, and
functions similar to a zoning overlay district. Generally, regulated shorelines include the water
bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high water mark
for two hundred (200) feet in all directions (whichever is greater). 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 City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA mtegration project includes amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) Shoreline Use Environments to address some inconsistencies and omissions:
• Black River: The City's adopted Shoreline Use Environment Map classifies both banks of
the River as Natural, but the SMP text states the Environment only applies to the north bank.
By default, according to the text, the south bank is Urban.
July 13,2004 4 Jones & Stokes
• Cedar River: The City's annexations of the Maplewood Golf Course property/area in 1985
and 1988 were not reflected in the City's adopted SMP. When an annexation occurs, the SMP
provisions of the adopted plan for that area (i.e. of the prior governing agency -King
County) would apply until amendments are made and approved by the City/State SMP of the
City that annexed the area. (WAC 173-26-160)
• Aquatic portion of the lakes/streams: It is unclear in the text of the SMP regarding what Use
Environment applies to the aquatic portion of the regulated waterbody. To assist with City
decision-making, it should be clarified if shoreline environment classifications extend to the
aquatic portion of the lakes/streams.
Based on a review of the SMP criteria and current shoreline environmental conditions,
recommendations to address the inconsistencies include:
Table 1. Summary of Use Environment Classification Recommendations
Location Current Class Proposed Class
Black River -North Natural (map and text) Natural, east of Monster
Bank Road; allow for habitat
enhancement; flood
control, and potentially
limited public access.
West of Monster Road,
Urban ..
Black River -South Natural (map) Conservancy, east.of
Bank Urban (text)
, Monster Road
West of Monster Road,
Urban
Cedar River along Golf Not classed in Renton Conservancy
Course and Ron Regis SMP. King County
Park -North Bank applies Conservancy.
Cedar River along Golf Not classe4 in Renton Conservancy; amend
Course and Ron Regis SMP. King County use allowances for
Park -South Bank applies Conservancy. active recreation
Aquatic Areas -All Unstated . .rn practice. Amend the SMP text to
Shorelines through permit reviews, indicate that Use
aquatic areas are Environments are
applied the same Use . applied to shorelines -
Environments that are extending to both the
applied to "shorelines". shore lands as well as
the centerline of the
watercourse or City
limits as appropriate
(e.g. Lake Washington).
Source: Jones & Stokes
Current and proposed Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Maps are attached.
July 13, 2004 5 Jones & Stokes
I
4. Renton Critical Areas Regulations (CAR) and.Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) Regulations
Aquifer Protection Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton water supply is obtained from four sources:
• The Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer
• Springbrook Springs
• Maplewood Production Aquifer .
• Well5A
These sources are protected by designating aqui·fer protection area zones (APA zones) and
restricting land use, limiting arid restricting hazardous materials, and establishing construction
activity standards, fill quality reporting, and stormwater management requirements within the
zones. Renton's APA zones are defined as follows:
• Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three
hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour. .
• Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting
. a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partially
protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are
regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by exemptions.
• Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater
travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field
owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring is
naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an
APA into two (2}zones.In such a case, the entireAPAwill be designated as Zone 2.
The City's Aquifer Protection Area Regulations include the following:
• Designation of Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Areas (APAs) as
described above.
• .. Establishing Operating and Closure Permit requirements for facilities in all Zones .
• Requiring removal of existing facilities in Zone 1 if they storelhandle/treatiproduce hazardous
materials in quantities greater than 500 gallons. .
• Performance standards, all AP A Zones
-Requiring secondary containment .
Requiring hazardous materials monitoring and providing standards for release
restrictions, including in Zone 1 added site monitoring and site improvement standards to
protect against hazardous materials release
-Limiting application of pesticides and nitrates near wells and springs
Establishing wastewater disposal requirements .
. Establishing surface water management requirements
-Regulating pipelines
Providing construction activity standards and fill material requirements
Regulating existing solid waste landfills
• Zone 1 Modified is similar to Zone 1 except that:
Existing facilities are not subject to the 500 gallon hazardous material quantity and they
would not have to relocate or reduce inventory
July 13, 2004 6 Jones & Stokes·
Existing septic tanks are allowed and new septic tanks would be allowed if City sewers
were not available
Infiltration of stonnwater would be allowed as with Zone 2
Existing facilities would not be subject to site improvements (e.g. groundwater
monitoring, paving, stonnwater management improvements, etc.)
The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in intent, and are tailored to the
City's critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the aquifer protection zone map in RMC
Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better distingUish between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2
is proposed. A discretionary code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a
hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a potential to significantly affect groundwater
quantity or quality. Otherwise, amendments or added regulations are not recommended.
Flood Hazard Areas (CAR)
Floodplain hazard areas, including the ,100-year floodplain and floodways, are designated along
the City's major streams including: .
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Black River
• Springbrook Creek
Additionally floodplains of the Green River extend into the City limits along the western city
limit boundary shared with Tukwila.
The City imple~ents the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain
Management RegUlations (RMC 4-3-0501), whi~h allows flood insurance to be sold.in the City.
It designates 'areas of flood hazardS and applies ~onstruction standards for residential and·
nonresidential development in the flood hazard areas.· '
It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard regulations with the following
adjustments:
• Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates'to the Federal/State Model
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance; or to address other clarifications, in order to maintain
. flood insurance eligibility. These include: .
. Definitions need to be added or amended, especially "basement" and "development," to
specifically implement the flood hazard regulations.
RMC 4-3-050.I.3.bj and ii, Manufactured Homes: Minor revision to indicate that the
foundations be " ... securely anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation
system to resist flotation, collapse; and lateral movement."
RMC 4-3-050.I.3.c, Nonresidential Construction. Subsection c.i needs to be amended as
follows to ensure the City receives credit towards insurance rates: i. Be floodproofed so
that below one foot above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impenneable to the passage of water;
RMC 4-3-050.I.4.b, the last sentence should be amended to match the most recent State
Model: ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a) before the
repair, reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is
being restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with
July l3, 2004 7 Jones & Stokes
I
existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places sflall-
not be included may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%).
-Require the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance Rate
. Maps. The primary concern is to regulate mapped flood hazard areas and establish base flood
elevations based on federal studies. However, appropriate situations where the City could
require additional future flood information include: development in unmapped areas or bridge
construction proposals.
Geologic Hazard Areas (CAR)
Geologic risks in the City of Renton include:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine hazards
• Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often
considered to be a landslide hazard) -
To a lesser extent there is a potential for volcanic hazards.
The adopted Geologic Hazard regulations:
• Classify hazards using criteria. Based upon a report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the
City of Renton in 1991, the regulations include criteria for landslide hazards, erosion hazards,
seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Maps of these hazards are. to be used as references.
• Address exe~ptions within Geologic Hazard areas.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports for properties with slopes 25% or greater; and
Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards: Independent peer review of geotechnical ..
reports may be required for properties with High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine,
or High Coal Mine Hazards. For any of the hazards, conditions of approval may include
modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project size/configuration, or seasonal
constraints on development.
• Address slopes between 25-40% that do not have identified erosion or landslide
hazards, by requiring peer review of geotechnical reports, erosion control plans, and weekly
erosion control inspections. The regulations would also authorize conditions of approval
which may include modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project
size/configuration, seasonal constraints on developr.nent, vegetation stabilization, sequencing
or phasing of construction, clearing-and grading limits, and other measures. These same
potential conditions of approval apply to lands with Medium and High Landslide Hazards and
High Erosion Hazards.. . .
• Restrict development on slopes over 40%. Exceptions include man-made slopes (e.g. from
legal mining operations) pursuant to a modification, a single family dwelling on a lot of
record pursuant to a variance, public utilities needed to protect slope stability, and public road
widening where alternative locations are infeasible. Modifications may be allowed such as
allowing fill at the base of a 40% slope. As with other modifications, report submittal, and
review criteria would apply.
-Restrict the creation of lots having a predominant 40%+ slope.
-Require a buffer of 50 feet froni a Very High LandslideHazard Area, which may be
increased or decreased administratively based upon a geotechnical report.
. July 13, 2004 8 Jones & Stokes
•
• Provide a review process for Coal Mine Hazards. The regulations require a report to
document potential Coal Mine Hazards, authorize conditions of approval, and indicate
requirements for mitigation during construction.
• Establish detailed report preparation requirements for each potential hazard located on a
site.
The regulations are comparable to the State Example Code. Minor improvements to the City's
adopted geologic hazard regulations are proposed below.
• To strengthen the City's general performance standards, the following review criteria are
proposed to be added:
The proposal will not increase the threat ofthe geological hazard to adjacent properties
beyond pre-development conditions;
The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas. ,
The criteria would also state that the development must be safely accommodated,
summarizing other geologic hazard standards in the City~s code.
• The regulations would newly address volcanic hazards .. The risk is generally low, and could
include inundation due to lahar sedimentation or ashfall (tephra) The proposed regulations
would require critical facility proposals (e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green
River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to demonstrate adequate engineering
standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and an evacuation and emergency management
plan.
Habitat Conservation Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton arid its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting wildlife
species. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened,and
sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program. Priority habitats in the City of Renton include
wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. The lake, rivers, and creeks support
anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and
other waterfowl. .
The City's Habitat Conservation Regulations address:
• Criteria defining "critical habitat." Criticai habitat includes: species that are listed as
endangered, threatened, sensitive,monitor, or priority by Federal or State agencies; heron
rookeries or raptor nesting areas, Category 1 wetlands; and shorelines designated as Natural
or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program.
• Habitat assessments. Reports are required, and peer review may be required.
• Native Growth Protection Areas. Critical habitats are to be placed in Native Growth
Protection Areas.
• Disturbance. If a critical habitat area is to be altered, impacts are to be avoided, minimized
or compensated. Mitigation may be required based upon submitted reports, or information
from State or Federal agencies.
The City regulations provide a comparable review process for habitat conservation areas in
comparison to the State Example Code. Potential minor measures to enhance the City's
regulations are suggested -to reference State standards for bald eagles, and to clarify that
activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat conservation areas may be regulated.
July 13,2004 9 Jones & Stokes
Also, amendments for streams would remove "shorelines designated as Natural or Conservancy
in the Shoreline Master Program" as habitat conservation areas since streams and shorelines.
would have a separateproposed set of regulations including buffers, and amendmentscIarify that
Habitat Conservation regulations apply to non-salmonid species, while stream regulations address
primarily salmonid species.
Streams and Lakes (CAR and. SMP)
The proposed major regulatory changes are to add stream and lake buffer requirements to the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Renton Shoreline Master Program. In both sets of
regulations, the regulations address the following key concepts (attached flow charts demonstrate
the regulatory approach): '
• Classification: A five-level stream typing system based on whether the water is salmortid-
bearing, and water body flow characteristics. Among the salmonid-bearing classes, the
differentiation is based on whether the water body is a major watercourse versus a tributary.
Among non-salmonid bearing waters, the distinctions are perennial versus intermittent flows,
and artificial channels. A process is included to help classify unclassified streams. As laid
out in the regulations Class 1. streams are consistent with designated Shorelines of the State
(as well as consistent with mapped Chinook presence) and therefore are addressed in Renton
Shoreline regulations (see below). Class 2 to 4 water bodies, salmonid bearing and non-
salmonid bearing, receive the most attention in the Critical Area Regulations. Class 5 water
bodies are manmade streams and are not regulated. The attached map identifies the draft
water class map.
• Inner and Outer Buffer Zones: As a result of Best Available Science review, the proposed
streamllake buffers would increase from 25 feet (required in Tree CuttinglLand Clearing .
Regulations today) to a range of 35 to 100 feet depending on stream class and salmonid use.
To allow for' some changing environmental conditions and functions in an area, such as that
riparian functions diminish with distance or to recognize existing urban development, the
concept of "inner versus outer zones" is proposed. The "outer buffers" standard refers to
standard un-enhanced buffer widths. "Inner buffers" refers to the possibility of reducing the
standard buffer width with enhancement (range of25 to 75 feet). Standards for
redevelopment are also included, i.e. recognizing that a natural buffer may not be possible on .
an already highly urbanized site in which case the buffers function as setbacks, and standards .
. indicate no addition of imperVious surfaces is allowed although they may be rearranged.
• Defined Rules versus Variable Rules Meeting Environinental Objectives: Two
regulatory approaches would be incorporated - a Standard path where if a water body is
classified and buffer standards or other regulations are met, development may proceed -or an
. Alternative path, either where conditions may not be well known requiring more in depth
review and analysis of appropriate standards or where an applicant wants to vary a standard
but the City needs to be assured that ecological functions are protected. This is translated into
activities that may proceed according to standard criteria with standard report/analysis
requirements versus those that must provide supplemental analysis/mitigation plans and
respond to discretionary criteria.
• General Principles -Avoidance and No-Net-Loss of Function: The regulations promote:
a) avoidance of the streamllake and associated buffer and b) no-net-Ioss of ecological
functions if avoidance is not possible (or development already exists within the new, larger
buffers).
Specific to the Shoreline Master Program Regulations, other amendments include:
July 13,2004 10 Jones & Stokes
• SMP Sections E to I: In the Renton SMP Regulations, amendments to sections describing
Shoreline Use Environments are incorporated as noted in Section 3 of this Project Narrative.
Essentially, these amendments address the map environments and use allowances applicable
to the Black River and eastern extent of Cedar River in the City primarily to address text/map
conflicts and an unclassified annexed area.
• SMP Section J: Renton SMP Section J provides for general standards applicable to all
development. It is in this location that shoreline buffers/setbacks are 'added. Approaches to
the buffer/setbacks are also provided similar to those described above. To address the use
priorities of the Shoreline Management Act while addressing shoreline protection, the ability
to reduce buffers/setbacks requires an evaluation, arid the potential reductions vary according
to use priority.
• SMP Section K: Following from Use Environment amendments (sections E ~o I) as well'as
review of model ordinances, some amendments to development standards for trails, roads and
utilities are included and are similar to the stream/lake standards included in the Critical
Areas Regulations.
• SMP Nonconforming Uses: When nonconforming use and development standards (for
"grandfathered" uses or buildirigs) do not exist in a local government's Shoreline Master
Program, the definitions and standards ofWashiilgton Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-
080 apply, and these address continuation of nonconforming structures, nonconforming lises,
replacement after acts of God, and other provisions. Renton's SMP has not contained
nonconforming regulations and to this date would have been ,subject to the State WAC
requirements which are more strict in terms of procedure (e.g. requirements for a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit in some cases) than the City's standard nonconforming regulations.
However, it is important that the City have some consistency in its nonc<;>nforming standards.
Renton's Title 4, Chapter 10 contains the City of Renton's nonconforming structure and use,
standards that generally apply in the City, and it is proposed that the City's Shoreline Master
Program incorporate these. '
Wetlands (CAR)
In 1991, the City inventoried and identified approximately 367 acres of wetlands within the City
limits. Within Renton's sphere of influence, approximately 1,067 acres of wetlands were
identified. Wetland types found in Renton and its sphere of influence include bogs, emergent
marshes, sln:ub/scrub, forested and old growth wetlands. Most of the wetlands are adjacent to
rivers and streams although other smaller concentrations are found elsewhere. Mostare located
in the "Valley" area of Renton inside the City limits. Wetland inventories have been updated in
some portions of the City, such as through the City's I 997 Eastside Green RiverWastershed Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement.
The City's wetland regulations classify wetlands, require wetland assessments, provide buffer
standards, and establish wetland mitigation standards including replacement ratios.
A best available science review of Renton's wetland regulations found that the City's wetland
regulations are supported by current best available science for wetlands in Washington State.
Several amendments are proposed to improve or better document the City's decision-making
process, including:
• Exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands should be modified -those that provide
functions should not be exempt.
July 13, 2004 11 Jones & Stokes
• Exempti.ons f.or .ong.oing agriculture, vegetati.on management, st.ormwater management
facilities in buffers, and trails and open space facilities in buffers sh.ould be amended t.o
ensure deminimus impacts.
• A measure t.o enhance the City's classificati.on system c.ould be t.o reference .or translate the
State Department .of Ec.ol.ogy's rating system t.o the City's (meaning identifyh.ow the State's
f.our-way system translates t.o the City's three-way class system). H.owever, at present, the
City's wetland class system was f.ound t.o be s.ound.
• Wetland classificati.on criteria relying .on the C.ounty's 1991 invent.ory sh.ould be deleted.
Vague terms in the classificati.on system sh.ould be amended (e.g. plant ass.ociati.ons of
infrequent .occurrence and headwaters).
• Wetland assessments sh.ould be required f.or pr.op.osals within 300 feet.of a wetland rather
than 100 feet. This is because in s.ome cases the City may wish t.o expand wetland buffers
bey.ond standard requirements. .
• The City's standard buffers were f.ound t.o meet best available science. It was rec.ommended
buffer size determinati.ons (particularly buffer reducti.ons, buffer averaging, m.odificati.ons,
variances and similar) sh.ould d.ocument h.ow be,st available science is met. A particular
reference/meth.od is suggested: The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the
Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000. .
• Since the City's buffer averaging criteria include science based pr.ovisi.ons (e.g. variati.on in
wetland sensitivity), it was rec.ommended that reas.onable use be rem.oved as a criteri.on f.or
buffer averaging.
• Review criteria t.o expand buffers sh.ould be amended t.o rem.ovevague terms.
• Definiti.ons .of rest.orati.on, creati.on, and enhancement as well as pr.otecti.on/maintenance
sh.ould be revised t.o be c.onsistent with State and Federal agencies. .
• Enhancement criteriash.ould be amended t.o all.ow s.ome desirable changes in functi.ons.
• Off.,site mitigati.on may be more desirable than .on-site mitigati.on, and s.ome criteria are
pr.op.osed f.or amendment. .
Critical Area Review Procedures
Either in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050).or in administrative secti~ns such as
4-1,4-8, and 4-9, Rent.on's regulati.ons pr.ovide c.omprehensive critical areas pr.ocedures, such as .
defining regulati.on purp.oses, applicability and exempti.ons, submittal requirements, general
perf.ormance standards, review criteria,variances and excepti.ons, and enf.orcement.
The City's pr.ocedures pr.ovide f.or structured review.of devel.opment applicati.ons and
determinati.on .of appropriate c.onditi.ons. .
T.o meet Washingt.on Administrative C.ode (WAC) rules that direct the City t.o c.onsider best
available science where variati.ons t.o regulati.ons are pr.op.osed, t.o address c.omm.on perf.ormance
standards in additi.on t.o buffers, and t.o clarify the applicati.on .of regulati.ons, s.ome amendments
are prop.osed:
• The City sh.ould include best available science review criteria f.or administrative buffer
reducti.ons, administrative m.odificati.ons; and administrative and Hearing Examiner variances.
• Submittal requirements f.or pr.ojects that c.ould impact critical areas and pr.op.ose mitigati.on
. plans, .or th.ose that prop.ose buffer reducti.ons, sh.ould dem.onstrate that best available science
was used in determining the reduced standard and/.or in devel.oping mitigati.on plans.
July 13,2004 12 J.ones & St.okes
• The City regulations do not specifically require a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement, although the critical area regulations do provide stafflatitude to apply
conditions, and SEP A provides another review and mitigation process. There may be
instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback to ensure
long-term maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness. A general
standard allowing the City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback is included. It
would be discretionary.
• It is recommended that the City clarify that applicants are responsible for other permits
outside of the Critical Area Regulations.
Other
As part of incorporating stream and buffer protection requirements and other critical area
amendments, consistency amendments are needed to the City'sTree Cutting and Land Clearing
Regulations, permit submittal requirements, State Environmental Policy Act review,·
Nonconforming Uses, Variance procedures, and Definitions.
5. Public Review Process and Schedule
The City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations arid Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration project is being reviewed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan
Update in response to the GMA requirements for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. It
is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan Update including the Renton Best Available Science
Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project will be
adopted by December 2004 to comply with GMA deadlines. .
Prior to adoption, opportunities for public review will include:
• Notice of Application comment period in July 2004;
• PubliC open houses/meetings in SllIl1ffier 2004 (particularlyJuly 27,2004, Highlands
Community Center, 6 p.m.);
• Planning Commission and City Council meetings and hearings in Summer and Fall 2004.
Additional information can be obtained at the City's website under the Renton Economic
DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department page (,,,ww.ci.renton.wa.usi).
July 13, 2004 13 Jones & Stokes
(
•
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
LAKE, "ASHING7TJN
ENVIFWNMENTS
Urban .......
Conseryancy __ .
Natural., •.•
Figure 5-1 Renton Shoreline Master Program Environments
I
CITY OF RENTON
SHOREUNE MASTER PROGRAM
. . SPRINGBROOK CREEK . .
SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP
U :Urbll,llEr.YIr.o~o.nt.
1000 2000. C :CoRa.iWtancy Eiivtrciruiiiillt ,r' . '. .. I i.iIii.fii1 WeUanda
1:12000 ----... Shoreline Bowidlirj .;.... -CIlJl,Jmlle' .
NoIe: This map depicts ttie approXimatelocationoftJie Sprtngbrook.CreekshoreHnebound8!y and assoc.iated 'WetlandSg~iTiep£iytheRentOn sti~liiie:~ster Proilram. ,Appli~ation ciftli¢Renton ~cirelille Mast~rProgmtnt~~a Pf:opertY'!s i!e!eiri1iried~a.~ite-sp'ecffic \i~siSbYthe,'oevi;loPm<:"t ~ces
Djvision' utilizing tfje·f~l~t\ons·,!,:,ad.eflniti(Jf1s in thl, Prograf':' and any site ~cifi~ enyironmental analysis. .
Renton Shoreline Master Program, Appendix A Map
City of Renton
Shoreline
Environments Map
There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of
the State within the City of Renton that are not shown on this map. Those
associated wetlands and floodways are also govemed by the City's
Shoreline regulations.
DRAFT
Urban Environment
Conservancy Environment
Natural Environment
Water Class 1
City Limits
Rentol: 'reposed Reluladans allan-bellPlld Acthdlles In ar AIIuttlnl Class 2 tl5 Waters
: ........................................... .
li~~~~i~~~~i~~~::~~~~~;~1 .........................................
-----~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ------------------------------------------------1
r--------------
Exemptions Summmy
--------------
e·
e
181101: PraPISld ReloladllS I.ACllvltles In Ir Abuttlnl Class 1 Waters
e
r---------------------------------Alternative n,...L,.".\"";(,,.,,.~i,.,,.)}>,.,,.::,~: -,;;P.,...:r..,'~"..~n;..,1i~,.".0~;;.,~,,:J:i;..,·i;:~
Standards
e 111!!~i'
";;. ' ,i : L: -'.'.
" 'I
---.----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Renton -Water classes
e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning .~. Alex Pietsch: AdmmlSlf'dtor ~ G.DeIRusanu DRAFT t 5 October 2003
Renton City Boundary
PAA Boundary
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Culvert
o
I
3000
I
1 : 36000
6000
I
APPENDIX B
CRITICAL AREA MAPS
Environmental Checklist: BAS, CAR and SMP GMA Integration
G:\Projects\Renton, City ot\02534.02 -Best Avail Science\Renton
CAO _ SMP _BAS\BAS _ Supplemental\CAO _ SEPA_ Submit\SEPA\envchlst_ CARSMP .doc
RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE
"<~"\>'~ Zone 1 ..... " ~-oJ
~ Zone 1 Modified
:$~ Zone2
".. City Umits
FIGURE 4-3-050Q1
AQUIFER PROTEC"nON ZONES
o
I
5280' 10560'
I--I~~~~I
1" = 1 MILE
o 1500 JOOO
-------.zd I
CITY OF RENTON
SENSITIVE AREAS
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
-City limits
o 1500' 3000'
~I ~ __ iiil! ~~~I
CITY OF RENTON
SENSmVE AREAS
COAL MINE HAZARD
-----Oty Limih
_ High Hazard
r=::J Moclerat.
c:==J UncIauifI.d
8 r«JWcal-. •
• lID + ~iJd.in&lJ>ubJicWod<s ~ R.M...onic,().VilDl:Jki Prinlcd M.y6. 2002
o 1500 3000
~ 1:1&,000
CITY OF RENTON
EROSION HAZARD
SENSITIVE AREAS
{) 1500 .'mll .......... I: HC,oon
CITY OF RENTON
SLIDE
SENSITIVE AREAS
---City limits D King County Hazard
~ Moderate D High
• Very High
e· . '" Technical Services .(aID + PlanninllBuildinl/Public Worb ~ R. ".cOnie. D. V)sneski Printed February 20D3
o 1500 3000 ________ I SEISMIC
CITY OF RENTON
SENSITIVE AREAS
HAZARD AREAS
-----City Limits
III High Hazard
_ 25-40% Slope
••• 1 40+".4 Slope
~~ Creeks
~Rivers
~:::~:~ Lakes
---Roads
---City Boundary
- _ -Municipality Boundaries
Renton Steep Slopes
I ,
I /\
,
\
For Reference Only
LInch"" 1 Mile I ! d
o
PLATE II
OPEN-FILE RE.
OFR9
Map D: Lower White and Green Rivers,
and Duwamish River
(continued from Plate I)
i o
Contour lnlcrvalll}() meters
10 MILES
10 KILOMETERS
· ' .
City of Renton -Water classes
e~.. . Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
Alex: Pietsch. AJminislnllor
G.L>cIRttsariu DRAFT 15 (lc,,,her200J
Renton City Boundary
P AA Boundary
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Culvert
o
I
3000
!
1 : 36000
6000
I
· .
MERCER
Renton Municipal Code
Roads
_ Wetlands
~ Creeks
~ Rivers City Boundary
.~~ Lakes - - -Municipality Boundaries
Renton Wetlands
For Reference Only
1 Inch = 1 Mile I , !
~ ~ ))~ ffiI
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON
, ,
JUL'O 8 2004 Jones & Stol<es
RECEIVED
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 13, 2004
To: Rebecca Lind, PrinCipal Planner, City of Renton
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
Subject: Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy"
Amendments
PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations Update and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration work program is to meet Washington Growth
Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements and City
Comprehensive Plan goals for stream and lake protection. Among others. work program·
objectives iIlclude:,
• Refine City Comprep.ensive' Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the
Environment Element.
• Integrate S~oreline Master Program Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive Plan,
essentially intact. Limited policy amendments are proposed to address use priorities ofRCW
90.58.020 (differentiate between Shorelines of Statewide Significance and all other
Shorelines of the State that are found in the City). > .
'Consistent>~ith these objectives, this memo provides proposed Comprehensive Plan and
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Policy Amendments. Other related work program objectives
. address SMP Map and Regulation amendments addressed in separate memos:
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," March 8,
2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program
Regulation Amendments," July 13,2004.
Introductory information including a full discussion of the work program and state laws is found
in the memo: "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master
Program GMA Integration, July 13, 2004."
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
OVERVIEW
;)l,ii/ll:'; .!<"'t nr; 'JUC;OJ JV~C'
{~'}[V3~ .~(; YTi:)
Page 2 of 14
t;[liJ:\J'hi} i3V.2004
As noted above, in our work program there are several plah and policy amendments to be
addressed: '
• Review the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program (SMP) policies for
consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), particularly Sections RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.100, and basic scientific
principles and standards identified in the Draft "City 'of Renton Best Available Science
Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," February 27, 2003 by AC
Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants. ,
• Address Shoreline Management Act required topics'unaddressed in the Renton SMP to
meet RC~ 90.58.100. These topics include Historic/CulturallScientificlEducational and
Flood Damage Prevention.
The proposed policy amendments following this memo (Appendix B) accomplish the following
to meet the above work program elements:
• Growth Management Act (GMA):-Per GMA requirements, the SMP policies are
incorporated into the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Environment Elements.
The original SMP policy or section numbers are provided following the policy for
reference.' " '. ' , '
• . Shoreline Management Act (SMA). SMP Policy Amendments:
o Shoreline "element" topics unaddressed in Renton SMP (per RCW 90.58.100)
consisting ofHistoric/CultunlllScientificlEducational and Flood Damage
Prevention are incorporated. .
o Additionally, a proposed restructuring of shoreline use'priority policies is
suggested to better match the SMA use preferences along both Shorelines ofthe
State and Shorelines of Statewide Significance. This is further discussed below ...
• Best Available Science: Policy amendments have been proposed to the Environment
Element primarily as well as to the Transportation, Utilities, Downtown, and Economic
Development Elements asa result of Best Available Science Review. 'While .
amendments to the Environment Element were proposed in 2002 by the City's ESA Task
Force, and reviewed by the Renton Planning Comniission and City Council, as part of the
current Best Available Science Review additional policy amendments are proposed,
especially in the rivers and stream policies and floodplain policies of the Environment
Element. In particular, these amendments are intended to lay the groundwork for our
regulatory approach to stream classifications, buffers, and other items. '
Given the length of the Land Use Element, the attached policies show only those changed or
added. Policy amendments in the "miscellaneous" Comprehensive Plan chapters are shaded
Page 3 of 14
July 13, 2004
for ease .. Neatly all the Environment Element is updated. Shaded policies are those the
consultants are currently suggesting. Other changes originate from the City ESA Task Force
in July 2002; or from Planning Commission reviews in May 2003 and February 2004; or
from early State Agency Input in May 2004. Editor's notes are included to provide some
background on the basis of the draft policy amendments.
Shoreline Master Program Use Priorities
In 1997, the City of Renton participated in a case study of its SMP against a draft version of the
State's proposed SMP Guidelines. While the 1997 Draft Guidelines differ from the State's SMP
Guidelines adopted December 2003, some ofthe comments should be considered because they
relate to the adopted State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). One of the key items is the extent
to which the Renton SMP policies give direction for shoreline use preferences, particularly along
Shorelines of Statewide Significance like Lake Washington. The current Renton SMP land use
policies do not differentiate between Lake Washington and other shorelines. Refer to the
Appendix A matrix for a comparison of State requirements, 1997 comments, current adopted
SMP policies, and proposed SMP policies. .
To address State comments and more importantly to meet the use preferences in RCW 90.58.020
(that did not change as a result ofthe 2003 DOE SMP Guidelines),land use policy amendrrierits
are proposed as follows: .
• -General provisions that apply to any shoreline activity oruseaie grouped...: e.g. policies'
having to do with minimizih.g pollution, ensuring public· access is respectful of private
property rights, etc.
• Use preferences applicable to Shorelines ofth6 State (all regulated shorelines) except
Lake. Washington are grouped, and the language takes much direction from the RCW
90.58.020 use preference policies. There are some editorial notes regarding how some
language can be modified to still meet the State preferences and retain or enhance
flexibility. .'
• Use preferences applicable to Shorelines of Statewide Significance, i.e. Lake
Washington, are provided, and follow from the specific use priority order in RCW
90.58.020, as well as Renton SMP regulations and definitions that indicate how uses can
be allowed within this priority system if they provide significant public access.
The 1997 State DOE comments had also suggested some other policy revisions in the areas of:
• Policies/amendments as needed to provide for consistency between the Comprehensive
Plan and SMA. A consistency matrix was suggested. The intent would be to indicate if
there are any conflicts, redundancies, etc.
Page 40f 14
July 13, 2004
• Policies to address SMP Regulations that go beyond the required SMP Elements, for
example, addressing utilities, grading and filling activities, and others. The purpose .
would be to support the range of regulations that the SMP code contains and provide
guidance to the SMP administrator on issues not directly addressed by the regulations.
Regarding consistency, in our review ofthe Comprehensive Plan elements and SMP, there were
no apparent policy conflicts. The integrated SMP policies address the broad categories of uses
anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, residential, commercial, and industrial. There are some
policies encouraging mixed uses as well. There were no apparent redundancies, and an attempt
was made in adding the new SMP policies related to cultural resources and flood minimization to
augment Citywide policies and incorporat.e them by reference rather than create redundancies.
The Comprehensive Plan land use map generally recognizes long-standing land use patterns
along the regulated shorelines such as residential and industrial, although in some cases mixed
use redevelopment is anticipated (e.g. Center OfficelResidential or "COR" zone, and the Urban
Center -1-:Jorth or "UC-N2" zone). The long-standing existing patterns do provide for some
water enjoyment uses such as parks and water dependent uses such as a seaplane base, but the
predominant land use pattern along Renton's shorelines consists of non-water-oriented
development (e.g. residential, non-water oriented industrial or commercial), although such uses
can be made more compatible with SMA use preferences where public access (physical or
-visual) can be incorporated. As part of the City's future largerSMP update, the need/demand for
water dependent/water related/water enjoyment uses in Renton will be analyzed and the City can
then determine the best place for such uses in consideration of the long-standing land use
patterns, and future market for shoreline dependent uses. In the interim, amended policies that
more closely address the SMA's land use preferences may be helpful as waterfront development
i.s proposed in accordance with the Renton SMP. . .
Regarding policies to cover the range of issues in SMP regulations that go beyond required SMA
policy topics, no specific policies are proposed at this time pending the City's future SMP
Update in response to the 2003 State SMP Guidelines due in 2009.
We look forward to discussing the policy amendments attached to this memo, and would be glad.
to answer questions.
Shoreline Use Preferences -State
Laws and Regulations
The SMA legislative policy indicates
that uses are preferred on Shorelines
of the State as follows:
"In the implementation of this policy
the public's opportunity to enjoy the
physical and aesthetic qualities of
natural shorelines of the state shall be
preserved to the greatest extent
feasible consistent with the overall
best interest of the state and the
people generally. To this end uses
shall be preferred which are
consistent with control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the
natural environment, or are unique to
or dependent upon use of the state's
shoreline. Alterations of the natural
condition of the shorelines of the
state, in those limited instances when
authorized, shall be given priority for
single family residences and their
appurtenant structures, ports,
shoreline recreational uses including
but not limited to parks, marinas,
piers, and other improvements
facilitating public access to shorelines
APPENDIX A
MATRIX: SHORELINE USE PRIORITIES
1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case
. Study Policy Coinments -Use
. Priorities
Develop SSWS [Shorelin~s of
Statewide Significance] policies· to
address some of the fundamental
planning issues on Lake Washington.
Meet or communicate with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Department of Natural Resources,
Department of Ecology, and State
Department of Parks and Recreation
to identify what aspects of Lake.
Washington and Green River in
Renton's jurisdiction are of statewide
importance. Incorporate their
concerns into the environment
. designation criteria, policies, and
regulations and into any special
standards in general or specific use
regulations. This may result in a set
of policies for SSWS that deal with
questions such as:
• How is preference given to uses
which fulfill the State's interest
in SSWS?
• To what extent can new mixed-
use development be placed on
sites suitable for water-
Current SMP Land Use Policies
4.01.02 Policies:
A. Reasonable and appropriate
shoreline uses and activities should be
planned for:
1. Short-term economic gain or
convenience in development should
be evaluated in relationship to
potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Preference should be given
to those uses or activities which
enhance the natural amenities of the
shorelines and which depend on a
shorelines location or provide public
access to the shorelines.
3. Planning, zoning, capital
improvements and other policy and
regulatory standards should not
increase the density or intensity of
shoreline uses or activities except on a
demonstrated need considering the
shorelines and then only in
accordance with the policies
contained herein.
Page 5 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003IMarch 2004
Policy LU-381 Reasonable and
appropriate shoreline uses and
activities should be allowed based
upon the following parameters:
[Editor'S Note: See accompanying
memo with alternative approaches to
shoreline use priorities to better match
SMA; except for number 6, language
below taken from portions of RSMP
4.0l.02.A]
l. Short-term economic gain or
convenience in development should
be evaluated in relationship to
potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Increases in the density or
intensity of shoreline uses or activities
as a result of Comprehensive Plan,
zoning, or development regulation
amendments should only be allowed
when: .
a. There is a demonstrated need for
the use or activity; and
b. The uses or activities are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan vision;
e
e
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
of the state, industrial and commercial dependent development if public .
developments which are parti<;:ularly access is provided (e.g. Allen .
dependent on their location on or use property)?
.e
of the shorelines of the state and other
development that will provide an • To what extent must fish
migration and habitat opportunity for substantial numbers of preservation be considered in the people to enjoy the shorelines of existing iridustrial areas? the state. Alterations of the natural
condition of the shorelines and [Editorial Note: In 1998
shore lands of the state shall be exemptions for fish habitat
recognized by the department. restoration were added; the .
Shorelines and shore lands of the state general topic of how much
shall be appropriately classified and mitigation is wrapped into our
these classifications shall be revised ongoing development of stream
when circumstances warrant buffers and management zones,
regardless of whether th~ change in and it is likely we will revisit this
circumstances occurs through man-issue before completing SMP
made causes or natural causes." amendments.]
(RCW 90.58.020, excerpted in part) • Can landfill be used as a means
e
Additionally, the Master Program has to clean a site? [Editorial Note:
also been formulated so as to provide Landfill amendments were made
for uses of shorelines of Statewide in 1998 to address MTCA
Significance (i.e. Lake Washington; remedial actions.]
Green River) in the following order of
preference consistent with the SMA: .
1. Recognize and protect the
state-wide interest over local interest
. on shorelines of state-wide
significance.
2. Preserve the natural
character of the shorelines.
. Current SMP Land Use Policies
4. ' Plans should be developed
for shorelines particularly suited for
water-dependent uses or activities.
5. Multiple use of shorelines
should be planned where location and
integration of compatible uses or
activities are feasible:
6. Aesthetic considerations
should be encouraged when
contemplating new development,
extensive redevelopment of existing
facilities or for general enhancement
of shoreline. areas.
7. Shoreline ilses and activities
should be discouraged if they are
objectionable due to noise or odor or
if they create offensive or unsafe
conditions in relation to reasonable .
and appropriate uses and activities.
B. Those shoreline uses or
activities which are not water-oriented
should be encouraged to relocate
away from the shoreline.
C. All shoreline developments
shall be designed and constructed to
. protect the rights and privacy of
adjacent property owners ..
Page 6 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003IMarch 2004
and
c. The use or activity is consistent
. with the use preference policies in this .
Section. [Editor's Note: Subsections b
and c added as criteria for
Comprehensive Plan and SMA
consistency. ]
3. Mixed use developments or
activities along shorelines should be
planned where location and
integration of compatible uses or
activities are feasible, and when
consistent with Policy LU-384.
[Editor'S Note: Multiple use changed
to "mixed use". Policy reference
added to match intent of State
regulation,s and Renton SMP.]
4. . Shoreline uses and activities
should the developed with uniform or
coordinated site and architectural
design. Buildings, fences, and other.
structures should be sited to avoid or
reduce impacts to public views of the ..
shoreline. Landscaping should be
employed to reduce from public view
outdoor work or storage areas. These .
aesthetic considerations should be
encouraged when contemplating new
development, extensive
redevelopment of existing facilities or
for general enhancement of shoreline
..................................................... m. ............ .n ........................ '.......
Shoreline Use Preferences -State
Laws and Regulations
3. Result in long-term over
short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and
ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to
publicly owned areas of the
shorelines.
6. Increase recreational
opportunities for the public in the
shorelines.
7. Provide for any other
element deemed appropriate or
necessary.
1997 Renton SM'P Shoreline Case
Study Policy Comments -Use·
. Priorities
Current SMP Land Use Policies
Page 7 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003IMarch 2004
areas. [Editor's Note: The first three
sentences help define "aesthetic
considerations" and are based on the
Shoreline regulations ofRMC 4-3-
090.K.3.]
5. 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.
6. All shoreline developments
should be designed and constructed to
protect the rights and privacy of
adjacent property owners. [RSMP
4.01.02.C.]
e
Policy LU-382 Shoreline Master
Program policies, environments,
regulations, and permit review should
be applied to achieve the following
use preferences on Shorelines of e
Statewide Significance which includes
Lake Washington, as follows:
[Editor's Note: Newly applied to
address Shorelines of Statewide
Significance which have a more strict
use hierarchy.]
1. Recognize and protect the
statewide interest over local interest,
and promote long-term benefits over
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case Current SMPLimd Use Policies
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
: e
e
Page 80f 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003/March 2004
short-term benefits. Consider Federal,
State, and regional policie~ and
programs.
2. Preserve the natural
character, resources, and ecology of.
the shoreline.· Measures may include,
but are not limited to:
a. Requiring uses and activities to be
designedto avoid unique and fragile:
areas;
b. Reviewing and conditioning
proposals to achieve no-net~loss of
shoreline ecological function;
c. Promoting watershed enhancement,
fish passage enhancement, or other
shoreline ecology enhancement
proposals.
[Editor's Note: Subsections a to care
added to try and elaborate upon what·
activities would help preserve the
natural features of the shoreline, arid .
are based on other existing Shoreline
Policies or regulations, e.g. RMC 4-3-
090.K.7 and Renton SMP policies in
Section 4.02. Item "a" no-net-loss is a
concept that would be consistent with
GMA critical area and best available
science provisions as well as State
DOE SMP guidelines.]
3. Increase public access to
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case Current SMP Land Use Policies
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
.,
. :
Page 9 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003/March 2004
publicly owned areas of the
shorelines, and increase recreational
opportunities for the public in the
shorelines;
4. a. Provide opportunities for.
water-oriented uses, which include
water dependent, water related, or
water enjoyment uses:
i. Water Dependent Development:
Water dependent uses are uses that
cannot exist in any other location and
depend on a water or waterfront
location. Examples of water
dependent development include, but
are not limited to, marinas, ferry
terminals, float plane facilities, and
other uses that are dependent upon a
water location.
ii. Water Related Uses: Water related
uses include uses that support a water
dependent use or have a functional
requirement for a waterfront location.
Examples of water related uses
include, but are not limited to,
warehousing goods transported by
water, log storage, or other uses that
depend on a waterfront location .
iii. Water Enjoyment Uses: Water
enjoyment uses include recreational
uses or uses facilitating public access
for a substantial number of people.
I e
e
I
I
e
e·
Shoreline Use Preferences -State
Laws and Regulations
1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case
Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
Current SMP Land Use Policies
Page 10 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies _.
May 2003/March 2004
Examples may include, but are not
limited to, ecological reserves, parks,
piers, restaurants, museums,
aquariums, hotels/resorts, mixed-use
commercial/office, or others which
facilitate public access.
b. Non-water oriented uses may be -.
considered water oriented uses when
significant public access is provided.
[Editor's Note: The policy is
consistent with current RSMP .
definitions, 9.47 to 9.50.]
5. Provide for any other
shoreline activity or use deemed
appropriate or necessary, and.
consistent with the State Shoreline
Management Act and the-Renton
Shoreline Master Program policies.
Policy LU-383 Except for Lake
Washington which is addressed in
Policy LU-382, Shoreline Master
Program policies, environments,
regulations, and permit review should
be applied to achieve the following
use preferences on Shorelines of the
State: [Rewritten from RSMP
4.01.02.A to more closely match
RCW 90.58.020.]
I. Preference should be given to
those uses or activities which:
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997Renton SMP Shoreline Case Current SMP Land Use Policies
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
"
,
"
Page 11 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003IMarch 2004
a, Enhance the natural amenities of the
shorelines, such as, but not limited to,
activities which promote watershed
enhancement, fish passage
enhancement, reduced impervious
surfaces, or other shoreline ecology
enhancement proposals; and/or
b, Depend on a shorelines location or
provide public access to the
shorelines, such as water dependent,
water related, or water enjoyment
uses, as described in Policy LU-382,
subsection 4, [Editor's Note: Reflects
4.01.02.A.2 with text to illustrate
concepts of enhancement, water
dependent and water enjoyment uses;
it is similar to Bellevue's policies
from 1992. Adding an "and/or" rather
than stating "and" to subsection "a"
makes the policy a little less
restrictive than current policy
language, but is still consistent with
RCW 90.58.020. Also addresses
reduced impervious surfaces in l.a per
DOE early agency comments.].
2. Alterations of the natural
condition of the shorelines of the state,
developed in consideration of critical
areas and protective of unique and
fragile areas, are given priority for:
a. Single family residences and
e
e
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case CurrentSMP Land Use Policies
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
"' -
"
-
Page 12 of 14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies -
May 2003IMarch 2004
their appurtenant structures;
, b. Shoreline recreational uses
such as parks, "marinas, piers, and
other improvements facilitating
public access to shorelines of the
state;
c. Industrial and commercial
developments which are
particularly dependent on their
location on or use of the
shorelines of the state; and
d. AdditIonal water dependent,
water related, and water
enjoyment uses, or other
development that will provide an
opportunity for substantial
numbers of the people to enjoy
the Shorelines of the State.
[Editor's Note: Responding to
RCW 90.58.020.]
Policy LU-384 Those shoreline
uses or activities which are not water-
oriented should be encouraged to
relocate away from the shoreline.
[RSMP 4.01.02.13.]
Policy LU-385. Plans should be
, developed for shorelines particularly'
suited for water-dependent uses or
activities. [RSMP 4.01.02.AA]
Policy LU-386. Festi~als and
:
Shoreline Use Preferences -State 1997 Renton SMP Shoreline Case Current SMP Land Use Policies
Laws and Regulations Study Policy Comments -Use
Priorities
e
e·
Page 13 of14
July 13, 2004
Proposed SMP Land Use Policies-
May 2003IMarch 2004
temporary uses involving public
interest and not substantially or
permanently impairing water quality,
water flow or unique and fragile areas
may be allowed. [RSMP 4.02.02.E.]
i
•
APPENDIXB
Page 14 of 14
July 13, 2004
PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS -RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
•
I
LAND USE ELEMENT
GOALS
1. Plan for regional growth based on regional growth forecasts and objectives defined in the King County
Countywide Planning Policies.
2. Promote new development arid neighborhoods in the City which:
a. contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity;
b. are walkable places where people can: shop, play and get to work without always
having to drive;
c. are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient
use of urban services and infrastructure;
d. offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income and lifestyle;
e. are varied or unique in character;
f. support a "flexible grid" street and pathway pattern where appropriate;
g. are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live;
h. offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and
1. provide a sense of home.
3. Provide well-balanced, compatible, attractive, convenient,and robust commercial, office and residential
development within designated Centers which serve the needs of the area.
4. Develop a strong ~mployment base in the City.
5. Develop a system of facilities which meet the public and quasi-public service-needs of present and future
Renton residents.
6. Promote a distinctive community identity and an aesthetically pleasing city image.
7. Maintain the City's resources in areas with prime agricultural lands, extractive uses, and historic or
archeological sites.
8. Develop and maintain a diverse open space network.
9. Actively pursue annexations.
10. Plan and coordinate land uses. public access. and natural resource protection along Shorelines of the State
in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act.
J-J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LAND USE SECTION I
REGIONAL GROWTH POLICIES ....•.....•...•.••••........••.•......•••.•.•••••........••.•••......•••...•......... ~ .•...•....................... : ........•....•.••••
RESIDENTIAL .........•.......................•.....•...•...•••..•..••.•.••..••••.....•...•....••......•.•••••.•......•.......•••...••••............•.....................•. ; ••...••..
CENTERS •..•.. ~ ...•..••.•..... ; .. ~ ...... ~ ....•........••....•.••••.••••....•..•.•••.•.••.• ~ .•.......••.....••.••••••....••.•.•..•..•.•..•....•.••..•......••...••.....•.....••••...•••...
EMPLOYMENT AREA ....................•.......•....••...•••...•... ,. .••••••....•.....•..•...•...•....•••...••.•..... ~ ••....••.•...•.••.......•...........•.....•.••....•..••
PUBLIC FACILITIES ...............•........•.••..••.......•..•••••..••.....•.••......••••......•.••.•..•..•..•.••••••.......•....•••....•••........•......•..•..•..••••....••..•
COMMUNITY DESIGN •.......•..•....•••......•..•••••••••••.•..•.••••••.•.••.•..•.•.•...•••••..•..••••.....•..•••.•••...•.•••.•..••..•.••..•...........••....••••....••••..••
RESOURCE LAND .................................................................................................................................................................. .
PARKS/OPEN SPACE .......................•......•...•...•..•••......•.•.••••.......•••.....•.........•.......•• ~ •......•....•..•... : ......•...•..................•. ~ ..••••.•.•
SHORELINES OF THE STATE: LAND USE, RECREATION, AND CIRCULATION MANAGEMENT .....•.•..••••..••
Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... ; .............................................. .-................................... .
Shoreline Master Programs ............................ : .............. : .............................................. , ...................................................... .
Management Objectives & Intent. ................................ : ....... : ........ .-................... ; .............•...................................................
Shoreline Use Environments ........................................................................... ; .......... : ...................................................... .
Shoreline Uses and Activities ........................................................................................................................................... .
Shoreline Economic Uses ............ : .................................................................................................................................... .
Shoreline Residential Uses ........................................................................................................................... ; .................... .
Shoreline Recreation ............................................................................... , ......................................................................... .
. Shoreline Public Access ......................................... : .......................................................................................................... .
Shoreline Circulation .. , ................ ; ...................................•..................................................................................................
ANNEXATION ..•..••.••. ; •.. ! ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,. •• ,. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1-2
RESOURCE LAND
Historic and Archeological Resources
Objective LU-UU: Protect historic and archeological resources in the City.
Policy LU .. 339. Historic resources should be identified and mapped within the City.
Policy LU-340. Archeological and historic resources which have not been previously identified should be
surveyed as part of the application process for any development. Suspected or newlv discovered historic or
cultural sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. ~im:~]
~r?Wkl!l. I:> d RS1I1P 407 O? D? ] . lh'i'ote. :>3se on 1\ • _. _. ._.
Policy LU-341. The City should pursue interlocal agreements with King County and other jurisdictions to
identify and protect historic and archeological resources.
Policy LU-342.· Historic resources should be incorporated into economic development and tourism activities in
the City.
Policy LU-343. Adequate mitigation and buffering should be established between historic resources and other
land uses. Buffers, site planning, clustering, transfer of development rights, or other similar incentives and
control should be utilized.
Policy LU-344. Historic resources should be integrated into plans for parks, open space, and trails acquisition
and development.
Policy LU-34S. Officially designated historical sites should be preserved and/or incorporated into all
development projects.
Discussion: The City of Renton has a rich history as a pioneer settlement and mining community. As
urbanization occurs throughout the Planning Area, historic structures and sites are in danger of being
eliminated. These policies recognize the importance of historic resources and establish aframeworkfor
developing programs to protect them.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE . .
Policy LU-360. The City should place its emphasis on acquiring open space that is either archeologically or
environmentally sensitive critical or unique, or can fill a gap iIi the existing open space network. [~i~~)~~~:
Use term defined in glossary.]
Policy LU-368. :Public access should be encouraged through private open space where these open space areas
can form a link in the community-wide system of trails, natural areas, and wildlife corridors. and would not be
incompatible with the functions and quality of the critical areas. [~!'Aa.~l Public access may not be
appropriate in all circumstances.] ,~
SHORELINES OF THE STATE: LAND USE, RECREATION, AND
CIRCULATION l\lANAGElVIENT
Summary: r[;;a:]tl.;l~;€~~~Yt~: Summar\' is in part from Renton Shoreline Master Program (RSMP) Sections 1
and 3.1 Shorelines are oflimited supplv and are faced with rapidlY increasing demands for uses sllch as marinas,
fishim.!, s\'''imming and scenic views. as well as recreation. private housing. commercial and induslTial uses.
The Washington State Shoreline ManaeCt11Clll Act (SMA) passed in J 971 and is based on the philosophy that
\-3
I
•
BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
the sh~Irlin~~_9f our State are amonlLQ.1J.L..1Jl.Q~.L::~?.hlable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted
developITI.ITl.L9fthese resources is not in the best Dubhe interest. Therefore, planning and management are
necess~rv in order to prevent the harmflll effects of uncoordinated an4J2iece-meal deve10pment of our State's
shorel1nes. .
Under the Washington State SMA local govemments have the primary responsibi1itv for initiating the planning
program and administering the regulatory requirements of the Act. with the Department of Ecology acting in a
supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and regu1atory
requirements.
,Jurisdiction ..
Enyironment Amendments."]
1. Cedar River.
2. Green River. ~11W;~W6"3: With City annexations and boundary adjustments over time, it appears the.
Green River is not in the City limits .. Adjacent jurisdiction shoreline use classification boundaries
along the Green River may intrude slightly into the City limits. Per discussions with Peter Skowlund of
DOE, the City is required as the pemlitting agencv to apply the master program applicable to the Green
River (Tukwila) if the water body is outside the City of Re·nton, but the 200 foot jurisdictional area falls
within Renton Citv limits.]
3. Lake Washington.
. . . '. .
4. May Creek from the intersection ofMav Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake
Washington.
5. Springbrook Cieek from the Black River on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south.
6. Black River.
All are considered as Shorelines of the State. Further. by State standards, the Green River and Lake
Washington are classified as Shore1ines of State-wide Sif!llificance. requiring more close review and regUlation,
and comprise approximately 5~8 miles of the shorelines of the State. regulated by City of Renton.
Shoreline Master Programs
As set forth in the prOvisions of the Act, 10cal governments must fulfill the follov.ring basic requirements for
regulated shorelines:
• Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which includes a survey of natural characteristjcs, present land
uses. and pattems of ownership.·
• De\relopment of a Master Progl;am, includin..&....g9als. policies, and regulations to provide an objective guide
for regulating the use of shorelines.
• AdJ11jnistration of a shoreline permit sYstem for proposed substantial development on Shorelines of the
State rel!ulate<Ll;?y R~ntQll.
!ELcQDlPJjan~.f. with the inventorv re9uirelT!~Jli.~!f1.b.~_A~_,-thU1ent()n PIE:!lQiD.KJ)~P.£Itl.11..f.nt.~on9ucted a
f.9ml)feh~miyein~ntQ)Y ofth~Jl.atu!:.al ch?.ntQt~Ii:Ji£':i.,J?.:r:.~g;D.tJan~lJ-lses, and....1jattem~ o(o\-vnership along the
(LtY~~5_hQI.~Ji.D_~_,.T11~jn.ITl}1QJ:y_~a s QlIIU?.Le..:ts:J11D..._Qs:..Lober 1 ~ll_,:and pro vi de<L a subs tR.D ti a l..tm~is f QLtb.f.
de_y~lQ].2m~..L£!Llhj3 Masl~IYr~"lliI?..!Ji __ IlL~J:S.enlQILS.b9r~J:hlL\1.~L~JIT. Pl:Q.gI:?:.mJRSMJ~~LSJY.U~L<; . .horelil1.f.
1-4
BAS Review July 2004 tit e
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
s:ny.!nmmen(s and specific use rs:gulations rel1ect the local conditions that are documented in that in:y~nto1}':..._~§
.!dPdates have been prepared over time fOIJ?articular locations or for particular Rolicies or regulations. additional
llyentorv and analysis documeni'l:.!iQ!Lh,!sbeen supplied in accordance with the SMA and Washington
Administrative Code requirements.
The Citv of Renton. with the help of its locaLcitizens, developed a SMP in compliance with the Act to serve as
a guide for regulating use of the Shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction. The components of the
Renton SMP. and their location in the Citv's plans and regulations, are as follows:
• Shoreline goals, objectives. policies:
o Land Use Element Subsection::-Shorelines of the State: Land Use. Recreation, and Circulation
Management
o Environment Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Natural Resources and Haz.ard
Management
• Shoreline use environments:
o Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Land Use. Recreation, and Circulation
Management
o Renton Municipal Code. Title 4.
• Shoreline use regulations, and provisions for variances and conditional uses.
o Renton Municipal Code. Title 4.
Management Objectives & Intent
The basic intent of the RSMP is to provide for the management ~f 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.
The RSMP has further been composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines re!!1.llated
by Renton and. atthe same time, to recognize and protect owners' legal property rights consistent with the
public interest. The goals and policies of the RSMP are formulated so as to enhance the public use and
enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with. and does. not impair, legal private
propertv rights; It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State found in Renton are located within a major
urbanized area, arid that they are. subject to ever increasing pressures of additional usesnecessitating increased
coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has. therefore, been made to
present a planned, rationaL and conceIted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the
Shorelines of tile State under Renton's jurisdiction.
The SMA legislative policy indicates that lIses are preferred on Shorelines of the State as follows:
-'In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjov the physical and aesthetic
qualities of natural shorelines ofthe state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent
with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be prefeJ)'ed
.which are consistent with control ofJ2011ution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or
are unique to or dependent uPQ!lJ!;;e o(Jhe state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the
~.horelines of the state, in lhQ.~~J.iIDi.~iLilJstances when authorized, shall be !liven priority for singl~
family residences and their aPl~!J.nel1.;i1JLstructures. ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not
limited to parks. marinas. wn.,-£1J1..~L<;)JlL~x improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of tb~
sta~-,-i!Jdustrial and COlT)J.llcn:i£!utr;:.'{.(;jgJ}ments which are particularly dependent on their IO<!.f"!tio.1.LQ..!l_QI
hlJi.<::' 0 f th~ shore lines 0 f th c ~ill.t.'::'<:ln/;i..Q~L1..~TQ.£.ye 1.Q1]1l~!2Lth.£l.L~iJ112I9.0g.~_an _~·n;>porluni tv f()1~ Sll bstan t1 ::).1
1-5
BAS Review July 2004 • CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
IlUll1.bers of the people to e1]ioy ihc shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of ihe
~horelines and shore1ands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands
of the state shall be aJ?Propria.!~l:Y-slassified and these classifications shall be revised when
circumstances \ValTant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made
causes or nahlral cau'ses." (ReW 90.58.020. excerpted in part)
Additionallv, the Master Program has also been fonnulated so as to provide for uses of Shorelines of Statewide
Significance (i.e. Lake Washington: Green River) in the following order of preference consistent with the
SMA: '
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide
significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines.
7. Provide for any other eleme~t deemed appropriate or necessary.
It should also be noted that the Washington State Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a
"region" for the purpose of shoreline planning. The Lake Washington Regional Shoreline goals and Policies
adopted by the Regional Citizens AdvisOIY Committee on October 31, 1973, were considered in the formulation
of the RSMP. '
Shoreline Use Environments
SummarY: ' Shorelines orthe State are to be classified into "use environll1ents" based upon current .
development pattern, biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards. and regulations can be
custoinized by use environinent, shoreline. and use depending on needs. Generally,ree:ulated shorelines
include the water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the }100dway or ordinarv high water
mark for two hundred (200) feet'iri 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.
Objective LU-FFF: Cate{!orize shorelines based on the existing development pattem, the biophvsical
capabilities and limitations of the area bein!! considered' for development. and the goals and aspirations of local
citizenry. [RSMP 5.01] ,
Policy LU-377. Three environments. Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, are to be designated on Shorelines of
the State to provide a unironn basis to apply policies and llse regulations within distinctively different shoreline
areas. These classifications are applied at aproLrfammatic level on Figure X. [RSMP 5.01)
PolicY Ll1-378. Natural Environment Classificatii)l1, Shoreline areas meeting the follO\ving intent and
characteri.sti9~_§.!10uld be designated \Nith the Natural use environment classifiQ~!i~?D~
1-6
BAS Review July 2004 tit e
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT:-CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
A. NatuJ~Ll~n.yiI.Q)1ment Intent: The purpose of the Natural environment i1> tQJ2IJ>.!.~:.Qumd preserve unique
and fragile shordine or wetland' environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to
provide area~J.!L!yjlQJjJ~"?EoI1ctu.ID'~D.d habitat preservalion.[RSMP 5.02.01.A]
B. Areas to be designated Natural environment shorelines: Areas that are to be designated Natural
environment should include:
1. Areas that are unique or fragile.
2. Floodways areas. [RSMP 5.02.01.Bl
much of the Natural environment is in public o"'\tnership. and there may be a localized opportunity for public
access.]
Policy LU-379. Conservancy Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and
characteristics should be designated with the Conservancy use environment classiflcation:
A. Conservancy Environment Intent: The pw]?ose in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect,
conserve. and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native
state. while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancv environment is intended to provide a
pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment seeks to satisfy a portion of the present
and future needs of Renton. [RSMP 5~03.0IA]
B. A~easto'be Designated as a Conservancy Environment: Areas that are-to be designated Conservancy
environment should include: ' ,
1. Areas of high scenic value.
2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
3. Hazardous slope areas.
4. Flood-prone areas.
5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. '
6. Areas with unique or fragile features. [RSMP 5.03.01.BJ
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy
environment are those of a nonconsumptive natme which do not degrade the existing character of the area.
'Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low density residential, passive agricultmal
uses such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. Active public recreation when compatible
with the biophysical characteristics of the land may also be allowed. IEZf:m~ll~~: RSMP 5.03.01.C. Last
sentence added due to public parks and recreation facilities that are fOWld along some Conservancy areas of the
Citv.l
Policy Ll..T-380.lJrban Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and
characteristics should be designated with the Urban use environment classification:
A. Urban Environment Intent: The pU1J?ose of the Urban environment is to ensttre oDtimu1l1 utilization of
shorelines within urbanized areas b'/ providing for Dublic use. especiallY access to and alom~ the ,vater's edge,
1-7
I
BAS Review July 2004 • CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
ill19J;>y man<!£.ing development so that it enhances and mair!1ain§-.2DQreUnes fora multiplicitv of viable and
necessarv urban uses. [RSl'v!P 5.04.01A]
B. .. __ . Areas to be designated as an Urban Environment. The lJrban Environment is particularly suitable to
those areas presently subjected to exti."emely intensive use pressure. as well as areas planned to accommodate
intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban expansion. there should be
limitations based on the physical aspects of the site. Shorelines of the State reguiated by the City whi~h are not
designated as Conservancv or Natural are designated as Urban. [RSMP 5.03.03]
C. Acceptable Uses and Activities: [RSMP 5.04.01.B to D)
i. High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including
residential, commercial, and industrial development. . .
ii. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis
should be givento development within already developed areas and particularly to water-oriented industrial and
commercial uses.
111. Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public \isual and physical access to water in the
Urban environment. To enhance waterfront and ensure maXimum public use. industrial and commercial
facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable. and the various access
points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths.
Sboreline Uses and Activities
Objective LU":GGG: Plan and coordinate the shorelines of the State to afford best use of the limited water
resource, and to provide. natural amenities within an urban environment.· [RSMP 4.01.01.A and B.]
priorities to better match SMA; except for number 6, langua!!e below taken from portions of RSMP 4.01.02.A1
1. . Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship to
potential long-term effects on the shoreline.
2. Increases in the densitY or intensity of shoreline uses or activities as a result of Comprehensive Plan.
zoning, or development regulation amendments should onlv be allowed when:
a. There is a demonstrated need for the use or activity; and
b. The uses or activities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision: and
c. The use or activity is consistent with the use preference policies in this Section. [~iID!9'fl~~~: Subsections b
and c added as criteria for Comprehensive Plan and SMA consistencv.] .
3. ___ .. Mixed use developments or activities along shorelines should be planned where location and
integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. and when consistent with Policv LU-3S4. ~~ . 'K;.~1?3'f;Jf( .. '. , .... -.-... ~ ........... _2 ~tjt@:_.1'.v1ultiple use changed to "mixed use". Policy reference added to match intent of State regulations and
Rel1 to!l5MJ~J
·:L ... _S.hQJ:~Jjne.uses aIld ~9ti,jJi~s should the developed with uniforJJL9S cQ9rdinated sit~aT!Q..E:[9hitec.tur:5!J
QesiglL_lillilQin~is, fences.:;1n~otb-YLf?tJ:)lCn1reS should be sited tQ1!void or reduce impacts to public views oLthe
5bgx~Jjn~,-Jd!Ddscapin!! should b~ emploved to reduce from Pu1?li.(Lyj~~'~.9'dtd()()r work or storage areas. These
~ es tll~\jf._f.9.l1!ijQ~L<!tiQI!S_§J}9J,l1c:j_Qs:.encouraged when. con terilQ latillgD.S:_~ d eve;l 0Rn~nL e x telJ.~L~.L~g~.Y~1.9j21]len 1
1·8
BAS Review July 2004 e e
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
of existing taciJiti~~~lLfuI.£~ll~J:!:l1 enhancement of shoreline areas. [~~~: The first three se1'!Jences
help define "aesthetic considerations" and are based on tl~5bordine regulations ofRMC 4-3-090.K.3.J
5.' Shoreline uses and,Ac6vities should be discour~d ifthev would cause significant noise or odor or
Y.Jl~afe conditions that would impede the achievement of sh9reline use preferences on the site or on adjacent or
abutting sites. '
6. All shoreline developments should be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of
~acent property owners: [RSMP 4.01.02.C.] ,
have a more strict use hierarchy.]
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest and promote long-t~rm benefits over
shOli-telm benefits. Consider Federal, State. and regional policies and programs.
2. Preserve the natural character. resources, and ecology of the shoreline. Measures may include, but are
not limited to:
a. Requiring uses and activities to be desil!11ed to avoid unique and fragile areas:
b. Reviewing and conditioning proposals to achieve no-net~loss of shoreline ecological function:
c. Promoting watershed enhancement, fish passage enhancement or other shoreline ecology enhancement
proposals.
[mFi1:1Irl'[~~: ' Slib~ections a to c are added to trY and elaborate upon what activities would help preserve the
natural features of the shoreline, and are based on other existing Shoreline Policies or regulations, e.g. RMC 4-
3-090.K.7 and Renton SMP policies in Section 4.02. Item "a" no-net-Ioss is a concept that would be consistent
with GMA critical area and best available science provisions as wen as State DOE SMP guidelines.]
3. Increase public acc~ss to publicly owned areas ofthe shorelines. and increase recreational opportunities
for the public in the shorelines.
, .
4. a. Provide oppOliunities for water-oriented uses. which include .J.;ater dependent, water related. or water
.. . j. /. enjovhlent uses:
i. Water Dependent Development: Water dependent uses are uses'that cannot exist in any other location and
depend on a water or waterfront location. Examples of water dependent development include. but are not
limited to. marinas. ferry terminals. 110at plane facilities. and other uses that are dependent upon a water
location.
ii. Water Related Uses: Water related uses include uses that support a water dependent use or have a fW1ctional
requirement for a waterfront location. Examples of water related uses include. but are not limited to.
\varehousing goods transported bv water, log storage. or other uses that depend on a waterfront location.
iii. Water Enjoyment Uses: \-Vater enjoyment uses include recreational uses or uses facilitating public access
for a substantial number of people, Examples may include. but are not limited to. ecological reserves. parks.
Diers. restaurants. museums. aquariums. hotels/resorts. mixed-use commercial/office. or others which facilitate
public access. .
1·9
BAS Review July 2004 • CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR -1DDED POLICIES ONLY
5. Provide for any other shoreline activity or use deemed appropriate or necessarv, and consistent with the
State Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program policies.
Policy LU-383 Except for Lake Washington which is addressed inPolicv LU-382, Shoreline Master Program
policies. environments, regulations, and permit review should be applied to achieve the followinl! use
preferences on Shorelines of the State: [Re\vritten from RSMP 4.0 1.02.A to more closely match RCW
90.58.020.]
1. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which:
. a. Enhance the nat11ral amenities of the shorelines. such as, but not limited to, activities which promote
wat,:rshed enhancement, fish passage enhancement reduced impervious surfaces. or other shoreline ecology
enhancement proposals: and/or .
b. Depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. such as water dependent. water
related~ or water enjoyment uses, as described in Policy LU-382. subsection 4. rGf~~~: Reflects
4.01.02.A.2 with text to illustrate concepts of enhancement. water dependent and water enjoyment uses; It is
similar to Bellevue's policies from 1992. Adding an "and/or" rather than stating "and" to subsection "a" makes
the policY a little less restrictive than current policy language, but is still consistent with RCW 90.58.020. Also
addresses reduced impervious surfaces in I.a per DOE early al!ency comments.].
2. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, developed in consideration of critical
areas and protective of unique and fragile areas, are given priority for: .
. a. Single family residences and their appurtenant structures;
b. Shoreline recreational uses such as parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public
access to shorelines of the state; -.
c. Industrial arid commercial deyelopmentswhich are particularly dependent on their location on or
use of the shorelines of the state; and
d. Additional waterdependenl, water related, andwater enjoyment uses, orother development that
will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the Shorelines of the State.
r~2'J§\~~: Responding to RCW 90.58.020.] .. .
Policv LU-384 Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water-oriented should be encouraged to
relocate away from the shoreline. [RSMP 4.01.02.B.J
PolicvLlJ-385. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for water-dependent uses or
activities. [RSMP 4.01.02.4] .
Policy LU-386. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantia1lv or permanently
jJ.1..J.Iillirill~vater guah~ater floyv or unique and fragile areas may be al1owed. [RSMP 4.02.02.E.]
Shoreline Economic Uses
Objective LU-HHH: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and
economic uses or activities that ar~ water-oriented are to be encounlKc;d. [RSMP 4.03.01.]
1-10
BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY.
Policv LU-387. Economic uses and acti \lilies which are not water-oriented should be discouraged. In those
instances where such uses Of activities are permitted, public access to and along the water's edge should be
provided. [RSMP 4.03.02.A.]
Policy LU-388. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. (RSMP
4.03.02.B.J
1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion of their development along the
shoreline and place inland. all facilities which do not require a water's edge location.
2. The length. width. and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable
dimensions.
3. Shoreline deve]opmcT!!s should be designed to .enhance the scenic view.
Policv LU-389. Mixed-use economic developments on the shoreline should be encouraged to provide public
recreational opportunities wherever feasible. ~1~~: RS1\.1P 4.03.02.C first phrase changed from
"multiple use of economic development~" to "mixed use economic developments.]
Policy LU-390. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels. may be ~lIowed in
appropriate locations within commercial or industrial zones. and should be prohibited in single family zoned
areas wherever feasible. unless part of a public recreation property in a residential zone.
1. Commercial dockings and marinas are to meet all health'standards ..
2. Marinas and other economic activities are to be required to contain and clean up spills or discharges of
pollutants associated with boating activities. . .
3. Shoreline facilities for !he ~oorage 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.
[Eti~~: RSMP4.03.02.D; policy currently indlcates that the moorage and boat service facilities should
be prohibited in single family. zoned areas, but does not say where these facilities may be allowed. However,
language follows from RSMP 4.06.020.D. Section3 is added.]
Policy LU-391. The expansion of]og raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. IRSMP
4.03.02.E.1
Policv LU-392. Containment or mitir!Cltion of pollutants is to be required of all economic activities on the
shoreline bv propertY OWn~L£1.m:!!.QLQJl.erator. [RSMP 4.03.02.F.]
Shoreline Residential {)ses
Objective LU-Ill: Existing residential uses are to be recognized. but future residential development should
wimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines consistent with legal property lights of the owner.
IRMSP 4.07.01J
Policy LlJ-393. Residenti'!1.g.~~5 . .9\l~.l:.water should not be permitted. [RSMP 4.07.02.A.1
Policy LU-394. Rt:sidential develonment should 110t be constructed in unique and fragile areas. [RSMP
1.,97,Q2.B.l
1·11
I
BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
.Polin' LlJ-39S. New residential developnients along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only
where sanitary sewer facilities are available. rRSMP 4.07.02.C.]
Policy Lll-396. Future shoreline subdivision. multifamily developments. and planned unit developments
(P.D.D.) should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's eggf. [RSMP 4.07.02.D.
Multifami.Jy us~sadded since it alread"y addresses PUDs and other residential.]
Policy LU-397.New residential developments should optimize'utilization of open space areas. [RSMP
4.07.02.E.J
Policy LU-39S. All further development on the shorelines of the May Creek east ofFAI-405 right-of-way and
that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the n01th to SW 31 st Street
on the south. abutting City-o"Wlled wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the
vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the Citv's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be
compatible wiJh the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and
provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. and is consistent with the
underlying zoning.
2. For the subject locations. the waterways should be left in an undevelop~d natural state as much as
possible. . ,
[~I~~~_: From RSMP 4.07.02.F: Subsection 2 shortened to remove the repeat of the specific location
since it is in the preamble ofthe policy: also # 1 text added to say that the llses be consistent "With underlying
zoning -residential use along Springbrook Creek is not highly likely given City ownership and natural
shoreline character. but is likely along May Creek.]
Shoreline Recreation
Objective LD-JJJ: Water~oriented recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged. {RSMP
4.05.01]
Policy LU-399. Water-oriented recreational activities should be encoin'alled.[RSMP 4.05.02.A.l
1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved.
2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number.
3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed.
4. Both passive and active recreational areas are to be provided.
Policy Ll).:.400. Recreational fishing should be supported, maintained and increased. [RSMP 4.0S.02.B.]
.PoJicvLlJ-401.As private shorelands are developed. rights of public access should be attained based upon
public aC9.es.§_;'lJJQJ.:ecre,iition plans developed bv the City. [Based on RSMP-4.05.02,C but refined throlllih
Planning Commission discussion.] . . .. . .
Policy LU-402. Local jlirisdictioTlS should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities
throuf!1lPJ::.Q.m::~!..TnS of acquisition. development. and maintenance of water:f1:9J.lL!ITS.~!..~~m.SJ'vrp 4.05.02.D.1
1-12
BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT -CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
Polin' LlJ-403. Subject to State and Federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster
recreational aspects IRSMP 4.05.02.E.1
Shoreline l)ublic Access
Objective Ll}-KKK: Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural
amenities. [RSMP 4.04.01.]
Policv LU-404. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner.
[RSMP 4.04.02.A.·1
Policy ,LlJ-40S. Just compensation should be provided to propelty O\vners for land acquired for pubhc use.
[RSMP 4.04.02.B.1
Policy LU-406. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and
preservation/conservation of the natural amenities. [RSMP 4.04.02.C.] '.
Policv LU-407. Public access to and along the water's 'edge should be available throughout publicly owned
shoreline areas. [RSMP 4.04.02.D.J
Policy LU-40S. Public access fi'om public streets should be made available over public property or by
easement. [RSMP 4.04.02.E.]
,Policy LU-409. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial
developments should be encouraged to provide public access along the water's edge. [RSMP 4.04.02.F:J
Policy LU-410. Private access to the pUbliclv owned shoreline corridor should not be 'denied to O\vners of
property contiguous to said corridor. [RSMP 4.04.02.G.J
Policv LU-411. Wnen making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures. multi-family.
planned unit development, subdivision. commercial and industrial developers should be encouraged to provide
for public access to and along the water's edge if phYsically feasible. [RSMP 4.04.02.H.]
Policy LU-412. High-rise structures in the shoreline jurisdiction generallY should not be permitted; but could be
pennitted' in the shoreline jurisdiction if: '
1. Vie'ws oethe shoreline would not be substantially obstructed due to topographic conditioris~ and
2. Some oven-iding considerations of the public interest v./Quld be served.
Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water fro111 public shoreline
roads running generally parallel to the water's edl!e. [RSMP 4.04.02.1.J
Policy LlJ-413. Both passive and active public areas should be desil!ned and provided. [RSMP 4.04.02.1.]
Policy LlJ-414.ln order to encoural!e public use of the shoreline conidor. public parking should be provided at
lrequent locations. [RSMP 4.04,02.K.]
Policy LtJ-41S. Preservation or improvement of the natural al]lenities should be a basic consideration in the
~_~igJLQJ s bs,~:~JiD~Q...(~g~.1Q~ybjgJ:Ll!ub 1i c a ccess is p royi cl~Lil1S;J ud in g tll e trail system_ [RS MJ) __ ~Ln:LQ_2. L. J
Polin' LO-416.1n planning for Dubhc access. emDhasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths rather than
roads. except in arca~ w)ieI~.'pJol.hli(:;J2Q.(111~..!o!D.fllil1g yy.Q~~J~Lhf~~l~.?iIable. [gSlvlp 4J'2.:1.02.1\1:1
'·13
I
•
BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT-CHANGED OR ADDED POLICIES ONLY
Shoreline Circulation
Objective .LC-LLL:Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic \,,;it11in the shorelines.
[RSMP 4.06.02.A.J
Policy LU-417. Shoreline road,vays should be scenic boulevards where possible. Road standards should meet
roadwav function and emen!encv access standards and provide for multiple modes. while reducing impervious
surfaces where feasible. and managing surface "vater nmoffto achieve appropriate ,vater quality [RSMP
4.06.02.A; per Planning Commission discussion in May 2003, second sentence gets at portion of objective to .
minimize motor vehicle traffic and is consistent with new policy T-71.]
. Policy LU-418. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas ..
[RSMP 4.06.02.B.J
Policy LU-419. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, operation and sec uri tv,
should be developed. [RSMP 4.06.02.C.]
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 transpOltation
systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety.
Policy LU-420. Commercial boating operations. other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted,
should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. [RSMP 4.06.02.D.]
Shoreline Historic/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources & Activities
Objective LU-l\tLl\lM.: Shoreline areas ha"ing historical. cultural. educational. or scientific value should be
retained.
Policv Ll!423. Through programs, acquisition, or regulations. shoreline sites with historic. cLlltural,
educational, or scientific value should be protected, and such features may be integrated with other shoreline·
uses if appropriate to the character of the resource.
Policv LU-424. Historic and ArchaeoIo&rical Resources Objective LU-lJD and associated policies are
incorporated by reference as part of the Citv of Renton Shoreline Master Program objectives and policies.
1-14
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
GOAL
1. Continue protection of Renton's natural systems, natural beauty, and environmental quality.
2. . Pi-ovide protection to endangered species in:habiting and passing through the City limits while
continuing to provide a competitive economic development environment.
VIlI-J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
General Objective And Policies ................................................................................................. VIll-3
Surface Water ............................................................................................................................. VIll-3
Rivers And Streams ................................................................................................................... VIll-4
Wetlands ................... ~ .......................................................... : ..................................................... VIll-4~
Flood Plains ....... : ............................................................................. : .......... ; ................................. VIll~Q·
Stormwater ........................................................................................ :.: ...................... : ............... VIll-6 .
Ground-Wwater Resources ..................................... :~ ............... : .................................................. VIll-7
Fisheries And Wildlife Resources ............................................ : ................................................ VIll-8
ProeessAdaptive Managenlent ............................................................... ~ ..................................... VIll-8
Atmospherie COflditioflsAir Quality .......................................................................................... VIll-91 0
Noise Impacts ........................................................................................................................ VIll-lO
Steep Slopes, Landslide, And Erosion Hazards ............................................... :., ....................... VIll-lO
Seismic Areas ............................. : .................................. :, .. ; ................................ : .................... : ..... VIll-IGl
I Coal Mine Hazards ..................................................................................................................... VIll-l+~
RIE;ft4g't:f~$.'fij.'lii'~f,':kr~iif.~".r.tii$_'k')f-#&l;'lt!iJi'~;l"ii¥tMy'l!~,~&;4.$l'l1M .. .,llor-eUJ1~sIDf:IU\:'J;DI.U.mU! ... ){.~lfui.KeS()m:Ge'S:,anwm.~n\J.WJ;Y,i.ooage:J:uent. .................................... .
VIlI-2
Summary: The purpose of the environmental policies is to provide the policy background and basis for future
environmental actions by the City of Renton as it attempts to balance urbanization, economic development, and
natural area protection. Environmental policies address substantive issues such as development within
floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes and procedural issues such as how ·these areas should be mapped and
how they should be regulated. Environmental policies will be implemented through economic development
decisions, critical areas regulations, and incentives for environmental protection. (See the Employment Area _
Industrial and Open Space Sections of the Land Use Element, Stormwater Section of the Capital Facilities Plan
Element, Stormwater & Aquifer Protection Sections of the Utilities Element for policies related to
Environmental Element.)
General Objective and Policies
Objective EN-A: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans and patterns,
surface water management programs, park master programs, development reviews, incentive programs and
work with citizens, land owners, and public and private agencies.
Policy EN-I. Prevent development on lands where
development would create hazards to life, property,
or environmental quality.
POLICY EN-2. Ensure that development on lands
supporting endangered or threatened species occurs
in a wav that maintains adequate habitat.
Surface Water
POLICY EN-4. Implement clustered development
as a method of consenTing additional private opens
space, or providing public parks and trails.
Dis£assioo: De .. relopment elustering, preservation
of significant natural features, afld retention of or
estabiisllment of vegetated conidor~ aTe eKamples
.. of de'.relopment patterns fuat implenlent tllese .
objeeti'.tes.
Objective EN-B: Protect and enhance water-quality of City's surface water resources for public health and
safety. as well as recreation and environmental preservation.
Policy EN4~. Manage water resources for
multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife
habitat, flood protection, erosion control, water
supply, energy production, and open space.
Policy EN-J§. Minimize erosion and
sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction
techniques and fa1111iflgland stewardship practices.
Policy EN-41. Limit-discharges of pollutants such
as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, and other
hazardous wastes to surface waters.
l)olicY EN-S. Encourage methods of reducing
effective impeD::ioLlS ~urfac~ and surface water run.:
Qtljn)!I.~E_~.2yhere iimijjng impervious surfaces
VIlI-3
Amended 1·UlU9+7/22/02: BAS Review .,.004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Discussion: -T~ali{y O/.'iUF/.f:it"e-waIe-F-f'e-SfJbIFf!eti
is important/o/" the City (~fRenl:()nff:)rflubli(: hce!th
fH/:d-fftfletY-~'8ons, as well as reereatione.t and
('1/p·ironmcnlalreasolls. S'tIrface wat~1-I:tfiffln
meY--HJtimate~.· mean afJ'tIifer poUution.
High water quality can be achieved through the use
of Best Management Practices for industriesL tHHi
businesses. and public education. Preservation of
riparian corridors can protect receiving waters
from storm water effects such as erosion and
sedimentation. Further protection of surface water
will come through aquifer protection policies and
ordinances, which could limit discharges of
pollutants. Land uses are suggested in the plan
Rivers and Streams
which will also secondarily address surface water
impacts.
Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream
courses.
VIIl-4
I
.. e Amended .f.Yl.2-19+7!22/02; BAS Review .July 2004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Policy EN~13. Degraded channels and banks
should be rehabilitated by public programs and new
development.
Policy EN-614. Develop land use regulations
,;,.hich establish and enhance setbacksVegetated
buffers along all waterways and intermittent stream
l1I~ll~"'~~mm ID courseS7 :c::LJ~jiG£1i~ The purpose of the
setbaclcs ",:ould be to retain an enhanoement of the
natural vegetation provide for m.maili-=:i
infiltration, maintenance of wildlife habitat and
Policy EN-115. In situations where itis necessary
to cross or access If crossings and/or access points
are required across fish::bearing river~ and/or
stream channels, improvements should be made in
the follov .. ingorder ofpriorit)':hridges or above-
water crossinl!s should be given firstpriority.
1. Crossing and bridges which access several
properties.
Wetlands
2 .. le When ~i:1crtg~!~fl crossings and bridges
are not feasible, culverts cshould be used .
which are oversized and have gravel
. bottoms which maintain the channel's width
and all
Discussion: The rivers and streams within the City
hold great importance for the citizens. These
waterways can be protected through three
measures: preservation of their their
banks, and the next to them.
modified to address phvsical functions per DOE earlv agencv review comments.]
Policy EN-816. Achieve no overall net loss of the
City's remaining wetlands base.
Poliey EN 9.' In no case should development
actiYities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands.
VIII-5
Policy EN-ll18. Water level fluctuations in
wetlands used as part of storm-water detention
systems should be similar to the fluctuations under
natural conditions.
capacity provided in
existing wetlands should be encouraged. rmil9l1·
lf3~: Changes per DOE early agency review .
comments.] .
PaHey EN 12. Pursue ail potential funding sources
in order to purchase significant wetlands.
Policy EN~19. When development may impact
wetlands, the following hierarchy should be
followed in deciding the appropriate course of
action:
Amended -l-2+1-U9+7/22/02: BAS Review .,lloo4
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
a. avoid impacts to the wetland,
b. minimize impacts to the wetland,
c. restore the wetland when impacted,
d. ~I > n~ III-at a ratio
which will provide for its assured viability
and success,
e. enhance the functional values of an existing
__ "",d,;,.e~gr~a_ded wetland. .
[Bit\,~e: Changes per DOE early agency
review comments.] .
Policy EN-l420. Provide a ranking system for
)'.'etlands based on Wetland protection measures
should reflect their acreage and quality. High-=
quality wetlands should have more protection-tffider
this system.
Policy EN-l521. ProvideSupport incentives for an
of wetland functions and values
Amendments per DOE early agency review
comments.]
Policy Jj:N-i&22. Encourage public access to
wetlands for use when sensitive habitats are
protected.
Policy EN-l+23. Meet water quality standards
prior to discharging surface water into wetlands.
Flood Plains
.Policv EN--H24. Ensure wetland mitigation
projects in the City attain the same ecological
functions as natw'al wetlands of equivalent quality.
Dis£assiaR: The City has liver 35(} aeFeS of
we#ends at the time of/his wriling. Th;Se we#tmds
provitlejJtJeti sliJrage, wiltlJife hahitat, water
qualitypreteetiiJll,Wtlter qU8.'ltiiy 8r infihrati81i,
aesthetic Pelie/, erosleV1 and sedimcnt'atieR eenlre/,
alidpeUuiallt remfJ' .. al. In seme areas of/he Cif)~
the Ratural fURclieniag efthcse we#tmds is integral
Ie pFt9teetieN (~l]Jmpertiesfrem .fleeding.
Objective EN-E: Protect the natural functions of 100 year floodplains and floodways.
Policy EN-lS25. Prohibit permanent structures
from developing in floodways due to risks
associated with deep and fast flowing water.
Policy EN-:l-926. Limit development within the
100 year floodplain to that which is not harmed by
flooding. Roads and finished floors of structures
should be located above the 100 year flood level§
and new development should provide compensation
for existing flood storage capacity due to filling.
Vlll-6
Policy EN-W27. Restrict land uses to those which
do not cause backwater or significantly increase the
velocity of floodwaters.
Policy EN-U28. Incorporate design features
which are intended to keep harmful substances
from flood waters in any development which is
allowed in the 100 year floodplain.
Policy EN~29. Emphasize non-structural
methods in planning for flood prevention and
d d · '~TI!<"ll;'01Wgj!l1F%':)$'fW¥ffim!W'l\lI'iI1%1!V"" amages re llctIOn. &lfl)silirlfuai:;~f!ieajiiliJiC,'t1an.n:e'1
e
Amended ~9+7i22/02: BAS Review July 2004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
a. Continue as-needed maintenance f)gredgeillg of
the constructed channel section of the Lower Cedar
River per the City of Renton's agreerilent with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control
bed-using best management practices to minimize
salmonid habitat disruptionas one method of flood
control.
Stormwater
·e
Discussion: 171e maintenance dredging oOhe
lower 1.25 miles oOlle constructed channel section
oUhe Lower Cedar River will continue to be
needed periodical/v. ·171e Citv of Renton was the
local project sponsor with the U.S. Armv Coms of
Engineers for the constmction oflhe Cedar River
· Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. As
the local project sponsor. the City orRenton is
required bv its Project Cooperation Agreement .
with the US Corps o(Engineers to maintain the
federal project. which includes fitture maintenance
dredging.
Objective EN-F:' Conduct a s,S.tormwater management program,§ wffiehshould optimizes Renton's water . . .
resources.
Policy EN~33. Maintain and enhance natural
drainage systems to protect water quality J~
habitat, reduce public costs, and prevent
environmental degradation.
Policy EN-:2-534. Preserve natural surface water
storage sites that help regulate surfaceservice flows'
and recharge gr~undwater.
Policy EN-U35. Provide local funding for the
stormwater program through Storm Water Utility.
Policy EN~36. Control quantity and quality of
stormwater run-off from all new development to be
VIlI-7
consistent with natural OF improved over existing
conditions ..
Policy EN-2836. Minimize on-site erosion and
· sedimentation during and after construction.
Policy EN~37. Route stormwater run-off from
new development to avoid gully erosion or .
.landslides in ravines and steep hillsides.
Policy EN~38. Industries and businesses should
use best management practices to prevent erosion
· and sedimentation and to prevent pollutants from
entering ground or surface waters.
Amended 12/12/977/22/02: BAS Review .a004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Policy EN-J.l37. Implement surface water
management systems which protect natural features
whenever feasible.
Policy EN~38. Promote means of flow control,
when required in \vaterways, thatto prevent erosion.
protect water quality and salmonid habitat. and
maintain the channel in as natural a state as
possible.
Policy EN~39. Use, maintain, and enhance the
natural stormwater storage capacity provided in
existing significant wetlands. .
Policy EN-J440. Use interlocal agreements and
cooperative planning programs to coordinate,
where appropriate, with King County, Tukwila,
Newcastle, and Kent and other agencies for
stormwater management.
Policy EN-JMl. Actively participate in non-point
source pollution watershed plans including those
for the May Creek, Cedar River, and Green River
Basins.
Objective EN-G: In conjunction with natural system protection policies, Provide a storm and surface water
control and drainage system§ capable ofshould preventing threats to life, property and public safety during a
100-year flooding event.
Policy EN-dM2. Promote the return of pre-
cipitation to the soil at natural rates near where it
falls through the use of detention ponds, grassy
swales, and infiltration where feasible.
Policy EN-3+43. Promote development design
which minimizes impermeable surface coverage by
limiting site coverage ~d maxiniizing the exposure
of natural surfaces,
Policy EN~4. Manage the cumulative effects of
storm-water through a combination of engineering
and preservation of natural systems.
Disclt!isifm: With the ave..-age annli611 rainfall 8S
high 6lS it is in th~ Gily, stfJrm w6!ier e~ntrtJI i8 6l.n
imptJri6!ni CtJneel~n. Regiomill6!1ui localized
flooding is found in dewnttHV'n Renton end ll~ the
Green River Valky. While )'fJriowi agencies
mTlage {lie "il>e"'S itr {fe()d co'lI"()/ 'a1Ot:¥! a'll()1;t'llS 'li· ,11)1 •. ,., "'0 • ,.
&fstorm wEI/BI'jiTHn i1'llperviaHS slirfoces contriblite
la the jleoding situati811. As .. lIC drainage hasins
conlinue la ~'eJ.6p 1:1 King C81tilt)' and olher
Green Ri)'er Valley' cities, mare starm )"aterpasses
through Renton, Ihefinal tiewnstreal1ljurisdic.'iall
far Ihesc hflSills. .
Engineering techniques can Cf)ntroZ-much althe
s/armwater through tieEenti()n Bnd reten/ian
systems. Howe',,'CF, the eulnulf1:tive ejJeClS o/S{()Fm
W6\'Cf' Cfln an~)' he 1'Ilflnaged hy fl cambill611iar1 if
engineering 6lFldpl'eservfltian efnetUFtll !J)If,te1'l1s
such fIS stre{{ms, ri',;crs, fInd wetkuuls. The:-;c
policies w81'k i:l cancert then, with thepi'e)'io'bl8
.. naltwfll s»'stempalicies.
Objective EN-H: Support and sustain educational, informational, and public involvement programs in the City
over the long term in order to encourage effective use, preservation, and protection of Renton's water resources.
Policy EN-394S. Provide information for and
participate in informing and educating individuals,
groups, businesses, industry, and government in the
protection and enhancement of the quality and
quantity of the City's water resources.
Policy EN-4046.Increase the community's
understanding of the City's ecosystem and the
relationship of the ecosystem to water resources.
VIII-8
Policy EN-4l47. Create the long-term community
commitment that will be necessary to sustain
efforts to protect the City's water resources, and
habitat. afHlas well as maintain and improve water
quality through educational programs.
e Amended HI-P...J9.1-7/:!2/0:!: BAS Review .July 2004
CITY OF RENTON ENYJRONMENTAL ELEMENT
PolicyEN-48. Continue to participate in and
implement t11e recommendations £I-om the Water
Resow-ce Inventorv Area (WRIA) regional salmon
conservation planning in response to the
Endangered Species Act.
GrauBEI 'VaterGroundwater Resources
, Disclission: IlIdhliduals can aid in tii()rF1Z~· .. a{er
management tJtreub>'h Best _~4tl1U1gem(;'1If Practices
at the singlefil1'l'liZ}' home er single husiness level.
Objective EN-I: Ensure the long-term protection ofthe quality and quantity ofthe groundwater resources of
the City of Renton in order to maintain a safe and adequate potable water supply for the City.
Policy EN~9. Designate and protect areas of
critical recharge and other associated aquifers
within the City and its Potential Annexation Area
the sphere of influence through coordination with
surrounding jurisdictions.
Policy EN-4350. Emphasize the use of open
'. ponding and detention, grassy swales, clean roof
run-off, and other stormwater management
techniques that maximize water quality arid
infiltration where appropriate ,and which will not
endanger groundwater quality.
Policy EN-4451. Acquire the most sensitive lands
such as wetlands and flood plains for conversion to
parks and greenbelts_. .
Policy EN-4552. Any businesses relocating to the
downtown that use or store materials regulated by
the Aquifer Protection Ordinance should be sited
outside of Zone 1 of the aquifer.
Policy EN-53. Avoid contamination ofaguifer
during construction activities. ' .
Discussion: In 1988, the EnvirenmenEal Pre.'eetien
AgeRCY designated the CedBr Ri"er rlfjuifer as a
se.'e seur'fJe aquifer jerthepetrlbk water fer the
Cif)' ejRen.'en, 98% eItlie City~ }\'ater sUfJfJly
cemesjroH} that aquifer erjrem springs in the'
T."lihe.' Read flFea. Streflgpelieies preEce.' these
supplies threugh a ilflriety efmeEheds, il'leluding
'pfflteetien. &jllatuffll systems and carej1il
FCgtlltitie1'l &fde~'eJ(jpment in sensiiiw rlfjttifer
fJFetl!r: .
ObjectiveEN-J: Increase the p~rticipation by the City of Renton in resolution of regional ecological issues
that may impact aquifer protection. .
Policy EN-4a54. Promote the useofinterlocal
agreements with other agencies to restrict land use
in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize
possible sources of pollution and the potential for
erosion, and to increase infiltration.
Faliey EN 17. Aetively participate in regional
highway planning, constrHetion, and traffic
restrictions.[Ed. Note: See new Policv EN-46-53(or'
avoiding contamination o(llqlli(er bv COllstructionl
Fisheries and Wildlife Resources
FeJiey EN 48. Discourage the continued use of,
and hauling ofv/aste to, the Cedar Hills landfiil
through the City ofReriton.
Policy EN-4955. Participate in land use and
sewerage decisions in outlying areas of the ' City's
aquifer.
Objective EN-K: Identify. F12rotect, and enhance wildlife habitatthroughout the City.
Policy EN-W56. Identify unique and significant
wildlife habitat as defined by \Vas!l:ngton State
VIlI-9
l+uffitat and Species Project and ensure that
buildings, roads, and other features are located on
Amended +14-Y9+7!22/02: BAS Review •• 004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
less sensitive portions of a-sites containing
identified habitat.
Faliey EN S1-.--kl~and preserve con'ideFS
connecting habitat acquisition, regulation of
development proposals, and other means.
Policy EN~57. Encourage preservation and
enlargement of existing habitat areas through
development incentives.
Policy :~~i~i;;;iiiisiuis;taii:n
PolicyEN-M59. Retain and enhance aquatic and
riparian habitats by requiring vegetated buffers for
all new corridors ..
FreeessAdaptive Management
l)ist'uss;OIl: The Cin: ofRelllOrt, ul1h~e IIU:lIlV . . .. ~
major Puget Smmfi-ei-ties,has severelunique ereas
a/habitat. The Cedar [{h'er supports m6ljorfish
nms fiurillg the yea,". Springbrook Creek, Honey
Creo/;. ami I'.fay Creek-trlso provido habittH for
8tdmo1litis. The Black River jarc8tpf'ol'iries habit6lt
leI' over 35 species efbirds, including heron and
eagles, and maJl)' small 191tlmmals. The Ce·der
River, ,A,fey Creck. ami Pe.nther Creek cOR"idors
have lares/cd, IIlCatiell'. aild shrob habitats that
PFOidfle shelter and food lar Hlan), species. Dcer
haw been spoued mif::,'rtJting through the power line
c(;wridors mftieh criss cross the Cit)'.
Besides these east west corritlots, a nerth seuth
cerridor efhabit6lt e.~~ists stretcllingjfflm t.fte Cedar
Ri ... er dreinage te the },fey Creek dreirta~'C directly
f}f;itside the cit)' linlits en the plateau.
These policies previde fer fwesen.etien of these
hflbitats. A l'llriety efmethods C(~uld be f:lsed te
implement these pelieies: consen/alien easements,
'ergo let reiling, cit)' epen :;pacepurehase and
wildlife menagelFlent. setbr:wks. l'etentienQl":c
vegetetien in various ereas. ami l6lndscflping
regula:tiens spec~fying native 1'egettL#en which
Wf:JulTipffl)'ide faed alld shelterfor irildlife.
Objective EN-L: Environmentally sensitive areas should be identified and regulated to protect life and
property according to the severity of the natural hazards. Critical area regulations should be reviewed
periodically to ensure effectiveness in protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy EN-Mi60. The following should be
considered in designating and controlling
envi~orurientally sensitive sites:
a) critical areas and reJource lands inventory;
b) steep slopes drainage swales, lakes, wetlands,
bogs, streams, rivers, or other surface water
bodies;
c) unstable or water-::bearing soils;
d) unique fl~rFa-aft6 unique faunapresence of
~~tl~~R1til:'lf~~~J~m
endangered or threatened species; and
e) historic and archeological sitesaquifer
recharge areas.~
f) un ~*-'-natHrat-featUIt'&;
VIII-IO
Policy EN-Se61. Maintain an up-to-date inventory
of envirpnmentally sensitive areas including
riP'~l'T1T\t;n,.,,, of criteria for and
PolicyEN-S+62. Regulate identified sensitive
areas through the implementation of regulations
addressing uses, densities, clearing, grading, and/or
vegetation removal and retenti911.
I
e
Amended 12/12/977/22/02: BAS Review .Jul\' 2004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Policy EN-5863.
environmentally
both the areas and the
~i!i~~~!t!tl~
be used to protect critical areas and critical area
buffers that are not protected through public
ownership.Establish and maintain a secondary
system of corridors to proteCt agriculture, timber,· . .
PolicyEN-6G65. Encoura~e preservation of these
secondffi)'corridors~!~~¥r~~~~ mtf'tafl'~ through incentives and regulations
which will provide for public health and safety, and
provide visual relief from urban structures and
. Polic)'-EN~67. The final identification of .
environmentally ;IIl.~ areas,
Air Quality:\tmespher\c Conditions
Policy EN-6469. Critical areas, or portions of
critical areas, may be included in community
separators.
Disenssilm: These p8lieies pffl)'itie e1'/: i1'/:tegF6ted
ClfJPffltlch fei" the reguhiti81'/: tlUS 19ie1'/:egemCl'lt &/
CI'll'ifflUmental tlrctls btlSed en the );e!ue fJ:fthe .
reseurcc tmd0r the sevcrity fJjthe luserds. The
1'/lClpS Y'cvetll thtlt s(.L)'ei"el oIthe eritiee/ effltES often
eecur simbtttenc8usiy anspnwitle )\'iHilije heb#et if
tmde .. 'clfJpCtl. The p8lieies CI'll'isiml e tlr8 lie1'Cfl
tlfJPretlch 18 Ihese .eFces: the mes' h(ser-98w..'
s/teuHi be d-esig1'/:eted 6S erificel C81"ridelw; the ' ..
see81'/:d es en)'ii«)1'/:mentelly sensitiv-c end sheuHi
iF/elude tJg'I:ieu/ture. miFlCF6!, Jerest lands, end
wildl~re heeittlt net Clsseeietefi with e cwiticel tlrC6.
Reguhitions tlns ltlnduse {ksigiltltiens cettld be
preyided Ie these {we gfflupS e/lewingjer
det'e!opmCTif when' 6ppl"epriete, .
Objective EN-M: Protect and promote clean air and minimize individual and cumulative noise impacts to
ensure a healthyfut environment.. .. .
Policy EN..ft570. Maintain high air quality
standards through efficient land use patterns.
Policy EN-6671. Promote air quality through
reduction in emissions from industry, traffic,
commercial, and residential uses.
Peliey EN 67 .. Llmit noise from construction
activities to reasonable how's of the. day and days of
the week,
VJIJ-ll
PaHey EN 68. Limit the use of public address'
systems to ensure that noise does not spill over to
adjacent land uses and acti..-ities on a daily basts.
Policy EN 69. Ensure that the design, placement,
and use of any on site equipment, such as air
wndtt-ffln-ing units Of other eqllipment is accom
pli[;hed in a manner which minimizes noise impacts
Bfl--U€jacent land 113es and activities ..
Amended +1~1)+7!:!2/02: BAS Review .a004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Noise Impacts
•
Objective EN-N: Minimize individual and cumulative noise impacts to ensure a healthy environment.
llolicv EN-n. Buffer noise impacts from
construction activities to residential neighborhoods
and commercial areas.
.Policv EN-73. Limit the use of public address
systems to ensure that noise does not spill over to
adjacent land uses and activities on a dailv basis.
Steep Slopes, Landslide, and Erosion Hazards
Policy EN-+075. Land uses on steep slopes should
be designed to prevent property damage and
environmental degradation, and to enhance
greenbelt and wildiife habitat values by preserving
and enhancing existing yegetation to the maximum
extent possible.
Policy EN-+l76. Allow land alteration only for
approved development proposals or approved
mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary
erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or
unnecessarily scar the landscape.
Policy EN~77. Mitigate problems of drainage,
erosion, siltation, imd landslides by decreasing
development intensity, site coverage, and
vegetation removal as slope increases.
Policy EN-+J7S. Protect high landslide areas from
land use development and roads.
VIII-12
Policy EN-74. Ensure that the design. placement.
and use of anv on-site equipment, such as air
conditioning units or other equipment is accom-
plished in a manner which minimizes noise impacts
on adjacent land uses and activities.
Policy EN-1479. Retain or replace native ground
cover after construction in areas subject to erosion
hazards. Special construction practices should be
used, and allowable site coverage may need to be
reduced to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
Limitations on the time wh~n site work can be done
may also be appropriate.
Policy EN-+SSO. Incorporate design elements
which preserve and enhance the natural drainage
system into developments in an effort to control
erosion and sedimentation.
Policy EN-1(}SL Design, locate, and construct
utility systems in a manner which will preserve the
integrity of the existing land forms, drainage ways,
and natural systems.
Di!.'CHssion: Rente:.' is located in a geogrtlpltidall.y
WtitJlte aree. The ",;ef!s (~ftheplfiteaus ami river
.'afk')'s contain hoff.! steep ami er-esi)'e condiiions .
. Vumerous landslides creele costs horne by the
pHhfic figelldes eWIY.'P'ear anriprit'aie O'lI'lIers
oji-{H't--sT:I;(Ferpropert)' d-emagefrom these same
C-v~rth-e-High a1llNffll rail?if:i!! and soil
£-eH-d-i-ti{fH-s--;--erosioll dElI/wite can-et~~
'e,,· .. l area." a~' "'e'l "5 deep onc" Tl""'"Ju,I;BiJ''' "", I »c ~j. ,Ii I tl. ~i, '"0 .• d. ~~~U7I"'CT
u-p-5ffl+Hiartls-'r'Vhich '.fill p rofe€t---p-ttMi-e--ltcal-l-lt;
I
•
e Amended +UJ.U9+7/22/02:BAS Review .July 20()4 • CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
preeeed in £Ippropriarc areas.
Seismic Areas
Objective EN-Q~: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to seismic events.
PolicyEN-+182. Minimize the risk of structural
damage, fire, and injury to occupants, and prevent
post-seismic collapse by using special building
design and construction measures in areas with
high seismic hazards.
VIII-13
Policy EN-+883. Prior to development in high
seismic hazard areas, builders should conduct
special studies to evaluate seismic risks and should
use appropriate measures to reduce the risks.
Amended 12/12/977/22/02: BAS Review Ja004
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Coal Mine Hazards
•
Objective EN-¥Q: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to co11apsed mine shafts,
improperly sealed mining tunnels. and methane gas leaks associated with abandoned coal mines, and return
tht~s~ laOO-properties to productive uses.
Policy EN-+984. Identify Maintain maps of areas
which may be impacted by abandoned coal mines
and update these maps as new information becomes
available.
Faliey EN 80. Develop land use plans and zoning
to reflect the hazards to de,,-elopmen.t in iden:tified
aFea:&:
Policy EN-8!85. Allow clustered developments in
coal mine hazard areas in order to concentrate
development awav from coal mine hazards that mav
not be precisely located and mapped. land uses to
loeate in soal mine hazard areas, provided the
hazards are J)fesiseiy loeated and all significant
hazards associated ,vith the rnilles are eliminated,
making the sit~ as safe as a site 'shich has not been
previously ,mined. . . . . ,
Policy EN~86. Show the location of coal mine
hazards on any plat or site plan maps. Such
documents should be recorded.
Diseossiao: The City ofRen-ton has a long and
rioh history of coal mining. Most mining sea sed by
the end of World War IT but the mines still remain.
Some entrances have not been properly sealed,' ,
some shafts present potential for collapse, and
some areas may gen:erate methane gas. These
h~Fds are often unnoticeable on the surface, but
may present subterranean dangers for the }3FOPerty
OVlflers. These policies reneet the importance of
identifying and regulating tfiese w.·eas.
Sji'._lllfSttm;'I,.t'lll' __ mitlmlat4tWa1elntii1
VIlI-14
e'
Amended ~-4-Y9+7!22/02; HAS Review .Julv 20()4
CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
I
VIII-15
•
MISCELLANEOUS POLICY AMENDMENTS
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective T-AA:
habitat!.
Preserve and protect natural resources fparticularly critical areas and wildlife
Policy T -65. Promote programs which maintain mobile source pollutant levels at or below those
prescribed by the EPA, State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency.
Policy T -66. Comply with the stipulations described in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
air quality compliance.
Policy T-67. Promote water quality by encouraging increases,in carpooling, vanpooling, transit
and non-motorized transportation usage.
Policy T -68. Incorporate in transportation facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water run-off
management and treatment techniques that maximize water quality.
Policy T -69. Comply with the stipulations described in federal, state and local water quality
standards and regulations. .
Also see related Policies in the Environmental Section of the Land Use Element and King
County Countywide Planning Policies CA-14 and CA-15, which by this reference are
incorporated in this Chapter.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
Surface Water
Objective U-F: Provide and maintain surface water management of drainage systems to minimize
impacts on natural systems and to protect the public, property, surface water bodies, and ground water
from water quantity and quality problems.
Existing Conditions.
Renton's Surface Water Utility was organized to meet specific ordinances, regulations and to insure that
planned facilities meet defmed engineering standards. The Utility is operated as a self-supporting utility
under the direction of the Mayor and City Council.
Renton BAS Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements
1 July 2004
Utility Service Area
The Utility's service area currently includes all lands within the City boundaries, more than 16 square
miles. However, surface flows from the urban area within the Urban Growth Boundary (annexation area)
also affect the surface drainage system. This potential annexation area is currently serviced by King
County. As areas Within the Urban Growth Boundary are annexed into the City, Renton will assume
management of their surface water services. .
General Location ofF acilities
The existing surface and storm water facilities follow natural drainage patterns wherein surface water is
collected and detained to reduce peak runoff rates, to provide water quality improvement, and for
infiltration. Alternatively, it is conveyed through pipes to numerous surface water bodies. These surface
water bodies include several creeks and rivers, and Lake Washington.
The major topographic elements of the service area include several major drainage areas or basins within
the city limits (see Figure 4-1). The northern-most basin is the May Creek Basin, which begins northeast
of the city limits and flows to Lake Washington. The Cedar River Basin runs through the heart of
downtown Renton. This basin extends far beyond the city boundaries. Thus, hydrologic events and
urban growth beyond the city limits may have a significant impact upon the surface drainage system,
particularly near downtown and the outfall into Lake Washington. The facilities within the city limits for
these basins include storm sewers,. detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works.
The Black River·Basin, also know as the Eastside Green River Watershed (ESGRW), is a major basin in
the southwestern portion of the City. The basin encompasses approximately 24 square miles which
includes areas of Kent, Tukwila and King County. Thus, coordination with other agencies in this area is
essential. The City of Renton makes up less than one third of the total basin area. The facilities within
the city limlts for this basin include the Black Creek Pump Station, Springbrook Creek, the P-l channel, .
storm sewers, detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works. ; ,
. . .
The remaining basins within the city limits include the West Hill Basin which drains to Lake Washington,
the Lower Empire Sub..,basin in the Duvyamish Basin which drains to the GreenlDuwamish River and the
Soos Creek Basin. The Soos Creek Basin is primarily outside of the city limits: . .
The City of Renton is currently developing basin plans for the Black River Basin, the Mapiewood Sub-
basin,the Cedar River Basin (with King County), and the May Creek Basin (with King County) ..
. . . .
Existing Capacity of Facilities
The existing surface water drainage system is meeting capacity requirements under normal conditions.
However, in some areas of the City, the system has become inadequate to serve present needs during
large, infrequent storm events.
Of particular concern are inadequate facilities located within several basins. These basins are each
affected by upstream development activities which have occurred in their respective watersheds, creating
downstream capacity deficiencies.
Currently there are no special efforts for floodway protection outside of the development review process
and emergency responses during flooding. The City is studying frequently flooded areas· including the
Cedar. River, North Renton and the Black River Basin. .
ProblemS in the Black River Basin include widespread flooding or surface water p~nding in the valley
during severe rainfall events and the loss of outlet culvert capacity from the Panther Creek Wetlands.
Existing and future surface water quality issues, loss of wetland habitat and fishery passage problems are
additional concerns, with the continued development of the upstream portion of the watershed.
Renton BAS Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements
2 July 2004
Other problem areas within the City include much of the downtown and Rolling Hills vicinities. Storm
drain facilities in areas along SW 7th Street, near the Renton Center, and Renton Village w;e over capacity
during severe storm events causing flooding of facilities which are undersized for current flows from their
tributary uplands.
North of Downtown, both the Gypsy Creek Basin and the North Renton Basin experience flooding
caused, in part, by inadequately sized pipes, ditches and detention facilities. Flooding in the Gypsy Creek
Basin is associated with facilities located near an interchange' of 1-405. Flooding in the lower portion of
North Renton is largely caused by the system not being able to convey drainage from the Highlands
neighborhood.
Existing Reliability
To a large extent the reliability of the storm drainage system depends on two factors. In areas where
growth has occurred, or will occur, the facilities must be designed to detain flows, and sized to convey
any increased storm flows. Additionally the facilities require regular maintenance to prevent debris ;;md
blockages which impair the system's ability to function properly; and routine observation to insure they'
operate as designed during high flows. Thus, reliability is a function of proper sizing and maintenance.'
City facilities in th~ lower reaches of several watersheds no longer meet the capacity requirements and, in
some instances, may not have been maintained on a regular basis. Thus, they may not be considered
reliable. As part of the City of Renton Comprehensive Surface Water Utility Plan, a Capitallri1provement
Program (CIP) will be developed to solve drainage problems and improve reliability. The Surface Water
Utility has identified needed improvements through the basin plans. The current Surface Water Utility
CIP is a4dressing existing drainage problems (Cedar River Delta,Project, Jet Vistaffaylor Avenue System
Improvement Project, N.E. 5th Place Storm System Replacement,Project).
Surface Water Quality and Quantity Best Management Practices to b(i! Implemented to .
Mitigate Future Land Use Impacts -.
The Puget Sound Storm Water Management Ma!lpal issued by the Departme~t of Ecology (DOE)
provides guidelines for best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented to mitigate land use
impacts. Examples of various BMPs include: public education, buffer zones, oil/water separators and
facility maintenance.
The City currently operates a maintenance program which includes cleaning catch basins and a street
sweeping program with a vacuum sweeper. The City has also achieved some source control by requiring
Renton BAS Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements
3 July 2004
detention facilities on site. City requirements for water quality include biofiltration, wet ponds or wet
vaults for most new development.
Forecasted Conditions
Future Utility Service Area
The Utility's Service Area could enlarge substantially to approximately 35 square miles if the City of
Renton annexes all areas within the Urban Growth Boundary. The areas that may be annexed are
currently served by King County facilities .. These facilities, their upkeep and maintenance would be
assumed by the City upon annexation.
General Location of Future Facilities
The Renton sUrface and storm water system currently operates much lIke the gravity based sewer system,
although the destination is surface water bodies, rather than waste treatment plants. Storm and surface
water facilities will generally remain in their current locations, although the individual sections may be
replaced to convey high~r flows.
For new development, surface water facillties are usually constructed on a site-by-site basis, rather than
on a comprehensive or system-wide basis. Storm water pipes and detention facilities will be constructed
on-site during ea,ch construction project, and the off-site release rates should be limited to pre-
development levels, per the King County Surfa~e Water Design Manual.
". . . . . ,
Although peak flows are to be regulated to pre-development levels, total volumes offlow'will increase
under the land use plan. In basins with liririted flow discharge, newdevelopm~nt may create negative
downstream impacts although the developers have met storm water controls and requirements. In
addition, the total volume of runoff will increase in all areas of new development, increasing erosion and
sedimentation, and decreasing surface water quality.' .
The unincorporated urban area has existing storm water conveyance systems that are planned and
administered by King County. The County land use plans for these areas are similar to the Renton plan.
Since the King County facilities are designed with the same standards as City facilities,they function the
. same as City facilities. . .
Future Capacity of Fac~lities .
Many of the existing facilities within the City limits will require modifications to increase capacity and
detention. All facilities should be sized to detain or ,convey storm flows from the twenty-five year
hydrologic event The goal for new development is to detain all flows on-site.
Basin plans will be prepared to·determine sizes fQrnew regional facilities arid drainage. Several basin
plans are being prepared now and others are planned for the future. lrl addition, the Surface Water
'Comprehensive Plan, now under preparation, will identify key dements that must be included in all basin
plans. The use o(the adopted Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (June, 1993) will
result in consistency among plans used throughout the Planning Area.
The anticipated increase in impervious surface in all areas will increase surface runoff and require new
facilities at development sites. In addition, new development, particuhrrly infill development, may
increase surface flows beyond existing facility capacity, requiring the enlargement of facilities
downstream of the development. City standards require that new development mitigate for impacts to
surface water by releasing runofffrom the site at a rate equal to the pre-developed runoff rate. Also, if
downstream problems exist, new development is required to performoffsite analysis to ensure that the
downstream problem is not made worse by the development. .'
Renton BAS Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements
4
Surface Water Quality Requirements in Aquifer Protection Area Zones 1 and 2
Development projects located in either Zone 1 or Zone 2 of the AP A are required to pass additional City
review to insure the projects do not produce any water quantity and/or quality impacts which may affect
the aquifer. Areas of particular concern include areas subject to vehicular traffic or the storage of
chemicals. Increased surface water conveyance systems will be required to comply with these goals.
The adopt~d Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan proposes areas for development of more
intensive larid uses by the year 2010. This includes substantial development and redevelopment of the
Downtown. Portions of this area are within Zone 1 of Renton's APA (regulated by Ordinance 4367,
adopted September 14, 1992). Zon~ 1 requirements include closed detention facilities including wet
vaults and coalescing plate oil/water separators on site,. and pipe conveyance systems to existing facilities.
AP A Zone 2 requirements affect much of the northern and eastern portions of Renton. These
requirements are not as stringent as Zone 1 requirements, but will also be likely to increase conveyed
surface flow to downstream facilities. The AP A regulations may increase the potential surface and storm ..
flows generated from both zones, most likely req~iring existing facilities to be enlarged to meet the
increased capacity need.
Policy U-74. Design storm drainage systems to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation problems,
and to preserve natural drainage systems including rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds and
wetlands.
Policy U-7S. Encourage the retention of natural vegetation along lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, where
appropriate, in order to help preserve water quality, protect fishery resources, and control erosion and
runoff.
Policy U-16. Filling of natural watercourses shouldb~ discouraged. IfnQ other option is avaiiable, such'
deveiopment should follow specific design standards to minimize degradation of water quality, aquatic
habitats and the effectiveness of the local natural ~inage system.
Poli~y U-77~ :Promote and support public education and involvement programs which address surface
water quality and other surface water management issues. . .
Policy U-78. Encourage the safe and appropriate use of detention and retention ponds, biofiltration
swales, clean roof run-off, and other groundwater recharge technologies to reduce the volume of surface
water run-off, to recharge aquifers and to support base flows in streams for aquatic resources.
Discussion: Natural hydrologic systems play an integral role in effective surface water management.
Engineering techniques can control much of the storm water through detenticm and retention systems.
However, the cumulative effects of storm water can only be managed by a combination of engineering
and pres-ervatio.n of natural systems. . . .'
POIi~y u~ 79 .. Work towards protecting surface water resources' fr~m pollutants entering via the storm
drainage system ..
Policy U-80. Work towards protecting ground water resources from pollutants entering via the. storm
drainage system.
Policy U-81. Require compliance with surface water controls in order to protect surface and ground
water quality.
Policy U-82. Coordinate with adjacent cities, King County, Pierce County, and State and federal
agencies to determine storm water drainage responsibilities with regard to federal pollutant discharge
elimination regulations.
Policy U-83. Existing natural drainage, watercourses, ravines and other similar land features should be
protected from the adverse effects of erosion from increased storm water runoff.
Renton BAS Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements
5 July 2004
· .'
Discussion: Surface water can dissolve and'transport toxins from the human environment as well as
carrying eroded materials. Renton's municipal :water supply as well cis downstream water bodies must be
protectedfrom these water borne contaminates through prudent management practices ...
Policy U-84. Stonn draillage prograins should be coordinated.with adjacent local and regional
jurisdictions. . .
DOWNTOWN E.LEMENT ..
,,'
Policy DT-14. Heights of structures within the shoreline management area along the south side of the
Cedar River should be 4esigned to maximize solar exposure to the trail and river from the months of April.
through October.. '. . .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Re~ton BAS' Policy Review
Miscellaneous Elements'
' ..... ,.
6 July 2004
Adopted 07/27/98/BAS Review .Iulv 21
GLOSSARY
IX.
GENERAL
GLOSSARY
accessory housing: dwellings constructed within an existing single family home, usually for use as a
rental unit. An "accessory unit" is a separate dwelling, including kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom
facilities. Also known as "in-law apartment."
accessory units: a unit that is incidental to the principal unit and on the same lot.
activity node: an area of higher density mixed land uses served by city-wide or regional transportation
systems.
adaptive reuse: the utilization of an older building which is no longer suited for: its original purpose, but
may be modified and reused for a different purpose such as housing. A common example is the
conversion of older public school buildings to rental or condominium apartments.
affordable housing: affordable·housing is generally defmed as housing where the occupant is paying no
more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities, and meets the needs of
moderate or low-income households.
aquifer: a geological unit of porous and permeable rock, sand, or gravel capable of yielding usable
amounts of water. .
annexation: the act of incorporating an area into the domain of a city, county, or state.
. .
arterial, minor: a right-of-way which serves as a dis~butor of traffic from a principal arterial to less
important streets, .directly to secondary traffic generators such as community shopping areas and high
schools, and serves trips between neighborhoods within a community.' Minor streets are more intensive
than collectors, but less intensive than principal arterials.
arterial, principal: a right-of-way which connects regional arterial to major activity areas and directly
to traffic destinations. Principal arterials are the most intensive arterial classification, serve major traffic
generators such as the Central Business District, major shopping and commercial districts, and move
traffic from community to community.
bicycle facility: an improvement designed to facilitate accessibility by bicycle: including bicycle trails,
bicycle lanes, storage facilities, etc. .
block: the area formed by two facing block fronts bound on two sides by alley or rear property lines and
on the other two sides by the center line of platted streets, with no other intersecting streets intervening.
boulevards: typically a broad thoroughfare that is often separated by a landscaped median or center
divider which has potential to function as linear open space. Boulevard designation would imply a
higher priority for landscape, sidewalk or trail improvements.
capacity: the ability to contain, absorb, or receive and hold employment or residential development.
IX-I
Adopted 07/27/98/BAS ReVillUIV 2004
GLOSSARY
capital facilities: as a general definition, structures, improvements, pieces of equipment or other major
assets, including land. Capital facilities are provided by and for public purposes and services.
cluster development: a development design technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on a
site to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, common open space, and preservation of
environmentally critical areas.··
co-location: the concept of placing public facilities at or near the same location to provide increased
public access. One example is the co-location of some public schools with community center.
. ,
commercial use: an occupation, employment, or other enterprise that is carried out for profit by the
owner, lessee, or licensee ..
commute trip: a trip made from an employee's residence to a worksite for a regularly scheduled work
. day. . . .
comprehensive plan: a statutory document which sets forth a government's major policies concerning
the desirable future (of the area's people) and physical development of its area; it states the desirable ends·
and vision of the City. Under the Growth Management Act, the Plan must include the following
elements: Land Use, Transportation,. Housing, Capital Facilities, and Utilities. A plan almost always
includes the three physical elements of land use, circulation,· urban design, housing, and an open space
section. The entire planning jurisdiction is covered and the different systems represented of the various
sections are all coordinated with each other. District and neighborhood plans normally follow the land
use, amplifying its features on a district-by-district or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
commercial: a type· of land use including commercial office activities and the retail sale of goods and .
servIces.
community: . a subarea of the city consisting of residential institutional and commercial land uses and
sharing a common identity (for example, the Highlands) ..
community separators: corridors of natural areas or very low density rural development between
higher density urban areas. Examples include lands useful· for open space, wildlife habitat, recreation·
trails and connection of critical areas, agricultural uses, or lands which have a rural character. .
concurrency: a Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that the transportation facilities needed to
maintain adopted level of service standards for arterials and transit routes are available within six years
of development. Other services, such as water and sewer, must also be available to serve development at
the time of occupancy or within a specified time period.
congestion: a condition under which the number of vehicles using a facility is great enough to cause
. reduced speeds and'increased travel times.
convenience commercial: small commercial areas providing limited retail goods and services such. as
groceries and dry cleaning fornearby customers.
countywide planning policies: . as required by GMA, the King County ·Council adopted a series of
policies which embody a vision of the future of King County. These policies (along with the Framework
Policies) are intended to guide the development of Renton's Comprehensive Plan.
ix-2
Adopted 07/27/98/BAS Review Jut" 2,
GLOSSARY
critical areas: wetlands, aquifer· recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and
geologically hazardous areas as designated by the Growth Management Act.
culverts: a drain, ditch or conduit, not incorporated in a closed system, that carries drainage water under
a driveway, roadway, railroad, pedestrian walk, or public way.
dedicated lands: land which is legally established for a specialized use, e.g. access, open space, or
parks.
densitv bonuses: incentives provided to a developer in order to encourage the construction of affordable
housing units. The developer is allowed to build a certain amount (usually a percentage) more than
normal in exchange for the provision of a certain number of affordable units. This technique is most
attractive when the zoning allows less floor space than demand warrants.
detached single family house: a residential building containing not more than"one dwelling unit
entirely surrounded by open space on the same lot.
. .
development activity: the application of human, financial, and physical resources to satisfy human
needs and improve the quality of life; inevitably development involves modification of the biosphere
some aspects of which may tend to detract from the quality of life . locally, regionally, nationally, or
globally.· .
development standards: in respect to any development, fixed requirements or standards imposed by
regulation or ordinance under environmental planning legi~lation.
duplex: a residential building containing two dwelling units located on a single lot.
dwelling unit:· one or more rooms located within a structure, designed, arranged, occupied or intended
to· be occupied by not more than one family and permitted roomers and boarders,· as living
accommodations, independent from any other family. The existence of a food preparation area within
the room or rooms shall be evidence of the existence of a dwelling unit.
effluent: the liquid that flows out of a facility or household into a water body or sewer system. For
example, the treated liquid discharged by a wastewater treatment plant is the plant's effluent.
environmental impact statement (EIS): a document intended to provide impartial discussion of
significant environmental impacts which may result from a proposed development project or problematic
action. If the reSponsible official determines,that a project or action may have a significant adverse effect
upon the quality of the environment, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) requires that an EIS be
prepared. The purpose of the EIS document is to provide the government decision-makers with
information to ,be considered prior to determining a project's acceptability. The draft EIS, which is
circulated for review and comment, describes the action, analyzes the impacts of the action, and proposed
alternatives an9 mitigating measures. Comments on and revisions to the Draft EIS are included in the
Final EIS, the findings of which are appealable.
ERU equivalent residential unit: a term defining the amount of water a particular customer uses. The
measurement is based on the same amount of water consumed by an average single family residence on a
maximum day on an annual basis.
IX-3
Adopted 07l27I7u!~~~
GLOSSARY
extractive uses: industrial activities involving the mining of natural resources, e.g.: sand, gravel, coal,
oil and gas.
family: generally, a group of individuals living under one roof. Additional definitions of family include
the follows:
extended family: a family· composed of related persons including those who are not nuclear
family members or are adult children living with parents.
non-traditional family: any family not composed of a full complement of traditional family
members.
traditional family: a family unit composed of mother, father and non-adult child/children (also
known as nuclear family).
Fiscal Impact Assessment: a study to deterririne the financial effects of a proposed development or
policy on the cost· of· services provided by the City such as utilities, traffic, road maintenance,
transportation improvements, community facilities such as parks, emergency services, land development
and environmental protection services.
floor area ratio (FAR): a nitio which expresses the relationship between the amount of gross .floor. area
permitted in a structure and the area of the lot on which the structure is located.
functional plans: city departments prepare planning documents which establish long-range goals and
·objectives ·to guide their operations and capital development requests. These plans, referred to as
functional plans, typically represent the-ideal goals for the department in providing urban services and
facilities. .
gateway: a point of entry which identifies a transition. between different land uses, landscapes and
jurisdictional boundaries and enhances a felling of anticipation and arrival for the approaching traveler.
The 'plan discussed two types of gateways:' primary-major points of entry to the City experiences by
people in automobiles, buses, and potentially trains. Secondary-entry ways that function for the ask as a
whole or neighborhoods including downtown. Secondary gateways can be perceived by non-motorized
modes of travel and are designed to reduce speeds.
geologically hazardous: areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions --
erosion, flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic activity.
greenbelt: an-area designated in the L~d Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan intended for open
space, recreation, very low density residential. uses, agriculture, geographic relief between land uses, or .
other low intensity uses.
IX-4
Adopted 07/2
GLOSSARY
gross density: a measure of population, housing units, or building area related to land area, and
expressed as a ratio, i.e. one dwelling unit per acre, or 1,000 people per square mile.
Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990: a law passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990
and amended in 1991 that mandates comprehensive planning in designated counties and cities statewide.
(RCW 36.70A)
hazardous waste: wastes or combinations of wastes which pose a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or living organisms.
heavy industrial: a type of land use including manufacturing processes using raw materials, extractive
land uses, and any industrial uses which typically are incompatible with adjacent uses due to noise, odor,
toxic chemicals, or other activities which could pose a hazard to public health and safety.
heritage trees: distinctive individual trees determined to be of historic, cultural or visual significance
within a community.
high-occupancy vehicle (HOY>: generally, a vehicle carrying more than one person, including' a
carpool, vanpool or bus.
housing unit: any dwelling unit, housekeeping unit, guest room, dormitory, or single occupancy unit.
industrial: a type of l~d use characterized by production, manufacturing, distribution or fabrication
activities.
industrial area: . a contiguous group of independent industrial sites with little or no common use of
faciJities, or a combination of industrial sites and industrial c~ters. An industrial area is typically larger
than an individual site or an individual industrial center. . .
industrial center: a group of contiguous industrial sites which have been designed and/or developed in
a unified fashion with attention to common use of circuiation, utilities, parking, recreation, and
commercial facilities.
industrial site: a single parcel of land used or designated for industrial activities.
infrastructure: the underlying foundation, or basic framework of a city. This term is often used to refer
to utilities, roads, bridges, parks, and other public facilities.
intensive office: mid to high-rise office development including structured parking typically located in
areas with regional transportation access.
intermittent stream courses: streams which do not flow all year, and respond to seasonal fluctuation in
the rainfall cycle.
impact fees: a fee imposed on developers to pay for the community's costs of providing services to a
new development. Such charges are an extension of efforts to make new development pay for their
impact on the community. Impact fees may also involve some effort to make new development pay for
their impact on the community. Impact fees may also involve some effort to predict the total cost of the
IX-5
community for servicing the new development and relate it to the revenues that will be produced by the
development once it is completed.
impervious surfacbig: a surface that cannot be easily penetrated. For instance, rain does not readily
penetrate asphalt or concrete pavement.
in fill development: -development consisting of either (1) construction on one or more lots in an area
which i~ -mostly developed, or (2) new construction between two existing structures.
infill housing: construction of new dwelling units on vacant or underutilized parcels in built-up areas.
Because utilities, transit, and other infrastructure are already in place, the costs and impacts of new units
are generally lower;
infrastructure: the system of essential services, utilities, public and community facilities, e.g. water,
sewerage, power, roads, schools, health 'facilities etc., which are necessary to enable urban development
to function. --
institution: a structure (or structures) and related grounds used by organizations providing educational,
medical, social and recreational services to the community such as hospitals; vocational or fme arts
schools; child care centers, whether operated for nonprofit or profit-making purposes; and nonprofit
organizations such as colleges arid universities, elementary and secondary schools, community centers
and clubs, private clubs, religious facilities, museums, and institutes for advanced study.
jobs/housingbalance: a term representing the relationship between jobs and housing within a specified
area. It can influence housing costs, pedestrian-oriented environment, and transportation demand.
land use: a term us.ed to indicate the utilization of any piece of land. The way in which land is being
used is the land use.
land use code: regulating body of language that implements the city's policy goals. The regulations
define locations and buiiding characteristics of development in the City.
land use zoning: traditionally, -a technical or physical approach to the segregation of incompatible land
uses,. such as housing ·and, industrial, through systems of land use and development controls. More
recently, thetechniq~es have emphasized reinforcing position relationships between compatible land
uses such as residential and neighborhood commercial. The contemporary approach also emphasizes the -,
close relationship between transportation and land use to more effectively respond to accessibility,
reduction of infrastructure costs, urban design, air, noise, and water pollution, energy conservation, and
. conservation of resource lands.
large scale multi-family: a residential building, -or group of buildings which contain more than four
dwelling units in each building. --
.' .'. ", .
level-of-service (LOS): a qualitative rating of how well some unit of transportation supply (e.g., street,
intersection; sidewalk, bikeway, transit route, ferry) serves its current or projected demand.
light industrial: a type of land use including small scale or less intensive production, manufacturing,
distribution or fabricating activities. -Some office activities and supporting convenience retail activities
may also be included.'
IX-6
Adopted 07127/98/BAS Review Julv 2004
GLOSSARY e
linear parks: parks which are long and narrow, and follow a natural or man-made corridor such as a
road or stream course.
manufactured housing: a broad term including mobile homes, modular homes, and other "factory
built" housing. The main distinction is that manufactured housing is created in one or more parts away
from the site, and then transported to it. "Gold Seal" modular homes are constructed to the specifications
of the Uniform Building Code, and are placed on a permanent foundation, similar to a "stick-built" home.
A "Red Seal" mobile home is built to the less rigorous standards of the 1974 HUD code.
manufacturing: types of land uses in which materials or substances are transformed into new products
including construction and assembling of component parts, and the blending of materials such as
lubricating oils, plastics, resins or liquors.
Metro: the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) is a county-wide public transit system which
provides regularly scheduled transit service (both express and local service), park and ride lots, park and
pool lots, vanpools, ride-sharing, and customized service to meet people with special needs. Metro is
also a regional sewage treatment agency charged with the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage
from the City of Renton and much of King County.
minimum density: rather than the heretofore common approach of restricting density, this zoning
method provides incentives for higher residential concentrations, which in turn support transit and
pedestrian-orier:tted !'1hopping areas.
mixed use: the presence ,of more than one category of ~se in a structure, for example, a f!llxture of
residential units and offices in the same building. .
mode: types of transportation available for use, such as a bicycle, an automobile, or a bus.
mode-split: the proportion of total persons using a particular mode of travel. In this document, mode-
split generally refers to the percentage of people using public transportation as opposed to other
motorized modes.
multi-family use: a structure or portion of a structure containing two or more dwelling units.
multi-modal: referring to accessibility by a variety of travel modes, typically pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
and automobile modes, but may also include water and air transport modes.
master plan: a specific land use plan focused on a particular site which identifies site access and general
improvements and is intended to guide growth and development on the site over a number of years.
lX-7
I
net densitv: a calculation of the humber of housing units that would be allowed on a property after
sensitive areas and public streets are subtracted from the gross area (Gross acres minus streets and
sensitive areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). This calculation applies to residential
uses only.
neighborhood: a small, predominantly residential area of the city in which the residents share a
common identity focuses around an elementary school, park, community business center or similar
feature.
neo-traditional neighborhood development: a form of town development based on a modified grid
system with small blocks around a central square or plaza. Development includes residential and small
scale commercial uses.
nodal development: refers to development concentrated around a focal point such as a transit station, .
coinmercial center, neighborhood center, o~ public place. Typically higher in density and oriented to
pedestrian and transit access.
non-structural methods in planning for flood control: achieving flood control by methods not
involving building structures e.g. restricting land uses in flood prone areas; diminishing run-off which
leads to flooding by requiring hillside vegetation retention.
on-street·parking: parking spaces in the rights-of-way.
open. space: any area of land, or water which provides physical or visual relief from the develoPed
environment. Open space may be essentially unimproved and set aside, designated or reserved for public
use or enjoyment, or for the private use and enjoyment of adjacent property owners. Open space .may
also consist of undeveloped or developed areas including urban plazas, parks, pedestrian corridors,
landscaping, pastures, woodlands, greenbelts, wetlands, and other natural areas or street rights-of-way
which provide visuai relief within developed areas. The term does not include driveway, parking lots, or
" other surfaces designed for vehicular travel. "
park and ride lot: a parking lot where transit riders can leave their cars and ride a bus' or train· to
another location. . .
peak hour: one-hoUr interval within the peak period when travel demand is usually highest, e.g., 7:30-
8:30 a.m. and4:30-5:30 p.m.
pedestrian-orientation: an area where the location and access to buildings, types of uses permitted on
the street level, and storefront design are based on the needs of the cilstomers on foot. .
pedestrian facility: an improvement designed to facilitate accessibility by foot or wheelchair, including
" sidewalks,. curb ramps, crosswalks, overpasses and undercrossmgs, etc. "
performance-based zoning and building codes: as opposed to traditional prescriptive techniques, this
system measures individual projects against clearly stated criteria, such as traffic impacts, neighborhood
compatibility, infrastructure capacity, etc. Its main advantage is its flexibility, and that developers are
given a wider range of methods by which" to meet housing demand.
planned unit" developments (PUDs): a: planning technique which provides increased flexibility for the
developer in exchange for a higher quality of development. Usually used for larger, multi-unit parcels;
PUDs are characterized by a focus on overall project design rather than lot-by-lot zoning, setbacks, and
placement. Mixed-use,innovative housing types, open space and recreational facilities are often
included. The process typically involves two-way communication between the developer and the
community concerning design compatibility.
IX-8
Adopted 07/27/98/8:\S Review Julv 2004
GLOSSARY e
platting: essentially a map of a piece of land which shows the location, boundaries, area, detail of lot
boundaries, proposed streets, utilities, public areas, and all other necessary data to demonstrate
compliance with subdivision regulations; state statutes provide for the recording of plats, and the selling
of lots or parcels of land by referring to the recorded plat. It is usually unlawful to sell land by referring
to an unrecorded plat.
point source pollution: a contaminant that adversely alters the physical, chemical,. or biological
properties of the environment. Pollutants can include solid waste, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, and
municipal waste discharged into water. .
Potential Annexation Area (PAA): An area within which people have an opportunity to annex to the
City of Renton. A P AA can not include any land outside of the Urban Growth Area .and may be smaller
than the Urban Growth Area.
prime agricultural land: lands with extremely fertile soil classifications as established by the U.s.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. .
public facilities: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals,
domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreational facilities, schools ·and
public buildings.
recycling: recycling involves separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it
so that it may be used again as a raw material for products which mayor may not be similar to the
original.
re!!ional commercial: a mix ofland uses offering a broad arrayofretail goods and seT\rices, Offices, and
cultural activities which serve an entire city or beyond.
{;-..
religious centers: a broadly defined sub category of public facilities including churches, synagogues,
temples, mosques, shrines, holy sites, and related uses and facilities.
residential use: . any land use that provides for living space. Examples include artist studio/dwelling,
boarding house, caretaker's quarters, single family, multi-family, special residence, floating homes, and
mobile home park.
rezoning: . rezoning is a change in the designation or boundaries of the zoning ordinance. Rezoning is a
legislative act and can be legal only if enacted by the governing body. Rezoning can take two forms: (1)
a comprehensive revision or modification of the zoning text and map: and (2) a change in the map, such
as the zoning designation of a particular parcel or parcels. .
rights-of-way: the rights-of-way is the right to pass· over the property of another. It refers to a strip of
land legally established for the use of pedestrians, vehicles or utilities.
runoff: that portion of precipitation which flows over land surface and enters the sewerage system
during and immediate following a storm.
rural area: a sparsely developed area, with a population density of less than 100 persons per acre,
where the land is undeveloped or primarily used for agricultural, forestry, resource extraction, very low
density residential uses, or open space purposes.
sanitary sewers: those sewers which carry waterborne wastes from household, industrial and
commercial users from the point of origin to the treatment plants for treatment and disposal.
IX-9
I
I
Adopted 07/27/98/8.4S Revil'u,,, 2004
GLOSSARY. .
. . .
semi-agricultural uses: a: type of land use that integrates small scale farming and other limited 'rural
activities with suburban residential uses.' .
SEPA: See State EnVironmental Policy Act.
single family unit: [REPEALED]
single-occupant vehicle (SOY>: a vehicle carrying only one person.
small scale multi-family:. a residential building, or group of buildings which contain two to four
dwelling units in each building.
IX-IO
sole source aquifer: an aquifer which provides the significant source of water for,the City.
solid waste: a general term for discarded materials destined for disposal, but not discharged to a sewer
or to the atmosphere.
special benefit districts: subareas of a community designated by city ordinance to assess payments for
construction or installation of public facilities which primarily benefit the property owners within the
district.
special needs housing: this category refers to housing that is provided for low income or indigent
persons and where applicable their dependents who, by virtue of disability or other personal factors, face
serious impediments to independent living and who require special assistance and services in order to
sustain appropriate housing on a permanent, long-term or transitional basis.
sphere of influence: a designated area beyond the existing City bouri~es in which the City of Renton
has an inherent interest in future land use decisions or actions.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl: the state law passed in 1971 requiring State and local
agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decision-making process. A determination of
environmental significance must be made for all non-exempt projects or actions which require a permit,
license or decision from a government agency. If the action does not have significant adverse
environmental impacts, a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) is issued. If the action or project
could have substantial impacts, a Determination of Significance is. issued and an Environmental ~pact
Statement (EIS) is required. '..
strip commercial: an area occupied by businesses that are engaged in commercial activity and are
composed, or arranged in a line, usually along an arterial street.
structural element: a part of a building which can' function as a separator, either visual or physical
signaled by a transition in land use, and defines the edge of an urbanized area.
structured parking: parking areas within a building or structure. with one or more stories.
substandard lots: substandard lots are lots which do not contain the minimum lot area required for the
zone in which it is located.
surface parking: open lots or grounds with at-grade parki~g f~cilities.
system of trails and undeveloped areas: a group of trails and undeveloped lands which, when
connected together create a sum larger than its parts and for a system of open spaces or trails, or a part of
such a system.
townhouse: a form of ground-related housing where individual dwelling units are attached along at least
one cOmInon wall to at least one other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground
to the roof.
IX·))
Adopted 07/27/98/BAS ReVi_U!V 2004
GLOSSARY
transfer of development rights (TDRs): a program in which the unused portion of a "sending"
property's zoned capacity--one of the separable rights of property--is sold to the developer of a
"receiving" site, who is allowed to add the capacity to the zoned limit of that site. TDRs can be used to
prevent the demolition of affordable housing units, especially in downtowns, or to protect historically
significant property or open space.
transit: public transportation; referring in this document to public bus, trolley, light rail, heavy rail, and
commuter rail transport, but not ferries or vanpools.
transportation demand management (TDM): refers to developing policies plus public and private
programs to manage the demand placed on transportation supply. TDM measures are frequently directed
toward increasing the use of transit and carpools. '
transportation systems management (TSM): accommodating transportation demand by using the
existing supply more efficiently and by emphasizing lower cost improvements that can be implemented
quickly. For example, converting a general purpose traffic lane into a transitway might increase the
person-cariying capacity of a highway more easily and quickly than widening the 'highway for additional
traffic lanes.
undeveloped rights-of-way: any undeveloped portion of a strip of land legally established for the use of
pedestrians, vehicles, or utilities.
upzoning: a change in the zoning classification of land to classification allowing more intensive
development, ,such as a change from single family to multi-family. ' ,
urban centers: defmed as part of the coUntywide Planning Council Policies and by City Council
Resolution, Urban Centers are areas' with existing high employment concentration and excellent '
accessibility. These' areas promote non:-SOY mobility, reduce sprawl, and maximize benefits of existiilg • . . .' . ' public investment. .
urban growth areas: areas designated by a c~unty for d~velopment over the next twenty years as
required by the Growth Management Act. Urban growth patterns should not occur outside these areas.
Vision 2020: ' Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC's) 1990 adopted regional comprehensive vision
which describes linking Iiigh-density residential and employment centers' throughout the region by high
capacity transit, and promoting a multi-modal transportation system.
IX-12
Adopted 07/27/98/BAS Review Julv 2004
GLOSSARY . e
watershed: the geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of
water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains.
wetlands: areas characterized by the presence of surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration to
support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
wildlife habitat: an area characterized by wildlife that forage, nest, spawn, or migrate through in search
of food, or shelter.
zero lot line development: a siting technique which allows single family houses to be built along one
lot line~ This helps to preserve private and usable yard space, especially in small-lot areas. Variations
include angled "Z-Iots," "alternate-width lots," and "zipper-lots".
zipper lot: the location of a building on a lot in such a manner that one or more of the building'S sides
. rest directly on a lot line.
IX-13
I
Adopted 07/271981BAS ReVi_UIV 2004
GLOSSARY
zoned development capacity: the number of units within an area that can be btiiltunder the existing·
zomng.
zoning map: the official map which classifies all land within the city with one of the zoning categories.
IX-14
Adopted 07/27198/8;\S Review Julv 2004
GLOSSARY ~
UTILITIES
GLOSSARY
IX-IS
I ..
. ,
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
.JUL 0 8 2OO't
RECEIVED
m
Jones & Stokes
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: March 8, 2004
To: Gil Cerise, Senior Planner, City of Renton
Andy Kindig, AC Kindig & Company; Carl Hadley, Cedarock
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner; Melissa Chaun, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments
INTRODUCTION
Shorelines of the State are required to be classified into "use environments" based upon current
development patterns, biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards, and
regulations can be customized by use environment, shoreline, and use depending on needs, and
functions similar to a zoning overlay district. Generally, regulated shorelines include the water
bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high water mark
for two hundred (200) feet in all directions (whichever is greater). This jurisdictional area
increases to include all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with the regulated
Shorelines of the State. The total ofthis area is subject to shoreline use classification and
regulation.
Our work program includes amendments to the Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Shoreline Use Environments to address some inconsistencies and omissions:
• Black River: The City's adopted Shoreline Use Environment Map classifies both banks
of the River as Natural, but the SMP text states the Environment only applies to the north
bank. By default according to the text the south bank is Urban. Based on interpretations
from the City Attorney, City Staff has been assuming that the map controls to resolve the
conflict in the interim.
• Cedar River: The City's annexations of the Maplewood Golf Course property/area in
1985 and 1988 were not reflected in the City's adopted SMP. When an annexation
occurs, the SMP provisions ofthe adopted plan for that area (i.e. ofthe prior governing
agency -King County) would apply until amendments are made and approved by the
City/State SMP ofthe City that annexed the area. (WAC 173-26-160)
• Aquatic portion ofthe lakes/streams: It is unclear in the text ofthe SMP regarding what
Use Environment applies to the aquatic portion of the regulated waterbody. To assist
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425 822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
with City decision-making, it should be clarified if shoreline environment classifications
extend to the aquatic portion ofthe lakes/streams.
Recommendations for these topics can be found following the inventory and analysis sections of
this memo.
DOE DocumentationlSMP Amendment
As part of the State regulated SMP amendment process, it will be necessary to provide
documentation to the State Department of Ecology (DOE) to support recommendations for Use
Environment classification amendments, including an inventory, analysis, and recommendations.
This memo provides for these three steps. A summary of the documentation requirements is
provided below based on the "Department of Ecology -Overview of SMP Update and approval
process," undated (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMNst guide/SMP/index.html, March
8,2004):
• Inventory: State DOE shoreline guidelines require that at a minimum, and to the extent such
information is relevant and reasonably available, local governments collectthe following
information:
Shoreline and adjacent land use patterns and transportation and utility facilities, including
the extent of existing structures, impervious surfaces, vegetation and shoreline
modifications in shoreline jurisdiction.
Critical areas, including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation
areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and shorelines of statewide
significance.
Degraded areas and sites with potential for ecological restoration.
Areas of special interest, such as priority habitats, rapidly developing waterfronts,
previously identified toxic or hazardous material clean-up sites, or eroding shorelines.
Existing and potential shoreline public access sites, including public rights-of-way and
utility corridors. The inventory will include descriptions of recorded public access
easements, their prescribed use, maintenance and terms.
General location of channel migration zones and floodplains.
Hi~t9rical a~rial photographs documenting past conditions to assist in preparing an
analy~is of cumulative impacts of development.
Arcliaeological or historic resources in shoreline jurisdiction
-Conditions .and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines, such as
surface water management and land use regulations.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8,2004 Page 2
.. . .
• Analysis: A shoreline analysis report should evaluate the inventory information and data
collected with a focus on identifying opportunities for:
Protecting and restoring ecological functions through land use regulation and
nonregulatory means,
Improving public access to shorelines; and
Promoting appropriate water-oriented uses.
The analysis will serve as the basis for updating environment designations and will help
determine SMP policy and regulatory requirements.
• Determine Shoreline Environment Designations: Based on the analysis, determine
environment designations for shoreline segments and develop policies and regulations that
will apply to all uses allowed with the environment. Include maps showing both .existing and
proposed designations, together with corresponding boundaries described in text for each
change of environment.
Additionally, Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act laws and rules require
agency contact and public participation. The proposed amendments in SMP shoreline policies
(under separate cover), the SMP map amendments described in this memo, and SMP regulatory
amendments will be the subject of agency and public input described more fully in the memo:
"Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA
Integration," March 8, 2003, under separate cover.
INVENTORY: BLACK RIVER AND CEDAR RIVER
The SMP Map amendment analysis in this memo is still
current as of July 2004. The referenced memo addressing
public and agency input has been updated to July 13, 2004.
City plans, inventories, and studies, as well as the State Priority Habitat and Species Program
documentation, and King County GIS maps were reviewed. Additionally, Melissa Chaun, a
Jones & Stokes wetlands ecologist, made a brief reconnaissance of the Black River and Cedar
River on March 24, 2003 to review local conditions on the Black River and Cedar River.
Appendix A summarizes in matrix form the built and natural environment characteristics of the
Black River, and the Cedar River along the Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park.
Black River
The large majority of the Black River shorelands on the north are undeveloped, contain a large,
forested wetland supporting a variety of wildlife including a State species ()f concern (great blue
heron), include a public flood control pump station, and are municipally owned .. A small
segment of the northern shoreline jurisdiction west of Monster Road SW applies to an industrial
site, containing a maintenance building (according to County records, owner is Anmarco, use is
Puget Sound Tractor Parts). The Black River shorelands on the south bank, north of Monster
Road are undeveloped, contain a public trail, and are municipally owned. South of Monster
Road, the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction area applies to some industrial sites including privately
owned warehouses/industrial buildings, and Union Pacific Railroad property. The attached full
page aerial may be consulted along with the text description above.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 3
Black River: Panoramic of Great Blue Heron Rookery; March 24, 2003
Cedar River.-Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park
The Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park properties were annexed by the City in 1985
and 1988. The City's annexations of the Maplewood Golf Course property/area in 1985 and
1988 were not reflected in the City's adopted SMP. The properties lie largely along the south
bank of the Cedar River, but a portion (near golf course hole 12) occurs along the north bank.
US Army Corps fish enhancement projects were completed in 1999, including constructing a
groundwater fed spawning channel for sockeye salmon in,the floodplain on the south bank of the
Cedar River at River Mile (RM) 4.6, and reconstructing a rock vestment protecting the
Maplewood Golf Course on the north bank at RM 4.2 to provide habitat benefits for rearing
salmon juveniles. As a r~sult of the Corps over-dredging along the lower 1.25 miles of the
Cedar, additional mitigation was planned for the existing Elliot levee (USACE April 2000). A
landslide caused by the February 28,2001 earthquake resulted in the migration of the Cedar
River to the former US Arniy Corps of Engineer's 205 Groundwater Channel. City inventories
show a more extensive wetland area than National Wetland Inventory maps or King County
inventories (see attached full page aerial). The floodway and floodplain comprise a significant
area of the existing Golf Course and Ron Regis Park property. The northern bank area that lies
outside the City limits contains mapped erosion and landslide hazards.
PailQramic of Cedar River from end of restoration area, looking towards southern bank, March
24,2003
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 4
PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS
Use Environments
The adopted Renton SMP contains three possible Use Environments: Natural, Conservancy, and
Urban. Shoreline use environments are applied based on the shoreline characteristics and the
extent to which mapping criteria and objectives are met. Table A includes the environment
descriptions and criteria from the current adopted Renton SMP. Depending on which
Environments are applied, the allowable uses in an area can vary (see Appendix B).
Table A. Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environments, 1998
Natural Environment Conservancy Environment Urban Environment
Objective: The objective in Objective: The objective in Objective: The objective of the
designating a Natural environment is designating a Conservancy Urban environment is to ensure
to protect and preserVe unique and environment is to protect, conserve, optimum utilization of shorelines
fragile shoreline or wetland and manage existing areas with within urbanized areas by providing
environments in their natural state. irreplaceable natural or aesthetic for public use, especially access to
The Natural environment is intended features in essentially their native and along the water's edge and by
to provide areas of wildlife state, while providing for limited use managing development so that it
sanctuary and habitat preservation. of the area. The Conservancy enhances and maintains shorelines
environment is intended to provide a for a multiplicity of viable and
Areas to be Desi~ted as a Natural pleasant break in the surrounding necessary urban uses.
Environment: urban community. This
environment shall seek to satisfy a Jurisdiction: All shorelines of the
1. Areas that are unique or fragile. portion of the present and future State regulated by the City which are
[1] needs of Renton. not designated as Conservancy or
2. Floodways areas. Natural are designated as Urban.
Areas to be Desi~ted as a
Jurisdiction: That portion of the Conservancy Environment:
north bank of the Black River lying
west of its confluence with 1. Areas of high scenic value.
Springbrook Creek, shall be 2. Valuable areas for wildlife
designated Natural. habitat.
3. Hazardous slope areas.
4. Flood-prone areas.
5. Areas which cannot provide
adequate utilities for intense
development.
6. Areas with unique or fragile
features. [1]
Jurisdiction: That portion of May
Creek east ofFAI-405 right-of-way
and that portion of the south bank of
the Cedar River, 2,500 feet east of
F AI-405 right-of-way, and that
portion of Springbrook Creek
beginning from approximately SW
27th Street on the north to SW 31st
Street on the south, abutting City-
owned wetlands in this area, and for
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 5
Natural Environment Conservancy Environment Urban Environment
that portion of the west side of the
Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently
acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank
shall be designated conservancy.
Source: Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), 1998
Note: [1] In the context of the Renton SMP, the phrase "unique and fragile" refers to: "those portions of the
shoreline which (1) contain or substantially contribute to the maintenance of endangered or valuable forms of life
and (2) have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes,
marshes)."
Black River
In terms of the Use Environment criteria, the north bank of the Black River east of Monster Road
continues to meet the Natural Environment classification, with the floodplain extent and unique
and fragile conditions -forested wetland habitat for mUltiple species including great blue heron.
The primary goals in the area would continue to be habitat protection and flood control (pump
station and associated flood control activities). For purposes of maintaining or enhancing habitat
over time, the use allowances of the Natural Environment could be broadened to address fish or
wildlife enhancement activities beyond what is mentioned in the SMP permit exemption list.
Also, it may be appropriate to allow for limited public access in the Natural environment when
compatible with unique and fragile conditions and consistent with City parks and trails plans.
Finally, consistent with the intent of the Natural Environment, it would be appropriate to ensure
that the regulations sufficiently allow for the existing pump station and other flood control
activities to continue as they have been over time.
The south bank ofthe Black River that lies north/east of Monster Road is largely within the 100-
year floodplain, has scenic value, and provides for public access and open space in an otherwise
urban corporate park and industrial area. This would meet the Conservancy Environment
criteria.
West of Monster Road, the character of the north and south banks is urban where there is
existing industrial development, and options would be to either consistently apply Natural on the
north and Conservancy on the south as with the remainder of the watercourse, or apply Urban
where there is existing industrial development and zoning.
• On the north bank, west of Monster Road, considerations would be that there is existing
industrial activities and zoning allowing for various operations. On the other hand, the
current Natural shoreline environment would mean that the use is essentially
nonconforming, and if keeping this approach, the SMP Natural environment would
continue and the net effect is no different for this property.
• On the south bank, south and west of Monster Road, there are some existing industrial
developments with industrial zoning, although most ofthe larger structures are outside of
the shoreline jurisdiction. For a smaller triangular property owned by Union Pacific, the
jurisdiction does extend quite a bit over the property. If allowing the property to be used
industrially as zoned, the classification on the south bank could change to Urban west of
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 6
Monster Road. Another option is to amend the Conservancy environment to allow for
current railroad operations, or current industrial support uses (e.g. parking and access
area for current development which lies in the jurisdiction).
Considering existing zoning and existing uses, a Shoreline Use Environment of Urban is
recommended to be applied to the Black River west of Monster Road.
Cedar River
Similar to the King County approach, the criteria for the Conservancy Environment are largely
met due to the extensive floodplain area, channel migration area, unique and fragile
environments beyond the more manicured recreation areas, and scenic qualities. One practical
issue is that the King County Conservancy Environment allows for active recreation uses
whereas the Renton SMP Conservancy provisions limit recreation to passive activities (see
Appendix B). Some of the existing golf course areas lie within the outer limits of the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdictional area. This can be addressed through amendments to the Renton SMP
regulations.
Summary of Black River and Cedar River Classification Recommendations
Table B summarizes the recommended use environments for the Black River and Cedar River
along Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park described above.
Table B. Summary of Use Environment Classification Recommendations
Location Current Class Proposed Class
Black River -North Natural (map and text) Natural, east of Monster
Bank Road; • allow for
habitat enhancement;
flood control, and
potentially limited
public access.
West of Monster Road,
Urban
Black River -South Natural (map) Conservancy, east of
Bank Urban (text) Monster Road
West of Monster Road,
Urban
Cedar River along Golf Not classed in Renton Conservancy
Course and Ron Regis SMP. King County
Park -North Bank a~lies Conservancy.
Cedar River along Golf Not classed in Renton Conservancy· amend
Course and Ron Regis SMP. King County use allowances for
Park -South Bank applies Conservancy. active recreation
Source: Jones & Stokes
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 7
I
l
Aquatic Classifications
As part of a DOE case study review of Renton's SMP in 1997 (a review against a much earlier
draft of State SMP Guidelines than the ones adopted in December 2003), DOE recommended
that the Renton SMP be clarified as to whether the environment designations apply waterward
from the shoreline, which then impacts what uses and activities are permitted in the water.
One interpretation, which appears to have been in practice through permit reviews, is that the
Use Environments are applied to "shorelines" which by definition in the Renton SMP includes
the water body and its shorelands; therefore, the use environment extends into the water and
governs aquatic activities. With this interpretation, the first option is to clarify this intent in the
SMP text.
A second approach is to review the environment classifications criteria for guidance. The
Natural Environment criteria indicate that the Natural Environment can be applied to floodways.
This could restrict several activities, for example, potential planned road crossings, or other
activities.
A third option is to adapt the proposed "aquatic" environment classification in the DOE SMP
guidelines, which generally has reasonable management policies from which to begin. See
Appendix C. Thiswould likely require a more broad work program that would involve
notifications to the public and property owners along the affected water bodies, which the City
would have to do again when the SMP is updated more fully later with Final State SMP
Guidelines.
The first option is recommended -amend the SMP text to indicate that use environments are
applied to shorelines -extending to both the shorelands as well as the centerline of the
watercourse or City limits as appropriate (e.g. Lake Washington). The SMP regulations
currently limit most in-water activities and the ability to obtain environmental permits is fairly
restricted. When the SMP is fully updated in accordance with the recently adopted DOE SMP
guidelines, there may be a different classification scheme.
Other Consistency Issues
The Renton SMP includes a map with stylized representations of the Use Environments (see
Appendix B of this memo). It is recommended that even in a stylized manner, the map be
updated in order for roads and features to be identifiable. More importantly, there should be a
reference on the map or an update of the Springbrook Creek segments on the overview map to
account for the more varied use environments shown in Springbrook Creek Appendix Map.
Figure 5-1 does not capture all of the Conservancy Environment locations along Springbrook
Creek in comparison to the SMP Appendix A.
Current adopted SMP maps are attached. A map showing the proposed amendments
recommended is also attached.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 8
REFERENCES
City of Renton, Development Services Division. 1998. Shoreline Master Program. Adopted by
Ordinance No. 3758.
City of Renton, Surface Water Utility. 2000. SEPA Checklist -Elliot rearing/spawning channel
mitigation project. May 10.
King County Metro iMap resources. 2003. Available at:
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportalliMAPmain.htm. Accessed: March 21, 2003.
Rainier Audubon Society. Available at: http://www.rainieraudubon.orglrain-friends.htm.
Accessed: March 26, 2003.
R.W. Beck and Associates and Herrera Environmental Consultants in association with Jones &
Stokes Associates. 1993. Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Volume
3: Appendices B-L. Funded in part by Washington Department of Ecology Centennial
Clean Water Fund.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 2000. Environmental assessment:
Elliot rearing/spawning channel, mitigation for overdredging associated with the Cedar
River 205 Flood Control Project, King County, Washington. April.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Overview of Shoreline Master Program update and
approval process.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Cedar-Sammamish Basin -WRIA #8 summary
Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.pdf.
Accessed: March 26,2003.
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2003. Priority Habitat and Species List.
Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2003. Maps on File, USGS
7.5 minute Quadrangles: Renton, Mercer Island, South Seattle, Des Moines. Olympia,
Washington.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 9
Inven
Existing Land Use
Ownership
Publicly Owned Open
Space
Pump Station
West of Monster
Road, Black River
Quarry
City of Renton
APPENDIX A
Black River Riparian and
Wetland Trail
PUblicly Owned Open
Space
South and west of
Monster Road, warehouse,
office, indystrial, Union
Pacific Railroad.
City of Renton
Private Ownership (south
and west of Monster
Road)
Employment Area -Valley
City of Renton Zoning Map
(October 2002) Resource
Conservation (RC)
Industrial -Medium
(IM) (west of
Monster Road)
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments
Resource Conservation
(RC-P; RC)
Commercial Office (CO)
Industrial -Medium (IM)
of Monster Road
March 8, 2004
Open Space
Primarily
Unincorporated King
County on north
Open Space
Recreation: Golf Course, Ron
Regis Park
with private I City of Renton (in City limits)
ownerships.
City of Renton (in
limits
. City limits portion:
Resource
Conservation (RCP)
Page 10
Residential Rural
City limits portion: Resource
Conservation (RCP)
e
e
ATTRIBUTES
Shoreline Management
'1pc:innntion
Archaeological/Historical
Sites
Public Access
(existing/potential)
Northern Bank Southern Bank
Natural (RSMP Map)
Urban Natural (RSMP)
Black River in historic channel and floodplain. A
review of State Office of Archaeological and
Historic Preservation maps on file showed four
potential resources in the vicinity of the Black
River Shoreline:
• Archaeological -45KI 438, Native American
Village west of City limits.
• Archaeological-45KI 59, east of River,
potential hunter/gatherer location.
• Archaeological -45KI 267, south of River and
nearby roads, potential hunter/gatherer
location.
• Historic Feature, old railroad bed along slope
above north side of River.
Potential -physical Existing: Black River
access may be Riparian Forest and
unlikely due to Wetland Trail
unique/fragile EXisting/Potential: no boat
habitat area. access
Fish and Wildlife -Habitat I Urban Natural Open Space, Wetlands, Riparian
(PHS)
-Species I City Wetland #5 -20 acres; palustrine forested,
scrub-shrub wetland within the historic Black
River channel. of Renton Black River Basin
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004
Northern Bank
Conservancy (King
A review of State
Office of
Archaeological and
Historic
Preservation maps
on fi Ie showed no
recorded locations.
Potential -unlikely
(steep slopes)
Southern Bank
Conservancy (King County)
A review of State Office of
Archaeological and Historic
Preservation maps on file showed
no recorded locations. For Elliot
Rearing/Spawning channel a
record search and field
reconnaissance by US Army Corps
of the State Office of
Archaeology and Historic
Preservation indicated no
recorded or previously
unrecorded sites in that project
area.
Existing -Gravel road/trai I
(threatened by channel migration)
Renton Aquifer Zone I -Modified
Renton Aauifer Zone II
Wetlands, Riparian (more extensive than King County
records; see City map, and attached field reconnaissance
discussion.)
PHS: fall chinook. coho winter steel head
Page 11
e
e
Black River (-2500 ft) Cedar River (-1. 3 mil
ATTRIBUTES Northern Bank Southern Bank Northern Bank Southern Bank
Water Quality Management Plan, May 1993) resident cutthroat, Kokanee salmon, rainbow trout,
Mountain whitefish, sculpin. Salmonid species
PHS Records: distribution consistent in City of Renton Fish Habitat
Coho, resident cutthroat, sculpin Report.
Great blue heron rookery (1996> 37 nests; > 17
juveniles per PHS database; > 50 nests per March
e 24,2003 site reconnaissance).
Bufflehead, mallard, scaup, wigeon, green-winged
teal, gadwall, bald eagle feeding area
City of Renton Fish Habitat Report (Golder
Associates 2001): Chinook, steelhead, coho. '
Water Typing (Stream
Classification by King Class 1 Class 1
County)
Floodplains (estimates) (estimates) (estimates) (estimates)
100-year RM 0.00 to 0.641 RMO.00-0.147; 0.309-RM 4.30 to 4.40 RM 4.50 to 5.22
500-year RM 0.00 to 0.641 0.641 (same) RM 4.40 to 4.53 RM 4.30 to 5.22
Floodway RM 0.14 to 0.21 RM 0.00 to 0.641 RM 4.30 to 5.22 RM 4.30 to 5.22
Channel Migration N/A N/A CMZ under study by CMZ under study by King County
--Hazard Area N/A King County (Under Review)
Bank full width limits (Under Review) (Under Review) (Under Review)
Floodwater Control Pump station RM 0.226 (estimate) N/A
Wetlands RM 0.00 to 0.641 Limited due to trail RM 4.55-4.65: Extensive
(NWI, King County and City inventory, terrace RM 4.65 (NWI)
City Maps, + Wetland 5, 20 acres, (RM 4.94 to 5.13)
reconnaissance visit) Class 1
Erosion Hazard Areas None None Yes None
Landslide Hazard Area north and west (King None Yes L--None -----
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 12
e
e
ATTRIBUTES
Potential Restoration
Areas
Information to Evaluate
Cumulative Impacts
• EXisting shoreline
ecological functions
• Water quality (e.g.
303(d) listing)
Black River (-2500 ft)
Northern Bank Southern Bank
County)
Conservation:
Pristine.
Black River Riparian and
Wetland Trail
Existing Shoreline Ecological Functions: Black
River ecosystem providing for wildlife habitat,
flood control, water quality, and erosion
protection. (pers. com. Andy Kindig, ACKindig &
Co., March 31, 2003)
Springbrook Creek is 303(d) listed for cadmium,
Cedar River (-1.3 mil
Northern Bank Southern Bank
Area likely left in Rearing/Spawning Channel RM
open space due to 4.35 to 4.45 (existing)
steep slopes and Potential: Channel migration
landslide hazards. zone?
EXisting Shoreline Ecological Functions: Cedar River
riparian area likely moderating temperature, providing
large woody debris, and allowing for channel migration.
Steep slopes on north side may contribute spawning
gravels. (pers. com. Andy Kindig, ACKindig & Co., March
31,2003)
chromium, copper, zinc, mercury, dissolved I 303(d) parameter -fecal coliform
oxygen, sediment bioassay, and temperature, in
addition to fecal coliforms. The Black River is not
separately listed in the 303(d) 1998 (current
active) list or in the draft 2002 list.
The City of Renton Black River Basin Water
Quality Management Plan (May 1993) indicates
"Springbrook Creek and its tributaries are the
primary sources of flow to the Black River,
comprising over 95 percent of the watershed.
Springbrook Creek has poor water quality, heavy
metals contamination in sediments, and
impoverished benthic invertebrate and fish
populations."
Abbreviations: RSMP -Renton Shoreline Master Program; PHS -Washington State Priority Habitat and Species program
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 13
I
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
A Jones & Stokes wetlands ecologist conducted a site reconnaissance along the southern banks
of the Black and Cedar Rivers on March 24,2003. Observations were made from the Black
River Riparian Forest and Wetland Trail, from Oaksdale Avenue north and west to the pumping
station. For the Cedar River, riparian access was limited to the northeastern extent ofthe
Maplewood Golf Course, and from Ron Regis Park west to the end of the Elliot
Rearing/Spawning Channel (approximately RM 4.35).
Black River
The northern shore ofthis Black River reach is best known for the successful great blue heron
rookery that was established around 1985. At first threatened by predatory bald eagles, the
colony now appears to have quadrupled in size, displaying some 50 or more active nests in an
extensive stand of mature black cottonwoods. Several species of waterfowl were observed
including green-winged teals, widgeons, mallards, and Canada geese. Northern flicker calls
were also heard throughout the area and at least four bird boxes were observed on the northern
bank. This section of the northern bank is also well vegetated with willow species (Salix spp.)
and large patches of cattails, and possesses a fairly high degree of edge habitat (the aquatic
shoreljne is highly interspersed with small islands and a network of small peninsulas). To the
north,·tije land rises as a moderate slope where some residential development could be identified
through the deciduous forested hillside.
The southern bank ofthe Black River has been modified to accommodate a grassy trail known as
the Black River. Riparian Forest and Wetland Trail. Used by both pedestrians and mountain
bikers, the trail meanders with the river at approximately 5 to 7 feet above the water level on the
"first" floodplain terrace. There is low to moderate vegetation between the trail and river,
represented by willows, red-osier dogwood, common snowberry, osoberry, Nootka rose, red-
flowering currant, tall Oregon grape, Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Beaver
activity was very noticeable. Several willows had been harvested to within one foot of the
ground and there were distinguishable trails from these stumps leading into the water.
Above the trail, on the "second" floodplain terrace, the land appears to have been graded for
future development. Woody vegetatjon is sparse although there are several mature willows and
pine tre~s on this terrace, located approximately 8 to 10 feet above the trail. Young pine and
Douglas-fir appear to have been planted in some areas between the trail and this second terrace.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 14
Cedar River
Along the northeastern extent of the Maplewood Golf Course (northern bank), upstream from the
SR 167 bridge at approximately RM 4.38, riparian restoration efforts have created three terraces
planted with tall Oregon grape and armored with several large (> 20-inch diameter) logs with
root wads and the occasional pile of boulders. Numerous plants ofthe highly invasive butterfly
bush (Buddlei) are also present along this reach of the northern bank. The corresponding
southern bank is heavily vegetated with Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, and red alder.
From Ron Regis Park at approximately RM 5.22, there is a portion of the gravel road/trail that
has survived the February 2001 earthquake/landslide and subsequent channel migration. Large
(20 to 40-inch-diameter) black cottonwoods predominate this reach of the Cedar River and
comprise the large woody debris now present in the migrated river channel. There are a few
mature western redcedars on the southern riparian bank but this species covers less than 5% total
cover. Red alder saplings and common snowberry are the principle shrub species. Small patches
of Himalayan blackberry are also evident and these become thick and obtrusive as one goes
landward towards Ron Regis Park and/or the golf course.
Riparian wetlands appear to border both backwater channels along the southern bank ofthis
reach, one created naturally; the other, artificially (Elliot Rearing/Spawning Channel). The
natural and most eastern channel begins in a ponded wetland located approximately 40 feet from
the river and flows westwards via a small channel (3 feet at Ordinary High Water) and then
through a 3-foot corrugated metal pipe (culvert). It joins the river some 350 feet to the west. In
addition to Himalayan blackberry, there is also red elderberry and osoberry; north ofthe golf
course, the dominant riparian species is willow. Butterfly bush, however, covers approximately
20% total cover of this area.
The Elliot Rearing/Spawning Channel begins further to the west, with approximately 12 feet of
riprap positioned on either side of the gravel road/trail, allowing the waters to overflow the trail
as needed. The channel is permanently connected with the river, however, by a culvert near the
bottom of the riprap aprons. At its western extent, the channel eventually becomes a series of
braided channels where it rejoins the main stem ofthe Cedar. Willow and reed canarygrass are
co-dominant in this area.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 15
BLACK RIVER MAPS
I
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 16
Black River
Shoreline Area
May, 2003
Legend
N Rivers
N Land Slides
Wetlands
N
N
IV
Floodzone
Major Roads
City Limits
Source: City of Renton, King County GIS.
A
500 0 500 1000 Feet
Scale: 1 inch = 1000
~ Jones & Stokes
e
e
Black River
Shoreline Area
May, 2003
Legend
N Rivers
N Land Slides
Wetlands
N Aoodzone
N Major Roads
IV City Limits
~ 2oo-Foot Shoreline Buffer Ie
Source: City of Renton, King County GIS. e
A
500 0 500 1000 Feet
i
Scale: 1 inch = 1000'
m Jones & Stokes
CEDAR RIVER MAPS
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 17
I :,
Cedar River: King County Shoreline Conservancy Environment (gray cross-hatch; appears
to include the lOO-year floodplain); wetlands (green cross-hatch; NWI and County inventory)
City wetland inventory shows more extensive wetlands. See Aerial.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 18
./
Cedar River Shoreline
Eastern Renton City Limits
May, 2003
Legend
N Rivers
N Land Slides
Wetlands
N AoocIzone
N Major Roads
N City Limits
Source: City of Renton, King County GIS.
A
750 0 750 1500 Feet
Scale: 1 inch = 1500'
m Jones & Stokes
e
-
Cedar River Shoreline
Eastern Renton City Limits
May, 2003
Legend
N Rivers
N landSlides
N
N
IV
tZ1
Wetlands
Floodzone
Major Roads
City Limits
ZOO-Foot Shoreline Buffer
Source: City of Renton, King County GIS.
A
750 0 750 1500 Feet
Scale: 1 inch = 1500'
m Jones & Stokes
e
e
APPENDIX B-1,
SECTION 5 OF COMPLETE RENTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTS
5.01 THREE ENVIRONMENTS
Three environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, shall be deSignated to
provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively
different shoreline areas. The environmental designation to be given any specific
area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities
and limitations of the area being considered for development and the goals and
aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have been categorized according to the
natural characteristics and use regulations have been deSignated herein.
5.02 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
5.02.01 Designation of the Natural Environment:
A. Objective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to protect
and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their
natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife
sanctuary and habitat preservation.
B. Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment:
1. Areas that are unique or fragile.
2. Floodways areas.
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: The only human activity that is acceptable is
for f100dway drainage or storage. All other human activities including
recreation are considered inappropriate.
5.02.02 Designation of the Natural Areas:
The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural shoreline areas can only
be assured through public acquisition. Therefore, where private development is
proposed in areas so designated, the City shall require dedication as necessary for
flood storage.
5.02.03 Jurisdiction:
That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence with
Springbrook Creek, shall be deSignated Natural (see figure 5-1).
5.03 CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT
5.03.01 Designation of the Conservancy Environment:
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 19
I
•
A. Objective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to
protect, conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or
aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for limited
use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a
pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment shall
seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton.
B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
1. Areas of high scenic value.
2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
3. Hazardous slope areas.
4. Flood-prone areas.
5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense
development.
6. Areas with unique or fragile features.
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be
acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive
nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are
to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low density residential,
passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands, and passive
outdoor recreation.
5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment:
A. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations,
which shall be contained wholly within the dwelling unit.
B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall be
allowed only by the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
C. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited in a Conservancy
environment.
D. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy environment, recreation uses shall be
limited to passive recreation.
1. Permitted Uses:
(a) Public hiking and bicycle trails.
(b) Non-motorized public fishing.
(c) Public wading and swimming spots.
(d) Public areas for nature study.
(e) Public picnic areas.
2. Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner:
(a) Public overnight camping areas.
E. Residential Uses:
1. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family residences.
2. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two (2) units or more.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 20
F. Utilities:
1. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be
permitted for approved activities and uses within the Conservancy
environment and shall be underground per City code requirements.
2. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy
area in the shortest feasible route.
G. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subject to the standards of Section
7.15 of this Program.
5.03.03 Jurisdiction
That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of the south
bank of the Cedar River, 2,500 feet east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and that portion of
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW
31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that
portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the
City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be designated conservancy
(see figure 5-1, and Appendix A -Springbrook Creek).
5.04 URBAN ENVIRONMENT
5.04.01 Designation of the Urban Environment:
A. Objective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum
utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use,
especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing
development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of
viable and necessary urban uses.
B. High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of high-
intensity land use including residential, commercial, and industrial
development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines
within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently
subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to
accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for
future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical
aspects of the site.
C. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a
limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within already
developed areas and particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial
uses.
D. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for
public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment.
Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for permanent
public access to the water in the Urban environment shall be accomplished
through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 21
I
•
public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit
pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access
points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as
bicycles and hiking paths.
5.04.02 Use Regulations in the Urban Environment:
All uses shall be allowed as indicated by Section 7 of the Master Program.
5.04.03 Jurisdiction
All shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not designated as
Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban (see figure 5-1).
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 22
I
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
LAlCE WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTS
Urban
Conservancy
Natural
Figure 5-1 Renton Shoreline Master Program Environments
•••
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 23
I
•
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
. SPRINGBROOK CREEK .
SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP
U . Urbllll En'lrcmnullit
1000 2000 CCOaiUjliilcr EIIvlro'nment
! • • •• .1 _ WatlaJld.
1:i200() . ... .... .--Shll"'lID,_ .BDWlder, --ClI,~ •.
Note: This lTl8P.depic)s thtlapproximate localioo of the Springbrook creek shoreline bounda.y and associated wetJBnds~eme!:t I?Y the "Renton ~OreIineMasterPni9i'arii. Application of·tIie Renton Shoreline Master Pi"oOOiih toap(q:ierty is determiiledOri ii site.5pecific baSis by the!~ seMees OiviSi!l!'i utiliZiiigt!le te9utalicnSa@ .deliniliOnsi~ tIie Program lind anyliife Specff;iienv;ialmentat
analysiS.
Renton Shoreline Master Program, Appendix A Map
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 24
APPENDIX B-2.
Comparison of Renton Conservancy Classification and County Conservancy Classification
County Conservancy Class
25.24.020 Designation criteria. Designation
criteria for the conservancy environment shall be:
A. Shoreline areas, regardless of the underlying
zoning which has biophysical limitations to
development which include but are not limited to:
1. Shoreline areas which are one hundred-year
floodplains and areas which have flooding
potential,
2. Shoreline areas with soils that have poor
drainage,
3. Shoreline areas subject to severe erosion,
4. Shoreline areas with unstable banks,
5. Shoreline areas subject to slide hazard;
B. Shoreline areas used as commercial forest land;
C. Shoreline areas which are free from extensive
development;
D. Shoreline historic areas;
E. Shoreline area of high scenic value;
F. Shoreline areas used for low intensity agricultural
uses such as range lands and pastures;
G. Shoreline areas which are designated agricultural
lands pursuant to Chapter 20.54;
H. Areas which play an important part in
maintaining the ecological balance of the region
such as:
1. Areas rich in quality and quantity of life forms,
2. Areas important to the maintenance of the natural
quality and flow of the water,
3. Marshes, bogs and swamps,
4. Class I beaches,
5. White water rapids and waterfalls,
6. Virgin timber stands,
7. Wilderness areas. (Ord. 3688 § 602, 1978).
25.24.030 General requirements. A. Nonwater
related, water related and residential
development shall not be permitted waterward of
the ordinary high water mark.
B. Except in those cases when the height
requirements of the underlying zone are more
restrictive, no structure except agricultural
structures may exceed a height of thirty-five feet
above
average grade level.
C. All development shall be required to comply
with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 to control runoff and to
provide adequate surface water and erosion and
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments
City Conservancy Class
5.03 CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT
5.03.01 Designation of the Conservancy
Environment:
A. Objective: The objective in designating a
Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve,
and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural
or aesthetic features in essentially their native state,
while providing for limited use of the area. The
Conservancy environment is intended to provide a
pleasant break in the surrounding urban community.
This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of
the present and future needs of Renton.
B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy
Environment:
1. Areas of high scenic value.
2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
3. Hazardous slope areas.
4. Flood-prone areas.
5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities
for intense development.
6. Areas with unique or fragile features.
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and
uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy
environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature
which do not degrade the existing character of the
area. Uses that are to be predominant in a
Conservancy environment are low density
residential, passive agricultural uses such as pasture
or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation.
5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy
Environment:
A. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be
limited to home occupations, which shall be
contained wholly within the dwelling unit.
B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding
Operations: Any such activity shall be allowed only
by the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
C. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are
prohibited in a Conservancy environment.
D. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy
environment, recreation uses shall be limited to
passive recreation.
March 8, 2004 Page 25
I
County Conservancy Class
sediment control during the construction period.
D. Development shall maintain the ftrst ftfty feet of
property abutting a natural environment as
required open space.
E. Parking facilities except parking facilities
associated with detached single-family and
agricultural development shall maintain a shoreline
setback of one hundred feet from the ordinary high
water mark and retain existing vegetation or be
planted in conformance with the landscape
standards
enumerated in the general requirements (K.C.C.
25.16.030) of the urban environment.
F. Water quality treatment in compliance with
K.C.C. chapter 9.04 shall be required where
stormwater runoff would materially degrade or add
to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent
properties.
G. The regulations of this chapter have been
categorized in a number of sections; regardless of
the categorization of the various regulations, all
development must comply with all applicable
regulations.
H. Development proposed in shorelines of the state
shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or
otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be
constructed or public access to continue where:
1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail
system; or
2. Part of the site is presently being used and has
historically been used for public access.
I. Along shorelines of the state on Lake
Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands
below
thirty-two and one-half feet mean sea level.
J. The regulations of this chapter are in addition to
other adopted ordinances and rules. Where
conflicts exist, that which provides more protection
to a sensitive area shall apply; provided except that
water dependent uses shall adhere to the applicable
regulations and policies of the King County
Shoreline Master Program and shall comply with
other ordinances and rules to the greatest extent
feasible. (Ord. 13190 § 28, 1998: Ord. 9614 § 114,
1990: Ord. 3688 § 603, 1978).
25.24.150 Recreation. Recreational development
may be permitted in the conservancy
environment subject to the general requirements of
this chapter (Section 25.24.030) and the recreation
provisions (Section 25.16.200) of the urban
environment provided:
A. The recreational development will not require
any signiftcant ftlling, excavating or regarding
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments
City Conservancy Class
1. Permitted Uses:
(a) Public hiking and bicycle trails.
(b) Non-motorized public ftshing.
(c) Public wading and swimming spots.
(d) Public areas for nature study.
(e) Public picnic areas.
2. Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner:
(a) Public overnight camping areas.
E. Residential Uses:
1. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family
residences.
2. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of
two (2) units or more.
F. Utilities:
1. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local
service utilities shall be permitted for approved
activities and uses within the Conservancy
environment and shall be underground per City
code requirements.
2. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be
allowed only by approval of the Land Use Hearing
Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy
area in the shortest feasible route.
G. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subject
to the standards of Section 7.15 of this Program.
7 .13 RECREATION
7.13.01 Deftnition:
The refreshment of body and mind through forms of
play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational
experience may be active, such as boating, ftshing,
and swimming, or may be passive, such as enjoying
the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife.
7.13.02 Public Recreation
March 8, 2004 Page 26
County Conservancy Class
involving more than twenty-five percent of that
portion of the site within the shorelines of the state.
B. The construction of indoor swimming pools,
gyms and other indoor recreational facilities is
prohibited.
C. Piers, moorages, floats or launching facilities
constructed in conjunction with recreational
development shall not be:
1. Longer than one hundred twenty feet; or
2. Larger than 1350 square feet in surface area.
(Ord. 3688 § 615, 1978).
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments
City Conservancy Class
Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the
shoreline only when the following criteria are
considered:
A. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided
consistent with public safety needs and in
consideration of natural features; and
B. Recreational development shall be of such
variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the
local community; and
C. Just compensation is provided to the owner for
property acquired for the public use; and
D. It is designed to avoid conflicts with owner's
legal property rights and create minimum
detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and
E. It provides parking spaces to handle the
designed public use, and it will be designed to have
a minimum impact on the environment.
7.13.03 Private Recreation
Private recreational uses open to the public shall be
permitted only when the following standards are
met:
A. There is reasonable public access to the
recreational uses, including access along the water's
edge where appropriate. In the case of Lake
Washington, significant public access shall be
provided; and
B. The proposed facility will have no significant
detrimental effects on adjacent parcels; and
C. Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking
facilities that are separated from pedestrian paths
are provided.
March 8, 2004 Page 27
I
APPENDIXC
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM GUIDELINES
DECEMBER 2003
WAC 173-26-211 Environment designation system.
(5) The designations.
(c) "Aquatic" environment.
(i) Purpose. The purpose ofthe "aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the
unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward ofthe ordinary high-water mark.
(ii) Management policies.
(A) Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or
ecological restoration.
(B) The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to
support the structure's intended use.
(C) In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of
water resources, multiple use of over-water faci.lities should be encouraged.
(D) All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should 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.
(E) Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater
habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives ofRCW
90.58.020 , and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described
in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
(F) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation
of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
(iii) Designation criteria. Assign an "aquatic" environment designation to lands waterward
of the ordinary high-water mark.
Local governments may designate submerged and intertidal lands with shoreland designations
(e.g., "high-intensity" or "rural conservancy") ifthe management policies and objectives for
aquatic areas are met. In this case, the designation system used must provide regulations for
managing submerged and intertidal lands that are clear and consistent with the "aquatic"
environment management policies in this chapter. Additionally, local governments may assign
an "aquatic" environment designation to wetlands.
Renton SMP Use Environment Amendments March 8, 2004 Page 28
City of Renton
Shoreline
Environments Map
There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of
the State within the City of Renton that are not shown on this map. Those
associated wetlands and floodways are also governed by the City's
Shoreline regulations.
DRAFT
Urban Environment
Conservancy Environment
Natural Environment
Water Class 1
City Limils
e OEV~l~~~WE~crJ'ING
.,jUL 0 ~ 200lt
RECE'VED
CITY OF RENTON
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW
AND STREAM BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS
Prepared for:
The ,City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,.W A 98055
Prepared by:
A.C. Kindig & Co.
12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 210
. Bellevue, W A 98005
And
Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
19609 244th Avenue NE
Woodinville, W A 98072
Andrew C. Kindig, Ph.D., Project Manager
Carl G. Hadley, B.s., Fisheries Scientist
February 27, 2003
Project No. 182
I
City of Renton
BEST A V .N[!t~tJ1;.iEJt~CIENCE
LITERATU:&.E REVIEW
AND STREAM BUFFEW'RE~QMMENDATIONS
1.0 SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of a literature review of the best available
science, undertaken to develop and support recommendations' to the City of
Renton for stream and lakeshore protection by buffers sized to various stream or
lake shore classes. The Washington State Office of Community Development
adopted administrative rule guidance in August 2000 (Chapters 365-195-900
through 925 WAC) to assist cities on identifying and including best available
science in land use management regulations. This review followed those
guidelines and used a valid scientific process by qualified individuals " ... that
produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of [the City's]
regulatory decisions" (Washington State Office of Community Development 2002).
A parallel effort, summarized, in this report, was, undertaken to review and
recommend a stream classification system for the City.
2.0 APPROACH
The benefidal influences of riparian areas along streams of varying types and'
lakeshore within the City of Renton were evaluated by the following process:
• Review of existing fish distribution and habitat inventory information
for Renton (Golder Associates 2001);
• Field reconnaissance of representative stream and lakeshore segments
by the two principal scientists that prepared this report;
• Review of best available science in the literature;
• Organization of the scientific literature into a matrix of riparian
functions that play a role in stream and 'lake health and fish habitat,
support;
• Assessment of reasonably expected riparian function potentials within
the City of Renton, and their distribution by stream type; and
• Recommendation of standard buffer widths for' each' stream
classification, using a combination' of the literature data review and
riparian function potential assessments. ' '
To allow for and recognize a variety of existing land use and property
constraints, allow for changing environmental conditions, and for variations in
riparian function potential in various areas of the City, two regulatory
A.c. Kindig & Co, and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
'Page 1
City of Renton Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
approaches are encouraged as a result of this review. The Path A process would
occur where standard water body classifications, standard buffer widths and
other regulations are met by an applicant's proposal. These Path A buffer widths
are recommended in this report. The PathB process would occur where
standard conditions are uncertain, or standard buffers are not proposed by an
. applicant, requiring more information to determine whether the proposal
protects the riparian functions identified in this report, to the reasonable limits of
their potential on a site-specific basis. To allow flexibility within the Path B
process, an inner and outer riparian management zone concept is being·
developed by the City (Schueler 1995, Portland 2002).
3.0 URBAN CONSIDERATIONS
The full suite of riparian functions that support stream and lake shore habitat
quality in natural forest or grasslands is reduced in the highly modified riparian
zones found in the City of Renton. The most realistic strategy for streams and
lake shore in the City is to recognize and protect natural riparian features that
have a direct functional role on water and habitat quality within the constraints
of the urban environment. Vegetation in the riparian area is key to providing
those functions under urban constraints. Examples of these constraints include:
• Existing riparian widths and conditions constrained by structure and
infrastructure; . .
• Channelized streams within dense population areas and among large
numbers of small private properties;
• Public safety, or example hazard trees or flooding;
• Culvert interference with large woody debris transport downstream and
other stream processes; .
• And permanent or semi-permanent artificial barriers isolating stream
reaches.
Nearly all of the scientific literature and literature-reviews are written from a
perspective of riparian functions and widths· necessary· to provide fully
functioning natural pathways in forested areas (May 2002, Pollack and Kennard
1998; Knutson and Naef 1997; Spence et al. 1996; FEMAT 1993; Thomas et al.
1993; Budd et al. 1987; Harmon et al. 1986). Much of the literature on riparian
function has investigated the results of tree harvesting in forests, or the effects of
various agricultural practices. While these types of literature and summary
reviews must be approached with caution when evaluating riparian functions
and reasonable function potential under urban constraints, they are useful in
describing riparian functional processes that allow extrapolation to the urban
condition.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 2
I
•
City of Renton Best AV.ble Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
It has been argued (May 2002) that riparian buffers need to be designed both on
the basisof the resource and on the "threat" represented by the surrounding land
use. Under this approach, higher urban density or more intense land use would
justify wider buffers, as would higher resource sensitivity or value. We rejected
the land use "threat~' approach as inconsistent with the realistic recognition of
existing urban condition of most of the City, and inconsistent with the direction
of the Washington State Department of Ecology in developing guidelines for its
Shoreline Master Program. Those guidelines recommend restoration of
ecological functions of shorelines (which includes all Class 1 streams and lake
shores regulated by the City), where degraded, occur " ... as a planning requirement
for local government to address through non-regulatory means" and recognize
limitations to regulatory authority with respect to private property (Washington
. Department of Ecology 2003).
The approach in this report was to recognize resource sensitivity or value
through the stream and lake shore classifications, and then develop riparian
buffer width recommendations for each. Those recommendations are based on
data providing reasonable confidence the buffers will 'preserve or enhance
riparian influences actually functioning to improve habitat and water quality in
. Renton's urban setting.
Finally, wildlife habitat and' the interaction of water-dependent species with
streams and lakeshores are often cited as one riparian function. For example,
larger animals such as beavers· also interact with riparian, areas to affect
hydrology and water quality, and are listed as one reason. for larger riparian
buffers (Naiman and Rogers 1997). However, where they exist, such animals can
be inconsistent with public safety and infrastructure maintenance requirements
in urban environments by clogging culverts or causing local flooding, and often
must be removed. 'Riparian function has been evaluated in this report from the
perspective of fish habitat requirements (including water quality). Other non-
fish habitat, including uplands habitat, is provided by the City's Habitat
Conservation Regulations. . Those regulations may overlay the stream and
lakeshore buffer recommendations included in this assessment, but are not
included within the buffer functional requirements evaluated herein. . ....
4.0 . STREAM BUFFER FUNCTIONS
4.1 Water Quality·
Vegetation adjacent to streams can improve water quality by filtering pollutants,
removing nutrients, or preventing sediment introduction, and lowering
temperature through shading (FE MAT 1993).' In urban areas, development
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 3
City of Renton Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
eliminates natural infiltration pathways to streams, changing the hydrologic flow
paths to favor piped drainage systems that either bypass the riparian area, or
channel flow through the riparian area (Schueler 1995). Much of the natural
buffer functions for hydrolo~c and water quaHty functions (peak flow
attenuation, base flow releases, and water quality treatment) are removed from
riparian buffer control by storm drain systems. Storm water detention and water
quality treatment requirements are regulated for new development and
redevelopment within the City without reliance on riparian buffer function.
Nonetheless, there are areas where storm runoff sheet flows through riparian
areas. Particularly in headwater areas, where developed stormwater system
discharges may not control water quality, or reaches where residential yards,
parks, or other areas slope towards streams with no intervening catch basin,
riparian areas benefit water quality. Riparian areas also playa role in regulating
seasonal nutrient releases to streams and lakeshores, supporting a food chain
that includes prey for salmonids.
4.1.1 Contaminants (metals, organics, bacteria, oil and grease) and Nutrients
Where storm runoff disperses into vegetated riparian areas, the water slows,
pools, and may infiltrate. This allows contaminants such as heavy metals; which
adhere . to fine particles, to settle' out before reaching the stream. Other
contaminants, such as bacteria, are removed through filtration in the soil.
Organic compounds,' and oil and grease are removed through filtration
(hydrophobic attraction to surfaces), microbial or physical degradation.
Vegetation cover is key to this function, playing both a direct structural role in
slowing water and trapping contaminants, and an active direct role in absorbing
and storing nutrients as they move through the riparian zone (Castelle et al. 1994,
Spence 1996). Diverse stands of vegetation are better at improving water quality
than stands consisting oione or a few species (Todd 2000).
Nutrients are also chemically transformed by interaction with riparian soils and
in stream gravels in the stream (Ferald et al. 2000). The hyporheic zone is a
saturated area beneath a stream and under th~ riparian zone where groundwater
and surface water coexist in hydraulic continuity with the stream. This area
changes the chemical composition of water through denitrification (volatilization
of excess nitrogen by bacteria under low oxygen conditions), and storage of
particulate organic matter,where it is processed over time by benthic
invertebrates and bacteria (Naimen et al. 2000).
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 4
City of Renton Best AV.ble Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Physical-chemical interactions in the hyporheic zone that influence water quality
are very important in relatively undisturbed watersheds (Naiman and Bilby
1998), but have ,much less influence in developed urban areas.
Riparian function for nutrients is not limited to improving water quality from
water dispersed through it. Vegetation within the riparian area plays an
important role in regulating nutrient inputs to stream food chains. Riparian
vegetation is the primary carbon source for stream organisms, becoming
available as plants die, drop leaves, or leach nutrients into water (Gregory et al.
1991, Huebneret aI1993). Nitrogen and phosphorus, like carbon, are vital plant
nutrients; though in excess they can lead to excessive algae and plant growth,
which in tum can cause low dissolved oxygen when it decomposes. Nitrogen is
very water soluble, whereas phosphorus is mainly in mineral form attached to
sediments. Some plants, like red alder, fix atmospheric nitrogen through,
symbiotic association with microbes, andrelease it into the stream with leaf litter.
Riparian buffers can trap particulate phosphorus where water is dispersed, and
riparian vegetation can'-take up mineralized phosphorus from the soil and store
it. Plant storage returns some phosphorus to the stream as leaf litter. Riparian
vegetation likely does not remove phosphorus to storage in the long term, given
constant inputs (Peterjohn and Correll 84; Lowrance et al. 97; Lowrance 98), but
does affect the timing of its passage through the riparian zone to the streanl, and
returns phosphorus to the stream as leaf litter that is better suited to ~tream,
ecosystem function~ , "
Some of the greatest riparian functional widths in the literature are attributed to
nutrient removal, where water is dispersed through them, or to protect streams
from agricultural influences, both crop and animal manure'(i.e., up to 600 feet or
an average of 250 feet by Knutson and Naef 1997; equal to area of manure origin
by Overcash et al. 1981 and Bingham et al. 1980), or to protect streams from
logging and burning (Snyder et al. 1975, Lynch et al. 1985). Very little literature
pertains directly to the role of riparian zones for nutrient control in urban areas.
Vegetated stream or lake buffers can function to reduce nonpoint introduction of
sediments and associated ph9sphorus during construction in urban areas, or '
from resideritiallots. -Including sites up to 12 percent in slope, vegetated buffers
-of 50 feet were found to reduce phosphorus inti-oduced by construction erosion
to background (unaffected) levels (Woodard and Rock 1995). Vegetation cover
had a more significant impact on suspended solids and phosphorus than slope,
even up to the steepest studied slopes of 12 percent: Unvegetated, exposed soil
areas in the riparian areas were sources of suspended solids to the streams.
A.C Kindig & Co, and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 5
City of Renton Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Because of the altered means by which water enters streams in urban
. environments, it is recognized that source control and stormwater treatment best
management practices will be the primary means to control stream nutrients
(Binford and Buchenau 1993; Barling and Moore 1994; Spence et ai. 1996; Leavitt
1998).
From an undisturbed watershed perspective, May (2002) concluded from his
review of the literature that 100 feet of buffer would provide full nutrient
riparian function. This conclusion is consistent with Knutson and Naef's (1997)
literature review conclusion that, for most water quality parameters, 100 feet of
buffer would protect this riparian function where' water is dispersed through
buffer and controls stream water quality in the forested watershed.
The one literature source that directly studied phosphorus removal from
residential construction asa function of buffer width cortcluded that a 50-foot
buffer would protect water quality, irrespective of slope so long as the buffer was
well vegetated (Woodard and Rock 1995).
Table 1
Summary of Riparian Widths Reported to
Trap Nutrients and Stormwater Contaminants in a Vegetated Riparian Zone
Buffer Width. Citation Notes
50 feet Woodard and Rock 1995 100% removal of added phosphorus
load from non-point residential
construction runoff, where
vegetative cover was good,
irrespective of slopes.
100 feet Castelle et ai. 1994 Based on author's review of
literature
100 feet Todd 2000 Based on quthor's review of
literature inmulti:-use watersheds.
100 feet Knutson and Naef 1997 Based on author's review of
literature; to preserve buffer
function where natural routing of
water through buffers is preserved
(i.e., rural areas or forest practices).
4.1.2 Non-Point Fine Sediments
As with nutrients, sediment removal function by riparian zones has less relative
importance where developed stormwater systems discharge directly to streams,
bypassing riparian areas and dominating flow. In forested systems affected by
AC Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 6
City of Renton Best AV.ble Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
logging, one site potential tree height (approximately 100 to 115 feet in the
Renton area) has been suggested as protective (Broderson 1973), but
extrapolation of these results to an urban context is difficult. It is clear that,
where flow is overland through a riparian area, vegetation can slow or trap
water, settling sediments before reaching the stream (Spence et al. 1996). Other
literature reviews from a for~st cover perspective concluded distances between
100 feet and 200 feet are needed to prevent most sediment from reaching streams
(Karr and Schlosser 1977; Johnson and Ryba 1992; Broderson 1973). These
distances pertain mainly to logging practices. They are in sharp contrast to the
50-foot recommendation resulting from studies by Woodward and Rock (1995),·
designed for the explicit purpose of examining suspended solids removal as a
function of transit distance vegetated buffers adjacent to ~esidential construction.
Table 2
. Summary of Riparian Widths Reported to
Trap Most Suspended Solids and Sediments in a Vegetated Riparian Zone . .
Buffer Citation Notes
Width
50 feet Woodard and Rock 1995 Removal of most suspended solids
from non-point residential
" , construction runoff, where
vegetative cover was good,
irrespective of slo-.£es.
100-125 feet Karr and Schlosser 1977 . 75% sediment removal; in forested
area
150 feet Johnson and Ryba 1992 90% sediment removal at 2% grade;
in forested area.
200 feet 'Broderson 1973 To prevent sediment introduction
from logging ,to streams.
4.2 Food -Particulate Organic Nutrient Input
Vegetation and plant materi~l. falling into . the creek form an important
component of the aquatic ecosystem food chain, especially in smaller stream
channels (Gregory et al: 1991,'Naiman et al. 1992). Particulate matter delivered
'by the adjacent riparian area directly or indirectly provides nutrients and energy
for organisms eventually consumed by fish. Terrestrial insects living in the
adjacent vegetation also contribute to the productivity of a stream. The majority
of material comes from directly over, or within a very short distance of the
stream. FEMAT (1993) suggests most leaf material is contributed within
approximately 50 feet of the stream. Other studies have shown that benthic
invertebrate communities' in streams with riparian buffers greater than 100 feet
A.c. Kind.ig ,& Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 7
City of Renton Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
are indistinguishable from those in streams in forested watersheds (Erman et al.
1977).
Table 3
Summary of Riparian Widths Reported to Prov,ide
90 Percent or Greater of Particulate Nutrients
Buffer Citation Notes
Width
50 feet FEMAT1993 Greater than 90 percent of function
100 feet Erman et al. 1977 Approximately 100 percent protective
of macroinvertebrate community
which depend to a large extent on
particulate nutrients
4.3 Microclimate
Riparian vegetation protects streams from climate changes caused by
widespread development away from the stream, including soil and air
temperature, humidity, and wind. The collection of these small-scale climatic
variables is called microclimate. There is no direct link between microclimate
and the condition of salmonid habitat that appears in the literature. However, it
has been suggested that microclimate needs protection (in addition to shad~ or
temp~rature control, discussed below) to maintain desirable assemblages of
plants and animal species, including insects, beneficial'to fish (Pollack and
Kennard 1998).
If protection to natural forested microclimate conditions is the goal, the literature
report buffers of 100 to over 500 feet of riparian forest could be necessary. For
forested streams, one study found 100 percent function to control relative
humidity occurs 250 feet from the stream; 50 percent function occurs within
appr,oximately35 feet (Pollack and Kennard 199,8). ,FEMAT(1993) concluded
between 0.5 to 3 site potential tree heights would preserve natural mature forest
riparian microclimates (approximately 58 to 345 feet iJ;l the Renton area). While
there are several literature reports examining microclimate and 'forest practices
(Table 4), there are no literature data for urban a:reas, where relative humidity
and temperature are greatly influenced by surrounding development rather than
vegetation.
A.c. Kindig & Co, and Cedarock Consultants, Inc,
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 8
City of Renton
Table 4
Best Av.ble Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Summ'ary of Riparian Widths Reported to Provide
NaturalForested Riparian Microclimate
Buffer Citation Notes
Width
100 feet Spence et al. 1996 Literature Review; Western Oregon
forests
148 feet Brosofske et al. 1997 Forest harvest effect study; Western
Washington
250 feet· Pollack and Kennard 1998 Forest harvest study, 100%
function; 50% function within 35
feet.
58 -345 feet FEMAT1993 Mature forest; to maintain natural
forested riparian microclimate; 0.5
to 3.0 site ~otential tree heights.
525 feet Franklin and Forman 1987 Riparian forest ecosystem
4.4 Temperature and Shade
Overhanging vegetation shades streams, until the channels become so broad
that, like lakes, most of the water surface is exposed to the sun. By intercepting
solar radiation,' vegetation prevents heat energy from reaching' streams,
maintairung cooler water. Vegetation also shades soil, cooling water.introduced
t() streams through the hyporheic zone. Cool water is an essential habitat feature
forsaImonids, and increases the amount of atmospheric oxygen that will
dissolve into the water, which also improves salmon habitat conditions and. is . .
essential for salmon spawning.
Sullivan et al. (1990) concluded that leaving 50. to 75 percent of larger (fish
bearing) stream' reaches shaded after logging would leave most streams in. a
temperature range suitable for fish. Once streams traveled 25 miles from their
watershed divides, they were generally too wide for trees to shade their surfaces
or exercise control over water temperature (for example, the Cedar River within
the City of Renton, the Black River, and Lake Washington). Ithas been reported
that overhangiIlgvegetation on large rivers or lake shores can create cooler micro
. habitats for fish and aquatic organisms (Palone andTodd 1997) .
. . One comparison of pre-and post-forest harvest conditions found that riparian
buffer width did not affect stream . water temperature, except in the complete'
absence of streamside trees (Brosofske et ai. 1997). Soil temperature and not
forested buffer width was the determining factor for stream water temperature.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 9.
City of Renton Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Considered from a shading perspective with old growth forest conditions as the
goal, Brazier and Brown (1973) found that angular canopy densities comparable
to old growth stands could be attained within 70 to 100 feet of the stream in the
southern Cascades and Oregon Coast range. Steinblums et al. (1984).
recommends greater than 124-foot buffers in the western Cascades to retain 100%
natural shading, based on studies performed at a range of 25 to 145 foot widths.
Stream temperatures in deforested watersheds, while warmer than they were in
a forested state, do not approach the tolerance limits of resident fish species
(Beschta et al. 1987). However, one effect of urbanization is to increase ambient
temperatures above forested watersheds because of impervious surfaces. In
these, areas, local-or small-scale shade (that directly over the stream and riparian
area) will influence water temperature. Larger-scale; or thermal corridor.
influences on temperature do not occur in urban areas, with the exception of
streams in steeper canyons or valleys where development has not occurred or is
restricted by steep slopes. In these situations, temperature in a stream reach is
affected by the condition of the adjacent riparian forest and by riparian and hill
slope conditions far upstream and upslope (Pollock and Kennard 1998).
I~ forested watersheds, where large-scale thermal corridor effects do occur, one
study determined that 100 percent shade function required a 300-foot distance
from the stream; 83 percent function required 120-foot distance; 75 percent
fUnction required a 100-foot distance; and 50% function required 50 feet of forest
shade (Pollack and Kennard 1998). Most other studies found up to 100 percent
temperature function within 100 feet of the stream under forested conditions
.(Table 5). There were no data in the literature reporting functional temperature
data for various buffer widths in urban settings.
Table 5.
Summary of Riparian Width Reported to Provide
a ean ontro emperature WIt a oreste lpanan Sh d d CIT . h F d Ri . Z one
Buffer Citation
Width
50 -250 feet Pollack and Kennard (1998)
70 -100 feet Brazier and Brown (1973)
75 feet FEMAT1993
100 feet Barton et al. (1985)
100 feet Beschta et al. 1987
100 feet Johnson and Ryba 1992
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27,2003
Notes ..
50%-100% natural shade Jfull forest)
80-90% natural shade{full forest)
100% natural shade (0.75 SPTH for
100-foot lowland trees)
20F reduction in stream temperature
with 100 foot forested buffer
100% natural shade Jfull forest)
50-100% natural shade (full forest)
Page 10
City of Renton
4.5 Human Acce~s Control
Best Avlble Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
One function of buffers in populated watersheds c~m be reduci~g the direct
encroachment of humans (Leavitt 1998). Direct human impact to streams most
often consists of refuse dumping, trampling of vegetation, bank erosion, and
noise (King County 2002 and Castelle 1992). Plant loss due to the trampling of
vegetation near a stream increases siltation of spawning gravels and reduces'
aquatic invertebrates that are important fish food sources. Riparian buffers
protect sensitive areas from direct human impact by limiting easy access to the
stream and by blocking the transmittal of human and mechanical noise. Riparian
buffers provide visual separation between streams and the developed
environment, blocking glare and human movement from fish species (Young
1989). '
Twenty-one wetlands in King and Snohomish Comities were studied before
residential ,development, and 8 years after development, to assess the
effectiveness of buffers in controlling human disturbances (Cooke 1992).
Although this study assessed wetland habitat and not streams, it nonetheless
provides a basis to estimate the width of a buffer that discourages or reduces
human' disturbance to streams. Cooke (1992) concluded that buffers functioned
most· effectively when the adjacent land use· 'consisted of low intensity
development; . when buffer areas were greater than 50 feet wide, and planted
with high quality mixed species of native vegetation; and where .there was a high
degree of resident education on the value o!buffers. Human disturbance most
often took the form of lawn or landscaping' encroachment. Twenty; of the 21
buffers in the study that ,were lessthari 50 feet wide had some form of human
alteration (95 percent). Three of 8 buffers in the study greater than 50 feet in
width had some form of human alteration (35 percent).
Other authors recommend controlled human activity within riparian buffers,
such as restricting human disturbance to footpaths, or roadway crossings within
25 feet of the stream, and allowing active recreation and bike paths within 25 to'
50 feet of the stream (Schueler 1995).
Narrower buffers may suffice in areas to prevent human disturbance through
education, such as signage and! or homeowner education; or through physical
measures, such as fencing or vegetation that discourages passage (Schueler 1995).
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 11
City of Renton
Table 6
Best Available .ce Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Summary of Riparian Width Reported to Provide
Human Disturbance Control
Buffer Citation Notes
Width
25 feet Schueler 1995 Passive footpaths and utilities;
controlled access
25 -50 feet Schueler .1995 Active bike trails and recreation;
controlled access
·50 feet or Cooke 1992 50-foot buffers protected from
greater human disturbance nearly 3 times
better than 25-foot buffers.
4.6 Large Woody Debris
Large woody debris (LWD) consists of downed tree stems and branches and is a
functionally important structural component of stream channels in the Pacific
Northwest (Fetherston et al. 1995, Naiman et al. 1992). Once LWD reaches a
stream it may remain in place or migrate downstream depending on the size of
the wood and stream energy. LWD can have a major effect on the quality of fish
habitat within a stream as it influences the routing of water and sediment, helps
trap and stab.ilize coarse gravel deposjts, plays a role ·in the development of
channel morphology, is an important source of overhead and velocity cover for
fish, and acts . as a surface for biological activity which contributes to the
productivity of a stream system (Bisson et al. 1987; Beschta et al. 1987; Sullivan et
al. 1987, Bilby and Ward 1991). .
The probability that "a falling tree will reach a creek is a function of its distance
from the creek, tree size, ground slope near the stream, and predominant wind
direction. In a mature coniferous forest, the majority (70 to 90 percent) of LWD
ina stream comes from within 50 feet of the stream; 90 to 99 percent comes from
within 100 feet; and virtually all LWD contributed to streams in a typical Puget
Sound lowland forested region comes from within a distance equal to
approximately 150 feet (Murphy and Koski 1989, McDade, 1990, Robison and
Beschta 1990, FEMAT 1993, Fetherston et al. 1995). As a forested riparian stand
ages, and trees get taller, proportionally more of the LWD contribution comes
from further away (Fetherston et al. 1995). However, within the City of Renton
urban areas, there are few if any mature to old growth trees and the potential of
trees being allowed to grow for 100 to 300 years and then naturally fall is remote.
Many if not most old and potentially unstable trees near homes, schools, parks
and other public places are removed as hazard trees. Thus, most LWD
recruitment in the future will come from young to moderate aged trees relatively
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 12
I
City of Renton Best A V.bIe Science Literature Review .
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
close to the creek. Only within remote areas such as lower Honey Creek and
portions of the Cedar River, and areas where a natural shorelines designation is
provided such as portions of the Black River and Springbrook Creek, is it likely
that older trees will develop to maturity.
Table 7
. Riparian Width Reported to Provide
90 Percent or Greater of Natural LWD Recruitment in a Mature Forest
Buffer Width Citation Notes
65 feet Murphy & Koski 1989 95% within 65 feet; 99% withinl00
feet
95 feet McDade et al. 1990 90% of mature conifer within 95 feet
65-120 feet Van Sickle & Gregory 1990 Modeled data from mixed height
and uniform mature stands
100-135 feet FEMAT1993 Mature to old-growth forest
4.7 Channel Migration
The channel migration zone (CMZ) is that area of the landscape that
encompasses the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement over time due
to stream bank erosion and new channel incision. Where not confined by I1;eiITby
stable land . forms or manmade flood control . structures, stream. chanriels
naturally migrate as fluxes in sediment load aggrade the stream bed and cause
flows to select more stable passageways (Montgomery and Buffington 1993). As
channels move, new LWDand stream gravels are recruited resulting in the
creation of new mainstem fish habitat. The abandoned mainstem'channels often
remain as· side channels and backwaters offering off-channel rearing habitat
opportunities for juvenile saln:l.()nidsand their prey.
Identification of CMZs requires site-specific analysis by qualified fluvial
geomorphologists. However, the CMZ can be roughly approximated by the 100-
year flood zone' as mapped by FEMA. The 100-year flood plains within the City
of Renton have been mapped and are shown in the City of Renton Flood Hazard
Sensitive Areas Map .. The CMZ does not include areas that lie behind lawfully
established flood control facilities for which a commitment exists to maintain the
structure. These structure,s can include dikes, levees, or roads. The city code
provides protection for floodplain areas, which would'serve as an overlay to the
standard stream buffers. Therefore CMZ function was· not a determinant in
consideration of riparian functions for buffers.
A.c. Kindig & Co, and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 13
City of Renton Best Available ace Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
4.8 Bank Stability
Roots from vegetation growing along the streambank help stabilize soils and
reduce erosion. Overhanging roots also provide habitat for fish where streams
undercut the root balls. The soil stabilizing benefits of root structures is greatest
within one-half of the crown diameter of the vegetation growing along the bank
(Burroughs and Thomas 1977). Assuming that the largest plants growing along
stream banks are trees, and the maximum crown diameter of a mature fir tree is
approximately 80 feet, root strength benefits would be low beyond 40 feet from
the channel. Smaller vegetation growing near the creek also strongly influences
bank stability at distances nearer than 40 feet:
Table 8
Riparian Width Reported to Provide
90 Percent or Greater of Natural Bank Stability
Buffer Width Citation Notes
40-70 feet FEMAT1993 Based on tree size; affected by hydrology
5.0· STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS
For th~ purposes of this evaluation, streams were classified according to the
following summary criteria: .
• Class 1 waters are perennial fish-bearing waters classified as shorelines of
. the state, and/ or are identified as such on the City's adopted Chinook
Distribution Map (Golder Associates 2001); .
• Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent waters that historically or
currently are salmonid-bearing, or a pond or lake between 0.5 and 20 acres
in size;
• Class 3 waters are non-fish bearing perennial waters during years of
normal rainfall,;
• Class 4 waters are non-fish bearing intermittent waters during years of
normal rainfall; and
• Class 5 waters are non-fish bearing waters which flow within an
artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had
previously existed, or a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acres
not meeting the definition of a wetland. These waters are deemed
artificial and are not regulated.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 14
I
City of Renton
6.0 BUFFER FUNCTION POTENTIAL
Best A V.bIe Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
The potential for each riparian buffer function discussed in Section 4 to
contribute to stream water quality and fish habitat health was evaluated' as
summarized in Table 9 and discussed below. No function was attributed to
Class 5 (unregulated) waters.
• Water quality function by riparian buffers within the City is bypassed
wherever storm drainage systems exist, either through direct discharge of
stormwater to the stream or lake, or by introducing channelized flow that
fails to disperse before reaching the stream or lake. Because of this, the
role of riparian buffers in removing contaminants is determined to be low
to moderate for all regulated water classes. Nutrient regulation was
determined to be moderate for mid-sized to small streams, through
seasonal release of leaf litter to the streams, despite the overriding
influence of storm drains. However, nutrient regulation by riparian areas
has lesser importance for Class 1 waters,. because of the. overridi,ng
dominance of upsteam contributions to nutrients .. Fine sediment removal
is determined to have no or low function influencing .. larger Class 1
waters, but increases in potential as the streams diminish in size down to
Class 4 waters. Ranges of potential are listed where' a range of site-specific
conditions are known to exist that affect the importance of this function in
maintaining water quality.
• Food function, or generation of . leaves, vegetative litter, and terrestrial
insects as food· sources for aquatic food chains in riparian areas, increases'
in importance with smaller stream size. High in the watershed~ leaf litter
and insects form" the primary source of nutrients and food, which are
cycled and delivered to waters lower in the watershed. "In large Class 1
. waters, leaf litter function potential contribution is low, but increases to
high. function potential in Class 3 and 4 waters due to the greater
proportional length of these water types in a basin.
• Microclimate function is determined to have no realized potential for
". some Class 1 waters (for example, the Cedar River through downtown
Renton), to moderate potential (for example, May Creek). Moderate
furiction potential is attributed to all other regulated water classes,
because as streams' decrease in size, streamside vegetation is more likely
to control microclimate"factors such as local humidity.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 15
City of Renton
Table 9
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Stream Riparian Buffer Function and Classification Matrix;
Reasonablv Exve'cted Function Potentials for Stream Classes within the Citv of Rent .-
Function Mechanism , Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
Water Quality Contaminants are removed by dispersed flow through the
buffer; settling particulates and promoting infiltration/ filtration -. -. -. -. 0
of water.
Nutrients are controlled by dispersed flow through the buffer
and vegetation, through microbial action and by cycling -• • • 0
through plants and leaf litter.
Fine Sediment is removed by dispersed flow through the
buffer; settling particulates and promoting infiltration/filtration -.. of water. Hyporheic zone (surface water/ groundwater
o _ -. -. 0
interface) adjacent to streams influences water chemistry.
Food Leaves, vegetative litter, and terrestrial insects fall into stream
as food source for a food chain stretching from bacteria to algae • I I 0 -I
to aquatic invertebrates to fish and other aquatic animals.
Microclimate Riparian vegetation protects stream from climate changes
caused by widespread. development away from the stream, 0_. • • • 0
including soil and air temperature, humidity, and wind.
Temperature & Small-scale shade keeps sun from water and soil, cooling -. I I 0 Shade stream and groundwater associated with the stream. I -
Large-scale, thermal corridor maintains cool air with mature
trees to greater extent than small-scale shade, as in undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0
valleys.
Human Access Limits human disturbance, lowering vegetation trampling
leading to bare dirt banks or encroachment by resi~ential 0_ •• •• •• • • 0
gardening.
Large Woody Conifer large branches or trunks die and fall into stream,
Debris (LWD) creating habitat complexity in stream, sorting of spawning 0_ •• 0 gravel, trapping fine sediments, creating substrate for • --
algae/ diatom growth (see Food Function).
Channel Natural meanders cut new channels and deliver spawning
Migration gravels and LWD to streams.
o _ 0_. o _ o _ 0
Bank Stability Roots and vegetation prevent bankside erosion. -. ••• T I 0
Wildlife Non-Fish Habitat See Habitat Conservation Re.vJiations
o No Function; -Low Function; • Moderate Function; I High Function
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003 Page 16
I
! e
I
e
City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
• Small-Scale Temperature and Shade function potential is determi~ed to be low to
moderate for Class 1 waters (for example, the Cedar River and May Creek,
respectively), but high for smaller perennial Class 2 and Class 3 waters. Intermittent
Class 4 waters are rariked low in temperature or shade function potential, because
they dry during the warmest part of the year. Large-scale, or thermal corridor-scale
temperature control, was given no realized potential outside of areas already
. regulated as steep slopes.
• Human Access control function potential is determined to range from no to low for
large Class 1 waters such as the Cedar River, where human access is provided to
large reaches of the water, up to moderate to high for Class 1 waters such as May
Creek. All other stream, classes are determined to have moderate to high potential .
. to control human access. Other means such as plantings, fencing and education
could lessen the importance of realizing this riparian function.
• Large Woody Debris (LWD) recruitment function potential ranges from no to low
for large Class 1 waters such, as the' Cedar River, where existing development
precludes the growth of trees to hazard size along large reaches of the water, up to
moderate to high for Class 1 waters such as the undeveloped May Creek corridor.
The, importance of LWD diminishes with smaller stream'sizes in the urban
environment, because of restrictions to public safety from the growth of trees to
hazard size, and because of the numbers of culverts which clog with LWD. Culverts
require maintenance (L WD and debris removal), to prevent flooding, and prevent
transport of LwD to fish habitat downstream. Consequently, Class 2 stream buffers
are determined to have moderate function potential for L WD recruitment~ but Class
3 and 4 waters have low function potential.
• Channel Migration function potential is absent or low for Class I, 3 and 4 waters.
The large Class 1 waters within the City could not be allowed to meander into
adjacent properties without measures being taken to prevent property damage. For
the smaller Class 3 and 4 waters, the number of culverts and hydrologic control
points largely constrain flow paths. Low or moderate channel migration potential
could exist for Class 2 fish bearing waters in some areas of the City.
• Bank Stability function potential is determined low to moderate for larger Class 1
waters, because hydraulic flow enE;!rgy in larger waters reduces the ability of
bankside vegetation to resist it, and because many of the larger Class 1 waters are
channelized. Bank stability function potential increases to high in the· smaller
stream Classes 3 and 4, where vegetation roots have much greater potential to
prevent hydraulic erosion.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc .
. DRAFT -February 27, 2003 e e-Page 17
City of Renton
7.0 Recommended Buffer Widths
Best A va. Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
The recommended Path A buffer widths are shown in Table 10, synthesizing function
potentials and the literature on buffer function. These buffer widths assume no
enhancement of a degraded buffer to restore or improve riparian functions, which under
Path B may allow for smaller buffers.
Table 10
Recommended Path A Riparian Buffer Widths
Class 1 . Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
100 feet 100 feet 75 feet 35 feet a feet
8.0 References
Please refer to Appendix A for a subject summary of the references listed below, which were
evaluated during the preparation of this report.
Barling, R.D., I.D. Moore and R.B. Grayson. 1994. A quasi-dynamic wetness index for
characterizing the spatial distribution of zones of surface saturation and soil water content.
Water Resour. Res. 30(4): 1029-1044.
Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to
maintain tro)lt habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 5:364-378.
Belt, G. H., J. O'Laughlin, and T.Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for protection
of water quality: analysis of scientific literature. Report No.8. University of Idaho; Idaho
Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Group; Moscow.
Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 191-232 in E. O.
Salo andT. W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: forestry and' fishery interactions.
University of Washington, College of Forest Research, Seattle. .
Bilby, R.E. and 1. W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams
draining old growth, clear-cut, and second growth forests of southwestern Washington. Can.
J. ofFish. Aquat. Sci., 48:1-10.
Binford, M.W. and M. Buchenau. 1993. Riparian Corridors and Water Resources, Chapter 4 in D.
Smith and P. Hellmund (eds.), Ecology of Greenways. University of Minnesota Press.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 18
City of Renton ·e B.A vailable Science Literature Review .
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Bingham, S.c., P.W. Westennan, and M.R. Overcash.· 1980. Effects of grass buffer zone length in
reducing the pollution from land application areas.· Transaction of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 23:330-342.
Bisson, P.A. Bilby, R.E. Bryant, M.D. Dolloff, c.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A. Murphy, M.L.,
Koski,K.V. and J.R. Sedell. 1987, p. 87-94. In Salo, E.O and T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside
Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of
Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471p.
Bottom, D.L., P.J. Howell, and J.D. Rogers. 1983. Final report: fish research project Oregon
salmonid habitat restoration. Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, Portland. 155 pp.
Brazier, J.R. and G.W.Brown. 1973. Pages 1-9 in buffer strips for stream temperature control, For.
ResoUf. Lab., School of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon .
..
Broderson, J. M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to Illaintain water quality. M.S. thesis. University of,
Washington, Seattle. '
Brosofske, K., J Chen .. , R. Naiman, and F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microc1imatic
gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications
7(4), pp. 1188-1200.
Budd, W.W., P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Strearri. corridor management in the
Pacific Northwest: I. detennination of stream-corridor widths. EnviroIimental Management
. -. 11(5): 587-597.
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements-
. a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23(5): 878-881. .
CasteIie,A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. witter, S. Mauennann, T. Erickson,
S~S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson Associates, Inc.,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department' of Ecology;
Olympia, Pub. No 92-10.
Cederholm; C. J. 1994. A suggested landscape approach for salmon and wildlife habitat protection in
western Wa~hington riparian ecosystems. Pages 78-90 in A. B. Carey and C. Elliott, editors.
Washington Forest Landscape Management Project Progress Report. Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. .
. Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1995. Growing season microc1imatic gradients from clear
cut edges into old growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications (5): 74-86.
City of Portland. 2001. Healthy Portland streams, a river renaissance project, discussion draft:
streamside science and. an inventory of significant riparian and wetland resources. City of
Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning, October 2001.
AC. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 19
City of Renton Best Avaie Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Cooke, S.S. 1992. Wetland buffers-a field evaluation of buffer effectiveness in Puget Sound. Pentec
Environmental, Inc. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia Washington.
Corbett, E. S., and J. A. Lynch. 1985. Management of streamside zones on municipal watersheds.
Pages 187-190 in R. R Johnson, C. D. Zieball, D. R Patton, P. F. Folliott, and R H. Hamre,
editors. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Desbonnet, A., P. Pamela, V. Lee, N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone, a
summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Rhode Island Sea Grant
University of Rhode Island, July 1994.
Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.R Ruby. 1977. Evaluation of streamside bufferstrips for
protecting aquatic organisms. Contribution 165, University of California, Water Resource
Center, Davis, CA 48pp. .
Ferald, A., D. Landers, and PJ. Wigington. 2000. Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for
water quality and wildlife. Pages 167-172 in P.J. Wigington and RL. Beschta, eds. Riparian
Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources
Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Fetherston,. K.L., RJ, Naiman, and R.E. Bilby. 1995. Large woody debris,physical processes, and
ripariari forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest.
Geomorphology 13 (1995) 133-144.
Fischer, R A., C.O: Martin, and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Improving riparian buffer strips and
corridors fo~ water quality and wildlife. Pages 457-462 in P.I. Wigington and RL. Beschta,
eds. Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water
Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management:
an ecological, economic and social ~ssessment. Interagency SEIS Team, Portland, Oregon.
Franklin, J.F., and RT. Forman 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting:. ecological
consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1 :5-18.
Gilliam, J. W., and R W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural buffer areas and drainage control to remove
pollutants from agricultural drainage waters. Pages 145-148 in J. A. Kusler, M. Quammen,
and G. Brooks, editors. Proceedings of the national wetland symposium: mitigation of
impacts and losses, held 8-10 October 1986. ASWM Technical Report 3. Association of
State Wetlands Managers, Berne, New York.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 20
City <;>f Renton ·e B.A vail able Science Literature Review'
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Golder Associates, Inc. 2001. Final Draft, City of Renton Fish Distribution and Habitat Inventory
Report, Prepared for the City of Renton Surface Water Utility Division, Renton, Washington.
November 29, 2001.
Gregory, S.V., Fj. Sawnson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective
of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water.
Harmon, M. E., J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S. V. Gregory, J. D. Lattin, N. H.
Anderson, S. P. Cline, N. G. Aumen, J. R Sedell, G. W .. Lienkaemper, K. Cromack Jr., and
K. W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances
in Ecological Research 15:133-302
Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and preservation
of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.
Hewlett, J.D., and J.e. Fortson. 1982. Stream temperature under an inadequate buffer strip in the
southeast Piedmont. Water Resources Bulletin 18:983-988.
Huebner, RS., D.G. Soutter, and G.H. Wagner. 1993. Statistical analysis ofthe effects of vegetative
buffer strips on in-stre.am water quality. Presented at 66th Annual Water Environment
Federation Conference, Anaheim, California.
Johnson, A.W. and D.A. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to maintain
various functions of stream riparian area. King County Surface Water Management
Division, Seattle, W A
Jones, R C., and C'-C. Clark. 1988. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities.
Water Resources Bulletin 23:1047-1055.
Karr, J.R, and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of near stream vegetation and stream morphology on
water quality and stream biota. U.S. EPA Research Lab, Office of Research and
Development, Athens Georgia, EPA-600/3-77-097 ..
King County. 2002. Draft Overview of Best Available Science for Critical Areas Protection in King
County. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Department of
Development and Environmental Services and Department of transpirtation, December 2002.
Knutson, K. L. and V.L., Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority
habitat: Riparian. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
Lowrance, R 1998. Riparian Forest Ecosystems as Filters for Nonpoint Source Pollution .. In: M.
Pace and P Groffman, (eds.) Ecosystem Management: Successes, challenges, and frontiers.
Springer-Verlag. In Press.
Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, RR. ScIulabel, P.M. Groffman, J.M. Denver, D.L. Correll,
, J.W. Gilliam, J.L. Robinson, R.B. Brinsfield, K.W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A.H. Todd.· 1997 .
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
. Page21
City of Renton Best A vaiA Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Environmental Management 21:687-712.
Lynch, J. A., E. S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling
nonpoint-source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
40:164-167.
Madison, C. E, R L. Blevins, W. W. Frye, and R J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and grass filter strip
effects upon sediment and chemical losses. Page 31 in Agronomy Abstracts. American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
May, C.W., RR. Homer, J.R. Karr, RW. Mar, E.R Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small
streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4): 483-
492. Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water
Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
May, C.W., and R.R Homer 2000. The Cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-
riparian ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P.J. Wigington and R.L. Beschta, eds.
May, C. W. 2002. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems: A review of best available science, Watershed
Ecology LLC, December 12, 2002.
McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and Van SIckle. 1990. Source distances
. for coarse woody debris entering small streams in w~stern Oregon and Washington.
Canadian Journal of Forest Restoration (20): 326-330. .
Metropolitan Service District (Metro). 1997. Policy Analysis and Scientific Review for Title 3 of
the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: Water Quality and Floodplain Management
Conservation, Portland, Oregon. .
Metropolitan Service District (Metro). 1999. Development of measures to conserve, protect, and
restore riparian corridors in the Metro Region: Streamside. CPR, preliminary Daft. Metro
GroWth Management Services, Portland, Oregon.
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel
response, and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002·prepared for the
SHAMW committee of the Washington State TimberlFishlWildlife Agreement. 84pp.
Murphy, M. L. ·1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska--Requirements for protection and restoration. Decision Analysis
Series Number 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal Ocean Program, Juneau, Alaska.
Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications
for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 22.
City of Renton BItAvailable Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommenda tions
Naiman, RJ., T.J. Beechie, et al. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in
the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. Pages 127-188 In RJ. Naiman, editor. Watershed
management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New
York. pp. 127-188.
Naiman and R.E. Bilby. River Ecology and Management. 1998. Springer-Verla~, New York.
..
Naiman RJ. and K. Rogers. 1997. Large animals and system-level characteristics in river corridors.
Bioscience. 47(8):521-529.
Naiman, RJ. and M;G. Turner. 2000. A future perspective on North America's freshwater
ecosystems; Ecological Applications 10(4), pp.958-970.
Oregon Division of State Lands. 1998. Urban riparian inventory and assessment guide: A tool for
Oregon land use planning, Salem, Oregon. .. ..
Osborne, L.L. and D.A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality and
restoration stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-258.
Overcash, M.R., K.R. Reddy,' and R. Khaleel. 1981. Chemical and biological process influencing
the modeling of nonpoint source water quality from land areas receiving wastes. In
Hydrologic Transport Modeling Water Resources Publication. Littleton, Colorado, pp. 1-11.
Parametrix. 2002. Biological Review: Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal. Prepared
for Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition, Seattle, Washington by Parametrix, Iqrkland
Washington. 193pp.
Palone, R.S. and A.H. Todd., eds. 1997. Chesapeake Bay riparian handbook: A guide for
establishing and maintaining riparian forest buffers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 'Forest
Service, NA-TP-02-97,481 p.
PeteIjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dyriamics in an agricultural watershed:
observations on the role ofa riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475.
Peterson, R.e., L.B.M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere. 1992. A building block model for stream
. restoration. In P.J. Boon, P. Calow, and G.E. Petts, eds. River Conservation and
Management. Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.470 pp.
Pollock, M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to
. protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State: Version 1.1.
10,000' Years Institute: Bainbridge Island, Washington.
Raleigh, RF., W.J. Miller, and P.e. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: chinook
salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS?OBS-82110.122.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003 .
Page 23
City of Renton Best Ava. Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Robison, E. G., and R. L. Beschta. 1990b. Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide coarse
woody debris to streams. Forest Science 36:790-801.
Reeves, G.H., and J.R Sedell. 1992. An ecosystem approach to the conservation and management
of freshwater habitat for anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conf. 57:408-415.
Schueler, Y. 1995. Site planning for urban stream protection, Washington D.C., Metropolitan
Washington Council of Gove~ents and the Center for Watershed Protection.
Schultz, Re., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins, C. W: Mirze, and M.L. Thompson.
1995. Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip system. Agroforestry
System. 29:201-226.
Snyder, G.G., H.F. Haupt, and G.H. Belt. 1975. Clearcutting and burning slash alter quality of
stream water in northern Idaho. U.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service INT-168, .
Ogden, UT.
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, RM. Hughes, and RP. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to
salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services
Corp., Corvallis, Oregon.
Steinblums, I. J., H. A. Froehlich, and J. K. Lyons. 1984. Designing stable buffers strips for stream
protection. Joum(il of Forestry 82:49-52.
Sullivan, K. J. TooIey~ K. Doughty, J.E. Caldwell, P. Knudsen. 1990. Evaluation of prediction
models and characterization of stream temperature regimes in Washington.
TimberlFishlWildlife Report TFW-WQ3-90-006, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, Washington.
Terrell, C,R, and P.B. Perfetti. 1989. Water quality indicators guide: surface waters. U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, SCS-TP-161. Washington, D.C. 129pp.
Thomas, lW., M.G. Raphael, RG. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, RS. Holtahausen,
B.G. Marcot, G.H.Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Soils. 1993. Viability assessments and
management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth
forests of the Pacific Northwest: the report of the scientific analysis team. U.S. Forest
Service, Washington, D.C. 529 pp.
Todd, A. 2000. Making decisions about riparian buffer width. Pages 445-450 in P.J. Wigington and
RL. Beschta, Eds. Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds.
American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Tri-County. 2000. Draft Tri-County Regulation of Development Program. Report from the
Technical Committee on Regulatory Measures to Protect Salmonid Habitat in the Puget
Sound Region, June 28,2000.
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Page 24 .
City of Renton B.Available Science Literatur~ Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
United States Forest Service. 1993. A first approximation of ecosystem health. Draft U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Reg., Portland, Oregon. 109pp.
Vanderholm, D.H., and E. C. Dickey. 1978. ASAE Paper No. 78-2570. Presented at the ASAE 1978
winter meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
Van Sickle, J. and S.V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from
falling trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 20; 1593-1601.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, Summary
Comparison of Invalidated and Proposed Replacement Guidelines WAC 173 .. 26, Olympia,
Washington. January 24,2003. .
. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: Riparian.
2001. Management
Washington State Office of Community Development. 2002. Citations of recommended Sources of
Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, Olympia, Washington.
March 2002.
Wenger, Seth. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and
vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia.
Athens,Georgia.
Woodard, S.E.,. and -C.A. Rock. 1995. Control of residential stormwater by natural· buffer strips.
Lake and reservoir Management 11(1):37-45. .
. .
:Xu, L., J. W. Gilliam, and R. B. Daniels. 1992. Nitrat~movement and loss in riparian buffer areas.
Page342 in Agronomy Abstracts. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer delineation method for urban palustrine wetlands in the Puget Sound
Region. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ac. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFf -February 27, 2003
Page 25
City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REFERENCE SUBJECT SUMMARY
Large Woody Debris (LWO) Recruitment Literature Review·
I Citation
May 2000 (cited in King County 2002) and 2002
Pollock and Kennard 1998
Knutson and Naef 1997
Spence et aI. 1996
FEMAT 1993 (cited in King County 2002)
Thomas et al. 1993 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
May 2002)
Robison & Beschta 1990 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; May 2002)
Van Sickle & Gregory 1990 (cited in City of Portland
2001; May 2002)
McDade et aI. 1990
Murphy & Koski 1989 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; May 2002)
Budd et aI1987 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
Harmon et aI. 1986 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
May 2002)
Bottom et aI. 1983 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
City of Portland 2001; May 2002)
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
I Notes
Literature review; 1 SPTH 133-328 ft.) based on long term natural levels
Forested wat~rsheds (forest practices);LWD Recruitment 1 SPTH (105-250 ft.)
Literature review; LWD Recruitment 100-200 ft.
Literature review; LWD Recruitment in western Oregon forests (1 SPTH=170
ft.)
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest
Multiple SPTH (1 SPTH =170ft.) may be required depending on site conditions
for.naturatLWD recruitment
Old growth forest in Pacific Northwest;
180 ft.
L WD Recruitment optimal 150 ft.
L WD Recruitment in old growth conifer forests in the Oregon Cascades
100 percent function (164 ft.)
Natural conifer forests western Oregon and Washington; .
85% of naturally occurring LWD Recruitment (100%) 100-150 ft.
Forestry /harvesting effects, Alaska streams in undisturbed old growth
hemlock and S,titka spruce forests; Minimum of 100 ft. for natural LWD .
. recruitment.
Liter'arure review; LID Recruitment; Pacific Northwest (100-170 ft.)
Comprehepsive study of the ecology of LWD (148 ft.)
Instream habitat/LWD restoration study only (100 ft.)
Page 26
I
e
e
e
e
City of Renton
Channel Migration Zone Literature Review
Ir Citation
IITLlL -k and Kennard 1998
Bank St~bi1ity/Erosion Control Literature Review
I Citation
Knutson and Naef 1997
Spence et al. 1996
Cederholm 1994 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997).
FEMAT 1993 (cited in King County 2002)
Johnson and Ryba 1992 (cited in City of Portland
2001; Levitt 1998)
Raleigh et aI1986 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997)
Organic Litter (leaf litter, pine combs and wood)
I . Citation
Spence et aL 1996
FEMAT 1993 (cited in King County 2002; City of
Portland)
Erman et al. 1977
A.C. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
I
I
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Notes
Forested watersheds (forest practices); 100-year flood plain
Notes
Erosion control, review ofJiteniture bUffer width of 100-125 ft.
Literature review; forests of Western Oregon forests
Buffer for bank stabilization 170 ft.
Western Washington riparian systems;
High mass wasting area buffer of 125 ft.
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest; . .
Bank stabilization riparian forest ecosystem 0.5 SPTH (100 ft.)
Literature review; buffer recommended for channel morphology 65-100 ft.
Bank erosion control buffer 100 ft.
Notes
Literature review (170 ft.)
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest (0.5 SPTH=100 ft.)
Literature review (100 ft.)
Page 27
----------------------------------~----------_---,-------------------------------
City of Renton
Pollutant RemovalfWater Quality Literature Review
Citation
GENERAL WATER QUALITY'
Fischer et al. 2000
METRO 1997 (cited in City of Portland. 2001
Knutson and Naef 1997
FEMAT 1993 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
Johnson and Ryba 1992 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; Levitt 1998)
Budd et al. 1987 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
NUTRIENT REMOV AljREGULATION
May 2000 (cited in King County 2002) and 2002
Todd 2000 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
Wenger 1999
Spence et al. 1996
Schultz et al. 1995 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
May 2002)
Woodard and Rock 1995
Castelle et al. 1994 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
Osborne and Kovacic 1993 (cited in May 2002)
Madison et aL 1992 (cited in May 2002; Spence et al
1996)
Petersen et aL 1992 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
cited in May 2002}
Xu et al. 1992 (cited in May 2002; Spence et a11996)
Terrell & Perfetti 1989 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; May 2002)
Jones et al. 1988 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997)
Peteljolm and Correll 1984 (cited in May 2002)
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Notes
Review of the literature; Improving or protecting water quality (33-100 ft.)
Literature review (50-100 ft.)
Literature review;p_ollutant removal (13-600 ft.)
Forest'ecos'ystem management; mature forest; Maintain water quality (12-860
ft.)
Literature review; maintain water quality (25-170 ft.)
Literature Review (100 ft.); Pacific Northwest
Literature review; 80% nutrient removal (13-860 ft., minimum 98 ft.)
Multi-land use watersheds; nutrient removal (33-100 ft.)
Literature review; N-Removal (50-100 ft.)
Literature review; nutrient regulation (170 ft.)
Nutrient removal in a multi-species riparian buffer strip (66 ft.)
100 % removal of TP from non-point residential construction runoff (50 ft)
Literature'review; Filter metals and nutrients (100 ft.)
96% N removal (52 ft.)
Vegetated filter strips (tillage and grass)
90-96% removal of N & P using VFS; 7-12% slopes (15-30 ft.)
Minimum buffer width for effective P removal (33 ft.)
95% removal of N in mixed herbaceous and forested riparian buffer in North
Carolina (33 ft.)
Minimum width for effective nutrient removal in forested riparian areas
(100 ft.)
Natural riparian ecosystems; Nutrient and fecal coliform removal (100-141 ftl
73-84% P removal; 5% slope (VFS). Riparian forest treating an agricultural
watershed (164 ft.)
Page 28
e
e
e
e
. City of Renton
SEDIMENT FILTRATION
May 2000 (cited in King County 2002) and 2002
Knutson and Naef 1997
Cederholm 1994 (cited in May 2002)
Desbonnet et al. 1994 (cited in May 2002)
FEMAT 1993 (cited in King COUIity 2002; City of
Portland) .
Belt et al. 1992 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997; May
2002)
Johnson and Ryba 1992 (cited iIi. Knutson and Naef
1997; Levitt 1998)
Terrell and Perfetti 1989 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; May 2002)
Gilliam & Skaggs 1988 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; May 2002) .
,Budd et al. 1987 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
IIVanderholm & Dickey 1978 (cited in May 2002)
IVanderholm & Dickey 1978 (cited in May 2002)
IIBroderson 1973 {cited in MaX 2002) .'
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
I
Literature review; 80% sediment removal (26-600 ft.).
Review of literature (26-300 ft.) ~
Minimum to protect stream banks in high erosion or mass wasting areas
(125 ft.) , .
Coastal zone vegetative buffers. Optimum "sediment" removal (82 ft.)
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest (200 ft.)
50% removal by riparian vegetation; control of non-channelized sediment flow
I (200-300 ft.)
Literature review; 90 % ~ediment removal at 2% grade (10-400 ft.)
80% sediment removal by vegetation (200 ft.)
50% removal by riparian vegetation (290 ft.)
(100 ft.) .
80% TSS removal on a 0.5% slope (300 ft.)
80% TSS removal on a4% slope (860 ft.)
190% removal bX ri~arian veE/etation {200 ft.} I
Page 29
City of Renton
Microclimate Literature Review
I Citation
May 2000 (cited in King County 2002) and 2002
Pollock and Kennard, 1998
Brosofske et al. 1997
Knutson and Naef 1997
Spence et al. 1996
Chen et al. 1995 (cited in May 2002)
FEMAT 1993 (City of Portland 2001; King County
2002; May 2002)
Franklin and Forman 1987 (cited in Knutson and
Naef 1997; May 2002)
Harris 1984 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997; May
2002)
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
I
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Notes
Literature review; optimum long-term function (148-656 ft. or 328 ft.
minimum)
Forested watersheds (forest practices) (250 ft.)
Forest/harvesting effects;
Western Washington with 70-80% over story coverage (Douglas fir and
western hemlock) (148 ft.)
Review of literature (200-525 ft.)
Literature'review; forests of Western Oregon forests (100 ft.)
Riparian forest ecosystem (200-400 ft.)
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest;
Maintain natural riparian microclimate
(0.5 to 3 SPTH=100-600 ft.)
Riparian forest ecosystem (535 ft.)
Riparian forest ecosystem (525 ft.)
-----
Page 30
I
i
I
I I
, e
I
!
I
I
e
e
e
City of Renton
Temperature Literature Review
Citation
May 2000 (cited in King County 2002) and 2002
Knutson and Naef 1997
Brosofske et al. 1997
Spence et al. 1996
Murphy 1995 (cited in Spence et al. 1996)
Castelle et al. 1994 (cited in City of Portland 2001)
FEMAT 1993 (cited in King County 200; City of
Portland 2001; May 2002)
Johnson and Ryba 1992 (Cited in Knutson and Naef
1997; Levitt 1998; Spence et aI1996)
Jones et al. 1988 (Cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
May 2002)
Beschta et al. 1987 (also cited in Knutson and Naef
199~May2002;SpenceetaI1996)
Corbett & Lynch 1985 (cited in May 2002; Knutson
and Naef 1997)
Lynch et al. 1985(cited in Knutson and Naef 1997;
May 2002)
Steinblums et al. 1984 (cited in May 2002; Knutson
and Naef 1997)
Hewlett & Fortson 1982 (cited in May 2002)
Brazier and Brown 1973 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997 and May 2002; Spence et a11996)
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Best Available Science Literature Review·
And Streani. Buffer Recommendations
Notes
Literature Review;
Adequate shade (36-141 ft.or minimum of 98 ft.)
Literature review (35-151 ft.) .
. Harvesting effects western Washington;
Natural temperature regulation (148 ft.)
Literature review; .
Natural temperature and shading (Cascade and Coast range) (100 ft.)
Shade:(100 ft.)
Literature Review;
Shade and water temperature (76 ft.)
Forest ecosystem management; mature forest;
Shade (100-150 ft.)
Literature Review;· ..
50-100% shade (100 ft.)
Urbanization effects; 80% shade (100-141 ft.)
.. Forestry interactions/harvesting;
Minimum shade to level of old growth forest (50-100%) shade (100 ft.)
Municipal watersheds; 60-80% shade (39-100 ft.)
Mature forested watersheds; 50-100% shade (100 ft.)
60-80% shade (75-92 ft.); 80% shade (151 ft.)
60-80% shade (50-100 ft.)
Old growth stands conifer forests s. cascades and Oregon Coast range; 60-80%
shade (35-125 ft.) .'
Page 31
City of Renton
Human Disturbance Literature Review
Citation
Schuler 1995
Cooke 1992
General Riparian Buffer Recommendations
Stream Type
General
Headwater/ mid-section sh'eams
General
Perennial streams
General
General (Type 1 -Type 5)
General
General
General
General
General
General
General
• Fish bearing streams
• Perennial (non-fish)
• Intermittent
General
A.c. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT -February 27, 2003
Best Available Science Literature Review
And Stream Buffer Recommendations
Notes
. Protects physical and ecological integrity (25 to 50 ft.)
Mixed use residential; 50 ft. or greater buffers recommended to protect from
human disturbance.
Citation/Study
Fischer et al. 2000 (50-325 ft.)
Metro (OR) 1999 (150 ft.)
Oregon Division of State Lands, 1998 (20-120 ft.)
Pollock and Kennard 1998 (250 ft.)
Metro (OR) 1997 (50-200 ft.)
WDFW 2001 (Knutson and Naef 1997) (150-250 ft.)
Johnson and Ryba 1992 (cited in Knutson and Naef 1997) (50-100 ft. to protect
stream functions)
May et al. 1997 (100-325 ftl
Schueler 1995 (100 ft.)
Castelle et al. 1994 (50-100 ftl
Spence et al. 1996 (100-170 ft..)
FEMAT 1993 (150-300 ftl
U.S. Forest Service 1993; Reeves and Sedell1992 (cited in Knutson and Naef
1997)
2 SPTH (300 ft.); 1 SPTH (150 ft.); and 100 ft.
Erman et al. 1977_(100 ft.)
Page 32
e
I
e
m
Jones & Stol<es
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 13, 2004
To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
Subject: Transmittal ofParametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations
Introduction/Purpose
This memo transmits Parametrix' s evaluation of Renton's wetland regulations for compliance
with Growth Management Act best available science requirements.
The purposes of the work program were to:
• Review Best Available Science Documents from the State Department O'fEcology, State
Department ofCornmunity, Trade, and Economic Development, and King County, as well as
Available Data; and .' ..
• Review Existing Regulations ~d Identify Recommendations.
The recommendations are attached in a summary matrix format. For ease of review, Jones &
Stokes has added row numbers. .
Wetlands Location
In 1991,the City inventoried and identified 32 wetlands, totaling approximately 367 acres withi~
theCi,ty limits. 'Within Renton's sphere of influence, approximately 67 wetlands, totaling 1,067
acres~ ':\TeTe identified. Wetland types found in Renton and its sphere of influence include bogs,
emergent marshes, sirrub/s~rub, forested and old growth wetlands.' Most of the wetlands are
adjacent to rivers and streams although other smaller'concentrations are found elsewhere. Most
are located in the "Valley" area of Renton inside the City limits. 1 Wetland inventories have been
updated in some portions of the City, such as through the City's 1997 Eastside Green River
Wastershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
I Jones and Stokes Associates (June 1991). Critical Areas Inventory: City of Renton Wetlands and Stream
Corridors. Prepared for the City of Renton, PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Department. Renton,
Washington.
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946 • .tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandstokes.com
Renton Wetlands Regulations History . ;;;7(;'1 i 1.,\ J n " -"·u./r/t
In 1992 the City adopted wetland regulations. The City considered the use of DOE;s:}9QO Model Regulatio~s~ ~ w.ell as Ki.ng County's regul~tion~, ultimatelyado?tin~ a classifi~~tibf~a~:buffer
system faIrly sImIlar to King County regulatIOns In effect at that tIme: In the Year 2000 the
City's wetland regulations were integrated as part of a comprehensive critical areas ordinance.
In 2000, following a public and agency review process consistent with the Growth Management
Act, the City's wetlands regulations were modified. The key changes made at that time are
summarized below:
• Exemptions were added, deleted, and amended.
•. Wetland delineation procedures recognized the 1997 Statewide manual.
• Wetland classifications could result in dual ratings/classifications, using a State manual,
rather than a single rating in all cases.
• Buffer enhancement was added ~. a requir~ment for buffer averaging proposals .
• ·Wetland enhancement in conjunction with wetland creation or restoration was newly allowed
(enhancement as mitigation was not allowed previously).
Parametrix Recommendations
Parametrix has found that the City's wetland regulations are supported by current best avaiiable
science for wetlands in Washington State. However, several recommendations are proposed that
could be implemented as administrative rules (e.g. references to recommended scientific papers
to help guide staff) or specific code revisions to improve or better document the City'S decision-
making process. Parametrix's recommendations are attached. .
Key Policy Issues
.. .
Specific amendments are proposed to the following sections ofthe Wetlands regulations:
• Exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands -those ~at provide functions should not be
exempt.
• Exemptions for ongoing agriculture, vegetation management, stormwater management·
. facilities in buffers,and trails and open space facilities in buffers should be amended to
ensure deminimus impacts.
-·A measure to enhance the City's classification system could be to reference or translate the
State Department of Ecology's rating system to the City's (meaning identify how the State's
four-way system translates to the City's three-way class system). However, at present, the
City's wetland class system was found to be sound. '
2 Washington State Department of Ecology (September 1990), Model Wetlands Protection,Ordinance~
Olympia, Washington, , .
Jones & Stokes
Transmittal ofParametrix Wetland Regulations
July 13, 2004
2
.e
• Wetland classification criteria relying on the County's 1991 inventory should be deleted.
Vague tenns in the classification system should be amended (e.g. plant associations of
infrequent occurrence and headwaters).
• Wetland assessments should be required for proposals within300 feet of a wetland rather
than 100 feet. This is because in some cases the City may wish to expand wetland buffers
beyond standard requirements.
• The City's standard buffers were found to meet best available science. It was recommended
buffer size detenninations should document how best available science is met. A particular
reference/method is s~ggested: The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the
Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000. This would be particularly appropriate for buffer
reductions, buffer averaging, modifications, variances and similar actions.
• Since the City's buffer averaging criteria include science based provisions (e.:g. variation in
wetland sensitivity), it was recommended that reasonable use be removed as a criterion for
buffer averaging.
• Review criteria to expand buffers should be amended to remove vague tenns.
• Definitions of restoration, creation,and enhancement as well as protection/maintenance
should be revised to be consistent with State and Federal agencies.
• Parametrix noted that the City may wish to allow enhancement alone as a mitigation option
for certain lower quality wetlarids .. A City staffreview team reviewed this policy issue and
recommends continuing with the requirement to allow for enhancement in conjunction With .
wetland creation/restoration, given the City's policy to achieve no-net-Ioss of wetland acres
as well as functions.
• Enhancement criteria should be amended to allow some desirable changes in functions.
• Off-site mitigation may be more 'desirable than on-site mitigation, and some criteria are
proposed for amendment.
As part of the City Review Team consideration, it was noted that the scientific citations included
inthe Parametrix review are helpful. While it is possible to include these citations in an
administrative rule, it was thought that it was unnecessary. The City has instituted 'it third-party
review which should allow for appropriate preparation of wetland assessments and mitigation
plans. In 'any case the Parametrix report will be made available to staff.
The attached memo and matrix elaborate on the above summary of amendments.
Jones & Stokes
Transmittal of Parametrix Wetland Regulations
July 13, 2004
3
MERCER
Renton Municipal Code
_ Wetlands
~ Creeks
~ Rivers City BoundaIy
r~~~J Lakes - - -Municipality Boundaries
Renton Wetlands
For R.eference Only
1 Inch -1 Mile I ' !
Parametrix ENGINEERING • PLANNING. ENVIRONMI!NTJI,L SCIENCI!S
5808 lAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. NE. SUITE 200
KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98033-7350
T.425. 822.8880 F. 425.889.8808
www.panmettix.com
M E M 0 RAN DUM"
Date: June 28, 2004
To: Lisa Grueter
Jones and Stokes
.From: Jim Kelley, Ph.D.
Subject: Best Available Science Ordinance Review
cc: Andy Kindig
Project Number:
Project Name: City of Renton Ordinance Review
This memorandum addresses a review of Best Available Science (BAS) for wetlands within the City of
Renton to assist the City in complying with Growth Management Act requirements and guidelin~s. The
overall goal of the Best Available Science Review is to comply with the procedural rule (WAC 365-195-
(900 to 925) to consider Best Available Science in developing critical area regulations. The evaluation
consider~d whether: "" "
• Existing wetland regulatioris are consistent with the BAS.
• Existing regulations adequately protect the functions and values provided by wetlands within the
City of Renton. "
The review of the above issues was largely based on BAS standards and justifications for wetlands
identified in:
• Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State Volume I: A synthesis of the Science, Ecology 2003
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Westem Washington Revised Draft, Ecology 2004
". Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Ecology et. al. 2004
My analysis is summarized in the attached table. As documented in the tabie, in general, the City's
ordinance is-supported by current BAS for wetlands in Washington State. However, I have made several
recommendations that can be implemented as administrative rules or code revisions to improve or better
document the City's decision-making process.
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft] J of J 2 June 28, 2004
_________________________________ 1 ________________ • __________________________________ ....
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
#
, 1.
2.
Wetland Issue
Applicability ,
and
Exemptions
Relation to City Code
, Section C and M(1) of the City Code
allows exemptions to Category 2 ..
wetlands less than 2,200 ft and '
Category 3 wetlands less than 5,000 ft2
Evaluation in Consideration of Best Available Science
Several scientific studies have demonstrated that some small wetlands can
provide important wetland functions (see Freshwater Wetlands in
Washington State Volume I: A synthesis of the Science, !=cology 2003).
Thus, exemptions of all small wetlands, as currently provided in the code,
may not be consistent with best available science. However, studies of the
'functions of small (2,200-5,000 fe) wetlands are limited and detailed ,
investigations have not been completed in Washington State or Renton. '
Since many small wetlands lack the characteristics of those examined in
scientific study, and are often highly modified, many of them may not
provide significant wetland functions.
A qualified biologist should review the environmental condition of each
small wetland proposed for alteration. The biologist should determine if the
small wetland(s) are providing substantial wetland functions. Wetlands that
are determined to be providing substantial functions should be subject to
further regulation. Exemptions are warranted where small wetlands are
determined to provide no wetland functions or insignificant wetland
functions. . ' ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The City's Code (Section C(5» identifies Activities that are exempt from Critical Areas regulation in the City's
exempt activities that are permitted ordinance are activities that are typically recognized as resulting in no or
within wetlands and associated buffers. "de minimus" wetland impacts. These activities typically do not physically
These activities include: alter the condition of wetlands or buffers in a manner that affects function
a. Conservation Enhancement or reduces wetland area. Where temporary wetland or buffer modifications
Education and Related Activitie~ may occur (i.e. for utility installation or repair) mitigation to include
, restoration of disturbed areas is required, b. Research and Site Investigations
c. Agriculturai, Harvesting,' and
Vegetation Management
d. Surface Water
e. ,Roads, Parks, Public Utiliti~s
f. Wetland Disturbance, Modification,
, and Removal '
Several modifications are recommended where the existing exemptions
could result in impacts that exceed the "de minimus" threshold. These
recommendations are:
Exemption c (ii) addresses ongoing agriculture in wetlands and states that:
"Operations cease to be ongoing when the area on which it was conducted
has been converted to another use or it has laid idle so long that
modifications to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume
, operations·. I suggest rewriting this to read: "Operations cease to be
.g. Maintenance and Construction -ongoing when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to
Existing Uses another use or it has laid idle so long that modifications to the hydrological
h. Emergency Activities ' ,regime or the removal of native vegetation are necessary to resume -------~-...... ~ ............................... : ................................................... ~ ....... _ ........ ~ ............... , ........... g,.I?~r.~!.i.!?nf.:.; .. I.~.i.~ .. 9.~.~.~9~ .. ~q~~ .. ~.~.~.':!.r.~ .. !b.~.t!Qn.9 .. ~!?~!).g.!?.Q~~ .. ~.9.r.!.~~!.~.~r.~L; .... ..
City of Renton -,critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft]
Parametrix. Inc. , ',20f 12 June 28. 2004
e
e
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code ' ' ... Evaluatlon In Consideration of Best Available Science
3.
4.
5.
Classification I
Rating System
· lands are not cleared of native plants, which may be providing habitat or
other functions.
· Exemption c (iii), e, and h(ii) address limited removal of hazardous trees or
removal of other vegetation. Where feasible, the cutting of hazard trees or
other woody vegetation should be accomplished such that trees will be
retained in the wetland or buffer, where feasible.
Limits to vegetation removal e(5) should also be expanded to permit the
removal of non-native invasive vegetation or weeds listed by the King
........................................................................................................................................... ~.~.~~~~ ... ~~~~~~~ .. ~::.~ .. ~~~~~_.~~~~he.~.~.~~:~~~_:~! ... ~g:_~~¥.: ....... _ ............................. _ ........ _ .. .
The City's Code (Section C(7» identifies
exempt activities that are permitted
within wetland buffers. These include:
a(i) Trails arid Open Space
Activities in wetland buffers that are exempt from Critical Areas regulation
· in the City's ordinance are activities that are typically recognized as
resulting in no or "de minimus" wetland buffer impacts. These activities
typically do not physically alter the condition of wetlands or buffers in a
manner that affects function or reduces buffer area. a(ii) Stormwater Management Facilities ., . . . . . The follOWing modifications are recommended where the eXisting
Section M. (1)a of the City Code provides'
a wetl?lnd classification system for rating
wetlands and for (in pact) determining
the regulatory standards that apply to
them. The system est.ablishes 3
categorie~ .of wetlands.
exemptions could result in impacts that exceed the "de minimus" threshold.
These are:
,a(i)(3) where enhancement of the buffer area adjacent to a trail is not
feasible due to existing high quality vegetation, additional buffer area or
other mitigation may be required. .
· a(ii) storm water management facilities located in wetland buffers should
require buffer enhancement or buffer averaging when they are sited in
areas of forest vegetation.
, The City's rating system provides objective criteria that have been routinely
· inqdrporated into wetland classification and evaluation criteria in the Puget
· SoiJnd region to differentiate between higher and lower quality wetlands.
The rating criteria are especially useful in Identifying wetlands with higher
81")d lower wildlife habitat functions (see Methods for Assessing Wetland
. ... Functions Volume I: Riverene and depressional wetlands in the Lowlands
· of Western Washington, Ecology 1999).
" ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _ ........................................................... -.......................................................................... .
The City's rating system differs from.
current and proposed Ecology or other
guidance. .
, Other rating systems (Washington State Wetland Rating System for
··Western Washington, Ecology 1993 and Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington Revised Draft, Ecology 2004) use a 4-
tiered approach for determining wetland categories that Ecology considers
Best Available Science. The criteria used in establishing these categories
---------................................... : ...................................................................................................... y.~!:Y. ... ~n9. .. ~r.~ .. ~.!:?r.~ .. r.!.~.!n.~I9..~.~ .. !~.~.~..!bg.~~£.9.n~.!9.~r.~9. .. ~.y...!.~.~ .. 9.!!Y..:~ ... ~!:?9.~.: ................ .. , .
City o/Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft]
Parametrix, Inc. 30/12 June 28,2004
e
e
e
e
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review 'for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Sch~nce
The revised draft Ecology approach has the benefit of documenting all
wetland functions as a factor in rating wetlands.
It is appropriate that a rating system, such as the City's system, that covers
just a few square miles of relatively homogeneous lands does not fully
. mirror the system that Ecology has developed for all of Western
Washington State. The variability in wetlands throughout western
Washington is much broader than that found in Renton, and therefore,
more wetland categories may be needed to reflect that variability in a
wetland rating system. For most situations, the Renton system and
Ecology's 1993 system compare as follows: .
Renton Category Ecology Category
1 I
2
3
II and III
IV
The 2004 revised Ecology rating system appears to be a quantitative and
. objective; however, like other systems, the assessment is based on broad
generalizations and judgments that are ultimately based on limited data
and many assumptions. The limited data and many assumptions mayor
may not hold for local conditions within the City of Renton.
The City's system provides for substantial differentiation -of iNetfand types
that are present in.the local area. The Renton ordinance uses site-specific -
wetland information, site-specific ecological evaluations, other available
tool~ (inventory and functional assessment models), and professional
judgments to characterize how a specific development project may impact
all wetland functions. Based on this analysis, a no net loss (both area and
. function) standard' is applied. Because of this comprehensive approach to
protecting wetlands, a detailed and comprehensive rating system would not
improve the wetland protections provided by the City's Code.
A potential benefit to the, proposed Ecology system is that it documents that
all key wetiand functions have been considered early on in any wetland
'eva.luation, whereas the City's current classification is largely focused on
habitat functions. The Ecology 2004 :system (currently in draft) could be
incorporated into the City's code, as indicated in the above table. ---------' ................ , ...... -.......................................... , ........................................ , ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft]
Parametrix, Inc.
40f12 June 28, 2004
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance, Review for Best Available Science
#
6,
7.
Wetland Issue Relation to City Code . Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
Portions 'of Section M(1 )arely on King It may be desirable to break ranks with King County's system. The rating
County's wetland inventory of 1991 ,or' 'system is currently undergoing County review and revision, and is likely to
as amended. . differ from the City's system . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... __ ........................................... _-_ .............................................. _ .................... ..
Portions of Section M(1)a rely on vague Terms in the existing classification section that are vague and/or
or undefined terms.' 'ambiguous include ·plant associations of infrequent occurrence" and "plant
.associations at the geographic limits of their occurrence". Different
" biologists could define each of these terms variously, and a comprehensive
list of these features for King County or Washington State that can be
readily integrated into this ordinance is not available. As a result, these
terms create uncertainty in how some wetlands may be regulated.
, A wetland in the "headwater of a watercolirse" appears to refer to a A
wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined -
8. Identification
and
Delineation
Section M(1)c and M(4) of the City's
Code requires use of the Washington
State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual, Ecology 1997.
" ~.
influent channel.
This manual is consistent with federal wetland delineation procedures, and
is considered best available science for identifying wetlands and wetland
boundaries. The Renton Municipal Code 4-8-120.023 provides criteria for
wetland delineation reports. These criteria are sufficient to provide the City
with the information needed to make decisions regarding the location and '
types of wetlands on a project site. Item h of the delineation report criteria
should be modified to include a requirement to identify the direct and
" ,indirect impacts of the project to wetland area and wetland functions.
In some situations, wetlands edges may be poorly defined and difficult to
• establish. In these circumstances, additional information may be useful in
reaching a scientifically defensible determination of a wetland edge. These
include:
National Academy of Sciences. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and
Boundaries. National Research Council.
Richardson, J. and M. Verpraskas. 2001. Wetland soils. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Nationa.l Resources Conservation Service. 2002. Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.0. NRCS in cooperation with
the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
9. Approval
Standards -
Minimization and Compensation of " These measures establish a high standard for approving and mitigation for
Impacts -Section M(2) a, b, and c wetland impacts. They are consistent with best available science that
_________ .... ~.~!~.~.!!.~.~ .. r~g~.!r.~.!n.~!.!!~ .. r.~.g.!:!.!r.~_~ .. _ ..... _ .. _ ... _ ..... __ .:~~~!~.9..!£~.~.~ ... !:!!.!9.~.~~.!!.!~y. ... ~~.~5?9.~~~d ~.!th !!l!~.9.~!!.9..~~~~_g5?p.I.?~!.!.~~.~!~.W. .. !~L .............. _ .. ..
'City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft] .
Parametrix, Inc.
5 of 12 ' June 28, 2004
e
e
e
City of Renton..,. Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance' Review' for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code
affirmative actions to minimize and ,
compensate for unavoidable wetland
impacts. A compensation standard of no
net loss of wetland area or function, by ,
drainage basin, is established. . '
Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act, National Research Council
2001; Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study Phase 1,
Ecology 2000 and Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study
Phase 2, Ecology 2001. '
Renton Municipal Code 4-8-120.023 provides criteria for wetland mitigation
plans. These criteria are sufficient to provide the City with the information
',' , ' , needed to evaluate mitigation proposals . ..........................................•................................................•..............................•..............•............................................................................................................................................... : ............................................................................................ . 10. Assessing Wetland Functions -Section
M(2) (and other subsections) consider
wetland functions and values as criteria
for permit approval.
Approaches to assessing wetland .functions should rely on scientific and
'accepted agency methods. They should include evaluation of and
application of relevant scientific literature and professional judgments
, where more generalized assessment methods are not applicable. Special
considerations must be given to the habitat requirements of the specific
wetland dependent wildlife species or groups that occur or are likely to
, occur on the site because wildlife functions are often most sensitive to
, wetland mitigation and buffer protection decisions.
For some projects, hydrologic studies and stormwater management
analysis will provide additional information regarding the potential
hydrologic and water quality functions of wetlands on or near the project
site. '
The following documents should be considered when making functions and
, values assessments:' ,
Hruby, T. 1999. Assessments of Wetland Functions: What They Are and
What They Are Not. Environmental Management. 23: 1.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2000. Methods for Assessing
Wetland Functions -Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the
Lowlands of Puget Sound.'
, ODSL (Oregon Division of State Lands). 2001. Guidebook for
Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)-based Assessment of Oregon Wetland and
Riparian Sites I. Willamette Valley Eco-region Riverene Impounding and
Slope/Flats Subclasses Volume IA: Assessment Methods. Oregon Division
of State Lands, Salem, Oregon. '
Johnson, H. and T. O'Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon
and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2000. Wetland
_________ ', ........................... , ............................................................... , .................. , ........................... E.!!~gt.!.Qt!.~ ... 9..~.~!.~.~t.~.r.!.~~t.!.Q!.!. .. T.Q2UQ!. .. ~!~.~.~.r. .. e!.~j~E~~: ... E,I];Y.,!~.9.,I];,f!!,~~,~~,! .. Aff~,!~,~ ........ ..
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft]
'Parametrix, Inc.
60f12 June 28, 2004
'. . .
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
#
11.
12.
Wetland Issue Relation to City Code .. Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science·
Office, Olympia Washington
. ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District). 1995.
. Highway Methodology Workbook: Supplement to Wetland Functions and
............................................................. ~ .. : ... : ..................................................... ; ... ; ............ y~~~.~~ .. /~ .. !?~~~~i.~.~.~y..~ .. ~~~E~~.~~.:.. ... ~.?~~?.~.~ ... ~~~~~.~~~~.~~~~.: .......................................................... .
Assessing Wetland Impacts -Section
M(2) (and other subsections) consider·
wetland and buffer impacts as criteria for
permit approval.
The City's requirement of basing wetland evaluations avoidance,
,minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts is sound. A wetland
impact analysis should be completed that considers both direct impacts to
wetlands (e.g. filling, clearing, etc.) and less direct alterations (e.g.
modifications to buffers, hydrology, water quality, or landscape conditions),
and Included in wetland reports. A general treatment of wetland potential·
wetland Impacts is discussed in Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State
Volume I: A synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2003). Site-specific
evaluations should be performed by identifying the ecological
characteristics of the wetland (including its adjacent area) that may change
due to the project and then by evaluating how these changes may impact
................................ : ............ ; ....... ; ................................................................ ;--............. ~.:~!.~.~.~ .. !~~ .. ~!?~.~ ........................................ _._-...................... _._ ...................... _ ........................................................... ~ .......... .
Planning Wetland Mitigation -Section The City's code provides for the planning and implementation of mitigation·
M(2) (and other subsections) consider following current agency guidelines and recommendations. These
wetland mitigation as criteria for permit . guidelines address wetland function assessment, setting goals and
approval.· . objectives, site selection, site design and construction, and developing
. conceptual and final mitigation plan. Monitoring during and following
installation of mitigation is necessary to assure that mitigations are installed
properly and ultimately meet performance criteria.
Relevant documents to consider in planning mitigation include:
G~idance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Ecologyet. al. 2004
e
Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. Guidelines for Developing ..
Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals. ..
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft]
Parametrix, Inc.
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses
. Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1996. Guidelines for the Development of
Wetland Replacement Areas. Transportation Research Board, Report 379.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2000. Washington State Wetland
Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 1: Compliance.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2002. Washington State Wetland
Mitigation Evaluation Study~ Phase 2, Evaluating Success.
70f12 June 28, 2004
e
e·
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for. Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code Evaluation In Consideration of B.est Available Science
13. Required
Studies
. 14. Wetland
. Buffers
Section M(3) specifies studies be
completed to classify and delineate
wetlands. .
Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Wetland Mitigation
Replacement Ratios: Defining Equivalency. ..
Washington State Department of Transportation. 1999. Success
Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects-A Guideline.
Classifications a~e r4;lquired when the project area or subject property is
within 100-feet of a wetland. This provision is to ensure that potential
impacts to protective wetland buffers l;Ire recognized and evaluated during
the review process. However, the 100-foot threshold is not consistent with
other sections of the ordinance (i.e. Section M(6)d) which may require
protective buffers in excess of 100-feet. The threshold for evaluation and
study should be increased to 300 feet to match the Department of
. Ecology's recommended buffers for Category I wetlands .. This approach
_ will ensure that all potential impacts to nearby wetlands and buffers are
evaluated.
Section M(6)c of the City's Code Best available science demonstrates that buffers are required to protect
establishes standard buffers as follows: . wetland functions. Generally, buffers should be established so adjacent
development will not adversely impact the functions and values provided by
the wetland, and the City'sordinance, as currently written provides this
protection. The City's standard buffer r~qyirements provide substantial
protection to all wetland functions, as documented in Freshwater Wetlands
. in.Washington State Volume I: A synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2003,
. Wetland Category Standard Buffer see Chapter 5). . .
· Science-based evaluations of buffer requirements are not available for all
wetland conditions and all adjacent land uses. Therefore .. most wetland
. regulations make provisions for adjusting standard buffer guidelines (see
· Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State Volume I: A synthesis of the
. 1 -Very High Quality 100 feet Science and The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the
Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000). Further, existing buffer
evaluations that are cited in Ecology's (2004) review have not considered
thewide range of water quality and water quantity protections that existing
stormwater management and site development ordinances provide to
.. wetlands. Generally, wetland buffers are not expected to control water
2 -HIgh Quahty 50 feet quality (i.e. remove sediments, nutrients, and potentially toxic compounds)
because City code-requires storm water management facilities that are
· designed to perform these functions. .
Therefore, the primary need for wetlal1d buffers is to protect the wildlife
____ -'--_-.,-__ ................................................. : ............. : ............. .-.; ............... ~ ...... : ............................... ...f.~.Q~~.!2~.~.~2f. .. ~~.~!.~~.9.~..f2r..~.~f!.~.Q.9 .. 9.~.P.~n.9.~!].~ .. ~P~~!~~.: ..... ~.92!g.9.Y. .. (P§l.9.~ ... ?7.~.?..!... ... ,
3 -Lower Quality 25 feet
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft] 8 of 12 June 28, 2004·
Parametrix, Inc.
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
.. 2004) states that "th ere is no· simple generalized answer for what
constitutes an effective buffer width for wildlife considerations. The width of
. the buffer is dependent upon the species in question and its life-history
needs, whether the goal is to maintain connectivity of habitats across a
3 _ Lower Quality 25 feet' ~andscape, or whe.ther. on~ is simply trying .to screen wild/~fe fro,!, hu~an
_____ --'!:._-z----'-___ -------.--, mteractlons." BasIc criteria recognized as Important considerations In
These standardbuffers.can be
increased or decreased, based on
. ,determining the width of a buffer are:
factors identified in Sections M(6)d or e . ". _ the value of the aquatic resource to be protected by the buffer;
-the characteristics of the aquatic resource in question, of the watershed a
contributing to the aquatic resource, and of the buffer itself; •
-the intensity of the existing adjacent land use (or proposed land use); and
-the specific functions that the buffer is to provide, especially the life-
history needs of wildlife using the adjacent wetland.
For the City of Renton, consideration of the general land uses, watershed
conditions, wetland habitat conditions, and high levels of habitat
fragmentation that are present restricts many highly sensitive wildlife
species from using many wetlands in the City. Therefore, to assure that
existing wildlife uses are maintained, wetlands in the City will often not
require the level of buffer protectio'n identified by Ecology.
McMillian (2000) identifies the value of site specific buffer determinations
, that that allow consideration of detailed site specific information relevant
. buffer needs and effectiveness. This general approach is currently used by
the City, and it is protective of wetlands and wetland functions. .
Currently, it appears that reviews for buffer adequacy may not be fully
documented. A site-specific evaluation and documentation approach
similar to that presented in McMillian(2000) could be implemented to
improve the decision-making process that Renton uses for determining the
appropriate buffer width for specific projects and wetlands. This improved
evaluation approach would help document how each buffer determination
" reflects BAS.
15. Section M(6)d(i) identifies the potential" '. The determination of buffer sizes required to support "viable populations" of
", .. !:!.~~~.!9.r .. !.§!.f.9.~.f. .. ~.~ff.~.f.~J9. ... ~!:!P"P.Q.~_~'y'.~.~.~~._..:_.~.~!!.~n.Q .. ~~p..~r.!.Q.~.~! .. ~!.!~!.!f~.l.~ .. g.~n.~.f.~.!!Y. .. r.!.Q.~ .. p..f.§!.~~.~_~~.!~.: .... !.~~ .. ~.§!.~.!!~.! .. ~.f.~.§!{~J.. ...
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft] 90f12 June 28, 2004
Parametrix, Inc. .
e
It
e
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue Relation to City Code
populations of existing species"
Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
and condition(s) required to maintain viable populations are generally not
known, nor readily determined. These determinations are confounded .
because many species of wildlife are mobile and use a variety of wetland
and non-wetland habitats (often in non-contiguous areas) to meet their life
history needs. . .
. A more general approach to meeting the intent of this requirement is
recommended. Theterm "viable populati9ns of' could be replaced with
"use by" 9r "habitat conditions for". Analysis of wildlife habitats shOUld be
largely based on species-specific scientific literature and other sources.
The following summarize requirements for wildlife species in Washington:
Johnson, H., and T. O'Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon
and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. .
Brown, E. R 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests
of Western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. .
17. Wetland
Mitigation
. Section M(6)f i-vi identify criteria for
buffer width averaging. Criteria iii
specifies that buffer averaging must not
adversely impact wetland functions and
values
Section M(10) addresses wetland
mitigation.
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands [Draft]
Parametrix, Inc.
. Criteria ii and iii seem to be the key science based criteria that must be
met. If these criteria are met, it is unclear why an additional demonstration
of reasonable use, is required.
Buffers of wetland mitigation sites should generally be established as
necessary to protect the identified functions of the mitigation. Where
impacted wetlands currently lack adequate buffers, case-by-case
determinations on the buffers appropriate for mitigation sites may be
warranted. .
The wetland mitigation standards and approach are protective, and
conform with most BAS recommendations.
For reasons of consistency, the City may want to revise definitions of
wetland mitigation to conform to current definitions used by state and
federal agencies. These are:
Restoration: the manipulation of the phYSical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions'
to former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in
Wetland acres, restoration is divided into:
Re-establishment: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions
to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former
wetland and results in a gain in wetland acres.
100/12 June28, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of R~nton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for. Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue
18. Wetland
Enhancement
19.
Relation to City Code
Section M(12)a identifies that
enhancement activities are only allowed
in conjunction with proposals to restore
or create a wetland.
Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
. Rehabilitation: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions
of degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function,
but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Creation (or Establishment): the manipulation of the physical, chemical,
or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland that did not
'previously exist on an upland or deepwater site. Establishment results in a
• gain in wetland acres.
Enhancement: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland (undisturbed or degraded) site the heighten,
intensify, or improve specific function(s) or for a purpose such as water
quality improvement, flood water retention or wildlife habitat. Enhancement
results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline in other
wetland function, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. This term
includes activities commonly associated with the terms enhancement,
management, manipulation, directed alteration.
Protection/Maintenance: the removal of a threat to, or preventing decline
of, wetland conditions be an action in of near a wetland. Includes purchase
of land or easement, repairing water control structures or fences, or
structural protection such as repairing a barrier island. This term also
includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation.
Protection/Maintenance does not result in a gain of wetland acres or
function .
. The City's Code is protective by limiting the use of enhancement to ensure
no net loss of wetland area. In some cases (for example where small
wetland fragments are determined to provide low levels of function,
enhancement activities alone may be suitable mitigation. There may be
cases where functional losses to certain lower quality wetlands can be fully
mitigated by enhancement proposals, as suggested by current and·
proposed federal and state guidance . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. -............................................................................. __ ........................................... .
Section M(12)b identifies evaluation The, City's Code is protective by limiting the use of enhancement to ensure
criteria for enhancement that require the no net loss of wetland area. However, when evaluated in detail and ona
. proposed enhancement of function not .. case-by-case basis, there may be desirable changes in wetland functions
degrade another function. that can best be accomplished by enhancement. For example, it may be
desirable to plant an emergent wetland pasture that provides function to
over-wintering waterfowl with native forest vegetation to improve various
functions, including native wildlife. Technically, this "degrades" habitat for
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft] .
Parametrix, Inc.
II of12 June 28, 2004
e
e
""', (<<I
e
e
City of Renton -Wetlands Critical Area Ordinance Review for Best Available Science
# Wetland Issue . Relation to City Code
20. Off-site
Compensation
Section M(14)a identifies restrictions on
when off-site cO!Ylpensation is an
acceptable option.
City of Renton -Critical Areas Review-Wetlands {Draft]
Parametrix, Inc.
Evaluation In Consideration of Best Available Science
waterfowl but overall, it results in wetlands that provide higher function to a .
wider variety of wildlife species ..
Current scientific evaluations of wetland mitigation approaches suggest
that off-site mitigation should be more widely encouraged in order to
increase the success of wetland mitigation and to increase the overall
function of mitigation sites (see Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in
,Washington$tate, Ecologyet.a!. 2004). Therefore, criteria iv should be'
revised to indicate that "the proposed wetland functions at the mitigation
site are significantly greater than the wetland functions that could be
reasonably achieved with on-site mitigation".
12 of 12 June ·28, 2004
NT PLANNING DEVEL9!'Mo~ RENTON CII' '.
: jUL 0 8 200Jt ,
RECEIVED
•
Memorandum ___________________ _
Date: July 13,2004
To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
, '.
Subject: Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard,. and Habitat
Conservation Regulations to State Example Critical Areas Code
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and pn;>tecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). GMA requires
protection of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (RCW .
36.70A.030). Sinc~ the original GMA was instituted in 1991, GMA has been amended ~ith
respect to critical areas, particuiarlyto require the use, of "best available science" in criticaJ. area
policies and regulations and consideration of anadromous fish species. .
Partly in response to GMA, the City of Renton adopted Critical Area Regulations between 1.989
and 2000. The City regulations currently address:
•. Aquifer Protection Areas
• Geologically Hazardous Areas
• Habitat Conservation Areas
• . Frequently F1oo~ed Areas; and
• Wetlands
The City Critical Area Regulations "reserve" a section to address the protection of streams and
lakes, which otherwise are minimally addressed in the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
regulations (25 foot setback from waterbodies).
Given the status of the stream regulations, the focus of the City's efforts to comply with the
GMA best available science provisions relates to streams, and a series of recommendations by
the consultant team are found under separate cover. However, to document the City'S
compliance with best available science for the remaining GMA critical area topics and
effectively use the City's resources, the consultant team has prepared more limited scope reviews
and evaluations. These limited scope reviews include an evaluation of wetland regulations
11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 • Bellevue, WA 98005-1946· tel. 425 822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
www.jonesandsto~es.com
. 'r~': :lw",~~,~,~ i·; ~ ,'1';til .l, , . . . .J ! , .•. f.", ·,U~!·I In
available under separate cover, as well as a comparison of the City's aquifer,f1~(;d"hai'~fd;j .,'
geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations and the State DepartmehiiofCdmrtnmity
Development's Example Code contained iri this memo. . . ,~ ~.
. . ~.::, ~'iJI='!:);?~4
An overview of the overall work program, definitions of best available science, and sunimanes
of case law is provided under separate cover in separate memos .
. OVERVIEW KEY POLICY ISSUES: AQUIFER, FLOOD HAZARD, GEOLOGIC
HAZARD AND HABITAT CONSERVATION REGULATIONS
Based on a comparison of the State Example Code and'City'Critical Area Regulations for aquifer
protection areas, flood hazards, geologic hazards, and habitat conservation, the City's regulations
address similar purposes/intents and have similar standards to the State Example Code, while
being tailored to the City's environm~ntal and regulatory context. We note some differences that
are generally minor, and we provide some suggestions to strengthen the City's regulations for
these critical areas. .
The subject critical areas and the City's procedures are addressed individually'in remaining
sections of this document:
1. Aquifer Protection Areas ......................................................... : ............................................... 5
2. Flood Hazard Regulations .... ; ..................... ~ ......... · ................................................................... 10
3. Geologic Hazards ....................................................................................... , ........................... 14
4 .. Habitat Conservation .......................................................................................... : ................... 21
5. Critical Areas Regulations Procedures .~ ............................................................. ~ ................. 24
For each critical area topic we describe:
.' • The critical area's location
• Studies used by the City to formulate their current regulations
• State agency input, prior or current
• Comparison with the state DCTED example code
• City policy considerations
• Recommendations
A summary of the recommendations is provided below.
Summary of Recommendations
• Aquifer Protection Areas: . The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in
intent, and are tailored to the City's critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the
aquifer protection zone map in RMC Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better
distinguish between Zone 1 Modified and Zone 2 is proposed. It would not change the areas
regulated by each zone, nor the aquifer regulations. A discretionary code amendment could
be included to allow the City to require a hydrogeologic assessmen(if a proposal has a
potential to significantly affect groundwater quantity or quality. Other amendments or added
regulations are not recommended.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13,2004
2
,r
• Flood Hazard Regulations: The City's flood hazard regulations are similar to Federal and
State model regulations. It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard
regulations with the following adjustments:
o Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates to the Federal/State Model
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, or to address other clarifications, in order to
maintain flood insurance eligibility (listed in Section 2).
o Where appropriate, require projection of future flow conditions for development in
unmapped areas or for bridge construction proposals.
• Geologic Hazards:
o The City's geologic hazard regulations compare favorably to the State Example Code.
Minor recommendations regarding adding general performance standards and requiring
peer review of geotechnical reports for critical facilities in geologic hazard areas are
suggested in Section 3. _
o A more significant difference between the State Example Code and City regulations
relates to volcanic hazard areas, which are not addressed in Renton's regulations. The
USGS has identified a potential volcanic hazard impact related to inundation from the
Green River due to lahar sedimentation. It is recommended that critical facilities in such
areas be required to analyze potential impacts due to inundation from lahar sedimentation
and to provide emergency management plans. These facilities would already be
submitting other critical area reports and procedural complications are not anticipated.
See Section 3.
• Habitat Conservation: The City regulations provide a-comparable review process for
habitat conservation areas. Minor recommendations to enhance regulations are suggested to
reference State standards for bald eagles, and to clarify that activities adjacent/abutting to
designated habitat conservation areas may be regulated. .
• Critical Areas Regulations Procedures: The City's procedures provide for structured
review of development applications and determination of appropriate conditions. To meet
Washington Administrative Code rules that direct the City to consider best available science
wherevanations to regulations are proposed, to address common performance standards, and
to clarify the application of regulations, some amendments are recommended below.
o It is recommended that the City amend/clarify that applicants are responsible for other
Agency permits.
o The City should include best available science review criteria for administrative buffer
_ reductions, administrative modifications, and administrative and Hearing Examiner
vanances.
o Submittal requirements for projects which impact critical areas and propose mitigation
plans, or which propose buffer reductions, should demonstrate how the mitigation plan
relates to best available science.
o The City has historically not applied a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement most likely to balance property rights and critical area protections. There
may be instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback to
ensure long-term maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness.
A general standard allowing the City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback
could be included. It would be discretionary.
Further discussion of each critical area topic is provided in the following report sections.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13,2004
3
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Reg'ulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
'.
4
1. Aquifer Protection Areas
Location
, The City of Renton water supply is obtained from four sources:
• The Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer
• Springbrook Springs
• Maplewood Production Aquifer
• WellSA
These sources are protected by designating aquifer protection area zones (AP A zones) and
restricting land use, limiting and restricting hazardous materials, and establishing construction
activity standards, fill quality reporting, and stormwater management requirements within the
zones. Renton's APA zones are defined as follows:
• Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three
hundred sixty five (36S) day groundwater travel time contour.
• Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting
a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partially
protected by overlying ge~logic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are
regulated as iflocated within Zone 1 except as provided by C.6(a)(iii) [ExemptionS} of this
•
section. , . .
Zone 2: The l~d area situated between the three hundred sixty five (36S) day groun~water
travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for elwell or well field
owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring
is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an
AP A into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire AP A will be designated as Zone 2.
Maps in Appendix B identify the designated APA zones and the City's wellfields. BaSed on the
sensitivity 'of the aquifers to contamination, Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 provide
varying levels qf protection from hazardous materials contamination with Zone 1 providing the
most protection and Zone 2 the least. City staff proposes a minor amendment to replace the
aquifer protection zone ~ap in RMC Figure 4-3-0S0Ql with map patterns that better distinguish,
between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2 (see Appendix B). .
By far, the most important aquifer in terms of the City's water supply is the "Cedar Valley Sole
Source Aquifer." Eighty-six percent of Renton's water in 2003 was supplied by this aquifer.
(2004 City of Renton Drinking Water Quality Report)
The aquifer consists of coarse-grained sediments deposited at the mouth of the prehistoric Cedar
River during the last glacial period. The water table is about 23 feet from the surface. The
aquifer is replenished by groundwater flow from the Cedar Valley. It is highly permeable, and
there are numerous sources of contamination within the capture zone ofthe wellfields. The State
Department of Health's contamination susceptibility is considered moderate to high. (City,of
Renton Water System Plan, Appendix Q, Wellhead Protection Plan, May 1999)
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
'S
I
The Cedar Valley Aquifer has been designated as a Sole Source Aquifer by the US
Environmental Protection Agency. No commitment for federal financial assistance may be made
if the EPA finds that a federal financially assisted project may contaminate the aquifer through
an aquifer recharge zone that creates a significant hazard to public health. (Federal Register Vol.
53, No. 191, October 3, 1988, Notices). Maps in Appendix B identify the Cedar Valley Sole
Source Aquifer Project Review Area designated by theEPA. It encompasses the entire Cedar
River drainage since recharge to the aquifer may originate as precipitation anywhere in the basin
(ibid.). The large majority ofthe Cedar Valley Aquifer recharge area is outside the Renton City
Limits and the King County Urban Growth Area, meaning most of it is considered to be in a
designated rural area of King County.
Studies
The following studies represent the best available science used by the City to define and regulate
aquifers:
• City of Renton Water System Plan, Appendix Q, Wellhead PrqteCtion Plan, May 1999. It
includes the following Chapters:
o Executive Summary
o Introduction
o Water Supply Sources
o Delineation of Capture Zones
o Contaminant Source Inventory, Risk Assessment 'and Notification of Owners and
Agencies
o Contingency Plan for the Loss of the Downtown Wellfield
o The Aquifer Protection Prpgram
o References " .
o Appendix A -Technical Description of Renton Groundwater Model, Particle Tracking
, 'Approach, and Model Input Parameters
• "Explanation of Aquifer Code Amendments, August 2002" by City of Renton Water Utility.
This document summarizes the results of a computer model simulating groundwater flow in
three dimensions related to the Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer and the Maplewood
Production Aquifer. The model and analysis were conducted by Pacific Groundwater Groitp, • an experienced local firm providing consulting services in hydrogeology and related' ,.
environmental issues. The model was constructed using a United States Geological Survey
(USGS) computer code called Modflow. This method of delineating capture zones was
approved by the State of Washington Department of Health in 1999. . .
The documents also make reference to prior studies by the USGS in 1995 and,CH2MHill, a
recognized consulting firm, in 1989. ' , .
Regulatory Overview
The City's Aquifer Protection Area Regulations include the following:
• Designation 9f Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Areas (AP As) as
described above.
• Establishing Operating and Closure Permit requirements for facilities in all Zones
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
6
• Requiring removal of existing facilities in Zone 1 if they store/handle/treatiproduce
hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 gallons
• Performance standards, all APA Zories
o Requiring secondary containme~t
o Requiring hazardous materials monitoring and providing standards for release
restrictions, including in Zone 1 added site monitoring and site improvement standards to
protect against hazardous materials release
o Limiting application of pesticides and nitrates near wells and springs
o Establishing wastewater disposal requirements'
o Establishing surface water management requirements
o Regulating pipelines
o Providing construction activity standards and fill material requirements'
o Regulating existing solid waste landfills
• Zone 1 Modified is similar to Zone 1 except that:
o Existing facilities are not subject to the 500 gallon hazardous material quantity and they
would not have t6 relocate or reduce inventory
o Existing septic tanks are allowed and new septic tanks would be allowed if City sewers
were not available
o Infiltration of stormwater would be allowed as with Zone 2
o Existing facilities would not be subject to site iniprovements (e.g. groundwater
monitoring~. paving, stormwater management improvements, etc.)
State Agency"lnput '
Most recently, the ~tate of Washington Department of Community, Trade and ,Economic
Development (under the Office of Community Development) reviewed the City's 2002 APA
regulation amendments to delineate AP A Zones for the Springbrook Springs and Maplewood
Wellfield. They noted that: "It appears that BAS was used in delineating and protecting your
Aquifer Protection Areas. We recommend that you document this. For example, you can
include the information in your findings of fact, attach reports or studies as appendices, or adopt
by reference the reports and studies. . .. Congratulations ... for the good work your draft
amendments to your critical area regulations for aquifer protection embody ... " In response to
the request to document BAS, the City added the following statement to the City'S Critical Areas
Regulations:, "Zones of an AP A are designated to provide graduated levels of aquifer protection.
Zone boundaries ~e determined using best available science documented in the c:::ity of Renton
Wellhead ProtectionPlan;'an appendix of the City of Renton Water System Plan, as periodically
updated."
Comparison with State DCTED Example Code
The City of Renton's standards provide strong protection of the City's aquifers, particularly in
terms of minimizing the potential for contamination. The City's regulations address the large
majority of topics addressed in the State Example Code, including rating and mapping APA
zones, regulating facilities, land uses, and activities, and prohibiting activities that could
negatively impact aquifers.
Some provisions appearing in the State example code that are not directly addressed in the City's
regulations include:
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
7
I
•
Table 1 Example Code and City of Renton Provisions
Example Code Provisions
• Requiring preparation of an aquifer recharge area
critical area report by a Qualified Professional,
including a hydrogeologic assessment (requirements
increase for high impervious surfaces, injection
wells, use of hazardous materials, and other factors).
• Requiring that the proposed activity comply with the
water source protection requirements and
recommendations 6fthe U.S. EPA, Washington
State Department of Health, and King County
Health Department. .
• Listing Federal and State code requirements for
specific uses.
. '. Restricting activities that would significantly reduce
. the recharge to aquifers currently or potentially used
as a potable water source, or restrictixig activities
that would significantly reduce the recharge to
aquifers that are a source of significant baseflow to a
regulated stream.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
8
Comment Regarding Applicability in Renton
• The City has prepared a comprehensive analysis of
its aquifers, well capture zones, and potential
. sensitivity to contamination. Individual
hydrogeologic analysis may not be needed in most
cases. The City requires that an applicant document
the hazardous materials used in an annual Operating
Permit
• If there was a concern about. a proposal's potential
impacts to aquifer recharge areas, it may be
appropriate to require a hydrologic assessment. In
order for a proposal to have a significant impact on
aquifer recharge it would have to be fairly large in
scope. The City would have SEP A authority to
require a hydrogeologic study in those cases.
Alternatively a discretionary code amendment could
be included to allow the City to require a
· hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a
· potential to si~ficantly affect aquifer recharge.
• The City does not enforce other agencies rules or
· permits; and applicants are still required to comply
with other agency requirements. .'
• The City complies with notice of application,
SEP AlNEP A and other permit procedures by which
other agencies may be notified.
• As a public service, the City may advise applicants
or educate the public about other agency
requirements.
• See also section 5 of this report where some
revisions are recommended to indicate that
applicants are responsible for obtaining all other
necessary permits. .
• See above.
• The Cedar Valley Aquifer recharge area extends far
beyond the City limits, primarily into rural King'.
County.
• It may be possible that some developments could
have localized impacts to stream baseflows or to
aquifers depending on location, but the primary
issue for the City will be to coordinate with King
County and other agencies on proposals outside the
City, but within related aquifer recharge areas that
supply the City. .
• The City's designation of APA zones even
extending beyond City limits, and the US EPA sole
source designation for the Cedar Valley Aquifer,
provide tools for the City to address developments
outside the City when negotiating with or
responding to other agencies and their notices of
development applications .
... Also see discussion of hydrogeologic study above.
The comparison of City and State Example regulations shows consistency in intent and approach
to protecting "areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water" (RCW
36.70A.030). One noteworthy area of difference relates to proposals that may have a significant
impact on recharge to an aquifer used for potable water supplies or which would significantly
affect the. baseflow of a regulated stream.
Regarding potable water, as noted above, most of the Cedar Valley Aquifer recharge area is
outside of the City limits making regional agency coordination more· important. The area of
recharge in the City limits is largely developed as it includes the historic downtown. Regarding
stream base flow, based on discussions with the City's consulting biologist for stream regulations
(Andy Kindig, Ae Kindig & Company, June 30, 2004), it would be an infrequent issue .
important only for very large projects. The City could ilse its SEP A authority to require a
hydrogeologic study for proposals that may aff(!ct stream base flow. Alternatively a discretionary
code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a· hydrogeologic assessment if a
proposal has a potential to significantly affect aquifer recharge. .
City Policy Considerations.
City regulations strongly address groundwater protection implementing City Environment
Element policies to protect the aquifers from degradation (e.g. Objective EN-I and associated
policies).
Although the City ~egulations place emphasis on groUndwater quality issues, City policies·· .
provide policy authority to address both groundwater quantity and quality concerns inside and
outside the City: . .
• Policy EN-43 (proposed to be renumbered 50). Emphasize the use of open ponding and
detention, grassy swales, clean roof run-off, and other stormwater manag~ent techhiques
that maximize water quality and infiltration where appropriate and which will not endanger
groundwater quality. . . . .
• Policy EN-46 (proposed to be renumbered 54). Promote the use of interlocal agreements
with other agencies to restrict land use in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize
possible sources of PQllution and the potential for erosion, and to increase infiltration.
• Policy EN-49 (proposed to be renumbered 55). Participate in land use and sewerage
decisionS in outlying areas of the City's aquifer.' .
-, I
With the Cedar Valley Aquifer, as well as the Springbrook Springs capture· area, largely outside
of the City limits an important continuing role for the City will be regional agency coordination
to ensure proposals do not unduly affect· groundwater quantity or quality.
Recommendations . .
The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in intent, and are tailored to the
City'S critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the aquifer protection zone map in RMC
Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better distinguish between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2
is proposed. A discretionary code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a
hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a potential to significantly affect groundwater
quantity or quality. Otherwise, amendments or added regulations are not recommended.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
9
I
2.. Flood Hazard Regulations
Location.
Floodplain hazard areas, including the IOO-year floodplain and floodways, are designated along
the City'S major streams including:
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Black River.
• Springbrook Creek
Additionally floodplains of the Green River extend into the City limits along the western city
limit boundary shared with Tukwila .. See Appendix B for a map of IOO-yearfloodplains.
Studies
City regulations are based upon the following federally prepared, regionally prepared or
consultant prepared inventories, models, analyses, and/or evaluations by experts, considered to
be sources of best available science for the City's flood hazard regulations:
• Flood Insurance Study. The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the Federal
Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled the Flood Insurance
Study for the City of Renton, dated September 29, 1989. .
• Federal Model Ordinance. A Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is required to be'
adopted by jurisdictions that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The City
of Renton adopted the required regulations in 1987. ' .
• State Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments. The State of Washington
periodically amends the Federal Model regulations in excess of the Federal requirements.
The City has reflected these amendments in the past.
.' King County's 1993 Flood Hazard Reduction Plan which promotes,among other things,
elevation of structures above the 100-year' flood level, and compensatory storage.
• .. City of Renton 1997 Eastside Green River Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement.
• On June 26, 1997, the PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department adopted an
Administrative Policy Determination regarding the use of the City'shydrologic/hydraulic
model results to determine the volwrie of compensatory storage 'for Springbrook Creek. The
information is based upon the City'S Eastside Green River Watershed Plan clnd
Environmental Impact Statement.
Regulatory Overview
The City implements the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain
Management Regulations (RMC 4-3-0501), which allows flood insurance to be sold in the City.
It designates areas of flood hazards and applies construction standards for residential and
nonresidential development in the flood hazard areas. .
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area '
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
10
State Agency Input
The State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) regularly meets with localjurisdictions
in Washington to assist with flood hazard regulations and to maintain compliance with Federal
requirements. DOE is conducting a community assistance review of the City of Renton's
regulations in advance of a meeting scheduled with the City of Renton staff in late July 2004.
Since Jones & Stokes requested information about the applicability of some provisions of the
Federal Model and State Example Code in Renton, DOE staff provided some early feedback on
the City'S regulations. The overall review was positive. To maintain consistency with more
recent State amendments to the Federal Model or to otherwise improve c<?nsistency, DOE
identified amendments to the City's ordinance as well as positive features to commend:
• Definitions need to be added or amended, especially "basement" and "development," to
specifically implement the flood hazard regulations: '
o BASEMENT means any area of the building having its .floor sub grade (below ground
level) on all sides.
o DEVELOPMENT means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,
including but not limited to buildings or other structures~ mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials
located within the area of special flood hazard.
o , LOWEST FLOOR needs to cross reference more specifically section 4-3-050.l.3.a.ii.
• RMC 4-3-050.l.3.b.i and ii, Manufactured Homes:. Minor revision to indicate that the
foundations be " .. :.securely anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation system
to res~st flotation, collapse, and ,lateral movement." '
.' RMC 4-3-050.l:3.c, Nonresidential Construction. . " "
o Subsection coi needs to be amended as follows to ensure the City receives credit. towards
insurance.rates: i., Be flo09proofed so that below one foot above the base flood level the
structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
o It was noted that the City is more restrictive regarding new nonresidential construction
which is required by the City to have the lowest floor elevated one foot above the base
flood elevation whereas the Model allows as an option the area below one foot above the
base flood elevation to be floodproofed instead of elevated.
• RMC 4~3-050.l.4.a, Increases in Flood Levels Prohibited (in floodway). This was noted as a
positive section that goes beyond the Model.
.RMC 4-3-050.l.4.b, the last sentence should be amended to match the most recent State
Model: ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to; a structUre, the cost of which does not
exceed fifty percent (50%) ofthe market value of the structure either: a) before the repair,
reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being
restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with existing
health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places shall not be
included may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%).
• RMC 4-3-050.1.6, Compensatory Storage. This section was commended as more protective.
It exceeds Federal and State Model regulations.
Although amendments are requested to maintain the City's regulations with the FEMNState
Model Floodplain Management Standards, the State DOE emphasized the quality regulations the
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13,2004
11'
I
'.
-.
City implements, particularly its application of compensatory storage and other features 'that
enhance floodplain protection. (pers. comm. DOE, Chuck Steele,June 25, 2004) .
Comparison with State DCTED Example Code
. Given that the State DCTED Example Code does not deviate substantially from the Federal/State
Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, or the City's current regulations, significant issues
are not anticipated. There are some options to consider which are described below. (See
Appendix A for a more detailed c~mparison.) .
The State DCTED Example Code incorporates all of the FEMAfState Model Floodplain
Management Standards. It also includes additional advisory provisions such as:
• Requiring the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, e.g. future flow modeled conditions, if available.
• Verification of other agency permits (e.g. federal) required.
• Indicating that structures or subdivisions should occur on buildable areas outside the
floodplain on the subject property if possible.
• Ensuring filling and grading do not affect side channel fish migration areas ..
• Prohibiting onsite sewage disposal systems in floodways, channel migration zones, and the
10-year floodplain elevation.
Possible approaches for th,e City~s Critical Area Regulation Update are:
• Current Approach: Implement the FEMAIState Model with the City's local amendments for
compensatory storage, stricter floodway limitations, and other features; or
• State DCTED Model Approach: Implement the FEMAfState Model with some added
'features to encourage use of future flow model conditions, development on the non-
floodplain portions of a property, and consistency measures with fish habitat (stream)
regulations, etc.; or
• Combination of the above.
City Policy Considerations
The City's flood hazard regulations.reflect City policies, particularly:
• Policy EN-19 (proposed'to be remimbered.26). Limit development within the 100 year
floodplain to that which is not harmed by flooding. Roads and finished floors of structures
should be located above the 100 year flood level, and new development should provide
compensation for existing floodstorage capacity due to filling.
In the Year 2000 this policy provided the basis' for some of the more protective measures in the
current City ordinance, such as compensatory storage and elevating structures above the base
flood elevation. These measures also help improve the City's insurance rating. (BWR, January
2000)
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13,2004 .
12
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard regulations with the following
adjustments:
• Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates to the Federal/State Model
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, or to address other clarifications, in order to maintain
flood insurance eligibility.
• Add the more relevant features of the State DCTED Example Code:
o Requiring the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. The primary concern is to regulate mapped flood hazard areas and establish
base flood elevations based on Federal studies. However, appropriate situations where the
City could require additional future flood information include: development in unmapped'
areas or bridge construction proposals.
o As a public service include a notification that other agency requirements are an
applicant's responsibility (see amendments proposed in Section 5).
Regarding other State DCTED advisory changes, the following are not a part of the Federal/State
Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and appear unnecessary:
• Filling and grading of side channel fish migration areas would not be an outright allowed
activity 'since streams and their riparian buffers would be generally "no touch" (see proposed
Stream regulations).
• Most ofthe floodplain area is platted and developed, and requiring development outside of
the floodplain if possible would not be especially practical.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
13
3. Geologic Hazards
Location
Geologic hazards, according to WAC 365-190, include: erosion, landslide, seismic, mine,
volcanic, and "other" hazards (e.g. tsunamis, mass wasting, debris flows, etc.). Development in
these areas may pose risks to public health and safety. Some of these risks may be reduced by
engineering or other methods. If risks cannot be reduced to acceptable levels, building in
geologically hazardous areas s1ioul~ be restricted.
Geologic risks in the City of Renton include:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine hazards
• Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes 40% and greater (often
.considered to be a landslide hazard) .
. To a lesser extent there is a potential for volCani~ hazards.
Geologic hazard maps prepared by the City are found in Appendix B. A volcanic hazard map
from the USGS is also found in Appendix B. ..
Studies
The City's development of geologic hazard regulations relied on several technical reports or
professional literature prepared for the City or agencies by experts, or by input from expert
consulting geologists, as follows (Bucher, Willis & Ratliff, January 26,2000):
City Specific Reports
Azous, Amanda (January 1992). Critical Areas in the City o/Renton: Geological Hazardous
Areas, Mineral Lands and Wildlife Habitat Resources. Prepared for City of Renton
PlanninglBuilding/ Public Works Department. Renton, Washington.
GeoEngineers, Inc. (1991). Summary Report: Critical and Resource Areas Evaluation. Prepared
. for the City of Renton. Authors Donald W. Tubbs, Senior Geologist, and Jon W. Koloski,
Principal. Renton, Washington.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (January 16, 1992). Draft Environmental Impact Statement/or
City 0/ Renton Land Use Element. Prepared for City of Renton PlanninglBuildinglPublic
Works Department. Renton, Washington.
Consulting firms were also contacted to review definitions, or to offer expertise including Dale
Snyder, consulting solI scientist and geologist, Agra Earth and Environmental, GeoEngineers
Inc. and Golder and Associates. (Bucher, Willis & Ratliff, January 26, 2000)
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
J.uly 13, 2004
14
Other Technical Reports and Professional Literature
Arendt, Randall G. (1996). Conservation Design Jor Subdivisions. Prepared for the Natural
Lands Trust, American Planning Association, and American Society of Landscape
Architects. Island Press, Washington D.C.
City of Seattle, Landslide Policy Group (June 1, 1998). "Landslide Policies for Seattle." Seattle,
WA.· ,
Corish, Kathy (December 1995). Clearing and Grading Strategies Jor Urban Watersheds.:.
Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection· Agency. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, Washington D.C.
Duerksen, Christopher J. and Suzanne Richman (August 1993). Tree Conservation Ordinances.:.
Planning Advisory Service, Report 446. Prepared for American Planning Association and
Scenic America. Chicago, lllinois.
Olshansky, Robert B. (November 1996). Planning Jor Hillside Development. Planning Advisory
Service, Report 466. Prepared for American Planning Association. Chicago, illinois.
Schueler, Tom and the Center for Watershed Protection (December 1995). Site Planning Jor
Urban Stream Protection. Prepared for MetropolitanW ashington Council of
Governments. Washington D. C.
Regulatory Overview
In the late 1980s the City adopted a Greenbelt Ordinance that regulated a variety· of
environmental hazards including steep slopes, landslides, coalmine hazards and seismic hazards.
The ordinance applied·regulations through an overlay map. The source of the Greenbelt map
was not well documented, and there were no mapping criteria. In the Year 2000, the City
repealed the Greenbelt Ordinance and added geologic hazard regulations in a comprehensive
Critical Areas ordinance. The adopted Geologic Hazard regulations:
• Classify hazards using criteria. Based upon a report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the
City of Renton in.1991, the regulations include criteria for landslide hazards,-erosion hazards,
·seisrnic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Maps ~fthese hazards are to be used as references ..•
• Address exemptions within Geologic Hazard areas. The exemptions include: conservation
activities; research and site investigation; existing agricultUre; utility relocation out of the
geologic hazard area; maintenance and repair of existing parks, trails, roads, facilities and
utilities; vegetation management and essential tree removal for utilities, roads and public
. parks; remodeling, replacing, removing existing structures; existing use maintenance and
repair; existing single family residence modification; existing grandfathered activitIes; trails
within buffers, and emergency activities.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports for properties with slopes 25% or greater, and
Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards. Independent peer review of geotechnical
reports maybe required for properties with High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine,
or High Coal Mine Hazards. For any of the hazards, conditions of approval may include
modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project size/configuration, or seasonal
constraints on development.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
15
I
• Address slopes between 25-40% that do not have identified erosion or landslide
hazards, by requiring peer review of geotechnical reports, erosion control plans, and weekly
erosion control inspections. The regulations would also authorize conditions of approval
which may include modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project
size/configuration, seasonal constraints on development, vegetation stabilization, sequencing
, or phasing of construction, clearing and grading limits, and other measures. These same
'potential conditions of approval apply to lands with Medium and High Landslide Hazards
and High Erosion Hazards.
• Restrict development on slopes over 40%. Exceptions include man-made slopes (e.g. from
legal mining operations) pursuant to a modification, a single family dwelling on a lot of
record pursuant to a variance, public utilities needed to protect slope stability, and public
road widening where alternative locations are infeasible. Modifications may be allowed such
as allowing fill at the base of a 40% slope. As with other modifications, report submittal, and
review criteria would apply.
• Restrict the, creation of lots having a predominant 40%+ slope.
• Require a buffer of 50 feet from aVery High Landslide Hazard Area, which may be
increased or decreased administratively based upon a geotechnical report.
• Provide a review process for Coal Mine Hazards. The regulations require a report to
document potential Coal Mine Hazards, authorize conditions of approval, and indicate
requirements for mitigation during construction.
• Establish detailed report preparation requirements for each potential hazard located on a
site.
Overall, the regulations provide greater protection from geologic hazards than the City's
previous Greenbelt -regulations. In comparison to prior Greenbelt ordinance standards, the
regulations were crafted to specifically address hazards, establish specific mapping criteria,
institute report requirements, and require performance standards and conditions.
State Agency Input
State agencies were provided an opportunity to review the Year 2000 critical areas regulations
update. Agencies will be afforded an opportunity for review through this year's GMA
Comprehensive Plan AmendmentlDevelopment Regulation Amendment cycle.
Comparison with State DCTED Example Code
The City'S regulations are comparable to the State DCTED Example Code as shown in a matrix
in Appendix A. '
• The City designates, claSsifies, and maps geologic hazards. Renton's hazard criteria are
similar to the State Example Code definitions, which are based on WAC 365-190. Mapping
sources are similar for some hazards and in other cases more specific to the criteria prepared
specifically for Renton by GeoEngineers Inc. A comparison of definitions and criteria is
provided in Appendix A .
• , The City makes limited exemptions in geologic haz~ds,and is more protective by not
"exempting" new construction under a certain ~quare footage limitation as the State Example
Code allows. . .
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
16
• The City's permit process requires a detailed report by a qualified professional as
summarized in Appendix A. Stricter than the State Example Code, third party peer review is
mandatory in Renton when certain hazards are present, i.e. for properties with slopes 25% or
greater, and Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards. Independent peer review of
geotechnical reports may be required for properties with High Erosion, High Seismic,
Medium Coal Mine, or High Coal Mine Hazards.
• The City establishes general performance standards and has the authority to condition
development in hazard areas. Generally, the City's performance standards are less specific
than the State Example Code. However, the City's detailed report requirements, peer review
process, and ability to condition based on site-specific analysis should allow for appropriate
consideration of hazards and mitigation. Some potential minor improvements to the City's
regulations are proposed below.
o To strengthen the City's general performance standards, the City may consider adding the
following review criteria found in the State.Example Code: -
The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent
properties beyond pre-development conditions;
The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas.
The criteria could also state that the development must be safely accommodated, similar
to the language already found under "conditions of approval."
o The State Example also would restrict critical facilities (e.g. government, hospitals, etc.)
from. locating in geologic hazard areas unless there is no -practical alternative. BetWeen
all the geologic hazards in-Renton, and particularly seismic hazard areas, that would
eliminate in.ost of the City that is also accessible to key highways. City regulations would
-. (for any type of development) require a geotechnical report, and th~ City has .the ability to
condition development. -The cost to develop in particular hazard areas would aiso tend to
help critical facilities to avoid these areas where possible. As an alternative to restricting
location of critical facilities, the City could require peer review of geotechnical reports.
A more noteworthy difference between the City's geologic hazard regulations and the State
Example Code relates to volcanic hazards. This is discussed further below.
Volcanic Hazards
The CitY's regulations do not address volcanic hazards, most likely because consultants indicated
~e risk was generally low and because mapping was not generally available by King County,
although available from other sources:
• GeoEngineers Inc. 1991: "Volcanic hazards within Renton and its sphere of influence are
generally low. However, essential facilities should be reviewed to assure that they can
continue to function following a volcanic ashfall 2 iriches in thickness, which is likely the
worst cor~sequence of a moderate volcanic eruption."
• Amanda Azous, 1992: "The primary concern with respect to volcanic hazards is from
mudflows and associated flooding which may result from volcanic activity on Mount
Rainier. King County is currently revising its mapping and is modeling the potential for
volcanic hazards in the County. Development sites near the Green River are the most likely
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
17
•
areas of concern within th~ City .limits. The City's maj or concern is that adequate
engineering standards are employed when building ill a volcanic hazard area."
Since the time of the Renton reports above King County has not completed modeling. The
USGS completed a study in 1998. The USGS report! maps the following type of hazard in the
Renton vicinity: a fraction less than 1 % annual probability of tephra2 fall in the Renton vicinity
from any major Cascade volcano including Mt. Rainier; and potential for inundation from post
lahar sedimentation between the Green River and SR-167. See Appendix B.
The USGS report's general recommendations for volcanic hazards inthe vicinity of Mount
Rainier include:
Communities, businesses, and citizens can undertake several actions to mitigate the effects of
future eruptions, debris avalanches, and lahars. Decisions about land use and siting of
critical facilities can incorporate infolTIlation about volcano hazards. Areas judged to have an
unacceptably high risk can be left undeveloped. Alternatively, development can be planned
to reduce the level.ofrisk, or even include engineering measures to mitigate risk. For
example, areas along the channels and flood plains of lahar-prone rivers could be set aside
for open space or recreation, and valley walls or high terraces could be used for houses,
schools, and businesses.
State Example Code provisions include the following perfolTIlance standards for developments in
volcanic hazard areas: ." .
Volcanic and Tsunami Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing areas susceptible to
inundation due to volcanic or tsunamis hazards shall require an evacuation and emergency
management plan. The [city/county] may use the perfolTIlance standards for coastal high
hazard areas (see Chapter X.40, Frequently Flooded Areas) as guidance in reviewing new
structures proposed in volcanic and tsunami hazard areas.
Reviewing previous report recommendations prepared for Renton, USGS mapping, and the State
Example Code, the City could consider the following approaches to address volcanic hazards:
• Target regulations to essential facilities as identified by GeoEngineers. Require such facility
proposals in the Lower Green River Inundation Area (Appendix B) to demonstrate adequate
engineering standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and an evacuation and emergency
management plan. "Critical facilities") have extra requirements in the standard 100-Y ear
floodplain in Section 4-3-050.1.5, and much of the floodplain hazard areais within the Lower
Green River Inundation Area. These floodplain regulations could be cross-referenced.
I u.s. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Revised 1998). Volcano HazardsJrom Mount Rainier,
Washington. Open-File Report 98-428.ByR.P. Hoblittl, J.S. Walder, c.L. Driedger, K.M. Scott, P.T. Pringle, J.W.
Vallance.
2 Tephra is a general term for fragments of volcanic rock and lava regardless of size that are blasted into the air by
explosions or carried upward by hot gases in eruption columns or lava fountains. Tephra includes liuge dense blocks
and bombs, and small light rock debris such as scoria, pumice, reticulite, and ash.
(http://volcanoes;usgs.govlProducts/Pglossaryitephra.html accessed June 30, 2004)
3 CRITICAL FACILITY: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities
include, but are not limited to schools, nursing homes; hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations,
and facilities that produce, use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. .
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area 18
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
Being in seismic hazard areas and potentially flood hazard areas these facilities would
already have to provide critical area reports based on the potential hazards, and could also
address volcanic hazards.
• Require that new development of any kind in the Lower Green River Inundation Area
provide documentation that demonstrates adequate engineering standards regarding volcanic'
hazard risks. Development in this area already would have to submit a geologic hazard
report to address seismic hazards and potentially floodplain hazards.
• Delay implementing volcanic regulations to work with King County and Tukwila on standard
regulations. Tukwila regulations currently do not address volcanic hazards. King County has
adopted volcanic hazard standard~ but they are not effective pending a County modeling
effort (referenced'since early 1990s). However; this is noted as an omission in the County's
best available science review since the USGS has published some studies.4
o King County's regulations for the Green River (pending modeling) include: Within
volcanic hazard areas located along the White river downstream from Mud Mountain
dam and the Green and Duwamish rivers, the department shall evaluate development
proposals for critical facilities for risk of inundation or flooding resulting from mudflows
originating on Mount Rainier. The applicant shall design critical facilities to withstand,
without damage, the effects of mudflows equal in magnitUde to the prehistoric Electron
mudflow.
The approach considered in the City's proposed amendments are to target regulations to critical
facilities similar to the approach recommended by GeqEngineers.
City Policy Considerations
The City's geologic'hazard regulations balance Comprehensive Plan policies related to managing
risk, protecting environmental features, and accommodating growth targets (Bucher,Willis &
Ratliff, January 26,2000). General environmental objectives/policies implemented by the City's
geologic hazard regulations include:
Objective EN-A: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans
and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, development
reviews, incentive programs and work with citizens, land owners, and public and private
agencies.
Policy EN-I. Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life,
property, or environmental quality.
4 Per King County's Executive Report -Best Available Science Volume II, Assessment -February 2004:" ... The
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources and the United States
Geological Survey have completed the mapping that is required, but the proposed CAO does not adopt that mapping
by reference or incorporation."
"The referenced modeling is not described though it is referred to in the text as 'required.' It is presumed that the
modeling will comprise a detailed series of simulations of eruptions and subsequent pyroclastic flows, Lahars,
lateral blast events, and the like. These simulations combined with historical information and geologic data and
mapping, will allow development of proper zonation around the volcano., Until existing maps are adopted and
modeling completed, King County will be unable to properly regulate development and construction in Volcanic
Hazard Areas and public arid private property'remain at risk." ,
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area 19
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
City Environment Element policies also specifically relate to erosion, landslide, steep slope, and
coal mine hazards.
Recommendations
The City'S geoiogic hazard reguiations conipare favorably to the State Example Code. Minor
recommendations r:egarding adding general performance standards and requiring peer review of
geoteclmical reports for critical facilities in geologic hazard areas are suggested in the
"Comparison" section above. .
The one more significant difference relates to volcanic hazard regulations. ·Options to address
the issue are made, primarily to review critical facilities in such areas. These facilities would
already be submitting other critical area reports and procedural complications are not anticipated.
See the "Comparison" section above.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
20
4. Habitat Conservation
Location
In addition to streams, riparian areas, and wetlands described under separate cover, the City of
Renton and its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting other wildlife species.
State Classification Guidelines for Critical Areas (WAC 365-190-080) identify several types of
wildlife habitats to be addressed in Critical Areas Ordinances:
• Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association;
• Habitats and species of local importance;
• State natural area preserves and natural resource conservatiori areas. .'
Other considerations may include: creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections ..
between larger habitat blocks and open spaces, and buffer areas around habitats.
. .
A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and
sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department ofFish arid Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitatimd Species (PHS) Program. Through this program the State provides
information on fish and wildlife habitat location, and priorities for species and habitat
management and conservation, including measures to protect resources as land use decisions are
made. WDFW' uses the information to screen forest practices permits and SEP A reviews, for
landscape planning arid ecosystem management, and other purposes. It is a source of .
information for GMA planning efforts by counties and cities as well.
Priority habitats in the Cjty of Renton include wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban ~atura1
open space. The lake,rivers, and creeks support anadromous fish runs.· Other priority species
include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and other waterfowl. (WDFW 2Q03; WDFW
1997)
Studies
In developing its Habitat Conservation regulations, ·first instituted formally in 2000, the City
reviewed the following scientific and technical resources prepared by consulting experts or by
State agencies (BWR, January 26,2000):
David Evans and Associates; Inc. (January 16, 1992):' Draft Environmentallmpact Statement for
City of Renton Land Use Element. Prepared for City of Renton PlanninglBuildinglPublic
Works Department. Renton, Washihgton.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (December 1991). City of Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Prepared for City of Renton PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department. Renton,
Washington.
Jones and Stokes Associates (June 1991). Critical Areas Inventory: City of Renton Wetlands and
Stream Corridors. Prepared for the City of Renton, PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works
Department. Renton, Washington.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
21
I
,'-, ~
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species Division (May
1991). Management Recommendations/or Washington's Priority Habitats and Species ..
Elizabeth Rodrick and Ruth Milner, Technical Editors. Oiympia, Washington.'
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife,Priority Habitats and Species Division
(January 1996). Priority Habitats and Species List: Habitat Program. Olympia, Washington.
Regulatory Overview,
The City's Habitat Conservation Regulations address:
• Criteria defining "critical habitat." Critical habitat includes: species that are listed as
endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority by Federal or State agencies; heron
rookeries or raptor nesting areas, Category 1 wetlands; and shorelines designated as Natural
or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program.'
• Habitat assessments. Reports are required, and peer review may be required.
• Native Growth Protection Areas. Critical habitats are to be placed in Native Growth
Protection Areas.' .
• Disturbance. Ifa critical habitat area is to be altered, impacts are to be avoided, minimized
or compensated. Mitigation may be required based upon submitted reports, or information
from State or Federal agencies.
Proposed critical area regulation amendments for streams would remove "shorelines designated
as Natural or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program" since streams and shorelines would
have a separate proposed set of regulations including buffers, and clarify that Habitat
Conservation regulations apply to non-salmonid species, while stream regulations address
primarily salmonid species. (See stream related reports under separate cover.) .
State Agency Input
State agencies were provided an opportunity to review the Year 2000 critical areas regulations
. update. Agencies will be afforded an opportunity for review through this year's GMA
Comprehensive Plan AmendmentlDevelopment Regulation Amendment cycle. . . -, .
CompatisCin with State DCTED Example 'Code .
Similar to the State Example Code, the City designates habitat conservation areas, primarily by
referencing ~tate ,and Federal designated endangered, threatened, sensitive, and priority species.
It requires ~ habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that require.
impact aVOIdance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and Federal Agency input. The
City may condition proposals that impact habitat conservation areas.
The State Example Code adds some other designations of habitat conservation areas, such as
State DNR Natural Heritage Program to identify rare plant species and high quality ecosystems
and land useful or essential for connecting habitat block and open spaces. However, in Renton's
case, a review of the DNR database showed no records in or near the Renton City limits. The
PHS mapping referenced by Renton, with its identification of urban natural open space, riparian
corridors, and other mapped features identifies some "connecting habitat."
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code .
July 13, 2004 .
22
The State's Example Code provides a similar process as Renton's and also provides some
specific standards that make implementation more efficient, but less discretionary. State
performance standards include consistency with Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules.
Developments must comply withWDFW buffers or land use restrictions in management plans.
Subdivisions wholiy within habitat conservation areas may also be restricted.
A key issue for the City of Renton is the extent to which protection measures are.specified in
regulations given the variety and complexity of species and habitats, particularly ·those not
otherwise addressed as a critical area. The City's approach to habitat conservation regulations
allows the City to determine the value of the habitat assessment reports and agency input, and
condition development.StatePHS species' recommend~tions would be considered in the habitat
assessmenfreportson a case-by-case basis. State management recommendations would be
reviewed in those reports for applicability to the local conditions and situation.
Some potential measures the City could take to enhance its implementation of its current Habitat
Conservation regulations include the following: '
• The regulations could cross-reference more specific State standards for bald eagles since that
species is found in Renton: "Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington
State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12:'292)"; and
• The regulations could clarify that activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat
conservation areas may be regulated. '
City Policy Considerations
, The City regulations,regarding habitat conservation implt~ment Comprehensive Plan 'Policy EN-
50 (to be renumbered 56) regarding identification and protection of unique and significant .
wildlife habitat. ' .
Recommendations'
The City regulations provide a comparable review process for habitat conservation areas.
Potential minor measures to enhance the City's regulations are suggested -to reference State
standards for Bald eagles, and to clarify that activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat
conservation ;rreas may ~e' regulated.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
23
I
S.Critical Areas Regulations Procedures
Regulatory Overview
Either in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) or in administrative sections such
. as 4-1, 4-8, and 4-9, Renton's regulations provide comprehensive critical areas procedures, such·
as defining regulation purposes, applicability and exemptions, submittal requirements, general
performance standards, review criteria, variances and exceptions, and enforcement.
Comparison with State DCTED Example Code
The City regulations include common procedural requirements and standards as noted above and
. in Appendix A. Some areas addressed in the State Example Code, which are omitted or
indirectly included in the Renton regulations, include the following:
• Relationship to other regulations:
o Regulations apply as an overlay and in addition to other development standards (implied
in. City regulations); ,
o Any individual critical area adjoined by' another type of critical area is required to have
, the buffer ,and meet requirements that provide the most protection to all critical areas
involved (stated In some cases; implied generally in City regulations);
o If there are any conflicts with other regulations the regulations that provide more
protection apply (implied);
o Compliance with critical area provisions does not constitute compliance with other
federal, state and local regulations and permit requirements (implied in City regulations).,
• Best A vailable·Science -critical area reports and decisions to rely on best available science
(repeat criteria from W AC5). Variances also to consider best available science.
• Critical area identification form: An applicant would submit this form to identify critical
areas present. Following submission, the decisiomaker can waive requirements because
there are no critical areas or no potential impacts to critical areas or indicate that a critical
area is present and require study. The agency's determination (waivers or applicable critical
area requirements) is based on the identification form is published as part of a notice of
application.
• Exemptions: Between the State Example Code's list of exempt or "allowed" activities, and
'the City's exemption list, there are few differences. Renton includes additional exemptions
in' a few areas, although the City exemption regulations would require a critical areas report
unless waived:
5 Best Available Science (BAS) defInition and sources: BAS --information generated from a valid scientifIc process
that involves peer review, replicable methods, logical conclusions/reasonable inferences, quantitative analysis,
information placed in context, and provision of references. BAS Sources may include research, monitoring,
inventory, surveys, modeling, assessment, synthesis, arid expert opinion.
According to WAC 365-195-915, counties and cities should include the best available science in determining
whether to grant applications for administrative variances and exemptions from generally applicable provisions in
policies and development regulations adopted to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Counties and
cities should adopt procedures and criteria to ensure that the best available science is included in every review of an
application for an administrative variance or exemption.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area 24
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13,2004
Table 2 Comparison of Exemption Categories
Exemption/Allowed Activity State Example City of Renton
Conservation, Enhancement, Education, and Related E E
Research and Site Investigation A E
Agricultural, Harvesting, Vegetation Management A (excludes existing E
agriculture)
Surface Water Facilities E
RoadslParkslUtilities -Relocation, Maintenance, E, A (excludes 10% E
Within Rights-of-Way, Existing Expansion 10%, expansion)
Essential Tree Removal
Small Wetlands, Temporary Wetland Impacts E
Maintenance and Construction -Existing Uses and E,A E
Facilities
Emergency Activities E E
Hazardous Materials -Federal or State Pre-emption, E
Use of Materials with no Risk to the Aquifer as Listed,
deminimus amounts, materials in sealed units, etc.
Trails and Open Space A E
Forest Practices (not conversions) A
Chemical Applications of herbicides, pesticides, A
fertilizers or other hazardous substances in accordance
with Federal/State Requirements
Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers A .. Notes: A = Allowed Wlthout Cntlcal Areas Report; E = Exempt
The mam differences are with surface water facilities and wetlands exemptions. With regard
to surface water facilities a critical areas report and compliance with performance standards
is still required to meet the exemption to help protect critical area functions. Wetland·
exemptions are discussed in the separate Best Available Science Review by Parametrix dated
June 28,2004 .. ·
• Notice on Title: Requires title notices of the existence of critical areas.
• Building Setbacks: A standard 15-foot setback is required from the edge of all buffers or
from critical areas ifbuffers are not required. The purpose is to allow enough space for
construction and maintenance without impact to the critical area or buffer. .
Key issues for Renton's regulations include review criteria related to the use of best available.
science and whether to apply standard building setbacks from critical areas as a generai standard.
City Policy Considerations
General environmental objectives/policies implemented by the City's regulations include:
Objective EN-A: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans
and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, development
reviews, incentive programs and work with citizens, land owners, and public and private
agenCIes.
Policy EN-I. Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life,
property, or environmental quality.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
25
I
Additional general/framework policies, proposed in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments,
include:
Policy EN.;.2. Ensure that development on lands supporting endangered or threatened species
occurS in a way that maintains adequate habitat.
Policy EN-3. Use the best available science to determine critical area buffers and maintain
achievable ecological functions of those buffers. Buffers. should be protected per Policy U-
85, Utilities Element, Surface Water policies. ' ..
Policy EN-4. hnplement clustered development as a method of conserving additional private
opens space, or providing public parks and trails.
Recommendations
The City's procedures provide for structured review of development applications and
determination of appropriate conditions. To meet Washington Administrative Code rules that
direct the City to consider best available science where ,variations to regulations are proposed, to
address common performance standards in addition to buffers, and to clarify the application of
regulations, some amendments are recommended below.
• The City should include best available science review criteria for administrative buffer
reductions, administrative modifications, and administrative and Hearing Examiner variances
as follows: .
BAS ModificationN ariance Criteria: The decision to grant the [administrative buffer
reduction/administrative modification/variance] is based on consideration of the best
available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid
scientific information, the steps'in RMC 4-X [below] are followed.
Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific
information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to
uncertainty about the risk to critical area function ofpermitling an alteration of or impact to
the critical ai~a, the [Department AdministratorlHearing Examiner] shall: ,
1. Take a "precautionary or a no-risk approach," that appropriately limits development and
land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved, or determine that protection
can be ensured by using an approach different from that derived from the best available
science provided that the applicant demonstrates on the recordhow the alternative approach
will protect the functions and values of the critical area; and
2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific
methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area .
. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking
action andobtaihing information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management
program shall: ' .
a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program;.
b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves
uncertainties; and· .
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
26
c. Commit to the appropriate timeframe and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory
and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and. anadromous fisheries.
• Submittal requirements for projects that could impact critical areas and propose mitigation
plans, or those that propose buffer reductions, should demonstrate that best available science
was used in detennining the reduced standard and/or in developing mitigation plans:
The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying:
***
A review of the ~est 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 proj ect. .
• The City regulations do not specifically require a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement, although the Critical Area Regulations do provide staff latitude to apply
conditions, and SEP A provides another review and mitigation process. Focusing on buffers
and not specifying an additional building setback may be due to the City's consideration of
site-specific conditions, or potentially to balance property rights and critical area protections.
There may be instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback
.to ensure long-tenn maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness.
A general standard allowing ~e City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback
. could be included. It would be discretionary:
Building Setback: The Reviewing Official may require a building setback from a critical
area or buffer to ensure adequate protection of the critical areaJbuffer during construction and .
on-going maintenance of the activity. A requirement for a building setback shall be based on
the fmdings o~ a critical area report or a peer review required for the activity ..
• It is recommended that the City clarify that applicants are responsible for other permits:
Advise applicants of their responsibilities to obtain federal, state, or other local permits:
Coinpliance with the provisions of this Title does not constitute compliance with other
federal,. state, and/or other local agency regulations and permit requirements that may be
required. The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the .
process established in this Title.
Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
Regulations to State Example Code
July 13', 2004
27
I
6. . References
The following references were used to prepare this report. Also refer to each individual section
for refer~nces used by the City in the preparation of its Critical Area Regulations~
Azous, Amanda (January 1992). Critical Areas in the City of Renton: Geological Hazardous
Areas, Mineral Lands and Wildlife Habitat Resources. Prepared for City of Renton
. PlanninglBuildingi Public Works Department. Renton, Washington.
Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation (January 26,2000). "Development of the Proposed
Sensitive Areas Ordinance -Revised Memo." From Lisa Gmeter, Senior Planner, to Rebecca
Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Department. Seattle, W A.
City of Renton (2004). 2004 City of Renton Drinking Water QUality Report. Renton, W A.
. City of Renton (August 2002). "Explanation of Aquifer Code Amendments, August 2002" by
City of Renton Water Utility. Renton, WA. '. .
City of Renton (May 1999) Water System Plan: Appendix Q, Wellhead Protection plan. Renton,
WA.
Environmental Protection Agency (June 8, 1988). "Sole Source Designation of the Cedar Valley
Aquifer, King County, WA." [FRL-3457-7] Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 191, Monday
October 3, 1988, Notices.
GeoEngineers, Inc:(1991). Summary Report: Critical and Resource Areas Evaluation. Prepared
for the City of Renton. Authors Donald W. Tubbs, Senior Geologist, and Jon W. Koloski,
Principal. .
Kindig, Andy, A.C. Kindig & Company. Personal communication, June 30, 2004.
Steele, Chuck, Washington State Department of Ecology. Personal Communication, June 24,
2004 ..
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Growth
Management Services (November 2003). Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting
Critical Areas Within the Framework of the. Washington Growth Management Act. Olympia,
WA.
Washington State Office of Community Development (October 28,2002). Letter, Charles Bates,
Assistant Planner, Growth Management Services, to the Honorable Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Renton.
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (2003). Priority Habitats and Species
database. Olympia, W A.
. Comparison of Selected City Critical Area
. Regulations to State Example Code
July 13, 2004
28
APPENDIX A
COMPARISON CHART:
AQUIFER PROTECTION, FLOOD HAZARD, GEOLOGIC
HAZARD, AND HABITAT CONSERVATION
REGULATIONS
Procedural Systems
State
OCTEO
Example
Provision Renton Code
Purpose and General Provisions
PutIlOse X X
AuthorilY X X
Relalionships to Other Rem. lations 0 X
Administrative Procedures (contonn to standards incJudiml timinQ, fees aDoeals) X X
Fees X X
Severabilitv X X
Administrative Rules X X
Interpretation as minimum requirements X X
Jurisdiction -Critical areas (critical areas buffers within 300' of water bodieslwetlands~oerimeter from bald eaolel X 111 X
Protection of Critical Areas to em. al or !lreater functions and values' use mniaation Seat encino, XI21 X
Best Available Science
Best Available Science 0 X
IADplicabllltv, Exemptions and Exceptions
IADDlicabilitv X X
exemptions X X
Exceptions -Public Mencv and Utilitv X 3 4 X
ExceDtions -Reasonable Use X4 X
Allowed Activities
Allowed Activities without Cmical Area Report but wnh BMPs) xTsl X
Critical Area Review Process
General ReQUirements X6 X
Cmical Area Preapplication Consultation X 171 X
Cmical Area Identification Fonn -. O"SI X
Public Notice and Innial Detennination X9 X
Critical Area Report
Critical Area Repori-ReQUirements X 1101 X
Critical Area Repori-Modifications to Requirements X X
Mitigation Requirements X 11 X
MitiQation SeQUencing X 11 . X
MHiaation Plan ReQUirements X X
Innovative Mniaation .. XI121 X
DetermInation Process
Detennination X 13 X
Revi_ Cmeria X 1131 X'
Favorable Detennination X 13 X
Unfavorable Detennination X 13 X
Completion of the Critical Area Review XI131 X
IADoeals XI131 X
Variances
Variances X 10 X
Unauthorized A1tarations and Enforcement
Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations and Enforcement X X
General Critical Area Protective Measures
Critical Area Markers and Sians X 14 X
Notice on Tille 0 X
Native Growth Protection Areas X X
Critical Area Tracts X X
Buildillg Setbacks 0 X
Bonds to Ensure MHiaation Maintenance and MOnOOMQ X X
Critical Area InspectiQ<ls -' X X
Notes:
:1] Critical areas plus any raauired buffers,
..
112] R8QUirements for critical habitats, wetlands, and s1ream by performance standards. Not ~icable to ~er recharge areas, aeoloaic hazards, rK flood hazards.
1131 In some individual performance standards there arit such aaencv/utilitv aXC8DIions, e.a. orotecled sIooes. or via madificaIIan or variance """""'""",
[4] Modification. administrative variances and hearing examiner varianceS proceduras identify single family dweUings on legal lots or pubticagency/utilily projects as cases for
consideration.
[5] Exemptian. are dose to the Example Code's "aI __ activities. However, a critical area repan may be required by CH1, and "9'"e exemptions have standards.
1r61 RevieWIng official given responsibility to ensure are fulfiUed,
1m Preaoplication review i. optional, but strongly encouraged, and free.
Ira1 UsuallY identified durinQ preapp6cation slaQe or via SEPA.
[9] Soma formal administrative interpretations are Usted as part at a Notice at Application. Determinations that !here are no critical areas or granting repan waivers are not a
art at NOA •.
'10] No spedfic BAS requirement Analysis at critical area to be mads by ouatified orofessional in accordance wnh standards.
[11] Mitigation sequencing specifically required for critical habitats, wetlands, and streams. For aquifer, Hood hazard, and geologic hazard areas, conditions of approval are
possible and mitigation at imoacts would be reQuired. _
121 A1_ under slJeams and weUands soacificaUy. Other critical areas indude more general pertormance standards and oonditions. Innovative mitiQatian not Dreduded.
131 Each report cantentreQuiremenllperformance standard varies by artical area. Any staff determinations may be aooeaIed.
14 Native arowth protection areas to be marked oarmanently.
Key:
-X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
NIA '= Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State 1 June 29, 2004
I
A 'f R h A qUI er ec arge reas
Provision
Definition
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Designation. Critical aquiler ~e
areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers
used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-19().030(2). CARAs have
prevailing geologic .conditions associated with Infiltration rates that aeate a
high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute
significantly to the replenishment of ground water. These areas include the
following:
A Wellheed Protection Areas (boundaries of the ten (10) year time of ground
water travel or boundaries established using allemate criterta approved by
the Washington State Department of Health).
B. Sole Source AQuifers designated by the U.S. EPA.
C. Susceptible Ground Water Management Areas. Susceptible ground water
management areas are areas that have been 'designated as moderately or
highly vulnerable or susceptible in an adopted ground water management
program developed pursuant to WAC 173-100.
D. Special Protection Areas. Special protection areas are those areas
defined by WAC 173-201Ul90.
E. Moderately or Highly Vulnerable Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer
recharge areas that are moderately or highly vulnerable to dagradation or
depletion because of hydrogeologic characteristics are those anaas
delineated by a hydrogeologic study pnapared in accordance with the stete
Department of Ecology guidelines.
F. Moderately or Highly Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas: moderately or
highly susceptible to dagradation or depletion. meeting the criteria
established by the state DOE.
Aquifer Recharge Area Susceptibmly Ratings. Aquiler recharge areas
shall be rated as having high. moderate. or low susceptibility based on so~
permeability. geologic matrix. infiltration. and depth to water as determined
by the criteria established by the State Department of Ecology.
Mapplmtof Critical Aquifer Recharae Areas
A The approximate location and extent of critical aquifer nacharge areas are
shown on the adopted critical areas maps.. .
B. These maps are to be used as a guide. may be continuously updated as
new critical areas are identified, and are a naference.
ActIVItIes Allowed In CritIcal Aquifer Recharge Areas. The following
activities are allowed and do not require submission of a critical area report
A Con_on of structures and improvements. induding additions.
nasulting in less than five percent (5%) or 2.500 square feet (whichever is
gnaaJsr) totaJ site impervious surface area that does not nasult in a change of
use or inaease the use of a hazardOus substance.
B. Development and improvement of parks. nacnaation facilities. open space.
or conservation areas nasulting in less than five percent (5%) totaJ site
impervious surface area that do not increase the use of a hazardous
substance.
C. On-site domestic septic systems releasing less than 14.500 gallons of
efftuent per day and that are limited to a maximum density of one (1) system
per one (1) SQ'B.
Other: Deminimus hazardous materials quantities. existingtuel oa systems,
equipment fueling in containment area, other limited exemptions.
Report Content Requirements
Pnaparation by a Qualified Professional
Hydrogeologic Assessment (requirements inaease for high impervious
surtaces. Injection wells. use of hazardous materials. and other factors).
Other. Operating Permit or Closure Permit Application
Performance Standards -General Requirements
A Activities may only be penmitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the
applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to
enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity win not adversely effect the
recharging of the aquifer.
B. The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection
requirements and nacommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington State Department of Heallh. and the pocaJ health
district).
C. The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the pocaJly adopted surface water management or water quality
nagulations).
Performance Standards -Specific Uses
A. Storage Tanks, underground and above ground.
B. Vehicle Repair and Servicing on impermeable pads; no d1'/ wells.
C. Residential Use of Pesticides and Nutrients.
Key:
X : Addressed
o : Not Addressed
Nt A : Not Applicable
.R.: Revision Recommended by
State
Renton State
DCTED
Example
Code
x x
X X
X X
X X
NlA X
NlA X
NlA X
NlA X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X(1) X
X(1) X
NlA-See X
Prohibited for
Sole Source
(2)
X
X X
0 X
0 X
X
X X'
X (3) X
0 X
X X
X X
X X
X4 X
X X
2 June 29. 2004
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Provision
D. Use of Reclaimed Water for Surface Percolation or Direct Recharge.
E. State and Federal Regulations, uses conditioned in accordance with the
appUcable state and federal regulations.
Other, Wastewater disposal, surface water requirements, pipeline
requirements, construction activity standards, fill material requirements, reg's
for existing solid waste landfills.
Uses Prohibited From Crttlcal Aquifer Recharge Areas,
A Landfills. Landfills, induding hazanlOus or dangerous waste, municipal
solid waste, special waste, woodwaste, and inert and demolition waste
tandfiIIs;
B. Unde!!lflllJr1d Iniection WellS.
C. Mining
D. Wood Traatment Fadlities.
E. Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Radioactive Substances.
F. Other Prohibited Uses or Activities
1. Activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers currenUy
or JlOIen.~ used as a potable _er source;
2. Activities that would signilicanUy reduce the recharge to aquifers that are a
source of significant baseftow to a regulaled stream; and
3. Activities that are not connected to an available sanitary sewer system,
prohibited from critiCal aquifer recharge areas associated with sole source
aquifers.
4. Surface impoundments (WAC1 J3.303 -dangerous waste and 173-304 -
sofod waste).
5. Hazardous waste treatmen~ storage and diSposal.
6. Transfer Stations.
7. Recyding of hazardous materials.
8. UndergrotJlld hazardous materiels storaae and dislribution.
9. New fuet oil ~ for heatina.
10. Petroleum pipelines.
Nates:
[1] Deminimus use of hazardous materialS is exempt
[2] New septiC systems prohibited.
Renton State
DCreD
Example
Code
X X
0 X
X
X X
X X
X 41161 X
X 151 X
X lSI X
X X
X X
0 X
0 X
X [2] X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(3] Hazardous materialS release restrictions.
[4] Dry wellS for waste disposal or stormwater runoll are not aDowed. Facilities with more then 20 gallons of
hazardouS materials are subject to secondaty containment Hazardous materiats stored outdoor In
sec:ondaIy containment must be covered to preclude precipitation.
[5] Mining requires a conditional use permit In any land use zoning district.
(6) AIIhough wood waste and injection wens are not specified as prohibited, definiitions and pertonnance
standards regulate them. Regulations prohibn any activity that could contaminate the aquifer from occurring
over a surface In which the hazardous substance could get Into the ground. Facilities with more then 20
gaDons of hazardouS materialS are subject to secondary containment HazardouS materials stored outdoor
in UII"nI'W'Iarv ~t mllet no l"nVaon:atf t" tv'OI"bwfA I"WIIiIII a llilp on
Renton Water Utility Website. Our Underground Water Source
Ninaty-three percent of Renton's water is supplied by the Cedar Velley
Aquifer. As Renton's only water source, ~ has been designated a ·sote
source' by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This means no federal
financial assistance can be given to a project which might contaminate the
aquifer and create a public health hazard;
The aquifer is an underground layer of sand and gravel running 3 112 mfles
long, and furnishing Renton residents with 6.5 million gaIIans of water each
day. AI some points, the groundwater contained in our aquifer Is only 23 feet
below ground. making it very sensitive to pollutants.
Fed by rain and snow faDing on the aquifer and higher edjacent ground, the
aquifer is also raplenished by groundwater flow from the Cedar Valley. It is
highJy permeable, and contantinants reaching these recharge areas often
find their way Into our drinking _r. .
Studies: City of Renton Wellhead Protection Plan as an appendix to the Coty
of Renton Water System Plan (considered to be BAS) See H.l.b.
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
NI A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State 3 June 29, 2004
I
Flood Hazard Regulations
Designation
Area on Flood Insurance Maps
Areas Identified by Director when Base Flood Elevation is not ava/7able
Use of Additional Information That is More Restrictive or Detailed
Flood Elevation Data When Base Flood Data is Not Available
Flood Insurance Maps -Most Current Information to be the Basis of
Regulation
Maintenance of Records
FrequenUy Flood Areas -Report Requirements
Prepared by Qualified Professional
Areas to be addressed (site area; areas of special flood hazard; and
flood areas within 200 feet of proposed project)
Site and Construction Plans
Water Course Alteration (generally restricted; where necessarY,· identify
extent, maintenance proQram, compliance documentation)
Warning and Disclaimer of Liability
Perfonnance Standards -General
Devel~ment Permit
All Other Necessarv Permits From Other Aaencies Verified
Where RegulatorY Floodway Not Defined: New Construction Not
Permitted in Zones A 1-30 and AE Unless Base Flood is not increased
by more than 1 foot
Areas without Base Flood Elevation Data
Construction Materials and Methods
Structures Shall Be Located on Buildable Areas Outside Floodplain,
Unless There is No Such Area
Methods that Minimize Flood Damage
Utility Protection
Elevation CertifICate Following Construction
Anchorin-.!l
AnchorinQ Requirement -All N"ew Construction
Manufactured Homes
FYI and Grading -No side channel blockage, may not restrict
channel migration, may not increase flood hazard
Performance Standards -Speclflc Uses
Residential Construction
Must be Above Base Flood Elevation
Areas BelOw Lowest Floor (Equalize Hvdrostatic Flood Forces)
Manufactured Homes Must Be Elevated
Recreational Vehicles (Temporarily Located; or Ready for Highway Use;
or Meet Manufactured Home AnchOring)
Nonresidential Construction
Above Base Flood Elevation
Areas Below Lowest Floor (Equalize Hydrostatic Flood Forces)
UtHities
InfiltratiOn of Flood Waters
Sanitary Sewerage Systems
On-site Waste Disposal Systems
Subdivision Proposals
Adequate Space Outside Flood Amas .
Minimize Flood Damage
Have Adequate Drainage
Show Flood Areas on Plat Maps
Detailed Base Flood Elevation Data
Alteration of Water Courses
Habitat Regulation Consistency
Blockage of Side Channels Avoided
NotifICation
Maintenance of Alterations
Performance Standards -Areas of Shallow Flooding
Residential Structures -Elevated to Highest Grade Adjacent to Buildino
Key: .
X =.Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State
State
DCTED
Renton Example
X X
0 X
Xr1r X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
Xr21 X
X X
Xr31 X
X X
X X
X ·X
0 X
NIA X
X X
X X
0 X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X Rr41
X X
X X
X R(4)
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 X
0 X
XIS) X
X X
N/A X
4 June 29, 2004
Flood Hazard Regulations
State
. DCTED
Renton Example
Nonresidential Structures -Elevated to Highest Grade Adjacent to Building
or FloodproofedlWatertlght N/A X
Drainage Paths Around Structures on Slopes NlA X
Recreational Vehicles (Meet Chapter Requirements) N/A X
Where velocities are 5 ft per second or greater, additional construction
standards apply N/A
Prohibited Uses
Critical Facilities with no other feasible attemative site X X
Wells Used for Potable Water (WAC 173-160-171} X X
On-Site Sewage DIspOsal Systems 0 X
Construction in Floodways, unless certified by a registered professional
engineer demonstrating no increase in flood levels during base flood, or if
fish habitat project . XI6] X
Residential Construction and Reconstruction in Floodway, except repairs or
construction that do not increase ground floor area and value is less than
50% of marllet value. R...ffi X
Variances X X
Exemptions XI71
Other X(8)
Definitions R[4) X
Notes.
/talicized text are advisory provisions in the State DCTED Model, and not a part of the National Flood Insurance Program Requirement
(1) Proposed, under review.
(2) Identification of areas within 200 feet of site not required to be addressed.
(3) Regulations do not restrict proposals, but do require State notification. Also have maintenance requirement
In Shoreline Master Program watercourse aHeratlon limited to specifIC purposes, e.g. public purposes or habitat benefit.
(4) State Model Flood Ordinance (to comply with FEMA and to set State Standards) has been updated. Additionally, DOE staff have reviewed City flood regulations
through a regular State review effort, and have recommended revisions. See text amendments.
(5) Regulations require notice, but do not specify amount of notice. In practice, notice would be given by SEPA review.
(6) Exemptions generally include enhancement, restoration, mitigation.
(1) Exemptions include:
a. Conservation, Enhancement, Education, and Related.
b. AgricuHural, Harvesting, Vegetation Management
c. Flood Hazard Reduction and surface water projects where habitat
enhancement, restoration, and federal and/or state authorization is
d. Relocation of existing utilities out of critical arealbuffer.·
e. Emergency activities.
f. Existing activities that have ncit been changed, aHered, expanded,
when complying with nonconfonning regulations.'
(8) Compensatory storage requinid. Springbrook Creek -required to use City hydrologic and hydraurlC model resufts for 100-year
future land use conveyance and storage events, but use FEMA data for finished floor elevations.
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State 5 June 29, 2004
I
G . H eo oglc d azar s
Provision
Designation, General
Designation, Specific
A. Erosion hazard;
B. landslide hazard;
C. Seismic hazard;.
D. Mine hazard;
E. Volcanic hazard;
F. Other geological events includinll tsunamis, mass wastinll, debris lIows, rock faUs, and differential settlement.
Classification
Known or suspected risk, or unknown
Mapping
1. Coastal Zone AHas lfor marine bluff hazards ;
2. U.S. Geological Suniey landslide hazard, seismic hazard, and volcano hazard. maps;
3. Washillglon State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Westem Washinllton;
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps;
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps;
S. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps; and
7. locallY adopted maps.
Allowed Activities
X.50.050 Activities Allowed in Geologically Hazardous Areas. The following activities are allowed in geologically
hazardous areas pursuant to AUowed Activities [Section X.10.160) and do not require submission of a critical area
report:
A. Erosion and landslide Hazard Areas. Except as otherwise provided for in this TiUe. only those activities
approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical area report in accordance with this Tille shaH be
allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas.
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of lloor area or roof area, whichever is greater,
and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or pubrJC assembly;
2. Additions to existing single-sto_r}'-residences that are two hundred flflv ' 250~ ~uare feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences.
C. Mine Hazard Areas. The foUowing activities are anowed within mine hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater,
and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or Ilublic assembly;
2. Additions to existinll residences that are two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences.
D. Volcanic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within volcanic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater,
and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; .
2. Additions to existing residences that are two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences.
E. Tsunami Hazard Areas. The fonowing activities are aUowed within tsunami hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of lloor-area or roof area, whichever is greater,
and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or ll_ubrJC assemboc,
2. Additions to existing residences that are two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences.
F. Other Hazard Areas. The [director) may allow the following acUvities within other geologically hazardous areas, if
the activity Win not increase the risk of the hazard:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater,
and which are not residential structures or used as~aces of, em--",~ent or public assemb~
2. Additions to existing residences that are two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences.
Other Exemptions
Report Requirements
Preparation by a Qualified Professional.
Area to be Addressed: Site and land within 200 feet.
Site and construction plans
Geologic characteristics
AnalYsis of Proposal
Recommendation for minimum buffer/setback.
Mitigation of long-term impacts.
Additional Technical Information Requirements for ~c Hazards.
Performance Standards
General
A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:
1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development
conditions;
2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Are deSigned so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-
development conditions; and
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State 6
~
State
DCTED
Renton Model
x x
x x
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 X
Xill X
X~ X
NlA X
0 X
0 X
0 X
NlA X
See llood. X
X3 X
X 141 X
X [4) X
0 X
X [5) X
XIS X
0 X
Xli X
X lSI ·X
0 X
0 X
0 X
NlA X
NlA X
NlA X
0 X
X 151 X
X[S) X
X 141
X X
X [7) X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 X
0 X
X 181 X
June 29, 2004
G eo oglc H d azar s
Provision
4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist.
licensed in the state of Washington.
B. Critical Facilities Prohib~ed. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is
no other practical alternative.
Specific
A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Meet general performance standards and:
1. Buffer Requirement. Heigh1 of slope or 50 feet. whichever is. greater. Can reduce or increase buffer.
2. Alterations. Alterations maybe allowed subject to criteria.
3. Design Standards. Meet design standards. unless alternative equals or exceeds standard. and do not include
standards that require maintenance.
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the
Ilmits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be
based on a minlmum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the Uniform Building
Code;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clUstered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical
areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope. and
foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and ~s
natural landforms and vegetation;
e. The propOSed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring ~ro~; -.
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is prefemed over
...lIraded artificial s!opes; and
g. Development shan be desjgned to minimize imperviOus lot coverage;
4. Vegetation Retention. -Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration. removal of vegetation
from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited;
5. Seasonal Restriction on clearing and grading.
6. UtiJ"1Iy lines and Pipes. Util~ lines and pipes shall be permitted in erosion and landsfide hazard areas orIIy
when the appficant demonstrates that no other practical aIIemative is available.
7. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an
erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibtted except when meeting deSign standards.
8. Subdivisions. The division of land in landslide hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the foUowing:
a Land that is located wholly within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may not be subdivided. land that is
located partially within a landslide h!IZard area or its buffer may be divided provided that each resulting lot has
sufficient bu~able area outside of. and will not affect. the landslide hazard or ~ buffer.
b. Access roads and util"1!ies may be permitted within the landslide hazard area and associated buffers if the
[city/county) determines that no other feasible alternative exists; and
9. Prohibtted Development On-site sewage disposal systems. including drain fields. shall be prohib~ed within
erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers.
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. Meet general performance standards.
C. Mine Hazard Areas. Meet general performance standards and:
1. Alterations. Alterations of a mine hazard area and/or buffer are allowed. as follows:
a. AIt alterations are permitted within a mine hazard area with a low potential for subsidence;
b. Within a mine hazard area with a moderale potential for subsidence and at coal mine by-product stockpftes.
an alterations are permitted subject to a mitigation plan to minimize risk of structural damage using appropriate
criteria to evaluate the proposed use. as recommended in the hazard analysis; and
c. Wrthin a mine hazard area with a severe potential for subsidence only those activities-allowed in accordance
with Section X.50.0s0 will be allowed.
2. Subdivisions. The division of land in mine hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the following:
a. Land that is located within two hundred (200) feet of a mine hazard area with a severe potential for
subsidence may not be subdivided. Land that is located partially within a mine hazard area may be divided
provided that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area that is two hundred (200) feet away from the mine
hazard area with a severe potential for subsidence. Land that is located within a mine hazard area with a low or
moderale potential for subsidence may be subdivided.
b. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within two hundred (200) feet of a mine hazard area with a
moderate or severe potential for subsidence if no other feasible alternative exists.
3. Reclamation Activities. For all reclamation activities. including grading. filling. and stockpile removal. subm~
as-built drawings.
O. Volcanic and Tsunami Hazard Areas. Require an evacuation and emergency management plan. Government
may use the performance standards for coastal high hazard areas as guidance .
E. Other Hazard Areas. Meet general performance standards.
Notes:
[1 [ Protected and Critical Slopes
(2) Typically classified as low, medium. high. or some other class that indicates severity.
(3) Mapped based on definitional criteria. Original recommendations for criteria/mapping from GeoEngineers 1991,
based on NRCS soil types and USGS geologic unit mapping. and other public records.
State
DeTED
Renton Model
X X
0 X
X X
X [91 X
X X
X (10) X
0(10) X
0(10) X
0110) X
01101 X
01101 X
01101 X
0(10) X
X (11) X
X 11 X
X 1121 X
X 1111 X
X [131 X
X [121 X
X [141 X
X X
X [151 X
X 1151 X
X 1151 X
X 1151 X
XJ15) X
X 115) X
X 1151 X
0 X
X [161 X
(4) Exempt activities must receive letter of exemption and City may require report as appropriate. Exemptions are not based on size bul type of a~.
Exempt activities include: conservation/education, existing agriculturelharvesting wild food/dead and diseased tree removal;
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
State 7 June 29, 2004
I
.e
G . H eo ogle d azar s
State
DeTED
Provision Renton Model . . ... ... eXIsting or new (if In Improved nght of way) roads parks and utilities, maintenance/construction for eXIsting usesJfaclllties, and emergellCles .
NOfloexempt activities require report and compliance with standards.
[5] No size reslliction but may not intrude further into critical area with footprint. Also may need to meet nonconforming use standards.
[6] Associated with an existing single family residence.
[7] Address manmade and natural features within 150 feet; address groundwater conditions within 1/4 mile; address .mine areas within 100 feel
[8] Hazard to be mitigated -predevelopment level not specified: ·Upon review of geotechnical studies, the developmen1 permit shall be conditioned
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and to assure that the development can be safely accommodated on the site ... •
[9] Slopes over 40% restricted from development in most cases. Very High landslide Areas resllicted from development, plus there's a 50' buffer.
No standard buffer from erosion hazard areas but development can be conditioned as needed.
(10] Standards are performance based and not as specific. Conditions of approval are authorized and may lead to resllictions similar to Example Code deSign standards,
[11] Conditions of approval are alJl!lorized and may lead to resllictions simUar to Example Code vegetation, erosion control, and point discharge standards.
Further, erosion control submittal requirements require some analysis, and there are Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations and standards too.
[12] Protected slopes over 40% have similar standard for utilities and roads.
Conditions of approval are authorized and may lead to resllictions similar to Example Code for other erosion or landslide hazard areas.
[13] Requirement for protected slopes over 40%. Development prohibited in Very High Landslide Hazard Areas.
Conditions of approval are authorized and may lead to resllictions similar to Example Code tor other erosion or landslide hazard areas.
[14] No standard prohibition. Conditions of approval are authorized and may lead to resllictions similar to Example Code for erosion or landslide hazard areas.
(15] Conditions of approval are authorized and may lead to resllictions similar to Example Code. Standards may include:
Potential mitigation may include, but is not fimited to, backfilling and sealing mine enl!ies and shafts, backfiDing existing sinkholes, removal or regrading .
. or capping coal mine waste dumps, runiting development on portions of the site, or other measures offering ·equal protection from the hazard.
Upon approval of the plans ·and specifications, the appficant shall complete \he remediation. Hazard mitigation shall be performed by or WIder the direction
of a quaUlied engineer or geologiSt. The appUcant shaD document the hazard mitigation by submitting as-buUts and a remediation construction report.
AIry hazards found during any development activities shall be immediately reported. AIry coal mine hazards shaD be mitigated prior to recommencing construction
based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicanfs geotechnical profeSSional.
Construction shall not be permitted where surface or subsurface investigations indicate the possible presence of combustion. in the undef1ying seam or seams,
unless the impact is adequately mitigated in accordance W\th the recommendations of the appficanfs geotechnical professional.
[16] ·Other" includes protected and critical slopes. While other jurisdictions' codes may treat slopes over 40% as a landsfide area,
Renton regulates \hem under ·protected slopes·.
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = Revision Recommended by
·State 8 June 29, 2004
N ----St -------Habitat e ------- ----tion R - - -lati --
I
Provision
Designations as Habitat Conservation Areas:
Areas with which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Associa
State Priority Habitats and areas Associated with Priority Species
Habitats and Species of Local Importance
Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems: State DNR Natural Heritage Program
Land Useful or Essential for Preservina Connections between Habitat Blocks and Open Spaces
Habitat Assessment Report .
Performance Standards· General:
Buffers· required consistent with WDFWmanagement recommendations
Seasonal Restrictions· may be applied if species is susceptible during certain periods
Restrictions on subdivisions wholl}' within habitat conservation areas
Other
Performance Standards· Specific:
Areas with which Federal and/or State endangered/threatened/sensitive species have a primary association:
Within habitat conservation area, no development allowed unless provided within a management plan established by
WDFW, or applicable state or federal agency.
Activities adjacent to a habitat conservation area follow protection measures in accordance with a critical area report by a
qualified professional.
Bald eagle habitat to be protected consistent with Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules. A habitat management
plan is to be identified by a professional.
Other
Notes:
[1] Includes heron rookeries, raptor nesting areas, and category 1 wetlands.
[2] Native growth protection area may be required for critical habitat area and associated buffers.
Any alterations require an alternatives evaluation (avoid, minimize, compensate).
City may condition proposal to minimize impacts based on consultant report, and/or peer review, and/or information by
. State or Federal agencies. .
Category 1 wetland requirements would apply in addition to critical habitat requirements.
Key:
X = Addressed o = Not Addressed
N/A = Not Applicable
R = ReviSion Recommended by
State 9
State
DelED
Renton Model
X X
X X
X [1] X
0 X
0 X
X X ;e
0[2] X
0[2] X
0(21 X
X (21
0[21 X
0 X
0 X
X (21 -----_.-
e
June 29, 2004
Geologic Hazards
State Example Code Definition Renton Definition
General Definition. Geologically hazardous areas Geologic Hazards: Areas which may be prone to
include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, one or more of the following conditions: erosion,
earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic
threat to the health and safety of citizens when activity. Refer to RMC 4-3-050B4.
incompatible development is sited in areas of
significant hazard. Such incompatible development
may not only place itself at risk, but also may
increase the hazard to surrounding development
and use. Areas susceptible toone or more of the
following types of hazards shall be designated as a
geologically hazardous area:
A. Erosion hazard;
B. Landslide hazard;
C. Seismic hazard;
D. Mine hazard;
E. Volcanic hazard; and
F. Other geological events including tsunamis, mass
wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential
settlement.
Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils
least those areas identified by the U.S. Department characterized by the Natural Resource .,.
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil
Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate
or "very severe" rill and interrill erosion hazard. erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen
Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted percent (15%).
by shore land and/or stream bank erosion and those ii. High Erosion HaZard (EH): Areas with soils
areas within a river's channel migration zone. . characterfzed by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil
Conservation Service) as having severe or very
severe erosion potential, and that slope more
steeply than fifteen percent (15%).
Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes
are areas potentially subject to landslides based on less than fifteen percent (15%).
a combination of geologic, topographic, and ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with
hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty .
because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope percent (40%) and u·nderlain by soils that consist
(gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. c.
other factors. Example of these may include, but are iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with
not limited to the following: slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas
1. Areas of historic failures, such as: r-vith slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty
a. Those areas delineated by the U.S. Department percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation largely of silt and clay.
Service as having a "severe" limitation for building iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of
site development; known mappable landslide deposits.
b. Those areas mapped by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Coastal Zone Atlas) or the (see also Protected Slope)
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(slope stability mapping) as unstable (U or class 3),
unstable old slides (UOS or class 4), or unstable
recent slides (URS or class 5); or
1
State Example Code Definition Renton Definition
c. Areas designated as quaternary slumps,
earthflows, mudfloWs, lahars, or landslides on maps
published by the U.S. Geological Surveyor
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
2. Areas with all three of the following
characteristics :
a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%);
b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a
relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively
impermeable sediment or bedrock; and
c. Springs or ground water seepage.
3. Areas that have shown movement during the
Holocene epoch (from ten thousand years ago to the
present) or that are underlain or covered by mass
wastage debris of that epoch; ..
4. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of
· weakness (such as bedding planes, jOint systems, .
and fault planes) in subsurface materials;
5. Slopes having gradients steeper than eighty
percent (80%) subject to rock fall during seismic
shaking;43
6. Areas potentially unstable because of rapid
stream incision, stream bank erosion, and'
undercutting by wave action;
7. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from
snow avalanches;
8. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial
fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by
debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and
9. Any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or
steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more
feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A
I slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top
and is measured by averaging the inclination over at
least ten.(10) feet of vertical relief.
Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are i. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by
areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have
· earthquakein~uced ground shaking, slope failure, site coefficients of types S1 or S2, as defined in the
settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or Uniform Building Code.
surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by
earthquake damage is a record of earthquake soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally
damage in the past. Ground shaking is the primary have site coefficients of types S3 or S4, as defined
cause of earthquake damage in Washington. The in the Uniform Building Code.
strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by:
1. The magnitude of an earthquake;
2. The distance from the source of an earthquake;
· 3. The type of thickness of geologic materials at the
surface; and
4. The type of subsurface geologic structure.
Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in
areas underlain by cohesionless, loose, or soft-
saturated soils of low density, typically in association
with a shallow ground water table.
2
State Example Code Definition Renton Definition
-.
Mine Hazard Areas. Mine hazard areas are those i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas
areas underlain by or affected by mine workings with no known mine workings and no
such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts, predicted subsidence. While no mines are
and those areas of probable sink holes, gas known in these areas, undocumented
releases, or subsidence due to mine workings. mining is known to have occurred.
Factors that should be considered include: proximity
to development, depth from ground surface to the ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): mine working, and geologic material. Areas where mine workings are deeper
than two hundred feet (20P) for steeply
dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15)
times the thickness of the seam or workings
for gently dipping seams. These areas may
be affected by subsidence.
iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with
abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings
and areas underlain by mine workings shallower
than two hundred feet (20P) in depth for steeply
dipping seams,or shallower than fifteen (15) times
the thickness of the seam or workings for gently
dipping seams. These areas may be affected by
collapse or other subsidence.
Volcanic Hazard Areas. Volcanic hazard .areas are See Report Discussion. Lesser Issue in City.
areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris
avalanche, and inundation by debris flows, lahars,
mudflows, or related flooding resulting from volcanic
activity.
ITsunami Hazard Areas. Tsunami hazard areas are Not Applicable.
coastal areas and large lake shoreline areas
susceptible to flooding and inundation as the result
of excessive wave action derived from seismic or
other geologic events.
3
State Example Code Definition Renton Definition
Other Hazard Areas. Geologically hazardous areas SLOPE, STEEP: A hillside, or portion thereof, which
shall also include areas determined to be falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or
susceptible to other geological events including protected.
mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls,and
differential settlement. ..
. '
4
4-8-120.0 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
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
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,
the preparation and content requirements of RMC 4-8-1200, Table 18 shall
also apply. (Ord. 4835,3-27-2000) .
Table 18 -Geotechnical Report -:-Detailed Requirements
Landslide Coal> Coal
Report Preparation/Content Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High. Seismic Mine-' Mine
Requirements Slopes -Medium -High Erosion . High Medium High .,
1. Characterize soils, geology X X X 'X X X X X and drainage.
2. Oesaibe and depict all natural
and man-made features within X X X X X X X X one hundred fifty feet (1S0¢) of
the site boundary •.
3. Identify any areas that have
previously been disturbed or X X ,X X X X ,X X degraded by human activity or
natural process~. ..
:
4. Characterize groundwater
cOnditions including the
presence of any public or private X X X X X X X X
wells within one-quarter (1/4)
mile of the site.
5. Provide a site evaluation
review of available information X X X X X X X X
regarding the site.
6. Conduct a surface
reconnaissance of the site and X X X X X X X X
adjacent areas.
7. Conduct a subsurface X X X X X X X X expl,oration of soils and
5
Volcanic
Hazards
~
~
~
~
Landslide Coal· Coal
Report Preparation/Content Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High Seismic Mine-Mine Volcanic
Requirements . Slopes -Medium . -High High Erosion Medium -Hazards
High
, hydrologic conditions.
8. Provide a slope stability X X X X X X X 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 X X X areas as soon as possible; X X X X
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 X potential relative to the proposed
development
11. Conduct sufficient
subsurface exploration to
provide a site coefficient (5) for X use in the Uniform Building Code
to the satisfaction of the Building
Official.
12. Calculate tiltS and strains, .
and determine appropriate X X 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, X X 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 X X
6
Landslide Coal Coal
Report Preparation/Content Steep Landslide Landslide -Very High Seismic Mine-Mine Volcanic
Requirements Slopes -Medium -High High Erosion Medium -Hazards
High
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 X X
for coal mine workings or other
hazards that cannot be
adequately investigated by
suriaceinvestigations.
16. Provide an analysis of
proposed clearing, grading and
construction activities including
construction scheduling. Analyze X X X X X X X X
potential direct and indirect on-
site and off-site impacts from
developmenl
17. Propose mitigation
measures, such as any special
construction techniques,
monitoring or inspection
programs, erosion or X X X X X X X X. .~ sedimentation programs during
andafterconstruction,suriace
water management controls,
buffers, remediation,
stabilization, etc.
18. Critical facilities on sites
containing areas susceQtible to
inundation due to volcanic
hazards shall reguire an
evacuation and emergen!<l£
management Qlan. The aQQlicant
for critical facilities shall evaluate ~ the risk of inundation or flooding
resulting from mudflows
originating on Mount Rainier in a
geotechnical reQort, and identify
an~ engineering or other
mitigation measures as
aQQroQriate. ..
Note: An ·X· indicates that the requirement applies in the identified critical area.
7
APPENDIX B
MAPS:
AQUIFER PROTECTION, FLOOD HAZARD, AND
GEOLOGIC HAZARD
RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE
'.;/ ,.':";:~i~;dl Zone 1
~ Zone 1 Modified
:Wi~ Zone2
A X< City Limits
FIGURE 4-3-050Q1
AQUIFER PROTECTtON ZONES
o
I
5280' 10560'
I----'~~~~I
1" = 1 MILE
I .. I APAZone 1
~ APA Zone 1 Modified t ;:ttz:1:tJ APA Zone 2
---Renton City Limits
• Well or Spring Locations
Figure 2-1
City of Renton
Water Supply Sources and
Aquifer Protection Areas
o 1500 lOOO
--------!
CITY OF RENTON
SENSITIVE AREAS
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
---Oly Limits
o
I
1500'
;
3000'
I
CITY OF RENTON
SENSITIVE AREAS
COAL MINE HAZARD
-----City Umil&
_ High Hazard
c:::::=J Moderate
c:::::=J UncIauifi.d
e T~hn"," S."" ... ... am + PIannincIBu.· ildincfJ'qblK Wom ~ R. MacOnic:. O. V".n~$ki Printedt.ia),6.2002
o 1500 JOOO ........ 1:18,000
CITY OF RENTON
EROSION HAZARD
SENSITIVE AREAS
1501) .\U)()
1:IK,c)tX)
CITY OF RENTON
SLIDE
SENSITIVE AREAS
---City Urnits D King County Hazard I1'iiI Moderate o High III Very High
e-" Technical Services _(am. Planninc/Buildin,/PubJic Works ~ R. MacOnie, D. Yurnelti 'I Prinled February 2003
o 1500 3000 ________ I SEISMIC
CITY OF RENTON
SENSITIVE AREAS
HAZARD AREAS
-----City Limits
_ High Hazard
· , '
40+% Slope
---Roads
---City Boundary
Li~ Lakes - - -Municipality Boundaries
Renton Steep Slopes
For Reference Only
1 Inch = 1 Mile t@ stoo;;J
. '. . ...
o
• PLATE II
OPEN-FILE R_T
OFR,.,a
I
Map D: Lower White and Green Rivers,
and Duwamish River
(continued from Plate I)
10 MILES
o 10 KILOMETERS
Contour Interval 100 meters
11/23/2004 18:21 2066897999
Law Offices of James C Hanken
9993«1 AveSune 3210
Seattle Wa 98104
Phone 206-689-1205
Fax 206·689-7999
Fax: l41.S) 430 -b 5 '23
Phone:
He:
PAGE 01/04
',~' ,',,: :",,' " , I' ••
. Law Offices of .
~~~~S· C Hanken .
':' , : '. I , I "
From: James C Hanken
Pages;
Date:
cc:
o Urgent o For Review o Please comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle
I
, ,
The infon-nation contained in this facsimile message is attorney/dient priviieged and/or confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us via
telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service.
Thank You.
11/23/2004 18:21 2055897999 PAGE 02/04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF RENTO~
IN RE THE APPEAL OF D.N.S. ON
CRITICAL AREAS REGULA nONS AND
SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM GMA
INTEGRATION BY BARBEE & ALTION
PROPERTIES AND lH.BAXTER AND CO.
NO. LUA-04-084, ECF
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF
J.H. RAXTER AND CO.
A. J.B. BAXTER & CO. HAS STANDING
J.H. Baxter & Co. is a property owner by and through its membership in the Quendall
Terminals Joint Venture. Quendall Tenninals owns propertj on Lake Washington which would
be affected by the action under consideration. We once again adopt the rationale stated by Barbee
Mill for J.H. Baxter and will not repeat those arguments here. Baxter's position is the same as
Barbee except as to additional points hereinafter stated.
B. REAL INJURY IN FACT
Baxter property ownership is through Quendall Tenninals which has property within one
hundred feet of Lake Washington which is severely cor·taminated by the actions of prior
ownership. While Baxter has a legal obligation to contribute to the cleanup, the fact is that since
1985, J.H. Baxter has been unable to perfonn such cleanup, even though it has been legally an
REPL Y MEMORANDUM OF
J.H. BAXTER AND CO. - 1
LAW O~;:ICES O~
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 Tl-llt::O AVENUE. SUITe 3~'O
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1206
FAX (205) 569-7999
11/23/2004 18:21 2055897999 PAGE 03/04
1 obligation since at least that date. Baxter has diligently soug:!t to fmd other parties whose interest
2 and capacity in the remediation of the site would bring them there to clean that site up. It has
3 been unable to do so. The City of Renton has been an active player in this process both as a party
4 who has lent its financial and political support and/or as a p~rspective purchaser itself. Thus it is
5 completely familiar and knowledgeable about the status of the Quendall Tenninal site.
6 The existing physical envirorunent of this property is that within the shoreline area there is
7 contamination. It is that simple. Nothing more. The propert:.r is contaminated.
8 To argue that there is a legal responsibility to clean that up is to state the obvious. The
9 question is not whether there is a legal obligation but whether there is capacity to perform. The
10 present proposed ordinances, diminish the likelihood of that perfonnance. TIlflt is also a simple
11 fact. Thus, there is in fact an action being considered by the City of Renton that has adverse
12 impacts upon the environment because it "chills" the likelihood of remediation of contaminated
13 property in Renton. An EIS should be prepared
14 The City should not be allowed to evade its responsibility to consider the adverse impacts
15 of its action by assertion that this is a socioeconomic consideration. The very act of increasing
16 the setback provisions and taking the property away from a non-buildable category does in fact
17 limit the likelihood of remediation. This is a direct result of this action. An EIS should be
18 required to evaluate this adverse environmental impact.
19 Adverse consequences to the environment will occur by virtue of this ordinance if adopted
20 in its present form. This is a more than likely than not a consequence if the ordinance is not
21 modified to take into account the requirements of the Department of Ecology in its permitting
22 process.
23
24
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF
. J .H. BAXTER AND CO. -2
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE. SUITE 3210
SEATILE. WASHINGTON 95104
(206) 689-1205
"AX (lOB) ees.7999
11/23/2004 18:21 2066897999 PAGE 04/04
1 C. CLOSING
2 The nature of this response is basically a closing argument on behalf of J.H. Baxter. We
3 urge the court to recognize the reality that there is significant adverse impact upon the
4 environment if remediation is in any way prevented or lessened by the action taken by the City of
5 Renton in this ordinance process. As constituted, this ordinance will lessen the likelihood of a
6 remediation and/or the extent of remediation by the nature of its frustration of the ability to utilize
7 the property. Thus, an environmental impact statement shol'ld be required before this ordinance
8 is moved fo:rward to adoption.
A
9 DATED this 2'2.:day of November, 2004 at Seattle, Washington.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF
J.H. BAXTER AND CO. - 3
Respectfully Submitted by,
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. HANKEN
. James c. Hanken WSBA# 1516 GAttome~' for J. H. Baxter & Co.
LAW.OFi'ICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD ",VENUE. SUITE 3,.10
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 8al0L
12061 689. 1 20S
FAX (208) 889·7999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC, )
BARBEE MILL CO., INC., & ALTINO )
PROPERTIES, ) No. LUA-04-084 ECF
)
Appellants, ) BARBEE'S REPLY ) MEMORANDUM v. )
)
CITY OF RENTON, )
)
Res:Qondent. )
I. REPLY
A. The Barbee Entities Have Standing.
While Barbee is undoubtedly concerned about protecting the economic value of its
property in the City of Renton, its SEPA claim is based on the City's failure to consider the
full scope of environmental impacts of the CAO Amendments-particularly those
environmental impacts resulting from the CAO Amendments' reduction in buildable lands.
Kucera v. Dep't o/Transportation, 140 Wn.2d 200,212-13,995 P.2d 63 (2000). Barbee
has standing to challenge the City's threshold determination based on alleged impacts to
Barbee's property in the City of Renton and to Barbee's right to a healthful environment in
the City Renton. According to Washington's highest court:
A sufficient injury in fact is properly pleaded when a
property owner alleges immediate, concrete, and specific
damage to property, even though the allegations may be
speculative and undocumented.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
BARBEE'S REPLY-l
SEA \S7798\v\ 26266·9 2600 Century Square· ISOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1683
(206) 622·3150 . Fax: (206) 628·1699
1 Id. (citations omitted). Property owners affected by the CAD Amendments have standing
2 to invoke SEPA. Id. at 213-214; see also RCW 43.21C.020 (setting forth each person's
3 right to a healthful environment).
4 Here,. Barbee has specifically pleaded immediate, concrete, and specific damage to
5 its right to a healthful environment and to Barbee's property along Class 1 waters. Barbee
6 has alleged that the reduction in buildable lands will adversely impact property that Barbee
7 owns in the City of Renton both by concentrating densities on Barbee's property and in the
8 City generally, without evidence that the property and the environment can withstand such
9 concentrated densities. See discussion, infra, Part B, regarding City's burden. The record
10 supports Barbee's allegations that the CAO Amendments, on their face, will remove
11 between 9.5 million and 19 million square feet ofland of from the City's inventory of
12 buildable lands, that such removal will necessitate significantly higher densities, and that
13 higher densities have the potential to increase erosion and runoff, deplete scenic resources,
14 enhance noise, impede the movement and circulation of people and goods, impede views
15 and diminish aesthetics. See WAC 197-11,.444 (listing elements of the environment);
16 WAC 197-11-7 40 (defining environment to refer to physical environmental quality); see
17 also RCW 43.21C.030 (emphasizing that SEPA policies are to be administered and
18 interpreted "to the fullest extent possible'').
19 In contrast to the facts in Trepanier v. Everett, where the appellant argued that that
20 reduced densities in the City of Everett would necessary result in increased densities in
21 Snohomish County, here, even the City acknowledges that the CAO Amendments will
22 reduce buildable lands in the City of Renton and such reduction will necessarily increase
23 densities in the City. See City Response, pp. 8, 11 (acknowledging that clustering
24 development presents the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment and
25 hence the City analyzed clustering in an EIS in 1993). The reduction of buildable lands by
26 tens of millions of square feet and the corresponding increases in densities that must occur
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-2
SEA 1577981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square' )50) Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 9810).1618
1206\ 622-3150 . Fax: 12061 628-7699
1 in order to reach growth projection estimates have the potential to result in more than a
2 moderate impact on the environmental health of the City and its residents, and as a resident
3 and property owner in the City of Renton, Barbee is harmed by inadequate consideration of
4 environmental impacts. Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 576 P.2d
5 401 (1978).
6 The City unduly broods over the fact that Barbee is not alleging an immediate, site
7 specific impact of the CAO Amendments. See City's Response, pp. 3, 6. But, the action is
8 question is a nonproject action-a City-wide plan that is intended to and will impact the
9 environmental health of the City as a whole-and Barbee, as a member of the community
10 and an owner of property stands to be adversely affected by, at minimum, the cumulative
11 impacts of that comprehensive planning action. Barbee does not have to show that the
12 CAO Amendments will directly and adversely impact Barbee's ability to develop property
13 that Barbee owns in the City; it merely needs to show that the CAO Amendments will
14 re4uce buildable lands, increase densities, and present more than a moderate likelihood that
15 the environmental health in the City of Renton, as currently enjoyed by Barbee, will be
16 significantly and adversely impacted. See Bellevue v. King Cy. Boundary Review Bd., 90
17 Wn.2d 856, 867-68, 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (record failed to show sufficient deliberation and
18 consideration of impacts of annexation); see discussion, infra, Part B.
19 RCW 43.21C.031 mandates that an EIS be prepared when significant adverse
20 impacts on the environment are "probable," not when they are "inevitable." See King
21 County v. Boundary Review Bd., 122 Wn.2d 648, 663,860 P.2d 1024 (1993). The alleged
22 injury, while a future injury and not a present one, is concrete and specific; the absence of
23 specific development plans or immediate land use changes flowing from the proposed
24 action does not make allegations of injury speculative or conjectural. Id. Barbee alleges
25 that Barbee's property andlor Barbee's environmental health will be adversely impacted as
26
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-3
SEA IS77981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle:, Washington 93101-1618
(206) 622-3150 . Fax; (206\ 621-1699
1 a result of the CAO Amendments, and hence Barbee has pleaded a sufficient injury in fact.
2 See Kucera, 140 Wn.2d at 213_
3 B. The City Has the Burden of Justifying Its DNS.
4 In implementing the policy against cursory environmental review, the Washington
5 Supreme Court has stated routinely that "[t]he burden is upon the governmental body
6 subject to SEP A to show that it made a threshold det(;!rmination which' demonstrate [ s] that
7 environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to be a prima facie
8 compliance with the procedural dictates of SEP A. '" City of Bellevue v_ King County
9 Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn. 2d856, 867, 586 P.2d 470,477 (1978) (quoting Lassila v.
10 City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn. 2d 804, 814,576 P.2d 54, 59-60 (1978)); see also, e.g., Sisley
11 v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78,84,569 P.2d 712 (1977); Gardner v. Pierce County
12 Board of Commissioners, 27 Wn. App. 241,242,617 P.2d 743 (1980); Juanita Bay Valley
13 Comm 'ty Ass'n v. Kirkland, 9 Wn.App. 59, 72, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973).
14 For instance, Gardner v. Pierce Count)' Board of Commissioners concerned a
15 SEP A approval for a preliminary plat, the soils of which were of questionable and
16 unstudied suitability for sewage retention or attenuation. 27 Wn. App. at 242. Neighbors
17 of the development drew water from wells in the vicinity of the site. The court responded
18 to the alleged failure on the part of the challengers to demonstrate the probability of
19 adverse impacts to groundwater by holding that the prima facie case of the lack of adverse
20 impacts was the government's burden to meet. Id. at 245. The court's prima facie
21 mandate indicates that to receive the judicial deference otherwise deserved, the agency
22 must prepare an administrative record proving that the agency has acted as required. See
23 Keith Hirokawa, The Prima Facie Burden And The Vanishing SEP A Threshold:
24 Washington's Emerging Preference For Efficiency Over Accuracy, 37 Gonz. L. Rev. 403,
25 410 (2001); see also, e.g., Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass 'n v. Kirkland, 9 Wn.App.
26
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-4
SEA 1577981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OffICES
2600 Century Square· )501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fa><: (206) 628-7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
59, 73, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973) (holding that RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) requires government be
able to demonstrate sufficient consideration of environmental factors).
The agency's administrative record should illustrate the ways the particular
proposal does or does not affect the environment; a mere conclusion does not suffice. See
City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn. 2d 856, 867, 586 P.2d 470,
477 (1978). The City of Bellevue court found that, based on review of the entire record:
The record fails to show sufficient deliberation and
consideration and contains little other than the conclusion
that an EIS is unnecessary .... The materials to which
Redmond and the board refer us contain nothing which
would suggest that the board did anything other than accept
this conclusion; they reveal a naked decision not to take any
action under SEP A, a decision which is devoid of any
serious consideration of environmental factors.
Id. Although the court fell short of issuing objective criteria to apply in subsequent cases,
it is evident here, for reasons discussed immediately below, that the City of Renton failed
to adequately consider the environmental impacts of the CAD Amendments ..
c. The City Has Failed to Adequately Consider Impacts.
Where any particular information would be essential to a reasoned decision and
"the costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and include the
information in their environmental documents." WAC 197-11-080. An independent
. review requires the agency t? perform review by obtaining information essential to the
decision making process. WAC 197-11-330(1)(a)(i).
The City, to date, has not even calculated the total acreage that is likely to be
eliminated from the City's buildable lands inventory as a result of the CAD Amendments;
at least the record contains no such calculation. The City's August 12,2004 Buildable
Lands Analysis purports to address the impact of proposed stream regulations, but any
common sense review of such analysis makes clear that it is conclusory and flawed; the
analysis discounts only Class 1 waters themselves, not the buffers that will be unbuildable
BARBEE'S REPLY-5
SEA 1577981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· ISOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101.1681
(2061622-3150 • Fax: (2061 628-7699
1 as a result of the CAO Amendments. See Shallbetter Decl., Ex. D (City's August 12,2004
2 Buildable Lands Analysis).
3 The public should not bear the burden of ensuring that a lead agency at least looked
4 at the probable environmental impacts of a project proposal, a fact recognized in the SEP A
5 regulations on the basis of the public's limited resources. WAC 197-11-550(7). The City
6 merely concludes, without support, that a DNS is appropriate despite vast reductions in
7 buildable lands because: (1) the City's 2002 buildable lands analysis, as supplemented by
8 the 2004 supplement to the CAO Amendment Staff Report, shows that the City has
9 sufficient excess land capacity to handle the reduction in buildable lands, and (2) the City's
10 CAO Amendments still allow density to be calculated for development purposes as if the
11 critical areas and buffers were actually developable. See Shallbetter Decl., Ex. A (Renton
12 August 17, 2004 Environmental Review Committee Report, p. 3 and Review Draft
13 Responses to Comments, pp. 7-8); see also Shallbetter Decl., Ex. D, esp. footnote 2 and
14 notes (City's-August 12,2004 Buildable Lands Analysis); Barbee addressed the City's
15 purported justifications head-on in Barbee's opening brief and the City has yet to respond
16 to Barbee's analysis. See Barbee's Hearing Memorandum, Part IV.B.I-2.
17 The City's first justification fails because the buildable lands analysis that showed
18 . excess capacity failed to calculate the total lands that would be unbuildable as a result of
19 the CAO Amendments (increased buffers and no-build zones) and then failed to reduce the
20 City's available lands by such figure. See Barbee's Hearing Memorandum, Part IV.B.l.
21 The second justification fails because it is based on an unsubstantiated presumption-
22 namely, that increasing densities that will be required as a result ofthe reduction in
23 buildable lands (and the City has not calculated to what extent densities will need to be
24 increased) will have no adverse impact on the environment-be it in terms of erosion
25 (more structures and weight on less ground area), interference with views (i.e. increased
26
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-6
SEA IS77981vi 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· ISOI Founh Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98l01-1683
(2061622-3150 . Fa., 12061628-7699
1 densities will require increased heights), degradation of water quality, or impediments to
2 circulation. See Barbee's Hearing Memorandum, Part IV.B.2.
3 The City appears to have conceded that increased densities have the potential to
4 significantly and adversely impact the environment. See City's Response, pp. 8, 11.
5 Indeed, the probable significant adverse impacts associated with concentrating more
6 development on less land was addressed in an EIS that City prepared in 1993 for its zoning
7 regulations. See City's Response, pp. 8, 11. The City effectively admits that concentrating
8 densities on a small portion of land has the potential to create significant adverse impacts
9 on the environment. City's Response, pp. 8, 11.
10 The City argues, however, that having already evaluated the impacts of "clustering"
11 in the 1993 EIS, the City has no obligation to evaluate the impact of the reduction of
12 millions of square feet of buildable land from the City's inventory and the necessary
13 increase in densities that will result therefrom. City's Response, pp. 8, 11. The City's EIS
14 evaluating the impacts of clustering, however, was based upon certain densities and the
15 availability of certain amounts ofland and open space. The CAO Amendments necessarily
16 alter the underlying facts upon which the clustering analysis was based (i.e. with the CAO
11 Amendments, there will be less land available for clustering, and clustering may need to
18 occur at higher densities). Hence, at minimum the City needs to prepare a supplemental
19 EIS ("SEIS"). See WAC 197-11-600(3)(b).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
D. If Anything, Barbee Has Underestimated the Reduction in Available
Buildable Lands.
The City's attempt to rebut Barbee's approximate of the amount of land that stands
to be removed from the City's buildable lands by virtue of the CAO Amendments is a red
herring. City's Response, pp. 13-15. What is noteworthy is that even if one were to err on
the conservative side in calculating the amount of property that will be removed from the
City's buildable land, the City would be removing several million square feet of property
from the available buildable lands-a significant amount of property.
BARBEE'S REPLY-7
SEA 1577981vl 26266·9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· ISOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9&101-1688
(206\ 622-3150 . Fax: (206\ 628-1699
1 Nonetheless, Barbee feels obliged to respond directly to the points raised by the
2 City. First, the City has failed to show any error in the assertion that the City has 18 miles
3 of Class 1 waters. See, e.g., RMC 4-3-090(E) (stating that 18 miles of shorelines in
4 Renton are under the jurisdiction.ofthe Shoreline Management Act).
5 Second, the City's assertion that Barbee erred in using 100 feet as the amount of
6 buffer that will exist along the 18 miles and be reduced from the City's buildable lands
7 analysis, and that Barbee should have used merely 75 feet since that is the amount by
8 which the buffers on Class 1 streams are increasing, is erroneous. City's Response, p.15.
9 Barbee appropriately used 100 feet because the City never deducted the existing 25 foot
10 buffers from its builable lands analysis in 2002 or in 2004. See Shallbetter Decl., Ex. D.
11 Finally, the City takes issue with Barbee's doubling of its number of buffer square
12 feet in order to account for potential buffers on either side of streams and rivers. City's
13 Response, pp. 14-15. Barbee, however, openly acknowledged its method of calculation at
14 the hearing, and Barbee was the fIrst to point out that the 19 million-plus fIgure was an
15 overestimate given that Lake Washington constitutes a large portion of the City's Class 1
16 . waters and hence buffers along Lake Washington will be just 100 feet, instead of the "100
17 . feet on each side" that is required of streams and other Class 1 waters. If one were to
18 assume that buffers would only be required on one side of all Class 1 waters, the City
19 would still be removing upwards of 9 million square feet of lands from its inventory-j ust
20 for Class! buffers. Buffers for other critical areas, including wetlands and habitat
21 conservation areas, also need to be deducted. In light of that, Barbee's illustrative
22 examples, if anything, probably underestimate the reduction in buildable lands that will
23 result from the CAO Amendments.
24 The City concedes that the CAO Updates will necessitate increased densities and
25 reduce buildable lands, but the City has failed to actually consider how much buildable
26 lands will be reduced, how much densities will be increased, and whether such reductions
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-8
SEA 15T7981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2GOO Century Square' 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101·1688
12061 622-31 SO . Fax: 12061621-7699
I and increases will have significant adverse impacts that are not mitigated under current
2 regulations. In neglecting to undertake such analysis, the City has failed to fulfill the
3 policies and purposes of SEP A. Kucera v. Dep 't o/Transportation, 140 Wn.2d 200, 212-
4 13, 995 P.2d 63 (2000); Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass 'n v. King County
5 Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273-76,-552 P.2d 674 (1976).
6 Although the City did perfonn an EIS for its 1993 clustering provisions, that II .
7 year old EIS obviously could not take into consideration the fact that the new CAO
8 Amendments would remove tens of millions of square feet of developable land from the
9 mix. The City has done no analysis to indicate whether existing zoning classifications and
10 available land will be able to contain the increased densities that will necessarily result
II from the CAO Updates. Indeed, the City has provided no evaluation of what zones will be
12 available to handle the increased densities and whether the increased densities are within
13 the densities pennitted under the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning
14 designations.
15 where any particular infonnation would be essential to a reasoned decision and
16 "the costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and include the
17 infonnation in their environmental documents." WAC 197-11-080. While the City may
18 have considered clustering in its EIS for the COR zoning, such clustering necessarily
19 assumed lower densities and more available land. Barbee does not object to clustering per
20 se, and Barbee acknowledges that the City has evaluated the impacts of clustering under
21 the assumption that the City has between at least 9.5 and 19.5 million more acres to cluster
22 development upon than the City actually will have after the enactment of the CAO
23 Amendments.
24 II. CONCLUSION
25 Where an agency finding of "no significant environmental impact" has been
26 challenged, the scope of review is broad and the search for factors indicating more than a
27
BARBEE'S REPLY-9
SEA 1577981vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century'Square . 1501 Foulth Avenue
Seattle, WuhingtoD 9810~.16aa
(2061622·] 150 • Fox: /2061 ';28-7699
1
2
'3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
moderate effect on the environment must be considered in light of the public policy of
SEPA. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78,84,569 P.2d 712 (1977); ASARCO Inc. v.
Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 700-01, 601 P.2d 501 (1979). In applying the
"clearly erroneous" standard,
the court is "expected to do more than merely determine
whether there is substantial evidence to support an
administrative or governmental decision. The entire record
is opened to judicial scrutiny and the court is required to
consider the public policy and environmental value of SEP A
as well.
Sisley, 89 Wn.2d at 84. Indeed, the policy of SEP A is to ensure via a "detailed statement"
the full disclosure of environmental information so that environmental matters can be
given proper consideration during decision making. Norway Hill Preserv. & Protec. Ass 'n
v. King County, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The City's incorrect threshold
determination thwarts such policy. Id.
Here, the City's record supporting its DNS contains primarily assertions,
uminsweredquestions, and a paucity of detailed information-particularly with respect to
15
. the issue of the impacts that buffers will have on buildable lands inventory and densities
16
(and resultant impacts on environmental health). The analysis does not even calculate the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
total square footage of buildable lands that will be taken off-limits from development as a
result of the CAO Amendments. Barbee is not required to provide expert evidence or
testimony of the actual impacts thatwill result from a nonproject action; Barbee need only
show that the proposed action poses a reasonable probability of "more than a moderate"
adverse impact on the environment. Alpine Lakes, 102 Wn.App. 1, 15-16,979 P.2d 929
(1999); ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 700-01, 601 P.2d 501
(1979). Barbee has met such showing and hence an EIS-or at minimum an SEIS must be
prepared.
BARBEE'S REPLY-I0
SEA IS7798IvI26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine Ll,P
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· ISOI Fou~th Avenue
Seattle, Washinston 91101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fa.: (206) 62&-7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DATED this 23rd day of November, 2004.
BARBEE'S REPL Y-11
SEA 1577981vl 26266·9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Attorneys for Appellants Barbee Mill Barhel!
Forest Products, and Alti Pro
Davis Wright Tremain" LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9&101-1688
1206\ 622·31 SO . Fa,,, 1206\ 628·7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
IN RE THE APPEAL OF D.N.S. ON
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
AND SHORELINES MASTER
PROGRAM GMA INTEGRATION BY
BARBEE & ALTINO PROPERTIES
AND I.H. BAXTER AND CO.
I.
NO. LUA-04-084, ECF
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON
FACTS
The City of Renton has been required by state law to update its Comprehensive
Plan, Critical Areas Regulations and Shorelines Master Program (hereinafter Updates). As
part of that update process, the City did an environmental review. The City'S responsible
public official under SEP A, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), issued a
determination of non-significance (DNS) concerning the Update. From this PNS, Barbee
Forest Products, Inc., Barbee Mill Company, Inc., and Altino Properties (hereinafter
Barbee) filed an appeal. Similarly, I.H. Baxter and Co. (Baxter) filed an appeal.
III
III
III
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 1 ORIGINAL WARREN BARBER e FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
II. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
11 A. STANDING
5 l. Appellants Lack Standing
6 As a threshold matter, Appellants must have standing to lodge these appeals. They
7 do not. The test for standing in a SEP A appeal was enunciated in Trepanier v. Everett, 64
8 Wn. App. 380, 382, 824 P.2d 524 (1992):
9
10
11
12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
27
28
The courts apply a 2-part test in determining whether a person or entity has
standing to challenge a SEP A determination. First, the interest that the
petitioner is seeking to protect must be "arguably within the zone of
interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional
guarantee in question."
Second, the petitioner must allege an 'injury in fact,' i.e., that he or she will
be "specifically and perceptibly harmed" by the proposed action. (Citations
omitted.)
In the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, on November 16, 2004, neither
Appellant offered any evidence of any injury in fact that would be specific to them. Their
presentation consisted of speculation and conjecture about impacts to the City as a whole.
Renton argued at the time that Appellants lacked standing. However, the Hearing
Examiner indicated he was not inclined to dismiss the appeal at that point on standing
grounds because these Appellants own land in the City.
Therefore, to the degree that Appellants have land that they claim may be affected
by the adoption of the Updates, Renton will respond. However, any effort by Appellants
to rely on alleged harms to other property owners should not give them standing.
Trepanier, supra makes it clear that the harm about which the Appellants complain must
be their own. Renton does not concede that these Appellants have standing at all, but
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 2 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (425) 25S~8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
11
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
expressly objects if they attempt to rely on standing to complain about other people's
lands.
2. Injury in Fact
"In order to show 'injury in fact,' the Buckley Plateau Coalition must present
testimony or affidavits indicating it will be adversely affected by Pierce County's decision
to issue the MDNS and not to require an EIS." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App.
296,299,936 P.2d 432 (1997). Appellants here have not offered any testimony or
affidavits showing they will be adversely affected by Renton's decision to issue a DNS
and not to require an EIS. Barbee offered no testimony at the hearing. Counsel for
Barbee, not a witness and not subject to cross-examination, did offer exhibits attached to 12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
27
28
her declaration. All but two of those documents were generated during the City's Update
process and were in the record. The two that were not in the record related to a proposal
on a parcel of land that has vested to the regulations that pre-date these updates. So, there
was no evidence offered by Barbee showing they (Barbee) will be adversely affected.
There was considerable speculation and conjecture, but no evidence. Only one witness
was called at the hearing. He testified only generally about his experience with a different
site. And, while he did testify that it would not be feasible to remediate the pollution on
the Baxterl parcel, that involves an economic consideration that is not proper for SEP A
revIew.
These Appellants have not offered any evidence to show an injury in fact that is
specific to them. Therefore, they lack standing to prosecute this appeal.
I Barbee owns an interest in this parcel. However, Barbee did not incorporate Baxter's arguments related to
this parcel. Barbee did not offer any evidence relating to this parcel.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 3 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-S4H
1
2
3
4
B. ECONOMICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCERNS ARE NOT SEPA
ISSUES.
In their appealletters2 Appellants argue that the environmental analysis must
5 identify and explain the impacts of the proposed regulations on the economic and socio-
6 economic development of the City. In support of this position, Appellants quoted a portion
7 of WAC 197-11-448. However, their quotation is out of context and is misleading in that
8 it quotes only the first sentence of that WAC section, while a later portion of that WAC
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
refutes their argument.
What Appellants omitted is the following language:
The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials
can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEPA, because it provides
information on the environmental costs and impacts. SEPA does not require
that an EIS be an agency's only decision-making document. (Emphasis
added.)
That WAC provision goes on. WAC 197-11-448(2) states:
The term "socio-economic" is not used in the statute or in these rules
because the term does not have a uniform meaning and has caused a great
deal of uncertainty. Areas of urban environmental concern that must be
considered are specified in RCW 43.21C.ll0 (1)(f), the environmental
checklist (WAC 197-11-960), 197-11-440, and 197-11-444.
In rejecting use of the term socio-economic, WAC 197-11-448(2) cites RCW
43.21 C.ll 0(1 )(f). That statutory section contains definitions, including the establishment
of a list of elements of the environment. Neither economic nor socio-economic
development is listed as elements of the environment. WAC 197-11-960 contains a form
for the environmental checklist. Again, economic and socio-economic development is not
included within the checklist. WAC 197-11-440 discusses the EIS contents, and does not
mention economic and socio-economic development. WAC 197-11-444 lists the elements 27
28
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 4 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the environment and for the fourth time does not list economic and socio-economic
development as elements of the environment.
WAC 197-11-448(3) reinforces the fact that economics is not an environmental
Issue. Subsection (3) provides:
Examples of information that are not required to be discussed in an EIS are:
methods of financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal
income and wages, and social policy analysis (such as fiscal and welfare
policies, and non-construction aspects of education and communications).
Economics and socio-economics development are not legitimate topics of
discussion in an environmental checklist or an EIS. Rather, they refer to other policies that
the decision maker should consider and balance in making the final determination whether
or not to move forward with a proposal. Appellants would have SEP A be the only
consideration of the City Council, but SEP A is only one of the elements that must be
considered by the decision maker in deciding to proceed or not proceed with this non-
project action.
This approach makes sense. Before SEP A was enacted, the driving force behind
development was the economic benefit to the developer (landowner) and, sometimes, to
the cities. SEP A then came along and required that society must now consider
environmental factors. SEP A then would weigh on the balance to offset the economically
driven pattern of development and planning. So, SEP A excludes economics in the
environmental analysis because SEP A is supposed to be balanced against such other
influences.
WAC 197-11-448 stands for the proposition that SEP A analyzes environmental
impacts. The cited WAC section does not require the analysis being demanded by
2 Baxter adopted Barbee's issues in Barbee's appeal letter.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 5 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626
RENTOS. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255·8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
q
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
26
27
28
Appellants. Therefore, the City's failure to consider Baxter's economic concerns cannot
support the requirement of an EIS.
C. APPELLANTS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF
1. Appellants' Burden
In order to advance their case, Appellants must present their case with evidence of
injury in fact. Mere speculation and conjecture are not sufficient to sustain their burden of
proof.
As stated in Trepanier v. Everett, supra, at 383:
Further, when a person alleges a threatened injury, as opposed to an existing
injury, he or she must show an immediate, concrete, and specific injury to
him or herself. If the injury is merely conjectural or hypothetical, there can
be no standing. (Citations omitted)
In Trepanier, the plaintiffs threatened injury was that several sections of the
zoning code would reduce allowable densities and development potential within the City,
thereby transferring growth into the County. The court found that this was an unsupported
assumption and that the argument was fatally flawed, as it has no factual support in the
record.
The arguments made by Appellants Barbee and Baxter are equally flawed. Neither
Appellant has offered any evidence of "immediate, concrete, and specific" injury to
Appellants. Rather, the Appellants speculate that changes in buffer widths and other
regulations would "concentrate densities elsewhere within the city to offset the elimination
of buildable lands under the proposed amendments," and that the City has failed to
consider the impacts that the updates would have on "population allocations." These
alleged harms are not theirs. Appellants have failed to show how concentrating densities
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 6 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on their parcels creates an environmental consequence, much less a significant adverse
one.3
2. Baxter's Case:
Baxter has adopted the arguments of Barbee and raised a rather novel backdoor
approach to SEP A. Basically, Baxter is attempting to make an economic argument sound
like an environmental one. Baxter offers no authority for its approach. For that reason
alone, it should be summarily disregarded.
Renton understands Baxter's position to be, "we won't have any monetary incentive
to remediate if these updates are enacted. And, if we don't have any monetary incentive to
remediate the creosote and other pollutants that we or our predecessors in interest put here,
the pollutants will continue to sit on the parcel and that is an environmental problem." This
is an interesting argument when you consider that existing law requires these landowners to
clean their property, whether or not the City adopts the Updates. What Appellants are
saying is that the City must ensure that they can afford to clean up their property. There is
absolutely no authority for that proposition of which the City is aware. And, none has been
offered by the Appellants, despite the amount of time they had to research that issue and
prepare their brief before the hearing.
What this appeal issue appears to say is that the City is required to guarantee that
there is enough value in the contaminated parcel that it could be sold for enough money to
pay for the remediation. There was no guarantee of any level of value before the
regulations were modified. Appellant should not be allowed to bootstrap an independent
3 Renton realizes that this sounds like the standing arguments made above. In land use and SEP A cases,
these are intertwined concepts. Renton will do its best not to be too repetitive.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 7 WARREN BARBER f::J FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
11
5
6
1
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
111
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
21
28
obligation to clean up polluted property into an environmental appeal and try to create a
guarantee of a particular monetary value to his land.
This is nothing more than an economic argument. Therefore, Baxter has not met its
burden either. But, more importantly, the updates will not pose an obstacle to the land's
development in an economically feasible fashion. Renton will tum its attention to the
Barbee Mills appeal and address this issue there.
D. BARBEE MILL'S CASE
1. Renton's Updates are not the Obstacle, Appellants' Self-Imposed Limits
Renton interprets Appellants' argument to be: If you impose these 100 foot buffers,
and you still allow us to build the same number of units we would have been able to build
without the buffers, then we will have to cluster them on the site. Appellants claim there is
an environmental impact by doing this. They fail to identify the specific impact; rather,
they rely on a "sky is falling" approach.
There is no environmental impact related to this clustering. Renton examined that
in 1993 when it zoned the Appellants' property and did an EIS. In 1993, the city of
Renton adopted the zoning that currently applies to the land owned by these Appellants.
The parcels at issue are zoned COR 2.
The Renton Municipal Code sections that relate to COR zones and are relevant to
this discussion are RMC 4-2-020(0); 4-2-060(C through R); 4-2-070(0); and 4-2-120(B).
A review of those sections will lead the reader to conclude that there is considerable
flexibility in the nature of uses that would be permitted on the Appellants' parcels as well
as the heights that would be permitted. For example, RMC 4-2-120(B) provides that a
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 8 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
development can go as high as 10 stories and/or 125 feet. (See page 2-124 of Title IV of
RMC). Further, the Code permits 25 dwelling units per acre, before any bonuses.
In terms of permitted uses, RMC 4-2-070(0) contains the list. For example, the
COR zone permits attached dwellings, office uses, retail uses, hotels, on-site services, and
existing industrial uses, to name a few. There are others that are allowed with conditional
use permits. When Renton zoned Appellants' properties COR, Renton contemplated
mixed uses. The very thing about which these appellants complain (clustering of the
residences) is the very thing Renton considered, planned for, and encouraged by zoning
the subject parcels COR. To expect Renton to do another EIS on this point, when it did
one in 1993, is inappropriate.
Barbee's counsel attached two renderings of a project proposed for the parcel
owned by Barbee (not before the Hearing Examiner as the development proposal pre-dates
the Update and is vested to existing regulations) as "demonstrative evidence" of what
could have happened to Barbee's proposal if these Updates could have been imposed on
that development. The problem with Barbee's position, relating to this demonstrative
evidence, is that it (Barbee) is imposing limitations on its own plans. Barbee's proposal is
not for a mixed use. They are single family attached dwellings: Town Houses. The height
will not be near the 125 feet permitted in the zone. The number of stories will not be the
ten that are permitted in the zone. Their density is approximately 5 dwelling units per acre
(Shallbetter Decl., pg 10, line 5) which is at the lowest end of the density allowed on the
property, per RMC 4-2-120B and far less than the maximum 25 units per acre permitted.
For 22.9 acres, the size of the Barbee parcel (see, Shallbetter Decl., pg. 10, line 5) a density
of 115 units is just not that great when you consider that the property could support 25
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON - 9 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (42S) HS·8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
units per acre. Barbee's example is not a good one. So, Appellants' having offered this
example as dispositive is disingenuous.
Baxter's only witness described the difficult economic restrictions due to the 100
foot buffers. Once again, that testimony was directed at a strictly residential use. Baxter
did not explore with its witness whether the same economic concerns would have applied
if BaxterlBarbee would have built on the land as the COR had truly contemplated. That
would have been the proper inquiry if Appellant Baxter sought to meet his burden of proof.
Here is yet another example of how Appellants, not Renton's Update, have hobbled
themselves. According to the Updates, a landowner can develop within, yes, within, the
100 foot buffer in certain instances. For example, the landowner can develop 25 feet from
the shoreline (this is the same distance in existing regulations) ifhe/she is developing a
water dependent use (e.g. marina or other use meeting the definition in RMC 4-11-230)4
and the use does not require an abutting shoreline location. If the landowner were to
develop a water enjoyment use (i.e., restaurants, hotels, mixed use commercial/office, or
other uses meeting the definition in RMC 4-11-230) the landowner can develop 50 feet
from the shoreline, which is very similar to the commercial setback already required in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program at RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(d). And, ifan abutting shoreline
IS needed, then there is a zero buffer. So, once again, if Baxter or Barbee decides to build
a mixed use with a water dependent use, there is no 100-foot buffer requirement. (See,
page 115 of the Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004.)
4 While this definition pre-existed the Updates it is in the record on page 244 of the Draft Best Available
Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004.)
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -10 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (425) 255·8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
27
28
Renton's proposed Update does not create any of the problems about which
Appellants complain. The Appellants' self-imposed limitations on what they want to do
with their land affect what they may do. This is not an environmental consequence.
These Appellants have another preliminary problem. This appeal is untimely in
two respects.
2. Appellants' Appeals are Untimely
a. Clustering:
Appellants appear to complain that because the Update allows a landowner to
build the same number of units as he/she would have been allowed without the buffer,
clustering of the units will occur. This argument is untimely. This alleged SEP A concern
should have been raised by these landowners in 1993. If these landowners thought (back
then) that the clustering that was planned for in the COR zone and that was subject to
SEP A review back then, was going to create an environmental problem, they needed to
raise it back then. And, while the Update now calls for the 100 foot buffer, and that is
new, Appellants' main complaint appears to be that clustering of the same number of units
on a smaller area ofland has some environmental consequence. The lOa-foot setback is
not what is permitting the clustering. The 1993 zoning code permitted, encouraged, and
planned for this very clustering. It is the 1993 zoning code that permits this clustering in
the first place that should have had an EIS. And, ironically enough, it did!
b. Public Use of Shoreline:
Neither Baxter nor Barbee has argued in its brief, nor did either Appellant argue at
the hearing, this point that appeared in their appeal letters.5 As best as Renton can
5 Baxter incorporated points of appeal in the Barbee appeal letter.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -11 WARREN BARBER f':J FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.HH
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decipher, these Appellants challenge Renton's requirement that there be public access to
the shoreline. To the degree this may be a takings argument, Renton will address that
later. At this point Renton only argues that this is untimely.
There is in this state the Public Trust Doctrine that has been in place for 30+ years.
The State's Shoreline Management Act has a requirement for access to the shorelines for
public use. (RCW 90.58.020)
Renton has had its Shoreline Master Program for several decades. It, too, has this
requirement, consistent with state law (RMC 4-30-090(L)(14)(d)). If these Appellants
thought that such a requirement posed environmental impacts that required an EIS, they
needed to appeal decades ago. To challenge this requirement in a SEP A appeal at this
time is too late.
3. Takings
Another issue that was not argued in either the brief or at the hearing comes from
Barbee's appeal letter. In essence, it appears that Barbee believes that Renton's
requirement that the shoreline have public access is a takings. There are two responses:
This is not the proper forum, and the Appellants still have reasonable use of their land.
a. Hearing Examiner's Authority
The duties of the Examiner are found in RMC 3-1-6. Therein it states: "The
Examiner shall interpret, review and implement land use regulations as provided in this
Chapter and other ordinances."
Another provision relating to the powers of the Hearing Examiner is found at RMC
4-8-11 OE(1)( c). The Hearing Examiner has the same powers of the office from which the
appeal is taken.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -12 WARREN BARBER fer FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5414
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to determine whether this
operates as a takings.
b. Reasonable Use of the Land
At this point in our "takings" jurisprudence, it is difficult to find a takings in this
setting. For there to be a takings, government must deprive the landowner of "all
economically beneficial uses" ofhislher land. See, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 330, 122 S.Ct. 1465 (2002).
Our state courts have said the same. In Guimont v. Seattle, 77 Wn. App. 74, 79, 896
P .2d 70 (1995), the court said:
A per se violation of the takings clause occurs when the regulation
constitutes either a "total taking" or a "physical invasion" of the property or
destroys a fundamental attribute of ownership. A "total taking" occurs
when a regulation denies the owner all economically beneficial or
productive use of the property. A "physical invasion" occurs when a
regulation permits or causes any physical intrusion onto the property, no
matter how minute the invasion or how weighty the public interest
advanced.
In the case at bar, there are any number of ways Appellants can develop their land
and have it be beneficial. There is no taking.
4. Sky is Falling Approach
Earlier in this brief, Renton described Appellants' approach as a "sky is falling
approach." This stems from the inaccuracies in their assumptions in their brief. The most
significant inaccuracy is the argument that 18 miles of Class I shoreline in Renton equates
to 19 million square feet. There are a few problems with this argument.
a. Not 18 Miles
Appellant does not make a specific reference to where in the record they get this
figure. Rather, the brief cites to approximately 20 pages for a few different facts, one of
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -13 WARREN BARBER 6" FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which is the 18 miles of shoreline. Assuming 18 miles of Class I shoreline, Appellants
still have a problem. Appellants have failed to offer any evidence of how much shoreline
their one parcel represents.6 They have no standing to argue about the shoreline that is not
theirs. In fact, Baxter's counsel conceded in oral argument at the hearing that he could not
argue about other properties for lack of standing. 7 Therefore, for them to argue that 18
miles, by the sheer magnitude of the number, must mean there is environmental impact, is
misdirected. They don't have standing to argue about all 18 miles and they have failed to
put in any evidence of the amount of their own shoreline. Could it be that their shoreline
is less than a half mile and the math just won't sound so exciting?
There is yet another reason why the 18 miles is not 18 miles. Appellants fail to
account for that portion of the 18 miles that is undevelopable for other reasons already in
the code, or already developed and won't likely be re-developed, or is city owned (airport
or Gene Coulon) and won't be re-developed. How much of the 18 miles is taken up with
those kinds of uses? Appellants have offered nothing to address this.
There is a third reason why the Hearing Examiner should not rely on Appellants'
math. On page 9, lines 3-7, of Barbee's brief, adopted by Baxter, Appellants compute the
18 miles of shoreline and conclude there are 19 million square feet that will be cut out of
buildability.8 Here is their math from page 9 of Barbee's brief. Eighteen miles equals
95,040 feet. (18 miles X 5,280 feet/mile = 95,040 feet.) Then Barbee multiplies that by
100 feet (buffer) for a total of9,504,000 square feet. Then Appellants double the number
6 Renton is aware that Barbee Mills owns a second parcel, to the south of the co-owned parcel. However, the
parcel to the south already has a development proposal that has vested to the regulations that predate the
Updates. So, Barbee cannot rely on that parcel to give it standing to make the arguments in this SEP A
appeal.
7 At the time, he was arguing about contaminated sites, saying Baxter's was not the only one in the city.
8 Elsewhere in this brief Renton explains why this is flawed due to the kinds of uses that would be allowed in
the buffer.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -14 WARREN BARBER cr FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
because, they argue, the city will impose this buffer "on both sides of such waters." (See,
line 5.) The flaw is that Appellants failed to account for the fact that Lake Washington
shorelines (included in the 18 miles) are only one sided. We don't regulate the buffers on
Mercer Island. Appellants did not put any evidence into the record to show how much of
the 18 mile shoreline is on the lake and, thus, is only one sided. So, while numbers don't
lie, the assumptions we make before we employ them could result in some incorrect
numerical conclusions. That has happened here.
Finally, there is a fourth reason their math is erroneous. There currently exists a 25
foot buffer. So, the added buffer is only 75 feet. So, even if their logic wasn't flawed to
begin with, the number is an overstatement. Of course, 19 million square feet sounds
better than 14.5 million square feet (75% of 19 million).
Appellants argue the reduction of 19 million square feet of buildable land is sure to
have dire consequences. They fail to identify any. This argument rests on the theory
followed by the court in Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Assn. v. King County
Council, et al., 87 Wn. 2d 267,552 P.2d 674 (1996). There, at 279, the court said: "Since
the Norway Vista project on its face involves the size and type of environmental change to
which the full information requirements of SEP A was obviously meant to apply, an
environmental impact statement should have preceded the decision to approve the
preliminary plat application." (Emphasis added.) Apparently, the court determined that
the magnitude of the project (a preliminary plat), without more, was enough to warrant an
EIS. To the degree that Norway stands for that proposition, it is no longer good law. In
Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 21, 31 P.3d 703 (2001), Division One said:
"Therefore, to the extent that Norway Hill can be read to mandate an EIS for every large
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -15 WARREN BARBER e; FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST omCE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
subdivision, regardless of attempts to mitigate the impacts prior to permitting, it is no
longer good law."
So, Appellants efforts to make the proposed Updates sound like they would affect
a very large amount ofland, and, afortiori, would have a major environmental impact, are
misguided. The sky is not falling. The numerical conclusions are flawed and, even if they
were correct, under Moss, size doesn't matter. Perhaps Appellants were trying to take
attention away from the fact that they have failed to "point to any specific facts or
evidence demonstrating that the [City's Updates have] significant environmental impacts
requiring an EIS." Moss, supra, at, 29.
b. Flexibility Ignored
Appellants appear to argue that the Updates will force them to either build fewer
residences or cluster them. However, the Updates have done a number of things to relieve
the impact of these regulations on property. For example, the regulations contain reduced
buffers for certain types of uses, allow buffer averaging, allow clustering outside the
buffer, give a density credit for the buffers, and allow a request for buffer reduction, buffer
averaging or variances, and allow some of the reduced buffer widths to be allotted
administratively. The regulations applicable to the appellant's properties also allow for
additional height of structures.
It is hard to imagine, with this flexibility, that there can be any impacts on the
subject property that are environmental in nature. Appellants' complaints that their
circumstances are dire are nothing more than an effort to convince the Examiner that the
sky will fall. And, the Examiner should not be swayed by this complaint that is not
supported with evidence.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -16 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (4H) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Moving Population Elsewhere in the City
According to Barbee, the "density originally allocated to a certain piece of
property containing buffers, must move someplace else ... " Appellants argue by
implication that the "someplace else" is in the city.9
Renton likens this argument to a water balloon. If you squeeze a balloon filled
with water, the area squeezed gets smaller and the remainder of the balloon gets bigger.
That is how Renton interprets Appellants argument at page 10, lines 21-22 of Barbee's
brief. The problem, however, is that the water balloon has a pre-determined or fixed
volume of water. Renton, on the other hand, does not have a pre-determined or fixed
volume of population.
Appellants might try to argue that Renton has housing targets in its GMA
documents. Yes, it does. However, in 2002, two years ago, Renton had already met, or
exceeded those targets. In the 2004 Buildable Lands Analysis, on page 1, in the first
bullet, Renton made the observation:
The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a City wide capacity
for 10,620 housing units based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme,
not including the new Urban Center zone adopted in 2003 which allows for
an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings through the year 2030. This
is 71 % to 154% above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target of 6, 198
units.
Based on these calculations, it is clear that Renton has the capacity to
accept the alleged "overflow" from the BaxterlBarbee co-owned parcel, should
there be any. Further, the numbers indicate that the City does not need the
9 Otherwise, why would they, landowners in the city, presume to have standing to complain about population
being kept out of the city? Why would that be an adverse environmental impact? Therefore, Renton
concludes that Appellant must be complaining that the population will go elsewhere in the city. Renton does
not concede that either Appellant has standing to complain about other people's land would bear the moved
population.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -17 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 P~ONE (425) 255·8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Baxter/Barbee parcel to develop any residential use in order for the city to reach its
targets.
Unlike the predetermined volume of water in the balloon, Renton's housing
is dynamic, and Renton planned for varying capacities in various zones throughout
the city. Appellants have failed to show how there is a probable environmental
impact, much less a significant or adverse one.
6. Quality of the Environment
Appellants also argue that there appears to have been more than a moderate effect
on the quality of the environment, and that ifthere is doubt whether a significant adverse
effect exists, the threshold determination should be in favor of an EIS. Again, they offer
no facts to support this argument and the issue is conclusory. The appellants ask the
Examiner to speculate that there may be environmental impacts.
When the Examiner takes into account the EIS done on the original adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, and the City's right to rely upon that
EIS (see Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App., at 17) there is little doubt that the
amendments to the sensitive areas ordinance and Shorelines Master Program cannot have
probable significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Of particular application to this appeal is RCW 43.21C.240. While that statutory
section relates to project review under the Growth Management Act, the intent also
applies to non-project review under the Growth Management Act. That section indicates
that a city may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation measures in the city's development regulations and comprehensive plans, local,
state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -18 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTOS. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specific environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements apply. The
same analysis applies to non-project actions. The City has done an environmental impact
statement for the Comprehensive Plan. The challenged regulations amend that
Comprehensive Plan, and the prior environmental review, together with the City's
development regulations, provide an adequate analysis of the specific adverse
environmental impacts of this non-project action. [See also the analysis contained on pp.
E-5 through E-9 of Appendix E to "The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, A
Legal and Policy Analysis," by Richard L. Settle.]
7. Responses to Other Issues In the Brief
Appellants complain that the 2002 Buildable Lands Analysis did not make
reductions for stream buffers. This was pointed out by Barbee in their comments.
Therefore, Renton did a 2004 Buildable Lands Analysis that did account for the stream
buffers. (See Note 1 on Page 3 of2004 Buildable Lands Analysis.) Thereafter, Renton
concluded there was no impact on Class I shorelines related to buildable land, because our
code and the Updates will still allow the landowner to build the same number of units that
would have been allowed before the buffers were imposed. 10
Appellants argue that Renton has failed to "actually consider" the impacts that the
"quadrupled stream buffers" would have on buildable lands, densities, and environmental
health. The major problem with this argument is that there are no new (previously
unknown or unconsidered) "impacts" identified for the City to "actually consider."
Barbee participated in the comment period and raised the same issues raised herein. All of
those comments were considered. (See the Citizen Comments and Responses attached to
10 Buildable Land is only significant because of the capacity it will support. If the capacity allowed remains
the same, then the increase or decrease in quantity of buildable land is meaningless.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -19 WARREN BARBER fy FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255·8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
q
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1q
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
26
27
28
the staffreport to ERC.) The bottom line is Barbee and Baxter just didn't like the
answers, despite the ERC's consideration of the issues.
Throughout their brief Appellants argue that the sheer magnitude of the 18 miles of
shoreline and the quantity of land that will be set aside in buffers is what will result in a
significant adverse environmental impact. However, on page 11, line 18, Appellants
argue:
By forcing a few uniquely situated properties to bear burdens and buffers
based on minimum buffer standards that were derived from general
information that is not applicable to specific sites that remain developable;
the city exacerbates impacts on the environment.
They have made what appears to be the contrary argument. On the one hand, Appellants
appear to argue that 19 million square feet is huge and, therefore, there must be reSUlting
environmental impacts. However, on the other hand, they argue that since only their parcel
(or just a few similarly situated parcels) will likely be affected by these buffers (because
other parcels are already developed or are undevelopable) the city has exacerbated impacts
on the environment. Which is it? The fact of the matter is that it is neither. Appellants
make broad statements in their brief, as they did at oral argument, about environmental
impact, yet offer no specifics. Once again, Appellants offer only conjecture and
speCUlation. That does not justify requiring an EIS.
F. CITY'S CASE
1. Required Changes Under GMA
The changes to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Plan (the
Updates) are changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
required under GMA. The City prepared an extensive EIS for the adoption of its GMA
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, and by law has a right and a duty to
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -20 WARREN BARBER er FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POsT OffiCE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rely upon that EIS. The basis of Appellant's case does not acknowledge that the
amendments to the Critical Areas ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan are
amendments to the GMA mandated Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
Many of the concepts discussed in the appeal letter have been addressed in that initial EIS.
For example, Appellants' issues regarding population allocation, circulation of people or
goods, concentrating densities, and cumulative impacts on land use and development,
have all been covered by that prior EIS.
Even if the non-proj ect action being reviewed was, in fact, a proj ect action, SEP A,
GMA, and regulatory reform have changed the way SEP A is applied and authorizes and
requires greater reliance on existing environmental analysis.
The court in Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 31 P.2d 703 (2001) discussed
this exact point. The court first quoted extensively from Richard Settle, "The Washington
State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis," Appendix E (1995).
Appendix E is titled Regulatory Reform. Applying the Settle analysis to the facts in its
case, the Moss court stated, at p. 16:
In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold
determination, a GMA county/city may, at its option, determine that the
requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation
measures in the GMA county/city's development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other
applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of
and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts
of the project.
The Moss court further stated, at p. 17:
If a GMA county/city's comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development
regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific
adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2)
of this section, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation
under this chapter for those impacts.
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -21 WARREN BARBER 6' FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTOS. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 25,-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The City was aware of the EIS it previously prepared for the adoption of the GMA
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The City had the right to rely upon
that document.
2. Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement Not Required
Despite Appellants' assertions to the contrary, RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(b) and
Norway Hill do not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement in this
case. Appellant quotes a portion ofRCW 43.21C.030(2)(b). That section reads:
The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:
... (2) All ... municipal.. .corporations ... shall ... (b) identify and develop
methods and procedures, in consultation with the Department of Ecology
and the Ecological Commission, which will ensure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate
consideration indecision making along with economic and technical
considerations.
This section simply requires that the City incorporate environmental values into its
decisions and not allow those decisions to be dominated by economic and technical
considerations. See Introduction, Appendix B, p. B-1, of "The Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, A Legal and Policy Analysis," by Richard L. Settle. The City
has fulfilled this intent by establishing an environmental process, using the environmental
checklist, and using the ERC as its responsible public official. Furthermore, in this
particular instance, the City prepared an EIS for the GMA Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations and is relying on that EIS for analysis and mitigation of these
amendments to that Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
3. City Must Comply with Federal Regulations/ESA
It must be recalled that the City is required by law to update its GMA sensitive
areas regulations, and that it is required by federal law to take into account the fact that the
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -22 WARREN BARBER f'J FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (425) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5414
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
27
28
subject property is bordered by Lake Washington and May Creek, both of which contain
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The motivating force
behind the City's proposed adoption of an amended and updated sensitive areas ordinance,
and an amended Shorelines Master Program, is a requirement of the state legislature under
RCW 36.70. Furthermore, Renton was required to apply the best available science to
determine how we will accommodate both man's needs as well as those of the
environment. Additionally, the property, being bordered by Lake Washington and May
Creek, both of which contain endangered species, requires the City to protect those
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The state and federal government
have made the public policy decisions that such regulations are in the public interest.
Those regulations further the important public interest of growth management and
protection of endangered species.
4. City's Decision Not Clearly Erroneous and Entitled to Substantial Weight
Appellants themselves acknowledge that threshold agency determinations should
be reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard. (Appellant's Brief, at page 4.) "A
finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App 290,302,936 P.2d 432 (1997)
(citations omitted). "Threshold determinations that an EIS is not required are subject to
judicial review under the clearly erroneous standard." King County v. Washington State
Boundary Rev. Bd, 122 Wn.2d 648,661,860 P.2d 1024 (1993) (citations omitted.)
Under this standard, a reviewing court will overturn an agency's DNS when:
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -23 WARREN BARBER (;-FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 P~ONE (425) 255.-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
!d.
Although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and finn conviction that a
mistake has been committed.
The Appellants must therefore clearly show that Renton made a mistake by issuing
the DNS. Appellants have provided no evidence and the record is devoid of any
infonnation of any such mistake. Again, the mere conjecture and speculation of possible
city wide environmental implications advanced by the Appellant is not grounded in
evidence let alone a finn conviction of a mistake.
Under this standard, the court "does not substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative body and may find the decision clearly erroneous only when it is left with
the definite and finn conviction that a mistake has been committed." Cougar Mountain
Assn. v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 747, 765 P.2d 264 (1988).
"Selection of environmental review process and protection is left to the sound
discretion of the appropriate government agency." Pierce County, 86 Wn. App at 302. In
fact, "[a]n agency's decision to issue a MDNS and not to require an EIS must be accorded
substantial weight." Id. at 302, Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App 6, 14, 31 P .3d 703
(2001); RCW 43.21 e.090.11 The agency here, is the City of Renton's responsible official,
the ERe. The Hearing Examiner must give deference to the ERC's detennination of a
DNS. Since Appellants have failed to show a clear error or mistake, the Hearing Examiner
must render a decision upholding the DNS.
26 II RCW 43.21C.090 Decision of governmental agency to be accorded substantial weight.
Any action involving an attack on a determination by a governmental agency relative to the requirement or
27 the absence of the requirement, or the adequacy of a "detailed statement", the decision of the governmental
agency shall be accorded substantial weight.
28
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -24 WARREN BARBER CJ FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTOS. WASHINGTON 98057 P~ONE (-425) 255·8678 • FAX (42S) 255.5474
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
27
28
III. CONCLUSION
Throughout this appeal, neither appellant has identified any specific environmental
impact to justify an EIS. It is their burden to show that they will suffer an injury in fact.
They have failed to meet that burden. Neither have the Appellants shown how the city's
decision was clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner should uphold the
decision of the ERC.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2004
BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -25
By: /ss/
Zanetta L. Fontes, WSBA #9604
Attorney for City of Renton
WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OffiCE BOX 626
RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057
PHONE (42)) 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.5474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC,
BARBEE MILL CO., INC., & ALTINO
PROPERTIES,
Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RENTON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ ~R=e~sp~o~n=d~e=n~t.~ ____ ~)
No. LUA-04-084 ECF
APPELLANTS'HEARING
MEMORANDUM
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Barbee Forest Products, Inc., Barbee Mill Co., Inc., and Altino Properties Inc.
(collectively, "Barbee") ask the Hearing Examiner to hold that: (1) the City failed to
actually consider probable environmental impacts resulting from the City's proposed
amendments to its Critical Area Ordinances and Shoreline Master Program--specifically
those revisions that would increase the buffers along Class 1 waters from 25 feet to 100
feet; and (2) the Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program amendments,
specifically those which increase the critical area buffers, are likely to have significant
adverse impacts on the environment that necessitate further review through an
environmental impact study ("EIS").
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 1
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
1600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 -Fax; (206) 628-7699
II. ISSUES PRESENTED 1
2 1. Has the City adequately considered the likely environmental impacts that
3 may result from dramatically increasing critical area buffers-including, specifically, those
4 impacts likely to result from quadrupling buffers along the approximately 18 miles of
5 Class 1 waters in the City of Renton?
6 2_ Do the significant increases in critical area buffers, including the
7 quadrupling of buffers along the approximately 18 miles of Class 1 waters in the City of
8 Renton, pose probable significant adverse impacts to the environment, especially elements
9 ofthe built environment, such that an EIS is warranted?
10 III. SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS
11 In an effort to comply with Growth Management Act requirements to adopt and
12 update critical area regulations based upon best available science, the City has proposed
13 amendments to the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program ("CAO
14 Amendments")_ See, e_g., RCW 36_70A_020; RCW 36.70A.130; RCW 36.70A.170-172.
15 The CAO Amendments enlarge buffers for critical areas in general. For Class 1 water
16 alone, the CAO Amendments expand the width of buffers from 25 feet to 100 feet, and the
17 City has approximately 18 miles of Class 1 waters in its jurisdiction. Shall better Decl., Ex.
18 A, p. 2; Ex. B, p. 8; see also Shall better Decl, Ex. C, pp. 64-75,98-115; RMC 4-3-
19 090(E)(3).
20 On July 19,2004, the City issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of
21 Nonsignificance ("DNS") for the City's CAO Amendments. Barbee, as the owner of a
22 significant amount of developable waterfront property in the City of Renton, reviewed the
23 City'S CAO Amendments with particular interest and was surprised to learn that the City
24 was proposing to issue a DNS for an action that presented the likelihood of such significant
25 adverse impacts on the environment. Specifically, Barbee was concerned about the
26 dramatic reduction in buildable lands resulting from the City's increased buffers on critical
27
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 2
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101·1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
areas-most notably, Class 1 waters, and the limitation on activities that can occur within
buffers. Given the impact of the CAO Amendments on Barbee's waterfront property
alone, it was clear that the ramifications of the CAO Amendments on a City-wide scale
likely would be vast.
Barbee timely submitted comments on the City's proposed DNS, noting with
particularity Barbee's belief that the CAO Amendments presented probable significant
adverse impacts on the built environment, including on environmental health, land and
shoreline uses, housing, transportation, the movement of people, and the relationship of
existing land use plans to estimated populations. In an effort to address legitimate
concerns raised by citizens and avoid the full environmental review that the City so often
requires of its residents, the City provided an ad hoc explanation. According to the City,
Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the
increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly affect
the City existing land use plans and population allocations
[because] [t]he City has substantial growth capacity above its
target, and the city's net density approach credits densities in
stream buffers.
Shallbetter Decl., Ex. A, p. 7. As even the City acknowledged, however, such analysis was
based upon a Buildable Lands Analysis performed in 2002, which analysis did not make
reductions for streams outside of wetlands, and, most significantly, did not make
reductions for stream buffers. Shallbetter Decl., Ex. A, p. 8. Merely performing an ad hoc
deduction of stream area (but not buffers) does not satisfy the City's obligation under'
SEP A to address the probable significant impacts of the increased buffers on the
environment. The increased buffers will reduce buildable lands, shift densities, and
discourage clean-up of industrial and contaminated properties. Shallbetter Decl., Ex. A, p.
8; Ex. D.
The mandatory buffers on Class 1 waters alone require a minimum of 100 feet on
each side of Class 1 waters, and a minimum of 100 feet along Lake Washington. The City
has 18 miles of Class 1 waters, and yet, the City, by default, concluded that it was
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 3
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622·31 SO • Fax: (206) 628-7699
1 unnecessary to exclude all such buffers from the City'S buildable lands inventory_ The
2 City excuses itself from subtracting the stream buffers for the City'S 18 miles of Class 1
3 waters, much less the buffers for Class 2, 3,4, and 5 waters and other critical areas, based
4 upon the fact that the City continues to allow densities to be calculated based upon buffer
5 area, even though such buffer area cannot actually be developed_ See Shall better Decl_,
6 Ex. D, p. 3, Notes. But, as discussed in Part V.B, infra, such analysis is fatally flawed.
7 Had the City actually considered the probable impacts that the increased critical area
8 buffers-most notably the buffers for Class 1 waters-are likely to have on buildable
9 lands, densities, and related environmental health, it would have realized that further
10 analysis of such impacts through an EIS is necessary.
11 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW & BURDEN OF PROOF
12 Although threshold determinations generally are reviewed under the "clearly
13 erroneous" standard, the scope of judicial review of a governmental determination of "no
14 environmental significance" is extremely broad. Sisley v_ San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78,
15 85,569 P.2d 712 (1977); Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v_ King County
16 Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273-76,552 P.2d 674 (1976). In applying the "clearly erroneous"
17 standard to a DNS, the Examiner is expected to do more than merely determine whether
18 there is substantial evidence to support an administrative or governmental decision. The
19 entire record is open to judicial scrutiny and the court is required to consider the public
20 policy and environmental values ofSEPA. Norway Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 275.
21 The burden is on the governmental body issuing the DNS to demonstrate that
22 environmental factors were "actually considered" in manner sufficient to be prima facie
23 compliance with procedural dictates of SEP A. Gardner v. Pierce County Bd. of Comm 'rs,
24 27 Wn.App. 241, 245, 617 P.2d 743 (1980); Lassila v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804,
25 576 P.2d 54 (1978). The Examiner must find the City's negative threshold determination
26
27
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 4
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
1206\ 622-3150 -Fax: (206\ 628-7699
"clearly erroneous' if, despite supporting evidence, the record firmly supports the
2 conclusion that 'a mistake has been committed. '" Norway Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 275.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The City Must Actually and Adequately Consider the Impacts of the
Proposal on All Relevant Elements of the Environment.
Here, the City has failed to produce an administrative record showing that the City
"actually considered" the impacts that the quadrupled stream buffers and other significant
increases in critical area buffers may have on buildable lands, densities, and environmental
health. The City merely presumed that the CAO Amendments, including the increased
stream buffers, would not significantly and adversely impact the environment. Under
SEP A, the City cannot justify a threshold determination with superficial, short-sighted
presumptions. Actual consideration of the probable impacts of all aspects of the CAO
Amendments on all elements of the environment is necessary to assure for citizens, "safe,
healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;" to "[a]ttain
the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation;" and to
"[a ]chieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards
of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities." RCW 43.21C.020(2)(b), (c), and (t). The
City has failed to actually consider and evaluate probable significant impacts that may
result from the CAO Amendments, including the impacts likely to result from reducing
buildable lands, increasing densities, and providing disincentives for developers to
improve contaminated or industrial properties.
1. A Cursory Inquiry of the Impacts of Stream Buffers Is
Insufficient Basis for a DNS.
23 SEP A is designed to force agencies to gather and assess information so that the
24 Washington environmental landscape is shaped "by deliberation, not default." Stempel v.
25 Dep't a/Water Res., 82 Wn. 2d 109, 118,508 P.2d 166, 172 (1973). "Actual
26 consideration" of environmental impacts requires demonstration of a veracious, genuine,
27
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 5
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98 J()j ~1688
(206) 622-3150 -Fax: 1206\ 628-7699
1 historical fact that the agency seriously considered the evidence before it. Keith Hirokawa,
2 The Prima Facie Burden and the Vanishing SEPA, 37 Gonzaga L. Rev. 403, 412
3 (200112002); e.g., Gardner,27 Wn.App. at 245. At base, this translates into a requirement
4 that the relevant information "actually" be found in the administrative record so that the
5 court can in fact review the information that was relevant to the agency's environmental
6 review. Hirokawa, supra. Early SEPA case law supports this reading and signifies a
7 reluctance to uphold ad hoc or post hoc justifications for negative threshold
8 determinations. See, e.g., Gardner, 27 Wn. App. at 245; Juanita Bay Valley Com. v.
9 Kirkland,9 Wn.App. 59, 73,510 P.2d 1140 (1973). The agency's administrative record
10 must clearly illustrate the ways the particular proposal does or does not affect the
11 environment; mere conclusions do not suffice. See City of Bellevue v. King County
12 Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn. 2d 856,867,586 P.2d 470, 477 (1978). As illustrated in
13 Part V.B, the City gives lip-service to Barbee's concerns about the adverse impacts of the
14 increased critical area buffers, but the City fails to actually and objectively consider such
15 impacts.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2. A Proposal Does Not Justify a DNS Merely Because the
Proposal Is Designed to Protect or Improve the Environment.
Under SEPA:
Even proposals intended to protect or improve the
environment may require an EIS.
Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Washington State Dept. o/Natural Resources, 102
Wn.App. 1, 15-16,979 P.2d 929 (1999). The City has assumed that since the amendments
will increase protection of critical areas, they do not present a likelihood of significant
adverse impacts on the environment. But, the determination of whether a proposal has
probable significant environmental impacts must be made irrespective of the proposal's
benefits. WAC 197-11-330 (5); Asarco v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 713-14,
601 P.2d 501,512 (1979).
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 6
SEA 1561686v I 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
{206\ 622-31 SO . Fax 12061628-7699
1
2
3
4
5·
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
If there is a reasonable probability of "more than a moderate" adverse impact on the
environment, then an EIS must be prepared no matter how beneficial the proposed project
may be. Citing WAC 197-11-330(5), the Alpine Lakes court emphasized, "SEPA
regulations do not allow threshold determinations to be made by balancing the potential
"good/bad" effects of a proposal." Alpine Lakes, 102 Wn.App. at 15-16.
Similarly, in Asarco v. Air Quality Coalition, the court noted:
The purpose of the broad scope of review is to ensure that an
agency, in considering the need for an EIS, does not yield to
the temptation of expediency, thus short-circuiting the
thoughtful decision-making process contemplated by SEP A.
Asarco, 92 Wn. 2d at 700-01. The City cannot prejudge, rather than actually consider, the
impacts of the CAO Amendments; it cannot conclude that the CAO amendments are
unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment merely because such
amendments are designed to increase protection of critical areas.
3. The Lack of Specific Proposals for Land Use Changes Does Not
Means No EIS Is Required.
Because the City was not faced with a site-specific proposal, it may have been
easier for the City to rely upon assumptions about impacts instead of actually considering
impacts. Yet, the fact that an action will not cause an immediate land use change or the
fact that there is no specific proposal "on the table" does not automatically mean that no
EIS is requIred. See Alpine Lakes, 102 Wn.App. at 15-16. Under Washington law:
The absence of specific development plans should not be
conclusive of whether an adverse environmental impact is
likely.
King County, 122 Wn.2d at 663. Such a "categorical approach can lead to results contrary
to the purposes ofSEPA." Id. "One ofSEPA's purposes is to provide consideration of
environmental factors at the earliest possible stage to allow decisions to be based on
complete disclosure of environmental consequences." Id. (citations omitted).
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 7
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square . 150 I Fourth A venue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206\ 622-3150 . Fax: (206\ 628-7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B. The City's Administrative Record Lacks Evidence that the City
Actually and Adequately Considered Impacts of Buffers on the Built
Environment.
Here, the record indicates that the City failed to actually and adequately consider
the impact that the CAO Amendments-specifically the significantly increased stream
buffers-would have on the built environment-including shoreline and land uses,
densities, housing, public services, and environmental health. The City feigned
consideration of such impacts by responding to the comments Barbee made on the issue.
Such response, however, reveals no actual consideration or analysis.
The City, based on a 2002 Buildable Lands Analysis, states:
[T]he increased buffers are not anticipated to significantly
affect the City's existing land use plans and population
allocations [because the] City has substantial growth
capacity above its targets, the City'S net density approach
credits densities in stream buffers.
See Shallbetter Decl., Ex. D, p. 1. The City acknowledges, however, that the 2002
Buildable Lands Analysis from which it derives its conclusion did not deduct streams,
lakes, and habitat conservation areas from its buildable lands, much less any buffers. "City
staff' assembled a three page compendium of the estimated area of land that streams
occupied and attempted to deduct such area from the City's buildable lands, but merely
deducting the area of the City's watercourses from the area of available buildable lands
provides no new information. The CAO Amendments do not suddenly take streams off-
limits for building; streams were not available to be built within even prior to the proposed
CAO Amendments.
1. The Impacts of Critical Area Buffers-Not the Critical Areas
Themselves-Need to Be Considered.
The minimum buffers that the CAO Amendments require along all watercourses,
not the streams themselves, are what need to be deducted from the City'S buildable lands
inventory. The likely impacts of such deductions then need to be fully considered. Yet,
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 8
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3 150 . Fa" (206) 628-7699
1 the City, by its own admission, has failed to make such a deduction for buffers, much less
2 consider the consequences of such deduction upon environmental health.
3 The City is increasing buffers along Class 1 waters from 25 feet to 100 feet. Given
4 that the City has approximately 18 miles of Class 1 waters (or 95,040 feet) and that 100
5 foot buffers will be required on both sides of such waters, the City's buildable lands
6 inventory stands to be reduced by over 19 million square feet-and that is just as a result
7 of buffers for Class 1 waters. Such reduction in available buildable lands alone almost
8 necessarily has a significant impact on some element ofthe environment, whether
9 developable land, concentration of persons and housing, shoreline and land use, light,
10 glare, air, traffic, or water. Add to that the increased buffers and restrictions associated
11 with other critical areas and it is virtually inconceivably how the City can justify a DNS.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2. Allowing Buffers to Be Included In Density Calculations Does
Not Nullify the Impacts.
The City errs in asserting that buffers need not be considered in the Buildable
Lands Analysis because developers may include such buffers when calculating the
maximum allowable density for a given piece of property. Had the City actually
considered the impacts of the buffers, the City would have realized that its reasoning in
that regard was not sound.
First, the City's reasoning has the potential to allow denser development than the
land may be able to tolerate or the City's code may allow. The effect of the City allowing
buffers to be included when calculating maximum density, but precluding development on
precisely some of that area that was included in the density calculation is to allow densities
greater than that which the City's code (and potentially the land itself) allows. For
example, under the City's reasoning, a developer owning 10 acres in an area zoned at 5
units per acre could construct 50 units on the 10 acres. If, however, a Class 1 water ran
through the 10 acres, resulting in the need for approximately 3 acres of buffer, the
developer would need to concentrate those 50 units on just 7 acres, resulting in a density of
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM - 9
SEA 1561686v I 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square -1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 -Fax: (206) 628-7699
lover 7 units per acre-more than the City's code allows and more than the environment
2 potentially allows.
3 Second, there comes a point when development becomes too dense for the area
4 available. Consider, for instance, Barbee's proposed plat along Lake Washington and May
5 Creek. Shallbetter Decl., Exs. E-F. Barbee proposed 115 units on approximately 22.9
6 acres, for a density of approximately 5 dwellings per acre-well within the allowable
7 density for the COR-2 zone where Barbee's property is located. All units proposed are
8 single-family, and the lots range in size from approximately 1800 square feet to 7300
9 square feet, with the average lot size being in the range of 4000 square feet.
10 However, under the CAO Amendments, approximately 6 acres of the Barbee
11 property will need to be set aside as buffers for Class 1 waters. Shallbetter Decl., Ex. F.
12 According to the City's reasoning, such buffers do not pose a probable significant impact
13 on buildable lands or the environment because the density can still occur on the property in
14 question-it need not be reallocated to a different area of the City. But, if one actually
15 considers the impacts of such buffers, taking into account setbacks for single family lots,
16 and other building constraints, it becomes evident that moving 115 single-family units to
17 16 acres is not feasible. Shallbetter Decl., Ex. F. To the extent increased density is
18 feasible, the impacts on the environment-in terms of noise, glare, space, and
19 environmental health likely will increase, and the City fails to consider even that fact.
20 Finally, to the extent the higher density on a smaller portion of property is not
21 feasible, then that density, originally allocated to a certain piece of property containing
22 buffers, must move someplace else because of the unavailability of the buffers for
23 development. As an illustration, the CAO Amendments, with their quadrupling in the size
24 of minimum buffers, will require Barbee to eliminate about 65 lots from its proposed
25 redevelopment of industrial property and concentrate such densities in a location other than
26 the Barbee property. Notably, the City codes contemplate that the Barbee property can
27
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM -10
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3 150 . Fa .. : (206\ 628-7699
1 handle those 65 units in terms of density, but such contemplation is based on a false
2 assumption in the wake of the CAO Amendments. With the CAO Amendments, several
3 acres of land is no longer developable and the developable land will not support the density
4 contemplated in and authorized by the Code.
5 The City says its Buildable Larids Analysis shows the City has plenty of room for
6 population increases-but such assurance is based on a Buildable Lands Analysis that has
7 not subtracted the 18 miles of 100-foot Class 1 buffers from the available inventory of
8 buildable lands, much less the other critical area buffers. The City's Buildable Lands
9 Analysis assumes, for example, that Class 1 stream buffers are available for development,
10 and yet, as the City must acknowledge, such assumption will be false in the aftermath of
11 the CAO Amendments.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3. The Fact that Much Waterfront Land in Renton Already Is
Developed Does Not Nullify the Impacts of Increased Buffers.
In a last ditch effort to justify its issuance of a DNS despite potential impacts of
stream buffers, the City asserts that the new buffer requirements will not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment because the buffers do not apply to
developed land, and most property 'along the waterfront is developed. But, contrary to
what the City would like to believe, such existing development along the waterfront
actually increases the likelihood of significant adverse impacts. By forcing a few uniquely
situated properties to bear burdens and buffers based on minimum buffer standards that
were derived from general information that is not applicable to specific sites that remain
developable, the City exacerbates impacts on the environment. In addition to
concentrating the environmental impacts, the City discourages conversion of existing
development and uses to more environmentally friendly development.
v. CONCLUSION
Even proposals intended to protect or improve the environment may require an EIS.
Given that the CAO Amendments are designed to increase protection of critical areas and
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM -11
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
1600 Century Square· ISOl Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 ' Fax: (206) 628·7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
the environment, the City appears to have issued a DNS by default, not based upon
deliberation. The City short-circuited consideration of the potential probable impacts of
the City's critical area buffers, particularly the 100-foot buffers for Class 1 waters, on the
environment. Although the City acknowledges the concerns raised by Barbee and others
in their comment letters, the City has yet to actually consider such real concerns. Here,
there is a reasonable probability of "more than a moderate" adverse impact on the
environment, and hence an EIS must be prepared despite the intended benefits of the CAO
Amendments
DATED this 16th day of November, 2004.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Attorneys for Appellants
BY--~~~r-~+-__ ~~ ________ _
Traci L. S be r
WSBA#29712
Thomas A. Goeltz
WSBA#05157
APPELLANT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM -12 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
SEA 1561686vl 26266-9 LAW OFFICES
1600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9810)·1688
, (206) 622·3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC,
BARBEE MILL CO., INC., & ALTINO
PROPERTIES,
Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RENTON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ ~R~e~s~p~o~n=d=en=t=. ______ ~)
No. LUA-04-084 ECF
DECLARATION OF TRACI L.
SHALLBETTER
The undersigned, Traci L. Shallbetter, declares as follows:
1. I am an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, and represent Barbee
17 Forest Products, Inc.; Barbee Mill Company; and Altino Properties (collectively,
18 "Barbee"). I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and am competent to
19 testify related thereto.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2.
Hearing Brief:
Attached hereto are the following exhibits relied upon by Barbee in the
Exhibit A: Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee
Exhibit B: Memorandum from Rebecca Lind to Lisa Grueter, Regarding
Revised Review Draft--Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline
Master Program Regulation Amendments (July 13,2004)
Exhibit C: Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, pp. 64-
75, 98-115 (July 13, 2004)
DECLARATION - 1 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
SEA 1561867v 1 26266-9 LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Founh Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-31 SO . Fax: (206) 623-7699
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Exhibit D: Effect of Proposed Stream Regulations on the City's Buildable
Lands Analysis (Aug. 12,2004)
Exhibit E: Figure 3.4-4 from Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (for illustrative
purposes)
Exhibit F: Figure 3.4-5 from Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (for illustrative
purposes)
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Traci L. Shallbetter
DECLARATION - 2
SEA 1561867vl 26266-9
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square· 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101·1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
.t-F
~PORT
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
A. BACKGROUND
ERC MEETING DATE: August 17,2004
Project Name: City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake
Regulations
Project Number: LUA-04-0B4, ECF
Project Manager: City contact -Judy Wright (425-430-6575); Alternative City Contact -Rebecca
Lind (425-430-6588)
Project Description: The purpose of the City of Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and
Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration project is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA),Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection in the City of Renton
context. Specific objectives are to:
•
•
•
•
•
Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies in light of Best Available Science particularly the Environment
Element.
Provide a best available science literature review addressing streams/rivers, and lakes, and based upon
the literature review develop buffer requirements. The review program includes recommendations to
amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify water bodies, apply buffers, and provide for no-
net-loss of ecological function. . .. ' .
Documeht a best availa.ble science review of the City's wetland regulations, and provide for appropriate
amendments' to improve" or bettef document the wetland review process.
Co~pare the City's aquifer protection, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation
regulations against the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development Example Critical Areas Code and propose amendments as appropriate.
PropOS? limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and Comprehensive Plan
policies, address text and map inconsistencies, and provide for shoreline protection regulations. These
limited amendments would apply in the interim until full Shoreline Master Program Update is .
accomplished,inaGcorpancewith.thenew SMA schedule (2009for.the City of Renton): .
o. Integrate Shorelil!e r.1aster Progra~Goals and Policies into the City Comprehensive Plal"\, esse~tially intact.
Limit~ci policy arnendmentsare propo~ed to;a~dressuse.priorities of RCW 90.58.020 (differintiate between
Shorelines of Stat~wide Significance and all other Shorelines of the State that are fOlmdinthe City). " . ".
o Amend Use Environments Map for the Black River and Cedar River at the Maplewood G~lf Course to address
Shoreline Master Program text/map conflicts and an unclassified annexed area. Field review and lI:nalysis were
,. conductecJ,for the limited map amendments. For these areas regulations would be applied consistent with
environment;tllimitations and existing uses.
o Address shoreline protection regulations, including buffers, in the Shoreline Master Program to provide for .
equivalent protection per State legislation (ESHB 1933), while responding to use priorities ofRCW 90.58.020.
Project Location: Would apply citywide.
Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: non-applicable Site Area: non-applicable
B. RECOMMENDATION
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
City of Renton BAS Critical Areas Regulations & SMP GMA Integration
REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17. 2004
Environmental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-04-084 ECF
Page20/4
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials
make the following Environmental Determination:
x
DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
None proposed. See Section D.
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
DETERMINA TION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED.
Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period.
Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period
followed by a 14 day Appeal Period.
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental
determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal
process (oren vironmental determinations
Non-applicable.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In compliance with RCW43.21 C.240,the fol/owing! projec;tellvironmentairevie..,v ad.clre~!>es only those
project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and
environmental-regulations.
Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjiJnction with the proposed development?
The proposal adds stream regulations expanding the buffer width from 25 feet in most instances to 35 to 100 feet
depending on water clas's;it enhances the coordiriationbftheShbrelirieMaster Program andComprehen:;;ive Plan; it
makes minor adjustmeritsto 6thercritic~1 areasslich asaddressingvalcanic hazards; and itmodifies.review
proceduresgerieraJly.-The proposal is 'a nan~project action: The' proposal has been developed by the 'City, No
mitigation measures are' proposed~
The proposaJ includes several features intended to balance environmental-protection with the varying environmental
conditions -'-urban, sublirban,natural-found in the City~ Buffer widths vary byclassification'based onthe quality of
the critical !lrea. Addressing the variable environmental conditions aild need to allow reasonable use of property are
the f<?ll()wing measures: ---, ---
• Existing development would be recognized, and in cases where the buffers are largely developed, they would be
treated as setbacks;
• Density credits in buffers (same development potential, clustered away from critical area);
• Buffer reductions where enhancement or other mitigation is included; some would be allowed administratively
provided criteria are met;hirther reductions allowed by variance;
• Buffer averaging provided enhancement or other mitigation is included: averaging the total area required with the
reduced areas up to half of standard width; further reductions allowed by variance.
• On and off-site mitigation allowed where buffer reductions, buffer averaging, or impacts to critical area are
identified; and
• Modifications and variances.
YBIPW Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-D4-DS4 ECF .(1 BAS Critical Areas Regulations & SMP GMA Integration
DECISION OF AUGUST 17,2004 Page3 0/4
irt below summarizes the environmental analysis in the SEPA Checklist associated with the DNS.
To ic
.:arth
Air Qualil
Water
Plants/Animals
Ener
Environmental Health
)N()ise.
Housing
Historic/Cultural'
Summa sis
Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposal
will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The regulations maintain
development precautions in areas of geologic hazards. Minor improvements to the City's geologic hazard
regulations are proposed:
• Additional review criteria are proposed to ensure development is safely accommodated.
• The proposed regulations would newly address volcanic hazards and require critical facility proposals
(e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS
to demonstrate adequate engineering standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and prepare an
evacuation and emer enc mana ement Ian.
Not a licable to this non-ro'ect action.
The proposal will provide a means to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The
proposal adds new stream, river, and lake regulations, including amendments to classify water bodies,
protect streams and lakes with buffers, and provide for no-net-Ioss of streamllake ecological function.
The regulations maintain development precautions in aquifer protection areas. Amendments inClude
minor modifications to improve or better document the City's decision-making process with respect to
wetland rotection as site-s ecific develo ments are reviewed.
The proposal will increase protection of aquatic life, particularly. salmonids with new stream, lake and river
buffers and related standards. The proposal will continue habitat conservation regulations, which may be
used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. The City designates habitat conservation
areas, primarily by referencing State and Federal designated endangered, threatened, sensitive, and
priority species. It requires a habitat assessment report and includes general performance standards that
require impact avoidance/sequencing and mitigation. It allows for State and FederalAgency input. The
Ci rna condition ro osals that im act habitat conservation areas.
Nota licable to this non-ro'ect action.
licable to this non-ro·ectaction.
The proposal will facilitate shoreline permitting for some City park and recreation facilities by addressing
the City's golf course and parks in the SMP Use Environment Map, rather than relying on the King County
SMP:' 'It will allow for consideration of appropriate levels of passive and activity recreation in the Use ..
Environment re ulations.
Th'efproposal continues andcross~refefenceshisf6ric·andcultural preservation poliCies asparfof the
interation of Renton SMP and Com rehensive plan policies .. '
. ,:~!~~~p,:9]i!~1iQi:1r;;;'!;c~!;O:';;i::j; f:i1~J,m~J'>.~~~~~!m~!t1'~'il~:s,~Pf;~I!p~.·r~9~,!~~!9P~;:f1S?r~~~c,~g~'~m~~"i~,itK;<?f;?ssing~ and crit~ria intended to' .... 'Y'~ '(. . .' allo"YJor needed P!lohc InfrastructurewhllepromotJng:nolr·net'iloss,of~.ecQI()91cal function .. These .'
measures are intended to address the envirorimentalimpactsof future development· and infrastructure. '.
ro osals. . .
',Also as pa.rt of the environniental review record, the ERC reviewed a discussion of buildable ·Iands capacity in relatioh"
'to the stream regulations. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipatE~d
to significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and population allocations. The City has substantial growth
capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning
districts, particularly multifamily, commercial, industrial and mixed use districts, offer flexibility in building heights"
CAO_ERC_Aug17 Jdoc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
City of Renton BAS Critical Areas Regulations & SMP GMA Integration
Environmental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-04-084 ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 17. 2004 Page40/4
setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations
allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for
reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function. The
analysis is contained in the project file.
Also considered in the issuance of the threshold determination were several documents produced as part of
developing the non-project action:
• "Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration,"
Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• Draft "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations," prepared
by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. on February 27,2003.
• Stream/lake classification results are included in the 2003 draft Renton Water Class Map prepared by AC Kindig
& Company and Cedarock, in conjunction with Renton Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning staff.
• "Proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Policy Amendments," Jones & Stokes,
July 13, 2004.' "
• "Proposed Renton Shoreline Master Program Use Environment Amendments," Jones & Stokes, March 8,2004.
• "Transmittal of Parametrix Review of Wetlands Regulations," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004; together with "Best
Available Science Ordinance Review" by Jim Kelly, PhD, Parametrix, June 28, 2004.
• "Overview and Comparison of Aquifer, Flood Hazard, Geologic Hazard, and Habitat Conservation Regulations to
State Example Critical Areas Code," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004.
• "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13, 2004. Includes proposed code amendments. Includes example sites
and how.proposedstream regulations would apply.
Each of these documents is available under separate cover from the Renton Economic
Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department, as well as the City of Renton website
(www.ci.renton.wa.us/. under the Department name). '
E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS
The proposal has been cirqulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers tortlieir review. Where
applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or
Notes to Applicant.
1-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
__ ,CopiesofaWReview Comments are attached to'this1eport. < .": :.,,\. ,'.: " . .
ERCcorisiaered pUblic comments 'made during the' comment period for the Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non-significance (DNS)'; and'arepart;ofttleOfficial File; Thecommentpeiipejebegan,'July, W,2004 '
and concluded on August 9,2004, and included a one-week extension of the comment period to allowiadditi(jri~lI '/"
'opportunity for publitc,omlTlent.
Th~ public.review processXortheordinanceiscontinuing with the Planning, Commission and the City Council. Parties
9f r~90rd Cl.r~ on a mailirg list t() be notified of upcoming public hearings. The public may also contact the Renton
Economic 8evelopnienVNelghb0rhoods/St,.ategicPI~lnning Department, or view the City of Henton website' ,,"','
·(www:cLr~nton. wa.us/,uoder the Department na/Tle) for upcoming meetings.
, , '
Environrnental'Determihation-Appeal'Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be
filed'ihwritiilg orior before 5:00 PM September 1, 2()04~
:A'jJpealsmust be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing,ExalJ1in~r,CitY9f
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals lothe Examiner are governed by CitY of Rentori
MuniCipal Code. $ection 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtain~dfi'9m the
Renton CityC!~rk's Office; (425)~430-6510. ' ,,',
/
City of Renton
Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program GMA Integration
LUA-04-084, ECF
Citizel7 Commel7ts al7d Respol7ses: August 1 ~ 2004
Table of Contents
Summary Table of Comments and Responses ............................................................................ 2
Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential
Responses ......................................................................... , ......... , ............................... : ............ 7
Comments .by James C. Hanken on behalf of JH Baxter and Potential Responses .................. 11
Comments by Richard Gumpert, Independent Development Company, and Potential
Responses ............................... , .............................................................................................. 14
Comments by Seattle Audubon Society and Potential Responses ............................................ 20
Renton Shoreline Master Program Definitions of
Water Oriented/Non-Water Oriented Uses .......................................................................... 22
\
/ .
Summary Table of Comments and Responses
The following chart summarizes comments and responses that are more fully described later in
this document. All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The comments will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings.
The Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City C-ouncil who
will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may
entertain.
Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are
further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring
with the State DOE through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public
comments as well.
Commenter
Davis Wright Tremaine for Barbee
Mill, August 2, 2004
Summary of Concerns
• Proposed regulations appear to
have significant adverse impacts
on existing land use plans and
population allocations,
recreational and development
opportunities, and private use and
enjoyment of the waterfront.
• Traffic and pollution associated
with concentrating densities
elsewhere within the City to
offset the elimination of buildable
lands under the proposed
amendments have not been
disclosed or considered.
• The proposed revisions appear to-
force a few private landowners to
bear burdens for the public
benefit but should be borne by the
public as a whole. The proposed
minimum buffer standards have
significant adverse impacts on the
ability to develop land translating
into impacts on economics and
land usemore'genera1Iy.
Summary Responses
• Stream buffers are proposed to be
increased, but the increased
buffers are not anticipated to
significantly affect the City's
existing land use plans anci :
p()pul~~~9Il,~Hqcllti()ns.JiM;;§~ty~" i .;~~!~iX~~i~~~Wth:c~p'a~ltW
• The City's zoniIJg districts off~r
flexibility iii bu'i'ldirigh~igh(~;
setbacks,' lot sizes, densities, etc.
In addition, the proposed stream
regulations allow for
administrative buffer reductions,
administrative buffer averaging,
and modifications or variances for
reductionsl averaging below the
administrative levels provided
there is no-net-Ioss of stream
ecological function. Some of the
reduced buffer widths allowed
administratively are comparable
to current shoreline setbacks and
stream buffers in current
regulations.
• The City's net density calculation,
which retains the dwelling unit
potential for critical area buffers,
is an "onsite" calculation and is
not transferable to other sites.
• The regulation amendments are
intended to meet the goals and
2 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summar'y Responses
purposes of the State Growth
Management Act (GMA) to
consider best available science in
regulations and policies, to
provide for Shoreline
Management Act use priorities as
part of the public trust, as well as
to meet other GMA and City
goals for management of growth.
Flexibility in terms of
administrative buffer reductions,
averaging, and modifications or
variances are a part of the
regulations to provide for
reasonable use. of property. The
ordinance as a whole, both
standard buffers and requirements
and provisions for flexibility,
have been considered in the
City's environmentalreview.
• SEP A focuses on environmental
impacts. Fiscal and economic
impacts, while they may be
important to consider as part of
the planning process,~r:e nota
required;SEPA.· topi~(W AC 197-
11-752, 197~11-444, and WAC
197-11-450). ~
James C: HankenforJHBaxter, • The detemlination of • See Davis Wright Tremaine
. August 9, 2004 environmental impacts must response above regarding zoning
accommodate the urban and flexibility and stream regulation
industrial nature of many of these flexibility.
properties that have current • The regulations recognize that environmental issues such as
hazardous cleanup requirements. landfill and dredging and stream
Saddling these properties with .' alteration may be required to
further economic .constraints.such accomplish site remediation in
" ,-.: as proposed may weUdefeat the urban shoreline (Class 1 urban
" .. shorelines). These activities can . --positive' environmental: objectives' . : .. :-: ~ " occur in the water body and the City wishes to advance. No
evaluation or study as to the effect buffer area according to the
of such regulation on the' proposed regulations subject to a
economic viability of such stream/lake study and mitigation
remediation efforts have been plan, as well as compliance with
included or considered in this . Shoreline Ma~J~r Program criteria
~ ,. . , ~ . t ... process, which makes the for these activities.
proposal under consideration • See Davis Wright Tremaine
fatally flawed. response that SEP A focuses on
environmental impacts, rather
than fiscal and economic impacts.
3 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
Richard Gumpert, Independent • Density of development within • The CA zone provides flexible
Development Company, August 9, certain urbanized growth areas is development standards. See
2004 a critical issue and a major policy Davis Wright Tremaine response
objective of the GMA and above regarding stream regulation
Comprehensive Plan. The need flexibility.
for services as contemplated by
the CA zoning remains material, • The regulation amendments are
and the location of such intended to meet the goals and
development at the intersection of purposes of the State Growth
two prime arterials serves Management Act-(GMA) to
important traffic and other policy consider best available science in
concerns. Reduced density, and regulations and policies, to
thereby the reduced services to be provide for Shoreline
provided at my Property by virtue Management Act use priorities as
of an expansion ofthe buffer from part of the public trust, as well as
Springbrook Creek, has not been to meet other GMA and City
given adequate consideration in goals for management of growth.
the draft ordinance. The benefit Flexibility in terms of
to the shoreline of an imposition administrative buffer reductions,
of an additional buffer given the administrative buffer averaging,
current state of the land, pales and modifications or variances for
with the other objectives of the reductions/averaging below the
GMA and Comprehensi ve Plan administrative levels are a part of
including, withoutliinitation, the regulations to provide for
density and the utilization of the reasonable use of property.
stock of CA zoned land for the • The proposed regulations allow
creation of livable-wage jobs. for already developed stream
• By complying with these various buffers to maintain impervious
conditions, including using my surfaces (buffers would function
private property for a public-.'
as setbacks in this case). For
access trail and natural veg~tated developments on shorelines with
buffer, this Property is vested and partially developed or natural
my company should not be buffers, development would need
required to dedicate more land as to cluster onsite.
a buffer. A landowner who fully • Based on discussions with the
complies with and has satisfied all City Attorney, new materially
the conditions imposed by the .. ..; City sh()uld not be subject to new
complete permit applications vest
. . conditions .
to the regulations in place at the
time of application. Recent case
---. • I did notperceive.imy significant law has affirmed this strict
:'>." scientific information, new pr definition of vesting. If a
previously existing, that supports materially complete application is
the imposition of an additional received by the City prior to the
-,~ . -,-buffer at the Property under the adoption of the proposed
current situation~'Assuch, any regulations (expected by the end
".
ordinance that serves to iinpOse of 2004), thatappiication would
. ;madditiohal setback at the' be vested to the regulations in
Property is toovbtoadtiri its place at the time of application,
application and . sliOlildbe deemed i.e. the current Shoreline Master
inappropr.iafegi.vefFthc1other Program and Critical Areas
policy objectives and the Regulations and other City
Constitutional rights of private development regulations.
I landowners. • A~ alt~rnative approach could be
4 ReVIew Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
• The regulation of this specific a development agreement. The
Property by the draft ordinance is agreement has to be consistent
not fair, disproportionately with the City's development
burdensome and inconsequential regulations, meaning one would
in furtherance of any legitimate need to put an agreement together
objectives. It is tantamount to a before the new rules go into
taking by regulation without effect. It would require a public
legitimate public justification. hearing.
The ordinance should be carefully .
drafted to promote its ends and
not disproportionately impact
private rights without reason.
Seattle Audubon Society, August 9, The commenter supports the • Surety Mechanisms -
2004 following provisioris: Performance Criteria: Mitigation
• Regulations protect critical areas plan contents are defined in 4-8-
meeting definitions/criteria, even 120.D. For example the wetland
if unmapped mitigation plan requirements
• Conservation easements or other include establishing goals and
mechanisms for native growth objectives, preparing a monitoring
program, and a contingency plan. areas
• Habitat Assessment Evaluation -• Priorities for mitigation -avoid, Citywide. The use of State PHS minimize, and compensate data will help the City define
.' Peer review of habitat blocks of habitat, including those
assessments at City's discretion, that provide connections, such as
particularly for controversial the PHS program category of
development cases. "urban natural open space." Also,
Recommendations for changes, to the the City's proposed Environment
Element amendments include a
proposed regulations; or policy regarding adaptive recommended studies: management. • Surety mechanisms for wetland
mitigation plans -agree but • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
recommend a list of performance Purpose to Protect Habitat.
criteria. Because the primary citywide
," " "",", ,,' ·,:l. '" regulation addressing streams is
.:, • Habitat assessment requirements currently found in this ordinance, , '
".:".
-agree. Suggest that the City but is proposed to be
-conduct an overall health habitat substantively amended and, J" -assessment;paiticuhfrly looking contained in the critical areas
at corridors and areas of regulations, and because the tree
interconnection. cuttingnand clearing regulations .. cross reference rather than repeat • Tree Cutting lI.n(ILa~(lClearing
Ordinance keep purpose critical area and habitat
,'.' statement to preserve wildlife, conservation,~~g~lations, the
.' .. " habitat and other important areas purpose statement was proposed
rather than delete. Leave it in to to be amended.
draw attention to the importance • Hazard Trees -Criteria or List of
of trees as II major, componentof Arborists. The City wishes to
habitat. provide some consistency in its
• Tree Cutting and Land Clearing review of hazard trees, and has
Ordinance -Exemption for proposed a definition as follows:
Hazard Trees. City should clearly "[a]ny tree or tree part that poses . . . . ~ .
5 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Commenter Summary of Concerns Summary Responses
establish criteria and/or establish a high risk of damage to persons
a list of reputable arborist to or property as certified by a
ensure such trees meet the qualified arborist and accepted by
definition of "hazard" so that the the City."
label is not misused and becomes Tree Cutting and Land Clearing an excuse for easy tree removal. •
Ordinance -Land Development
• The Tree Cutting and Land Permits Criteria for Tree Cutting.
Clearing Ordinance includes The focus of the City's regulation
performance standards for land amendments proposal is related to
developinentlbuilding permits. critical areas. The City has the'
The cr:iteria for tree cutting is ability to protect designated
incomplete and contains critical habitat through its critical
loopholes. area regulations .. Outsideof
critical areas, the tree cut!ing,and .
land cleilrihg regulati()ns.ensurb .
that there is no itidiscririlinate tree
removal. AU proposals are
required to meet the general
standard that "trees shall be
maintained to the maximum
exterit feasible on the property
where they are growing; .. " and
the City has the ability to
condition plans.
6 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summary-August 4 2004 Commel7ts by Davis Wright Tremail7e 017
behalf of Barbee Mill Compal7Y al7d Potel7tial Respol7ses
Comment 1. The City's proposed DNS fails to adequately consider the magnitude of
potential significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the City's
CompreheJ:lsive Plan and Critical Area regulations. Projects ultimately designed to benefit
the environment may need to undergo SEPA review and SEPA recognizes thfs (WAC 197-
11-330(5». Bpecifically, the proposed revisions appear to have significant adverse impacts
on existing land use plans and population allocations; recreational and development
opportunities,and private use and enjoyment of the waterfront. For example, the
amendments reduce the availability of buildable lands on privately owned waterfront
prope~ty, resulting in a shift of densities elsewhere (outside of the critical areas). The
reduction of buildable lands may conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and this is
apparently ignored in the City's documents.
The proposed regulations retain critical area restrictions/buffers for certain geologic hazards and
wetlands. In developing the new stream buffer regulations it is important to note that the City
considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example sites. (See "Revised Review
Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Regulation
Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004, updated from memos with similar infonnation in
2003 and Spring 2004.) These were listed as supporting documents in the SEPA checklist.
Buildable Lands. Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not
anticipated to significantly affect the-City's existing land use plans and population allocations.
The City has substantial growth capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approach
credits densities in stream buffers. The City's zoning districts, particularly mixed use districts as
applied to the Barbee Mill property, offer flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes,
densities, etc. to accommodate substantial development. Last, the proposed stream regulations
allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or
variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss
of stream ecological function.
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated a Citywide capacity for 10,620 housing
units based on its Comprehensive Plan land use scheme, not including the new Urban Center
zone adopted in 2003 which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings
through the year 2030. This is 71 % to 154% above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target
of 6,198 units. The buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for criti.cal areas (steep
slopes and wetlands). --
• The City's buildable lands analysis in 2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for
32,205 jobs, not including the new Urban Center zone employment allowing potentially
between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs. This is 17% to 166% above the City's assigned
2022 employment target of 27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed
reductions for critical areas as noted above.
7 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite.
However, City regulations for the commercial, office, and industrial zones allow substantial
heights and minimal setbacks, which should allow flexibility in arranging developments (e.g.
COR zone for the Barbee Mill property allows up to 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front
yard, no standard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot sizes). For residential
developments, it is important to note that, per the City's net density definition, buffers are not
subtracted from net density calculations, meaning unit potential within the buffers remains
for each site allowed residential uses, and units may be clustered onsite (see response to
Comment 2). For example the maximum density in the COR 112 zone without bonuses is 25
units per net acre, and the ability to achieve bonus densities is not cumbersome: Thenumber
of units would be determined by calculating densities on all buildable areas and buffers, but
not critical areas themselves such as in-water or in-wetland areas. The COR st&ridardsdonot.
prescribe a minimum lot size, width,or depth. Building heights, densities, and lise
allowances would accommodate a variety of structures including multi-storey attached units.
• The proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative
buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the
administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function. This is
. intended to provide for a variety of site conditions where standard buffers cannot be met.
Some of the reduced buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current
shoreline setbacks and stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-::oriented
uses (generally mixed use developments or other developments thaJ incorporateJ;;ignificant
public access, visual or physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone
applicable to the Barbee Mill property) may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable
to the current commercial setback along Shorelines of the State.
Since the 2002 buildable lands analysis made reductions for wetlands and steep slopes; butnot
streams outside of wetlands, City staff prepared stream and buildable lands information for City
Environmental Review Committee consideration. The general approach was to I} determine the
area of the stream corridors, 2) calculate the ratio of developed versus undeve10pedand
redevelopable.properties in the City's buildable lands analysis. for single familyz.on~.~; 3) .
determim~}he.netacresof buildable parcel~ affected by streamcofridors; and 4}:d.et.Yqpin~tlJ.~
change in the'IlulIlber of possiblellnits. His estimated there would be a24 uriitredll~tlQnby ,
removing stre~mslromsingle fam.ilY buildable la~d acres,which does not atterth'e~bncius'ions .
above. MlJlti(anplyzones, commercial zones, and ~xedus~zones were not inGlu4e4.iIl this
analysis. Densitiesassumedin the. buildable lands analysis for these zoneS weie6a~ed onrecerii
achiev~d orprot9type densities rath~r ttian the ma;ximuqIdensitiys allow~d whi,ch,'i~, .. . . ..,..
conservative. Also, these zcmes,aliow greater height to express the density/intensity P9te.ntial. , .' ,'" :'. ":".' .
Recreation. Proposed stream regulations address recreation. Trails are possible exemptions iri
Class 2 to 4.buffers if exemption criteria are met. Other recreation uses would be slJlJje<:;t t() the
same critical area stream regulations as other public or private property development. .ForClass
1 shorelines, where the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA).does.not permit exemptions to
regulations, the proposed regulations do address public access, a shoreline priority use." Buffer
8 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
reductions for public access are possible due to the need for a shoreline location. Also based on
the SMA use preferences, water-oriented uses (that incorporate significant public access, visual
or physical as described above) may be granted greater buffer reductions subject to criteria.
Private Development. See Response to Comment 3.
Comment 2. Traffic and pollution associated with concentrating densities elsewhere within
the City to offset the elimination of buildable lands under the proposed amendments have
not been disclosed or considered.
The City's net density definition/calculation, which retains the dwelling unit potential for critical
area buffers, is an "on site" calculation and is not transferable to other sites. The City's flexible
development standards in terms of lot widths, setbacks, size, coverage, etc. are intended to allow
for flexibility onsite, such as where critical areas are present. Also, the regulations allow for
administrative buffer reductions and administrative buffer averaging to address differing site
conditions. Last modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below the administrative
levels are possible.
The City has conducted environmental review of its overall land use plan and annual
amendments as appropriate, including traffic and associated impacts. For example a thorough
review of City development capacity, with the Boeing redevelopment plans and Urban Center
zones was conducted in 2003. The City's analyses address a range of future d(!velopment
scenarios consistent with the City's planning efforts. See Comment 1 for related buildable land
information.
Comment 3. The proposed revisiol1s'app~ar to force a few pr!v.ate landowIlers, to,bear
burdens for the public benefit but should be borne by the public as a whole. The proposed
minimum buffer standards have significant adverse impacts on the ability to develop land
translating int~'hnpactS on economics and land use more generally. The City's "reasonable
use exceptions" retain certain baselines under whichdevelopment may not occur even if
there are no adverse impacts re~ardless of best available science.
See resP'<?nses tb'~omments l' and 2. The'regulation amendments 'are intended to meet the g()als
and purPoses bf theStafe Gr()w1:WNtiniagement Act (GMA}toconsiderbest available'scienceiri
regulatioris artd'pblicies~ to provide' for Shoreline ManagementA.ct use pri6ritie~dls:part ofihe
public trust, a'rwerrasto meet other GMA and 'City 'goals for mariage'inent of groWth. , Aexihiliiy .,
in terms ofad:mi!ni~trative buffer reductions, adrhinistfativebufferaveraging; and IIlodifications
or variances for'ied'hctionsjaveragirigbe[ow the administrative levels area part of the regulations •
to provide for reasdtlablellsi6f pr6p'dtf 'Tli6'ordiri~mce as"a\vh-ole; both'standatd'buffers"ahd'
requiremerit§'aflclp;rbvislbns for flexibility , havebeenc()nsideredih the CitY' sen vlronmeiital
review.
It should be noteo that SEP A focuses on environmental' impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts,
whileth~y may 6eirrip()it~mtt() consider as' part onile planhiri'g piocess;are riot arequired'SEPA
topic (WACi97-1i-752,i97-11-444, and WAC f97'-11A50). :'
9 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
'\ .J
'\
!
Public Process -Advisory Note
All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC). The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning
Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is
charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible
for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related
to the City's Shoreline Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to
State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE
through this process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well.
, -: ,~.:" .
10 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
SummalY-August ~ 2004 Comments byJames C. Hanken on beIJal/
0/ JH Baxter and Potential Responses
Comment 1. Support for Comments made on behalf of Barbee Mill Company by their
counsel, Traci Shalbetter.
See responses to comments "Summary -August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wrigbt Tremaine
on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses" above.
Comment 2. The determination of environmental impacts must accommodate the urban
and industrial nature of many of these properties that have current environmental issues
such as hazardous cleanup requirements. These require substantial economic investment
to achieve that objective. Saddling these properties with further economic constraints such
as proposed may well defeat the positive environmental objectives the City wishes to
advance. No evaluation or study as to the effect of such regulation on the economic
viability of such remediation efforts have been included or considered in this process,
which makes the proposal under consideration fatally flawed. The properties that are
zoned industrial or COR need to have significant evaluation as to the impact of such
regulation whose adoption may prevent a greater environmental benefit that may accrue
from the conversion of such properties to uses less environmentally challenging than
current industrial uses.
The City's zoning districts, particularly the COR district as applied to the Baxter property, offer
flexibility in building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, densities, etc. to accommodate substantial
development, particularly appropriate when there are environmental constraints. Featlires of the
COR zone that result in flexibility include: range of densities with the potential for density
bonuses, 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard, no standard rear or side yards, and no
minimum lot size or width.
Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibility include: no minimum lot depth, no lot
coverage standards, no minimum side or rear yards unless abutting residential zones, 50 foot
building heights iI!, the IL zone with the ability to request conditional use pennits for greater
heights, and no building height limits in the 1M and IH zones.
The proposed shoreline buffer regulations would apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require
preparation of stream studies. The proposed ordinance drafted to date includes the following
measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions:
• Density is credited in shoreline buffers. See responses to comments "Summary -August 2,
2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential
Responses" above.
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite.
11 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
• If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet, provided it is "made
up" elsewhere on site.
o The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site
mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possible. For non-water oriented uses as defined in the
Shoreline Master Program, the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through
administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently the proposed regulations structure the Class 1
buffer reductions based on Shoreline Management Act priority uses. Some of the reduced
buffer widths allowed administratively are comparable to current shoreline setbacks and
stream buffers in current regulations. For example water-oriented uses (genera-lly mixed use
developments or other developments that incorporate significant public access, visual or
physical, similar to that expressly promoted in the COR zone applicable to the Baxter
property) may be approved with a buffer of 50 feet comparable to the current commercial
setback along Shorelines of the State. Water dependent development, including water
dependent industries, can have as little as 0 foot setbacks.
o . The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads
and utilities, as well as for public access, subject to criteria.
o The regulations recognize that landfill and dredging and stream alteration may be required to
accomplish site remediation on urban shorelines (Class 1 urban shorelines). These activities
. can occur in the water body and buffer area according to the proposed regulations.
Applicants for such activities would need to submit a stream/lake study and mitigation plan,
as well as comply with Shoreline Master Program criteria for these activities.
It should be noted that SEPA focuses on environmental impacts. Fiscal and economic impacts,
while they may be important to consider as part of the planning process, are not a required SEPA
topic (WAC 197-11-752, 197-11-444, and WAC 197-11-450). .
Comment 3. Urge consideration of same comments in opposition to DNS posed by Barbee
Mill, as well as comments here regarding the failure to evaluate the negative aspects of the
proposed regulations on the potential for clean up of industrial sites. Absence of a full
environmental impact determination is a fatal defect.
See responses to comments "Summary -August 2, 2004 Comments by Davis Wright Tremaine
on behalf of Barbee Mill Company and Potential Responses" above.
-Regarding clean up of sites, please note the flexibility of zoning regulations and proposed stream
regulations identified under Comment 2. The regulations allow for clean up of hazardous
materials as noted above under Comment 2.
Public Process -Advisory Note
All comments are a part of the project file and were considered by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC).
12 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
The public review process for the ordinance is continuing with the Planning Commission and the
City Council. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council
since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Provisions related to the City's Shoreline
. Master Program, which governs Lake Washington, are further subject to State Department of
Ecology approval. As such the City has been conferring with the State DOE through this
process. DOE will consider the City's ordinance and public comments as well.
13 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
"~I
f , .. /
Summaif -August ~ 2004 Commellts by Richard Gumpert;
Illdepelldellt Developmellt Compall~ alld Potelltial Respollses
1. Growth Management Act (GMA) and Comprehensive Plan Objectives -Density of
development within certain urbanized growth areas is a critical issue and major policy
objective of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. The need for services as contemplated by
the CA zoning remains material, and the location of such development at the intersection of
two prime arterials serves important traffic ~nd other policy concerns. Reduced density,
and thereby the reduced services to be provided at my Property by virtue of an .expansion
of the buffer from Springbrook Creek, has not been given adequate consideration in the
draft ordinance.
The City's stock of CA zoned landis a part of the balance that was created relative to the
contemplated jobs that would be creatf;!<1 witltin the City. Currently my company is under
construction of a 60,000 square foot medical ()ffice building that is planned to include ' .. ,. .
physicians' offices, a surgery center, a medical lab and other medical-related uses. It.is our
current plan to build additional phases that ultimately will create a medical campus with
multiple medical buildings and a parkiIlg structure. This plan, if im,plemented, will create
livable-wage employment in the City and increase the healthcare services available to the
region. These are certainly importa.l1t obje~tives of the City plannil1g prQcess that have
been subordinated to other policies witllouta<iequate consideration or public irtput. O~her,
objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Pian likewise need to beweighedin these
considerations~ ..'
Stream buffers are proposed to be increased, but the increased buffers are not anticipated to
significantly affect the City's existing land use plans and citywide growth targets. Th~ City has
substantial employment growth capacity above its targets. The City's buildable lands analysisin
2002 indicated an employment capacity Citywide for 32,205 jobs, not including the new Urban
Center zone employment allowing potentially between 2,300 to 41,400 additional jobs. This is
17% to 166% ~b()ve the City' s assigne(i2022. ~Ill.ployment target of 27,597 jobs.
The CitY'sz()Iling:distriGts,s~ch' as the CA." zone applied to thesl1bjectproperty, bfferfl~xi9rIltX'
in buildiIlgl;1~jgq!s-,,~etback,s,l()t sizes, densiti~~:;~~c. 1'0 ac(;oI,IiIn94~te' su.b~tail~ial,geV~1()pifient,
and this flexIhility is 'particularly important for sites with environwental features, such as creeks.
The CA zone has the following features: " '. . .
•
•
•
•
•
50 footheigJ{f ,limlt ,w.ithabi"litY t()'ieques(~q<iitional heightwithco~ditional us~pennits
, •. .: -.• ' .,",..' ~ c ". ': .'. .' ." . -.' .".'. ' • " " " .", .' , . ." '" : . ", '.' , ", -. _ •
No minimum lot sizes or mihi:mum·letwidths ; '.
Front yard ~etbacks of 10 feet
No niihimuin:n~ar or side yard widths for properties that do not abut residential zones
Greater lot coverage allowancesfor propo'sals with parking garages such as that pfoposediri
the Phase II preapplication submittal for the subject site. " .
14 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best A vailable Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
In addition to the City's flexible zoning standards, the proposed stream regulations offer
flexibility to recognize different site conditions, such as administrative buffer reductions,
administrative buffer averaging, and modifications or variances for reductions/averaging below
the administrative levels provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function.
At a localized level, the City considered the effect of the new stream regulations on example
sites. (See "Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shorelin~ Master
Program Regulation Amendments," Jones & Stokes, July 13,2004, updated from memos with
similar information in 2003 and Spring 2004.) The potential application of the regulations has
also been discussed related the subject site, and various options have been discussed with the
property owner. Alsosee the response to Comment3.
Please also see Response to Comment 5 regarding the ongoing public review process.
2. VestiD'g by Prior Compliance with Development Conditions~ The Property was mapped
in 1998 to create the parcels that currently exist, at which'time the City imposed a . '.
requirement that a 50-foot setback be established, a public-access asphalt walking trail
adjacent to the easement be built (it is south of the easement on my Property), anda .'
privaie~tormwater detention pond al1d bioswale be established south of the trail.
By complying with these various condition~, including using my private propertyfor ~
public:::access' ttailaridnatutal vegetated buffer~ tliis Property is vest~d and my company
shouldnofbe teq~iredtodedicate tnore land as a buffer. A landowner who fullycolllPlies
with and has satisfied allthe conditions imposed by the City should not be subject' to hew .
conditions.
The proposed ordinance is riot intended to reduce vesting rights as detennined in State Law and .
Case Law.
Based on discussions with the City Attorney, new materially complete pennit applications vest to
the regulations in place'at the time of application. Recent case law has affinnea this strict .
definition,of vestipg. If a material!y coIl1plete application is received by the Cityp~ortothe .'
adopti~h··of'~.h~,p:i6posedF~grtl~ti()ns· (e~pecte«('by::~hii~nd o( 2(04)~' t~af(lp{)licationwt>,tii~;~
vestedto the regulatioris in placlafthe timeofapPlicatiQil,Le:the curreht Slloretine:Master"
Program and Critital Areas Regulations and other City development regillations. .. '.' .'
An alternative approach cquld bea development agreement. The agreement has tq be Gonsist~nt.
with the CitY's'dev'eI6pment'r~gulations;nlea.ningone would need tdpflt'a.nagreefuenttogether
before the new rules go into effect. It would requirea:pubUc hearing ..
If a new application is submitted after the new regulations are in effect, the proposal would be
subject to the new regulations. We note that thesite'sizeand,the"g~neraLtypes of uses, planned··
may allow some flexibility to meet the proposed regulations. Following are some questions that
the proponent may consider: .. ..... .' ' .. " . . .
15 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
** Can they redesign the private parking accessway closest to the trail area to reduce the access
width? Can they plant trees between the access/parking and the trail to provide some function for
the stream?
**The proposed standard buffer would be 100 feet. It can be reduced to 75 feet if a proposal
meets reduced buffer criteria and is a "non-water-oriented use." However, "water enjoyment"
uses can go to 50 feet (these are a priority shoreline use). The definition of a water enjoyment
use appears on the lastpage of this document. Since the site contains a public trail, and a
preliminary site plan includes a mixed office/commercial retail area, could they design it in such
a way as to meet the definition of water enjoyment?
The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintainimperviolls
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines, with
partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster onsite ..
3. The Ordinance is Inapplicable to My Company's Property and in any Event it is Too
Broad hi its ApplicaticnI ~ The ordillance does not appear toindude'provisions)hat' .
contemplate the situation described above. Specifically, it app~rs to assu,ll,le thilt
"undeveloped land'; is all naturally vegetated adjacent to the shoreline .. As des~ .. ibe4
above, the land, ~djacent to Springbrook Creek is developed -it's just tl1at I!ot ~ll buildings
have yetbe~n built. North of the Creek is a major industriallle"elopmellt tharindudes
hundreds of thouSands of square feet of buildings, and only the 50 foot lJQ:ffer isobserved.
On the south side, which is my company's land, although I haven't yelbuilt aUthe .'
buildings thaJ u!tjmately will be.at the Property, the nat,..r~ll bJJ,fff;!r, the pu~lic-~cc~s
asphalt trailand'the stormwater pond are in situ, and the addjtional strillju#t'ecently
imposedas,~~QP~Jitionto the cur,r~llt development will b¢ill pJ~ce S~()J?tlY'·~~9Ils~gu.elltly,
there is no,Ila~~r~" v~g~tation south of the asphalt trall, and there has not-been anYi~place
for some tiIlli.· .F~rpUl~poses of protecting the shoreline with existing natu.r~lv~g~tation,
the Property is already protected and it is "developed" and no further buffer' ~h()yld b~
imposed. My company should not be required to do a panoply of biological studies and . . .
take other measllres in order to ,att~mpt to exempt itself, or r.e<luce the imp~<;t, ;r ... o~ tile
new ordinan~~~tR~tl;1~r, the orqill~nce~houldaddressthi~ ~it.1,laJionand e~P' .. ~~~jy: ',' ••.....
acknowledgeth:a.t,the, ()rd~lla,~ce 40~.~9t~pply, wheth~r,~y"J7~rtq~,orpri()rv~.t.fq~?,~r·a
defi~ition o!;~e,~~lpp~~~t, ·~~:g.':~tI,:~,lj~!c9~p{!HIl~p;ol~cr~JJ~~~ti,~,~~ gr;~~,~~t.;;~~,9i?0¥;:";,"··
PrecIous p,-:~xat~J>,nm,~rlY Tlg~~ (1J;.p~~<;t~~.~yth~ P .S~<;;~I1~!!t,~~~Oll~"'~ I~~~~rf@i,·~~.~tlie
City mus( t~}{edl~Jime and ~ake th~effort t() assQre th~t !t§or<li.,an~e i.s c.raft¢41() .....
protect thO~~:F!g~'~to th~fuiIeste"tent s\lbj~¢,! only tot~.~ f~bli~r~hce()OtS·l~gi·tiw~t~
public purposes .. I do not believe that sufficient precision has been used 'in ilij~JI!~~~¢{!.
Further, the benefit to the shoreline of an i.mposition of an additional bufferglveri:th~" ,
curr~l}~~~!~,.()t \~~ ;l~p(hp~l~~ ~!IJ t~.e .pther Hl>je(:tives.pf!tt~ .. ~,MA .. , ~,I1~;<;o,mp:r~W~l1s!v~,:; .... ',' .. '
Plan including, without limitation, density and the utilization of the stock of CA zone<i land>
for the creation of livable-wage jobs.
Please see C()irim~.nt 2regarding vesting. Please also see Comment 5 regardingthe ongoing
public review process. .
16 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). The City Council will
consider the balance of GMA goals as it considers GMA requirements to consider best available
science in its policies and regulations, as well as it considers Planning Commission
recommendations and citizen comments.
Further the City Council will need to consider Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Goals sinc'e
Springbrook Creek isa Class 1 Shoreline of the State. SMA goals are considered GMA goals.
Further the City is to provide equivalent protection to critical areas subject to the Shoreline
Management Act as those protected in its GMA critical areas ordinance. SMA goals are
excerpted below for shorelines of the state (RCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings '::'-Statep6licy
enunciated':-Use preference; also se~ WAC 173-26-176):
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of thestate by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is desigiled,to
insure the development of these shorelines in a marm:et which, while allowingfofli:rriitea
reduction of rights of the publici in the navigable waters~ will promote and enhance'the
public interest. This policy c(jnt~ITIplates protecting against adverse effects to thephblic
health, the land and its vegetation and Wildlife, and the waters of the state and their
aquatic life,whil~ protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary}ights incidental thereto. ' '. ,'., , . ' -, ,. , ", '
***
In th~iIApl~irieI1tario.il ofthi'~p6Hb(th'epublic's opp()rtunitytoenjoy thephysic~l'and
aestfietic qUl.llitl~s 'ofn~tutalsHof¢lihds'Ofthe state shin be'preservecl't6;thegreates( ,.
extent fdasi~lecorisisteritwitlrthe ~;v~r~n best interestof'il1estate and'thepeople
generally.'To tlii~ end uses shaU be, Rfeferted which areconsi'stentwith C()nttolof
pollution andp'reyention of damage'to the natura.renvitonment~ or are unique to or
dependent upon use of the stat~'sshofeiihe. Alterations' ofthe natural condition'oftne
shorelines of the state, in thoseliITIitedinstances when authorized, shall be given priority
for singlefanuly residences and, tp:e!(~ppurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational
us~s il1cNq!til1?u(n9t' limit~(l~q ·p~k~~;.mann.as,piers,and otherimprovetnents" " •. " /-
faCilifatirig pUblic access to shorelinein)f the 'state, industnal and commercial dev~(opm~nts '~hich are i>articul~li slf3p'eI1dent '9ntii~ir loc?tion on 'oruse of;ifi~"
shoreiin~s of the state and 6the?developmenttha( \VHlpto~lde;in -oppdittiriity't6rf~' '.'
supstaritlafnuIT1pers o{th~ peppleJoehjoy the shorelinesofth~state. A1teratiotisp~the
natUialc6i1dition Of :the shoreliilbs' arid: shoreiafids of the, statesllalt' be rec6gnized'by tfie
deg~~e~~~' ..... ,,''-; . .,; .~
Then~ ~fedd¥ti6\i~r: itriaeru'se'piet~rehtes;idt'$HbreIil1es ·of. St<hbwide Sigrtificatice ~ppligaBle'
to Lakc'Washingt<m. .... , .;,
The proposed shoreline buffer regulati9ns wpuld apply a standard buffer of 100 feet and require
preparation of stream studies. The proposed' ordinance drafted to elate includes the following
measures to provide for flexibility to recognize differing site conditions:
17 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
\ J
.J
• Report preparation requirements may be waived by the City if a barrier exists between the
water body and the proposed activity, or applicable data and analysis appropriate to the
project proposed exists and an additional study is not necessary. (There are other waiver
potentials if the water body or buffer does not exist on a site and the subject activity won't
impact it.)
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious
surfaces (buffers would function as setbacks in this case). For developments on shorelines
with partially developed or natural buffers, development would need to cluster.onsite.
• If buffer averaging onsite is proposed the buffer may decrease to 50 feet, provide9 iUs "made
up" elsewhere on site. Buffer averaging below the requirements would require _~variance.
Basedon discussions with Andy Kindig and Carl Hadley"our scientific consultants-on
streams, the existing oversizeddeteIltion.pondwoulc;lRrOYjdeonly a parti(llbe1wfit for the _
stream --the trees/vegetation may provide function ror.the slreams,but n()t tn~opeRW(lter __
areas. It could be possible to partially count the detention pond vegetated areas tow.rrd buffer
averaging, but this probably won't make up the full area needed.
• The proposed ordinance allows for reduced buffers if there is buffer enhancement or off-site
mitigation if an enhanced buffer is not possiblel . For non-water oriented uses as defined in
the Shoreline Master Program, the maximum proposed reduction to be achieved through
, administrative review is to 75 feet. Currently the proposed.regulations structure the cCI aSs 1
buffer reductions based on Shoreline Mariagement Act priority uses, andreductions are _
possible for other categories of uses such as "water oriented~" Similar to the wetland
regulations, there are maximum buffer reductions that can be requested adiniriistratively; and
requests for buffers below the administrative level would require a variance. (In this case, a
shoreline variance would:be needed and is ultimately approved by the State Departnleni6f
Ecolegy after Renton reviews it.) Defihitions of water-orierited·developmenfappeaF~dh·the
last page of this document.
• The proposed regulations allow specific requests for buffer reductions for necessary roads
and utilities, as well as for public access, subject to criteria. . -
As described under Comment 5, the public review process for the ordinance is continuing with
the Planning Commission arid the City' GounCil.' ,-_:"'C' ,;"
.. ; ..... : .~.' :.' .' .: ~ ,.; t .; ..
4. Best AvailableBcience-Having readtheconsultant,:s·jrepdr.t-upon 'whidi· thepr~PQ~e4;
ordinance is based, I did not perceive any significantsclentific information, neW{OF"'!~;',;,
previously existing, that supports the imposition of an additional buffer at the Property
under the current situation. As such, any ordinance that serves to impose an additional
setback at the Property is too broad· in its application and should be deemed inappropriate
given the other policy objectives and the Constitutional rights of private landowners.
The proposed buffer standards are based on a review of the best available science by the City's
consulting biologists. The ordinance applies citywide, but is customized in terms of its
I The City's consulting biologists indicated that planting trees east/south of the trail may provide some function for
the stream, e.g. leaf litter, shade, and temperature.
'18 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
classifications of water bodies, and in terms of flexible measures intended to address various
shoreline conditions. Please see response to Comment 3.
5. Fairness and Cooperation -The implementation of land use regulations requires good
faith by both the City and the landowners. The imposition of conditions to development
needs,to be fair, related to the development and the co~sequences it will have, and
reasonably sculpted to further important public purposes. My company has honored the
conditions and fees imposed on its various developments in this City and neighboring
jurisdictions in a spirit of cooperation. However, in this instance it appears that the
regulation of this specific Property by the draft ordinance is not fair, disproportionately
burdensome and inconsequential in furtherance of any legitilnateobjectives. It is '
tantamount to a taking by regulation withoutlegitimate public justification. Rather than
the burden being placed on the landowners in such circuniStances to exempt itself from the
ordinance, the ordinance should be carefully drafted to promote its ends ahd'not'
disproportionately impact private tightS without reason.
The regulation amendments are intended to meet the goals and purposes of the,State Growth
Management Act (GMA) to consider best available science in regulations and pol~cies, to
provide for Shoreline Management Act use priorities as part of the public trust, as well as to meet
other GMA and City goals for manag(;!ment o~ growth. Flexibility in terms ofadministrgtive
buffer reductions; administrative buffer. avenig~l1g, and modifications or variances for
reductions/ayeragingbeiow the administrative levels are a part of the regulations to provide for
reasonable use of property.
The CitY'sEn~ir~nmental Review Committ(;!ehas 'consideredthe comments and, they ar~ part of
the proj~ct fi~e"the public revieWproc,ess for the ordinance is continuing with, therl~IlIring
Commission and the City Council. These comments will also be forwardedtoth(;!Plannirtg
Commission and City Council since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is
charged with making recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible
for ordinance approval, with any ordinance amendments they may entertain.
Provisions related to the City's Shoreline Master PrograIl),whichgqvems SprillgbroolcCr~ek,
are further subject to State Department of Ecology approval. As such the City has been
conferring,;with the State DOEthrougi} tQ.is~procel)s., DQ,E,will ~OI1sider, tQ.~:~~ty;~~,ofQin~<:;t! JU)<L ,
public comments1ts w~lk ....... ..' "X, .• : •. " '. ",' ,i;';' .: .. ·~.···:>·~L·';··;'t.·:',,>~.
19 Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Summaty 0/ August ~ 2004 Comments by Seattle Audubon Society
and Potential Responses
Comment 1. The commenter supports the following provisions:
• Regulations protect critical areas meeting definitions/criteria, even if unmapped
• Conservation easements or other mechanisms for native growth areas
• Priorities for mitigation -avoid, minimize, and compensate
• Peer review of habitat assessments at City's discretion, particularly for controversial
development cases.
The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council
since they will be holding hearings. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain.
Comment 2. Recommendations for changes to the proposed regulations, or recommended
studies:
•
•
•
•
•
Surety mechanisms for wetland mitigation plans -agree but recommend a list of
performance criteria and specific courses of action if standards are not met. Could be
tied to adaptive management.
Habitat asses~ment requiremen.ts -agree. Suggest that the City comluct an'overall
health habitat assessment,particularly looking atc~rl-idors~nd areasofi "
interconnection, to allow for a "big picture" view arid-not justiridividiiafpatcels.
Tree-Cutting and Land Clearing Ordinance currently includes 'a purpose statement to
preserve wildlife habitat and other important areas -this is being'removed since
critical areas regulations cover. Disagree since not all habitat will be identified in the
critical areas regulations (covers onlyspecific identified areas). Leave itinto"r~w
attenti~n to the importance of trees as a major component of habitat.
Tree_,~~it'~p~~and-L~n4~le~l"i~g,Or~~n~pceex~wR~,r~m9V~I~fd~a4~di~~iliie(l;:·" ,'; , , '," "
damaged,;or,aangerous, gromldcover or trees., ,'the'proposarlns~rtStlte~word"'hazard;' ,-.",
before:~Ji'~~.';ity shouJd cle~rly_~sU!l>l!~bCriterf~ ~ptVQr,';e~tablisija)i~t ~(,l-~~#6t~le" "
arborisUoiensure suchctrees meeUhe definition of ''hazard'; so that theblbel~is'n6t · Il1tsJ~~e!4'~~H!;'~~S~mWs ,~p~xc».s~J?r~~sy tree r~ht()~~I.; '_ ",' ,-,',
The'Tree;:Cuftin'gi;and La'nd :ClearingOrdiriance:iIlciudes,perl'ormance,stand~rds,for
lfind'-d({veloplhentlbuildingpermits~ The criteria for' tree cutting is in~ompleteaIid "
coiitains loopholes. Significanttrees over a cettaintcaliper and tre~ proposed to be cut, ,
shouldbe;identified regardless of circumstanc~o{Staff note: the section refyrenced by the.
commenter indicates that except for critical areas and zoning setback areas trees to be cut Can
be generally indicated with "clearing limits.")
20 Review DraftResponses to COIIlIIlents .
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
Responses:
The comments are noted. The City's Environmental Review Committee has considered the
comments and they are part of the project file. The comments will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission is charged with making
recommendations to the City Council who will ultimately be responsible for ordinance approval,
with any ordinance amendments they may entertain. Specific responses are provided below.
Surety Mechanisms -Performance Criteria: The surety clause applies to any mitigation plan
required by the critical areas ordinance. Mitigation plan contents are defined in 4-8-120~D. For
example the wetland mitigation plan requirements include establishing goals and objectives, "
preparing a monitoring program, and a contingency plan.
. . . ' .' " .. :-i-.: ";";.: . :
Habitat Assessment Evaluation -Citywide. The City's Habitat Conservation regulations llse
the State's Priority.Habitat and Species Program in part to define and map critical habitat The
use of this State data will help the City define blocks of habitat, including those that provide
connections, such as the PHS program category of "urban natural open space." Please alsonote
that the City's proposed Environment Element amendments include a policy regarding adaptive
, ,
management. The recommendation that the City conduct a habitat health evaluation on a
broader basis may be one way to implement the policy in the future.
-'':. "
Tree Cutting and,LandClearinRPurposehlProtect Habitat~ Because tbeprimaryGitywi'de
regulation addressing streams is current! y found in this ordinance, put is proposed to1?e ' '. : '
substantively amended ~nd contained in tll,e critical areas regulations, and because the tree
cutting/land clearing regulatic)fls crossrefereilcerather than repeatcntiCaFan!3.'andhabitat .
conservation regulations, the purp6s6~t~ieiheii.t \Vas 'proposedt<ibe'arrleiide&" ' , :., . ",,' ,,'
", .' . . .:'.,. '. '.
Hazard Trees-Criteria or List of ,t\rborists. The City wish~s t() provide SOInI? c()I1sisten~y in
its review of "hazard trees," and has proposed a definition as follows: "[a]ny tree ortree,partthat
poses a high risk of damage to persc)Osorproperty as certified by a qualified arborist and
accepted bythe',City."The City will review ~ubIllissioIls by qualified arborists." ;,
Tree Cutting ,~~~, Land ~learing Ordin~mce -'Land {)~v~loPlDentrermi!S'Criteii~f()':Tree ~::!:tke~~!~~ft~~t~J!YiI~Wtti~rt~i1:~fie:J~~~S,~1;J~~=~~t~~~~l\~r;·· .....
regulaii6Pswou'(rpof¢~jI1f1ictan4. 'workill concerhvith oneanotner. The City has the ability to
protect designatec(cnHcal habitat through its~ritic':il' area regulations~ 'Outside'of'<?riticalareaS,'
the tree cutting and hind clearing regula:tibHs'ehsuiethatthereis~Ao'indiscilffiihatetree'reriIOval:
While the land:iievelopmentpenoffilance'stand!lfQs'indicate that; :eX,'qmtfof ~qtiy.~.I(flI:e~§.~aJ1(hi
zoning setback~ ar~as, trees to oe'c,utcaii be'igel1erally indicated'with"~learing #mi!~,:~JW?p()s.~l~ i
are required to meetthe generaLstanda:td,that'.'tre~es shall be :mail1!aineqto'th~,m~tJ;lll,lm~~tent
feasible on the property where ,they are growing;;. ",and theCityh~sthe, ability tgc,oI,ldit,i9P
plans;
21' Review Draft Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
')
>-./~
, .... L
Renton Shoreline Master Program
Definitions 0/ Water Oriented/Non-Water Oriented Uses
W ATER-ORIENTEDINONW ATER-ORIENTED: "Water-oriented" refers to any combination of water-
dependent, water-related, and/or water-enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for
priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. "Nonwater-oriented" serves to describe those uses
which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the
Shoreline Management Act. Examples of non water-oriented uses include professional offi.ces, automobile
sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-family residential development, department stores and
gas stations;these uses may be considered water-oriented where there is significant public access.
W ATER-ENIOYMENT: Referring to a.recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the
shoreline as a pr~~ary characteristic of Weqse;or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic.
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial IlUmberof people asa general characteristic of the· use an4'
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 asa water-enjoyment use, the use must ~ 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 th~ state;
and general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums,' aquari.ums,
scientific/ecological reserves, resbrts/hotels and mixed use commercial/office; provided that such uses
conform to the above water-enjoymexit specifications anc:i the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
WATER-DEPENDENT: Referring to uses or pOItionsof a use which cannot exist iriany other 16cation
and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-
'dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading-areas, ferry and passengertemunals, 'barge
loading facilities, ship buildinganddx:y .. doclci~g, marinas, aquacultu~e, fl()atpl~gefa¢ilitiesandsew;~r
outfalls.
WATER -RELATED:-Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent· on a
waterfront location, but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfrontlocation 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,providesa,necessary service supportive of the water-dependeritcommercial.activities:and,the·
proximity of the useta' itscustomersniilkesits'services-Iess-expensivi?and/?r·more convenient; Ex~rles·
include manufacturers o(shipparts latgeen6ugii tHat'transporta:tion'tjetomesasigIilficanifactoHri:U1~ ':.
products cost; pr~fessional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water-
transported foods.
Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood
processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries
where transport is by tanker, and log storage.
22 Review Draf~ Responses to Comments
Best Available Science CAR and SMP LUA-04-084, ECF
""':.::
I
BUFFER COMPARISON: STATE, KING COUNTY, RENTON
Jurisdiction/Classification Standard Buffer Width
State DCTED: Type 1 State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft) : Type S, King County (draft): 115 -165 feet plus 15, foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 1 Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: Type 2 State DCTED: 250 feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): Type F King County (draft): 115 ~ 165 feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 2 Renton (draft): 100 feet
State DCTED: Type 3 State DCTEO: 150 ~20b feet plus 15ft setbaCk
King County (draft): Type F King County (draft): 115 c 165 feefplus 15fdi)fsetbaCk
Renton (draft): Ciass 2 Renton (draft):'100feet" ,'" .'".;."
"
State DCTED: Type 4 State DCTED: 150~225 feet plus 15 ,foot setback ' .
King County (draft): Type N King County (draft), 65 feet buffer plus 15 fodtisetback
Renton (draft): Class 3 Renton (draft): 75 feet
State DCTED: Type 5 State DCTED: 150-225, feet plus 15 foot setback
King County (draft): Type 0 I<.ing County (draft): 25 ,feet plus 15 foot setback
Renton (draft): Class 4 Renton (draft): 35feet
Ability to request reduction adrninistratively? State DCTED: No
" KihgCo~nty: Yes (1) , .
, . 'Renton: Yes (2)
. :. ' . . . ~ " '-, .. ~". ... " ", . ;"--
DCTED = Washington State Department of Community;-Trade,and Economic Development Example Code .
(1) Alterations are allowed to,maintain, repair or replace existing ,structures or infrastructure and to continue existing agricultural,
activities, New structures, infrast~cture and expansion of agriculture activities, may be required to meet new standards or may not
be allowed unless a variance oralteration exception is approved or <I farm plan is developed. Subject to I,isted conditions
reductions allowed for topography/geology/soils; road transects; advanced mitigation, Alterations allowed for in-water facilities;
utilities; roads; flood protection; agriculture, '", ,,' . ","
(2) Reductions for new developmenl,including, general uses, shor~line, priority uses and'sites.separated,fromshoreline (e.gejl}tefV.ening lots, roads,\~tc,),.
to specific levels,proyided, the~e. is (11itiga,tion/enhaficement and .ot~er, cri,teria,~Allow,!nces subjectJo criteria, for dredging; stream" ',,;,:'"
relocation; conserv~tiOnlenhance~e~t; existin'gagricult~'re; existing u'~es';utilities; roacts; trails/open sp~ce; e;),eriiencies:,' '" '" :;-,~::: .. ,--:\ ... ;:;,~,~. ~:. '.~ .. ~'.:", .: ,.-,} .... :. :,~,,:,::~'.:""~':,> .. ,~':.>'::.~ ~.:. -,.(."' ... :::-; .... ~.;:.:} ;.:,i;"}:'·;', ";;';',' .. ':. ~,~:i:,\~·.' ::,',;:
, "'; ','-: ; --, '~',
m
Jones & Stol{es
Memorandum ____________________ _
Date: July 13, 2004
To: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, City of Renton;
From: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner
Subject: Revised Review Draft --Renton Critical Area Ordinance and Shoreline Master
Program Regulation Amendments
OVERVIEW
The Washington State GMA provides that local governments should manage growth by
discouraging sprawl, accommodating a range of housing types and employment, and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, among other goals (RCW 36.70A.020). GMA requires
protection of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (RCW
36.70A.030). Since the original GMA was instituted in 1991, GMA has been amended with
respect to critical areas, particularly to require the use of "best available science" in critical area
policies and regulations and consideration of anadromous fish species.
Partly in response to GMA, the City of Renton adopted Critical Area Regulations between 1989
and 2000. The City regulations currently address:
• Aquifer Protection Areas
• Geologically Hazardous Areas
• Habitat Conservation Areas
• Frequently Flooded Areas; and
• Wetlands
The City Critical Area Regulations "reserve" a section to address the protection of streams and
lakes, which otherwise are minimally addressed in the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
regulations (25 foot setback from waterbodies). /
Given the status of the stream regulations, the focus of the City's efforts to comply with the
GMA best available science provisions relates to streams, and a series of recommendations by
11820~NorUiupWay, SuiteE,300· Belle\,ue,WA 98005-1946 • ittt 425822.1077 • fax 425822.1079
ww ..... ·cj(J(lcsMltis{(jla:-s.ct)m
Page 2 of 18
July 13,2004
the consultant team have been prepared to establish water classifications, buffers, and other
related items. However, to document the City's compliance with best available science for the
remaining GMA critical area topics and effectively use the City's resources, more limited scope
reviews and evaluations have been conducted. These limited scope reviews include a best
available science evaluation of wetland regulations, as well as a comparison of the City's aquifer,
flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations to the State Department of
Community Development's Example Critical Areas Code. These evaluations are available under
separate cover.
The purpose of this memo is to give an overview of the proposed regulatory amendments by
each critical area topic.
Aquifer Protection Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton water supply is obtained from four sources:
• The Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer
• Springbrook Springs
• Maplewood Production Aquifer
• We1l5A
These sources are protected by designating aquifer protection area zones (APA zones) and
restricting land use, limiting and restricting hazardous materials, and establishing construction
activity standards, fill quality reporting, and stormwater management requirements within the
zones. Renton's APA zones are defined as follows:
• Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three
hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour.
• Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting
a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partially
protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are
regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by exemptions.
• Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater
travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field
owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring
is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an
AP A into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire APA will be designated as Zone 2.
The City's Aquifer Protection Area Regulations include the following:
Page 3 of 18
July 13, 2004
• Designation of Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Areas (APAs) as
described above.
• Establishing Operating and Closure Permit requirements for facilities in all Zones
• Requiring removal of existing facilities in Zone 1 if they store/handle/treatiproduce
hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 g;tllons
• Performance standards, all AP A Zones
Requiring secondary containment
Requiring hazardous materials monitoring and providing standards for release
restrictions, including in Zone 1 added site monitoring and site improvement standards to
protect against hazardous materials release
Limiting application of pesticides and nitrates near wells and springs
Establishing wastewater disposal requirements
Establishing surface water management requirements
Regulating pipelines
Providing construction activity staruards and fill material requirements
Regulating existing solid waste landfills
• Zone 1 Modified is similar to Zone 1 except that:
Existing facilities are not subject to the 500 gallon hazardous material quantity and they
would not have to relocate or reduce inventory
Existing septic tanks are allowed and new septic tanks would be allowed if City sewers
were not available
Infiltration of storm water would be allowed as with Zone 2
Existing facilities would not be subject to site improvements (e.g. groundwater
monitoring, paving, stormwater management improvements, etc.)
The City's regulations are similar to the State Example Code in intent, and are tailored to the
City's critical aquifers. A minor amendment to replace the aquifer protection zone map in RMC
Figure 4-3-050Ql with map patterns that better distinguish between Zone 1 modified and Zone 2
is proposed. A discretionary code amendment could be included to allow the City to require a
Page 4 of 18
July 13, 2004
hydrogeologic assessment if a proposal has a potential to significantly affect groundwater
quantity or quality. Otherwise, amendments or added regulations are not recommended.
Flood Hazard Areas (CAR)
Floodplain hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplain and floodways, are designated along
the City's major streams including:
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Black River
• Springbrook Creek
Additionally floodplains of the Green River extend into the City limits along the western city
limit boundary shared with Tukwila.
The City implements the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain
Management Regulations (RMC 4-3-0501), which allows flood insurance to be sold in the City.
It designates areas of flood hazards and applies construction standards for residential and
nonresidential development in the flood hazard areas.
It is recommended that the City continue with its Flood Hazard regulations with the following
adjustments:
• Add the State DOE requested amendments to address updates to the Federal/State Model
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, or to address other clarifications, in order to maintain
flood insurance eligibility. These include:
Definitions need to be added or amended, especially "basement" and "development," to
specifically implement the flood hazard regulations.
RMC 4-3-050.I.3.b.i and ii, Manufactured Homes: Minor revision to indicate that the
foundations be " ... securely anchored to an adequately designed anchored foundation
system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement."
RMC 4-3-050.1.3.c, Nonresidential Construction. Subsection c.i needs to be amended as
follows to ensure the City receives credit towards insurance rates: i. Be floodproofed so
that below one foot above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
RMC 4-3-050.I.4.b, the last sentence should be amended to match the most recent State
Model: ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does
.......
Page 5 of 18
July 13, 2004
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a) before the
repair, reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is
being restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with
existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places shall
not b@ includ@d may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%).
• Require the use of additional information that is more restrictive than Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. The primary concern is to regulate mapped flood hazard areas and establish base
flood elevations based on federal studies. However, appropriate situations where the City
could require additional future flood information include: development in unmapped areas or
bridge construction proposals.
Geologic Hazard Areas (CAR)
Geologic risks in the City of Renton include:
• Erosion hazards
• Landslide hazards
• Seismic hazards
• Coal mine hazards
• Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often
considered to be a landslide hazard)
To a lesser extent there is a potential for volcanic hazards.
The adopted Geologic Hazard regulations:
• Classify hazards using criteria. Based upon a report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the
City of Renton in 1991, the regulations include criteria for landslide hazards, erosion hazards,
seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Maps of these hazards are to be used as references.
• Address exemptions within Geologic Hazard areas.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports for properties with slopes 25% or greater, and
Medium, High or Very High Landslide Hazards. Independent peer review of geotechnical
reports may be required for properties with High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine,
or High Coal Mine Hazards. For any of the hazards, conditions of approval may include
modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project size/configuration, or seasonal
constraints on development.
Page 6 of 18
July 13,2004
• Address slopes between 25-40% that do not have identified erosion or landslide
hazards, by requiring peer review of geotechnical reports, erosion control plans, and weekly
erosion control inspections. The regulations would also authorize conditions of approval
which may include modifying construction techniques, design, drainage, project
size/configuration, seasonal constraints on development, vegetation stabilization, sequencing
or phasing of construction, clearing and grading limits, and other measures. These same
potential conditions of approval apply to lands with Medium and High Landslide Hazards
and High Erosion Hazards.
• Restrict development on slopes over 40%. Exceptions include man-made slopes (e.g. from
legal mining operations) pursuant to a modification, a single family dwelling on a lot of
record pursuant to a variance, public utilities needed to protect slope stability, and public
road widening where alternative locations are infeasible. Modifications may be allowed such
as allowing fill at the base of a 40% slope. As with other modifications, report submittal, and
review criteria would apply.
• Restrict the creation of lots having a predominant 40%+ slope.
• Require a buffer of 50 feet from a Very High Landslide Hazard Area, which may be
increased or decreased administratively based upon a geotechnical report.
• Provide a review process for Coal Mine Hazards. The regulations require a report to
document potential Coal Mine Hazards, authorize conditions of approval, and indicate
requirements for mitigation during construction.
• Establish detailed report preparation requirements for each potential hazard located on a
site.
The regulations are comparable to the State Example Code. Minor improvements to the City's
adopted geologic hazard regulations are proposed below.
• To strengthen the City'-s general performance standards, the following review criteria are
proposed to be added:
The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties
beyond pre-development conditions;
The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas.
The criteria would also state that the development must be safely accommodated,
summarizing other geologic hazard standards in the City's code.
• The regulations would newly address volcanic hazards. The risk is generally low, and could
include inundation due to lahar sedimentation or ashfall (tephra) The proposed regulations
would require critical facility proposals (e.g. government, hospital, etc.) in the Lower Green
/
Page 7 of 18
July 13, 2004
River Inundation Area as mapped by the USGS to demonstrate adequate engineering
standards regarding volcanic hazard risks and an evacuation and emergency management
plan.
Habitat Conservation Areas (CAR)
The City of Renton and its Potential Annexation Area contain habitats supporting wildlife
species. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and
sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program. Priority habitats in the City of Renton include
wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. The lake, rivers, and creeks support
anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and
other waterfowl.
The City's Habitat Conservation Regulations address:
• Criteria defining "critical habitat." Critical habitat includes: species that are listed as
endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority by Federal or State agencies; heron
rookeries or raptor nesting areas, Category 1 wetlands; and shorelines designated as Natural
or Conservancy in the Shoreline Master Program.
• Habitat assessments. Reports are required, and peer review may be required.
• Native Growth Protection Areas. Critical habitats are to be placed in Native Growth
Protection Areas.
• Disturbance. If a critical habitat area is to be altered, impacts are to be avoided, minimized
or compensated. Mitigation may be required based upon submitted reports, or information
from State or Federal agencies.
The City regulations provide a comparable review process for habitat conservation areas in
comparison to the State Example Code. Potential minor measures to enhance the City's
. regulations are suggested -to reference State standards for bald eagles, and to clarify that
activities adjacent/abutting to designated habitat conservation areas may be regulated.
Also, amendments for streams would remo\e "shorelines designated as Natural or Conservancy
in the Shoreline Master Program" as habitat conservation areas since streams and shorelines
would have a separate proposed set of regulations including buffers, and amendments clarify that
Habitat Conservation regulations apply to non-salmonid species, while stream regulations
address primarily salmonid species.
Streams and Lakes (CAR and SMP)
The proposed major regulatory changes are to add stream and lake buffer requirements to the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Renton Shoreline Master Program. In both sets of
)
Page 8 of 18
July 13, 2004
regulations, the regulations address the following key concepts (attached flow charts demonstrate
the regulatory approach):
• Classification: A five-level stream typing system based on whether the water is salmonid-
bearing, and water body flow characteristics. Among the salmonid-bearing classes, the
differentiation is based on whether the water body is a major watercourse versus a tributary.
Among non-salmonid bearing waters, the distinctbns are perennial versus intennittent flows,
and artificial channels. A process is included to help classifY unclassified streams. As laid
out in the regulations Class 1 streams are consistent with designated Shorelines of the State
(as well as consistent with mapped Chinook presence) and therefore are addressed in Renton
Shoreline regulations (see below). Class 2 to 4 water bodies, salmonid bearing and non-
salmonid bearing, receive the most attention in the Critical Area Regulations. Class 5 water
bodies are manmade streams and are not regulated. The attached map identifies the draft
water class map.
• Inner and Outer Buffer Zones: As a result of Best Available Science review, the proposed
stream/lake buffers would increase from 25 feet (required in Tree CuttinglLand Clearing
Regulations today) to a range of 35 to 100 feet depending on stream class and salmonid use.
To allow for some changing environmental conditions and functions in an area, such as that
riparian functions diminish with distance or to recognize existing urban development, the
concept of "inner versus outer zones" is proposed. The "outer buffers" standard refers to
standard un-enhanced buffer widths. "Inner buffers" refers to the possibility of reducing the
standard buffer width with enhancement (range of25 to 75 feet). Standards for
redevelopment are also included, i.e. recognizing that a natural buffer may not be possible on
an already highly urbanized site in which case the buffers function as setbacks, and standards
indicate no addition of impervious surfaces is allowed although they may be rearranged.
• Defined Rules versus Variable Rules Meeting Environmental Objectives: Two
regulatory approaches would be incorporated - a Standard path where if a water body is
classified and buffer standards or other regulations are met, development may proceed -or
an Alternative path, either where conditions may not be well known requiring more in depth
review and analysis of appropriate standards or where an applicant wants to vary a standard
but the City needs to be assured that ecological functions are protected. This is translated
into activities that may proceed according to standard criteria with standard report/analysis
requirements versus those that must provide supplemental analysis/mitigation plans and
respond to discretionary criteria.
• General Principles -Avoidance and No-Net-Loss of Function: The regulations promote:
a) avoidance of the stream/lake and associated buffer and b) no-net-loss of ecological
functions if avoidance is not poss ible (or development already exists within the new, larger
buffers).
Specific to the Shoreline Master Program Regulations, other amendments include:
Page 9 of 18
July 13, 2004
• SMP Sections E to I: In the Renton SMP Regulations, amendments to sections describing
Shoreline Use Environments are incorporated as noted in Section 3 of this Project Narrative.
Essentially, these amendments address the map environments and use allowances applicable
to the Black River and eastern extent of Cedar River in the City primarily to address text/map
conflicts and an unclassified annexed area.
• SMP Section J: Renton SMP Section J provides for general standards applicable to all
development. It is in this location that shoreline buffers/setbacks are added. Approaches to
the buffer/setbacks are also provided similar to those described above. To address the use
priorities of the Shoreline Management Act while addressing shoreline protection, the ability
to reduce buffers/setbacks requires an evaluation, and the potential reductions vary according
to use priority.
• SMP Section K: Following from Use Environment amendments (sections E to I) as well as
review of model ordinances, some amendments to development standards for trails, roads
and utilities are included and are similar to the stream/lake standards included in the Critical
Areas Regulations.
• SMP Nonconforming Uses: When nonconforming use and development standards (for
"grandfathered" uses or buildings) do not exist in a local government's Shoreline Master
Program, the definitions and standards of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-
080 apply, and these address continuation of nonconforming structures, nonconforming uses,
replacement after acts of God, and other provisions. Renton's SMP has not contained
nonconforming regulations and to this date would have been subject to the State WAC
requirements which are more strict in terms of procedure (e.g. requirements for a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit in some cases) than the City's standard nonconforming regulations.
However, it is important tlRt the City have some consistency in its nonconforming standards.
Renton's Title 4, Chapter 10 contains the City of Renton's nonconforming structure and use
standards that generally apply in the City, and it is proposed that the City's Shoreline Master
Program incorporate these.
Wetlands (CAR)
In 1991, the City inventoried and identified approximately 367 acres of wetlands within the City
limits. Within Renton's sphere of influence, approximately 1,067 acres of wetlands were
identified. Wetland types found in Renton and its sphere of influence include bogs, emergent
marshes, shrub/scrub, forested and old growth wetlands. Most of the wetlands are adjacent to
rivers and streams although other smaller concentrations are found elsewhere. Most are located
in the "Valley" area of Renton inside the City limits. Wetland inventories have been updated in
some portions of the City, such as through the City's 1997 Eastside Green River Wastershed
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
The City's wetland regulations classifY wetlands, require wetland assessments, provide buffer
standards, and establish wetland mitigation standards including replacement ratios.
Page 10 of 18
July 13, 2004
A best available science review of Renton's wetland regulations found that the City's wetland
regulations are supported by current best available science for wetlands in Washington State.
Several amendments are proposed to improve or better document the City's decision-making
process, including:
• Exemptions for small Category 2 and 3 wetlands should be modified -those that provide
functions should not be exempt.
• Exemptions for ongoing agriculture, vegetation management, storm water management
facilities in buffers, and trails and open space facilities in buffers should be amended to
ensure deminimus impacts.
• A measure to enhance the City's classification system could be to reference or translate the
State Department of Ecology's rating system to the City's (meaning identify how the State's
four-way system translates to the City's three-way class system). However, at present, the
City's wetland class system was found to be sound.
• Wetland classification criteria relying on the County's 1991 inventory should be deleted.
Vague terms in the classification system should be amended (e.g. plant associations of
infrequent occurrence and headwaters).
• Wetland assessments should be required for proposals within 300 feet of a wetland rather
than 100 feet. This is because in some cases the City may wish to expand wetland buffers
beyond standard requirements.
• The City's standard buffers were found to meet best available science. It was recommended
buffer size determinations (particularly buffer reductions, buffer averaging, modifications,
variances and similar) should document how best available science is met. A particular
reference/method is suggested: The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the
Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000.
• Since the City's buffer averaging criteria include science based provisions (e.g. variation in
wetland sensitivity), it was recommended that reasonable use be removed as a criterion for
buffer averaging.
• Review criteria to expand buffers should be amended to remove vague terms.
• Definitions of restoration, creation, and enhancement as well as protection/maintenance
should be revised to be consistent with State and Federal agencies.
• Enhancement criteria should be amended to allow some desirable changes in functions.
• Off-site mitigation may be more desirable than on-site mitigation, and some criteria are
proposed for amendment.
Critical Area Review Procedures
Page 11 of 18
July 13, 2004
Either in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) or in administrative sections such
as 4-1, 4-8, and 4-9, Renton's regulations provide comprehensive critical areas procedures, such
as defining regulation purposes, applicab ility and exemptions, submittal requirements, general
performance standards, review criteria, variances and exceptions, and enforcement.
The City's procedures provide for structured review of development applications and
determination of appropriate conditions.
To meet Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rules that direct the City to consider best
available science where variations to regulations are proposed, to address common performance
standards in addition to buffers, and to clarify the application of regulations, some amendments
are proposed:
• The City should include best available science review criteria for administrative buffer
reductions, administrative modifications, and administrative and Hearing Examiner
variances.
• Submittal requirements for projects that could impact critical areas and propose mitigation
plans, or those that propose buffer reductions, should demonstrate that best available science
was used in determining the reduced standard and/or in developing mitigation plans.
• The City regulations do not specifically require a building setback in addition to a buffer
requirement, although the critical area regulations do provide staff latitude to apply
conditions, and SEPA provides another review and mitigation process. There may be
instances where the City would want the authority to require a building setback to ensure
long-term maintenance of development without eroding a buffer's protectiveness. A general
standard allowing the City to condition a proposal to apply a building setback is included. It
would be discretionary.
• It is recommended that the City clarify that applicants are responsible for other permits
outside of the Critical Area Regulations.
Other
As part of incorporating stream and buffer protection requirements and other critical area
amendments, consistency amendments are needed to the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
Regulations, permit submittal requirements, State Environmental Policy Act review,
Nonconforming Uses, Variance procedures, and Definitions.
Page 12 of 18
July 13, 2004
EXAMPLE SITES -STREAM/LAKE AND SHORELINE REGULATIONS
As we have prepared the draft stream/lake and shoreline regulations, the proposed water body
buffers were discussed in context with several development examples. The purpose was to
review the net effect of the proposed regulations and to keep in mind the principles ofGMA and
SMA, which include managing growth while responding to sensitive environmental conditions,
recognizing use preferences along shorelines, and respecting private property rights. The results
of the example project review are shown in the Table below. Attached also are aerial photos of
the various locations.
EXAMPLE SITES
POTENTIAL WATER CLASS AND MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARIES
SITE WATER BODY CLASS EFFECT OF PROPOSED
Using Proposed System REGULA nONS
55 Williams -Multifamily 1
(Cedar River-Shoreline of the State) · The standard buffer width of 100
feet would eliminate much of the
building at its present height and
configuration. .. :
· Reduced buffer standards are
possible and would ultimately be
equal to the zone setbacks because
other property (City trail)
intervenes between development
and Cedar River.
• If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated. For other future
cases along the Cedar where lots
abut the Cedar, the potential
reduced setback would be 50 feet.
Bristol @ Southport 1
(Lake Washington-Shoreline of the · The standard buffer width of 100 State/Statewide Significance) feet would eliminate some of the
building at its present height and
configuration.
· If the built development were
proposed under the proposed
regulations, no-net-Ioss of
shoreline ecological function
would need to be demonstrated to
allow for reduced buffers/setbacks.
Reduced buffer standards are
SITE WATER BODY CLASS
Using Proposed System
Lake Washington Trail and Habitat 1
Enhancement Project (Cedar River-Shoreline of the State) ·
·
·
Page 13 of 18
July 13, 2004
EFFECT OF PROPOSED
REGULA nONS
possible to 50 feet for water
enjoyment uses such as the current
development. Except for a corner
of one mixed-use building (at the
northeast corner near Gene Coulon
Park), which is setback at 35 feet,
the 50-foot setback would match
the majority setback of other
portions of development. Existing
developed areas can retain
impervious surfaces. Averaged
buffers/setbacks are possible.
The standard buffer would not
allow the trail (100 foot buffer).
If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated. Reduced buffer
standards as low as 0 would allow
for the trail connections to water in
regulations; existing developed
areas can retain impervious
surfaces.
Over-water trails are allowed per
standards alrea<!y' existi~ in SMP.
SITE WATER BODY CLASS
Using Proposed System
Honey Creek Estates II (PIN 344900-2
0160 (January 23,d Stream Class List as a · Class 2 stream that is fish-bearing;
WRIA 0285)
·
·
·
·
13221 SE 128m Street: Vicinity of 4
NE 4th/ Union. Commercial Short (Applicant report characterizes as · Plat Near Post Office: intermittent without direct fish
habitat; appears to be upstream
segment of Maplewood Creek.
WRIA 0302)
·
•
Page 14 of 18
July 13, 2004
EFFECT OF PROPOSED
REGULATIONS
Most of required 100' buffer falls
in steep slope area of 30-39%
where development is unlikely.
Lot 16 would be particularly
impacted and may not have enough
developable area if it were
proposed under the regulations.
It may be possible that clustering
on R-8 zoned portions of the
property could result in an added
lot to replace another that would be
"lost" due to the regulations. A
future policy discussion ofR-8 lot
width standards as a result of
clustering may be appropriate.
Additional impervious surface
would not be able to be added in
the buffer area.
If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated in order to reduce or
average buffer widths.
The 35-foot buffer largely falls
within the abutting wetland area,
meaning no impact to site plan
developable area.
Where there is no abutting wetland,
and only stream, the stream buffer
would be 10 feet wider than current
25-foot standard. Based on the
stream's location, there is little
effect on the developable area on
the site plan.
If the development were proposed
under the proposed regulations, no-
net-loss of shoreline ecological
function would need to be
demonstrated.
55 Williams -Multifamily
Page 15 of 18
July 13, 2004
Bristol @ Southport
Portion of Lake W Trail and Habitat Enhancement Pro·
Page 16 of 18
July 13, 2004
Page 17 of 18
July 13, 2004
Honey Creek Estates n (PIN 344900-0160; also includes un highlighted boundary of PIN
1023059099 to
13221 SE 128th Street:
")
Page 18 of 18
July 13,2004
ofNE 4th, Union. Commercial Short Plat Near Post Office
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
[~~![Jilt;:J!\i: Spell check functions have not been available to this file perhaps due to copy material from the web.
We apologize for any misspellings.]
RMC SECTION
4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: ................................................................................. 3
A. PURPOSE: ......................................................................................................................... 3
B. APPLICABILITY -CRITICAL AREAS DESIGNATIONS/MAPPING: ........................................ 5
C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: ............. 12
D. ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION: ..................................................................... 32
E. GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ALLOWED ALTERATIONS: ..................... 37
F. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: ........................................................................ 39
G. SURETY DEVICES: ...................................................... · .................................................. 41
H. AQUIFER PROTECTION: .................................................................................................. 43
I. FLOOD HAZARDS: ............................................................................................................. 51
J. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: ...................................................................................................... 56
K. HABITAT CONSERVATION: .............................................................................................. 63
L. STREAMS AND LAKES: ................................................................................................... 64
M. WETLANDS: ..................................................................................................................... 75
N. ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES: ......................................................... 92
O. APPEALS: ........................................................................................................................ 94
P. ASSESSMENT RELIEF -WETLANDS: .............................................................................. 94
Q. MAPS: .............................................................................................................................. 94
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS: ......... , ............................................ 98
A. PROGRAM ADOPTED: ..................................................................................................... 98
B. COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: ........................................................................................ 98
C. AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: ..................................................... 99
D. PURPOSES AND PRIORITIES: ......................................................................................... 99
E. REGULATED WATER BODIES: ....................................................................................... 100
F. THREE (3) ENVIRONMENTS DESIGNATED BY CITY: ..................................................... 101
G. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: ............................................................................................ 104
H. CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT: .................................................................................. 105
I. URBAN ENVIRONMENT: .................................................................................................. 107
J. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL SHORELINE USES: ......................................... 108
K. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS: ...................................................................................... 119
L. VARIANCES AND .CONDITIONAL USES: ......................................................................... 135
M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: ...................................................................................... 135
N. APPEALS: ...................................................................................................................... 135
44-130 TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS: ............................................ 136
4-8-120 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS -SPECIFIC TO APPLICATION TYPE: ......................... 144
4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCE DURES: .............................................................. 164
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS: .............................................................................................. 166
4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: ................................ 178
CHAPTER 10 LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, USES AND LOTS .............................. 189
CHAPTER 11 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................... 194
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 1
/
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department
Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. The City m~y require
independent re"iew of an applic~nt's report by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the
r,·:n~"·~,'?(';v:1;.'i}"'~"'.1<·~" ~ppliGant's expense. [Gf(jit6'rwsJir~I():{e: Combined with other independent re\iew conditions in
subsection F above. Clarify that review is required if abutting/adjacent based on DCTED
Example Code.J
3. Bald Eagle Habitat: Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington
State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). [E¥ffif~r,¥~;~m: Based on a review of
the DCTED Example Code.]
34. Native Growth Protection Areas: Based on the required habitat assessment, the
Reviewing Official may require critical habitat areas and their associated buffers be placed in
a native growth protection area subject to the requirements of subsection G-E.4 of this
Section, or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved
through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City.
4~. Alterations Require Mitigation: If alterations to critical habitat/wildlife habitat or buffers
are proposed, mitigation shall be required by the City. The applicant shall evaluate alternative
methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order:
a. Avoid any disturbances to the habitat.
b. Minimize any impacts to the habitat.
c. Compensate for any. habitat impacts.
5~. Mitigation Options: In addition to any performance standards or mitigation required by
wetland regulations, additional mitigation may be determined by the Reviewing Official based
upon the consultant report submitted by the applicant, and/or peer review of the applicant's
consultant report by a qualified professional selected by the City at the applicant's expense,
and/or by information from State or Federal agencies.
a. On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation shall be provided on-site, unless on-site mitigation is
not scientifically feasible due to physical features of the property. The burden of proof
shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site.
. b. Off-Site Mitigation: When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be
provided in the immediate vicinity of the permitted activity on property owned or
controlled by the applicant, and identified as such through a recorded document such as
an easement or covenant, provided such mitigation is beneficial to the habitat area and
associated resources.
c. In-Kind Mitigation: In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant
demonstrates and the City concurs that greater functional and habitat value can be
achieved through out-of-kind mitigation.
7. Mitigation Plan: Mitigation plans may be required consistent with F8.
L. SHORELINES, STREAMS AND LAKES: (Reserved)
Pending issuance of "4d" Rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service and subsequent Tri
County Regulatory Response
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 64
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake
regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or
their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters which are
regulated by RMc 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters
which are exempt. All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to flood hazard
regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable.
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the
purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are
based on the following rating system:
i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are:
classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State.
[~~l Class 1 will be based on status as a Shoreline of the State only; if not
mapped or not a Shoreline of the State the stream would be Class 2. Note that the
Class 1 waters also coincide with the known mapped Chinook distribution.]
ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters·
which meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Mapped on Figure O.~, Renton Water Class Map. as Class 2; and/or
(b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids. including resident
trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or
(c) is a water body (e.g. pond, lake) between 0.5 acre and 20 acres in size.
[1Wiiitm'*li~ The Stream regulations would protect salmonid habitat, but the
standards are not designed to address other aquatic species. Other fish/aquatic
species that are listed would be addressed through Habitat Conservation
regulations.]
iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years
of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure O. It Renton Water Class Map, as Class
3.
iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during
years of normal rainfall. and/or mapped on Figure 0.1, Renton Water Class Map, as
Class 4.
v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which
meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) flow within an artifically constructed channel where no naturally-defined'
channel had previously existed; and/or
(b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acre (e.g. pond) not meeting
the criteria for a wetland as defined in Section M.
b. Measurement:
i. Stream/Lake Boundary: The boundary of a stream or lake shall be considered to
be its Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM shall be flagged in the field by
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 65
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
·2087
"2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
the OHWM. The riparian areas, where they exist, would be a part of the buffer. The
City's flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations would apply in addition to the
water body regulations where applicable.]
ii. Buffer: The boundary of a buffer shall extend beyond the boundaries of the stream
or lake to the width applicable to the streamllake class as noted in Subsection L. 5
below, Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements.
c. Maps and Inventory:
i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to
4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in Subsection Q of this
Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent
of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon
field review and applicant-funded studies prepared pursuant to Subsection L.3.
ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in
Subsection Q and the criteria in Subsection L.1.a, the criteria in Subsection L.1.a shall
qovern. The re-classification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.)
requires Administrator acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, followed by a
legislative amendment to the map in Subsection Q prior to its effect.
iii. Unmapped Streams and Lakes: Streams and lakes which are defined in Subsection
L.1.a of this Section. Classification System, but not shown on the Renton Water Class Map in
Subsection Q, are presumed to exist in the City and are regulated by all the provisions of this
Section. IF the water body is unmapped according to the City of Renton's Water Class Map
(refer to Subsection Q), and:
(a) the width of the stream channel averages less than two-feet at the Ordinary High
Water Mark, or
(b) the stream channel has an average gradient of greater than 20 percent. or
(cl the channel or water body is upstream of an existing, enduring, and complete barrier
to salmonid migration, as interpreted in Subsection L.1.c.iv below, or as shown on the
City of Renton's Salmonid Migration Barrier Map, and the channel or water body contains
water only intermittently upstream of the barrier during years of normal rainfall. or
(d) the water body is isolated from any connected stream and/or wetland. or
(e) the water body is less than 0.5 acre in size and connected to a stream meeting the
criteria noted in Subsections L.1.c.iii.(al through (c) above;
THEN the water body is considered Non-Salmonid-Bearing and water class would be
assessed based upon the Non-Salmonid-Bearing Waters criteria in Subsections L.1.a.iii.
through v. above. HOWEVER, If none of the conditions above apply, then the water
body is considered Salmonid--Bearing -Class 2. Classification of an unmapped stream or
lake is effective upon expiration of the 14-day appeal period following the Administrator's
determination, and the map in Subsection Q shall be amended consistent with
Administrator determinations at the next appropriate amendment cycle.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 66
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
·2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
iv. Salmonid Migration Barriers: For purposes of classifying or reclassifying water bodies,
features determined by the Administrator to be salmonid migration barriers per definition in
RMC 411-190 shall be mapped. The Administrator shall prepare and update the map as
appropriate and maintain a copy in the Planning/Building/Public Works Customer Service
Area.
[ffi:m~i§\~'tft~: The description of the barriers in RMC 4-11-190 to salmonid
migration is intended to avoid interpretations that temporary features should
result in a lower stream class, or that partial barriers should lead to a lower
stream class, or the situation where someone is adding a barrier; the current
mapping of barriers by a prior City consultant may not have included temporary
or partial barriers; but the language here may help guide future mapping
updates.]
v. Experts or State Agency May Be Required or Consulted: The City may require
an applicant to retain an expert or to consult the Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife to assess salmonid-bearing status of the channel in question and prepare a
report to the City detailing the facts and conclusion of their analysis.
vi. Criteria to Govern: The actual presence or absence of the stream and lake
criteria listed in this Section L. as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern
the treatment of an· individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with
these regulations.
2. Applicability -Activities to Which This Section Applies: This Section applies to all non-exempt
activities on sites containing Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and their associated buffers.
3. Studies Required:
a. When Standard Stream or Lake Study Is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Standard Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body or
buffer area or the project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a water body even if the water
body is not located on the subject property.
b. When Supplemental Stream or Lake Study is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body
or buffer area and changes to buffer requirements or alterations of the water body or its
associated buffer are proposed, either administratively or via a variance request
c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan is Required: The applicant shall be required to
conduct a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan per RMC 4-8-120 if impacts are identified within a
Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the
Administrator shall be based on the criteria located in Subsection L3.c.ii below.
i. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plan is required, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for the
approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits
whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan
prior to commencement of any mitigation activity.
ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Streams
and Lakes or Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan the
Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria:
[~~m~ Based upon DCTED Example Code.]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 67
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
'2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
(a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iv)
below:
(i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing
Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable;
(in Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin
as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over
mitigation on the subject site;
(iii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin
within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions
within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
(iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City
limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same
drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved
ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the
Renton City limits and it meets City goals.
(b) Contiguous corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve
contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development
on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same
aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and
(c) Non-indigenous species: Wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall
not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal
permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-050.L.6.c.; and
(d) Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report
"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer
Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated X. 2003,
unless superceded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential
ecological function of the stream or lak e or riparian habitat that is being affected.
Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate
alterations to streamllake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or
greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts
upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-Ioss of riparian habitat
or water body function shall be demonstrated; and
(e) Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: See Subsection 4-3-050.F.8.
(f) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of
activities allowed within or abutting a streamllake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize
or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(i) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as
snags and downed wood;
(ii) Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized
access;
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 68
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
(iii) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(iv) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation
activities.
(9) Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the
mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC
365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information. the steps in
RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iii. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance rurety to ensure
completion and success of proposed mitigation. per RMC 4-3-050.G and 4-1-230.
iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in this Subsection L.3 may
be modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved
habitat functions. on a per function basis. can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage basin
as a result of alternative mitigation measures.
d. Studies Waived:
i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when the
applicant provides satisfactory evidence that:
(a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed
activity, or
(b) The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot. and
based on evidence submitted. the proposal will not result in Significant adverse impacts to
nearby water bodies regulated under this Section; or
(cl Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when:
(a) No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed;
or
(b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional report is not necessary.
iii. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been
identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study.
e. Period of Validity for Studies Associated with This Section: Studies submitted and
reviewed are valid for five (5) years from date of Study completion unless the Administrator
determines that conditions have changed significantly.
4. General Standards for Class 2 to 4 Waters:
a. Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed,
except where the buffer is to be enhanced, or where exemptions allowed in Subsection 4-3-050.C
are conducted, or where allowed to be altered in accordance with Subsections L5, L 7 and LB.
Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with exemption or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 69
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
.2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301 ~2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
development permit approval during construction or other activities, revegetation with native
vegetation shall be required. [~~~~~~'([e: Similar language copied to exemption criteria.]
h. No Net loss: There shall be no net loss of riparian area or shoreline ecological function
resulting from any activity or land use occurring within the regulated buffer area.
5. Stream/lake Buffer Width Requirements:
a. Minimum Stream/lake Buffer Widths: The minimum width of the required buffers shall be
based upon the water body class. [~(fimIl~mm~: Increased and Reduced Buffer Widths dealt
with in separate subsections.)
i. Class 2: 100 feet
ii. Class 3: 75 feet
iii. Class 4: 35 feet
h. Increased Buffer Width:
i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the streamllake buffer is in an area of high
blow-down potential as identified by a qualified professional. the buffer width may be
expanded an additional fifty (50) feet on the windward side by the Responsible Official.
Notifications may be required per section F8.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slope or Very High landslide Area: When the
required streamllake 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. Notifications may be required per section F8.
c. Reduction of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request. and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study. the Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum buffer
widths where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections iv(a), (cl. (d), (e)
and (f) below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii above: or compliance with
Subsections iv(b), ec), (d), (e), and (f) below and any mitigation requirements as a result of
L.3.c.ii. above.
ii. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: An enhanced buffer shall not be
less than the widths specified below for reduced buffers.
fa) Class 2: 75 feet
{bl Class 3: 50 feet
eel Class 4: 25 feet
Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a) through (c) above require review
as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B.
iii. Procedure: Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file.
Public notification shall be given as follows:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 70
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
';2354
'2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8. notice of
the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record.
if any. in accordance with RMC 4-8.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination or
request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon
determination, notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made.
iv. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: Criteria (a) and (c) through (fl, or
criteria (b) through (fl shall be met:
(a) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%)
slopes; the width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of
anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; the width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat;
and no direct or indirect. short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water
bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's
determination shall be based on specific site stUdies by recognized experts, pursuant to
Subsection F3 and RMC 4-8-120; or
(b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed, as
determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and
(c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and
substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes
of the buffer; and
(d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of streamllake/riparian ecological
function; and
(e) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and
(fl The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science
as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
d. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request. and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve buffer width averaging.
ii. Minimum Averaged Buffer Widths: In no instance shall the buffer width be less than:
(al Class 2: 50 feet
(bl Class 3: 37.5 feet
tel Class 4: 25 feet
Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a) through (c) above require review
as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B.
iii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Administrator only
where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 71
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
(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' and
(b) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of streamllake/riparian ecological
function; and
(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; and
(d) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science
as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information. the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iv. Buffer Enhancement May be Required: Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging
per this Subsection. buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site
conditions. habitat sensitivity. and proposed land development characteristics.
v. Notification: Notification may be required consistent with F8.
6. Stream or lake Buffer Use Restrictions and Maintenance: Any
activity or proposal subject to RMC 4-3-050.L shall comply with the following standards within
reguired buffer areas:
a. Preservation of Native Vegetation: Existing native vegetation shall be preserved to the
extent possible. preferably in consolidated areas.
b. Revegetation Required: Where water body buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance
with exemption or development permit approval or other activities. revegetation with native
vegetation shall be required.
c. Use of Native Species: When revegetation is required. native species. or other appropriate
species naturalized to the Puget Sound region and approved by the Reviewing Official. shall be
used. A variety of species shall be used which serve as food or shelter from climatic extremes
and predators. and as structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young.
d. Removal of Noxious Species: When required as a condition of approval. noxious or
undesirable species of plants shall be removed or controlled so as to not compete with native
vegetation.
e. Impervious Surface Restrictions: Where impervious surfaces exist in buffer areas. such
impervious surfaces shall not be increased or expanded within the buffer area. The extent of
impervious surfaces within the buffer area may only be re-arranged if the reconfiguration of
impervious surfaces is part of an enhancement proposal that improves ecological function of the
buffer area. [~i3~: States what City is trying to achieve when impervious surfaces are .... _,·>~::;:=, .... ;::h ..... ,.... "' .....
re-arranged.)
7. Criteria for Permit Approval-Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects
involving regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions
of this Section L. and complies with the following:
a. Creation of Native Growth Protection Areas Required: As a condition of any approval for
any development permit issued pursuant to this Section. the property owner shall be required to
create a native growth protection area containing the stream/lake area end associated buffers
based upon field investigations performed pursuant to Subsection EA. and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 72
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
'2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
b. At least one of the following conditions must apply:
i. A proposed action meets the standard provisions of this Section and results in no net loss
of reg ulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where the site
is located, or
ii. A proposed action meets alternative administrative standards pursuant to this Section and
the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological
function in the drainage basin where the site is located; or .
iii. A variance process is successfully completed and the proposed activity results in no net
loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where
the site is located.
8. Alterations Within Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers
a. Transportation Crossings:
i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Transportation Crossings in Stream/Lake or
Buffer Areas: Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be
permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental streamllake study subject to the
following criteria:
(a) There is no other feasible alternative route with less impact on the environment; and
(b) The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel;
and
(c) Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and
(d) Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and
(e) Bridges are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
Guide/ines for Sa/monid Passage at Stream Crossings. 2000. as may be updated, or
equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and
(f) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and
(g) Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met.
[~~ Based in part upon the State Example Code.]
b. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Utilities:
i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Utilities in Stream/Lake or Buffer: New utility
lines and facilities may be permitted to cross wate-bodies in accordance with an approved
supplemental streamlfake study, if they comply with the following criteria:
(a) Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible: and
(b) The utility is designed consistent with one or more of the following methods:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 73
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
'2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
(j) Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the scour depth and
hyporheic zone of the water body and channel migration zone: or
(ii) The utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60) degrees to the
centerline of the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline: or
(iii) Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility
crossing: and
(c) New utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down-valley course
near the channel: and
(d) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate of shore
migration or channel migration: and
(e) Seasonal work windOWS are determined and made a condition of approval: and
(0 Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met.
[~ilIit0?u~£l5J~ Based in part upon the State Example Code.]
c. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers -In-Water Structures and In-
Water Work:
i. Administrative Approval of In-Water Structures or In-Water Work: In accordance with
an approved supplemental stream or lake study. in-water structures or work may be
permitted, subject to the following: In-stream structures, such as, but not limited to, high flow
bypasses, sediment ponds, in-stream ponds, retention and detention facilities, tide gates,
dams, and weirs. shall be allowed as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project
approved by the City of Renton, and in accordance with mitigation criteria of RMC 43-
050,L.3.c.ii. The applicant will obtain' and comply with State or Federal permits and
requirements~ [miit§"f~~ISl'i6m: Based in part on the State Example Code.]
d. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Dredging.
i. Administrative Approval of Dredging: Dredging may be permitted only when:
(a) Dredging is necessary for flood hazard reduction purposes, if a definite flood hazard
would exist unless dredging were permitted: or
(b) Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality,
when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life: or
(c) Dredging is associated with a stream habitat enhancement or creation project not
otherwise exempt in 4-3-050.C: or
(d) Dredging is necessary to protect public facilities: or
(e) Dredging is required as a maintenance and operation condition of a federally funded
flood hazard reduction project or a hazard mitigation project; and
(0 Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met.
[~~: Based in part upon the Renton SMP.]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 74
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
'2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
e. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Stream Relocation:
i. Administrative Approval of Stream Relocation: Stream relocation may be allowed when
analyzed in an accepted supplemental stream or lake assessment. and when the following
criteria and conditions are met:
(a) Criteria -Stream relocation may only be permitted if associated with:
(i) A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by
appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or
Oi) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible
alternative exists; or
(iii) A public or private proposal restoring a water body to its original location and
resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species.
(b) Additional Conditions: The following conditions also apply to any stream relocation
proposal meeting one or more of the above criteria:
(i) Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location, provided that the
buffer widths may be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of L.5 c or d, or other
equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-Ioss of riparian function is
provided; and
(ii) Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. must be met; and
(iii) Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations, per RMC 4-
3-050.D.3.b, Information to be Obtained and Maintained, and RMC 4-3-050.D.3.c,
Alterations of Watercourses, in cases where the streamllake is subject to flood
hazard regulations of RMC 4-3-050, as well as RMC 4-3-050.FB if neighboring
properties are impacted.
rtwfif&~~ Based in part upon the Renton SMP .J
f. Alterations -Single Family Home -Existing Legal Lot: If criteria to reduce or average a
buffer cannot be met. construction, reconstruction, additions, and associated accessory
structures of a single family home on an existing legal lot may be allowed to intrude into a buffer
pursuant to a variance as stated in RMC 4-9-250B1,
g. Alterations -Other: Proposed alterations of a stream or lake or associated buffer not
addressed by Subsections L.B.a to L.B.f require a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B in order to
be conducted.
h. When Variance Is Required: If the proposed alteration applicable to Subsections L.B.a to
L.B.g does not meet the above criteria, it shall require a variance per Subsection N3 of this
Section and RMC 4-9-250B in order to be conducted.
M, WETLANDS:
1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as
described below. Category 2 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square
feet in area, and Category 3 wetlands, less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in area,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 75
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
.3427
3428
"3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS:
A. PROGRAM ADOPTED:
The Shoreline Master Program, as issued and prepared by City of Renton includes policies and
regulations pursuant to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58. Planning
Commission, of which one printed copy in 900k form has heretofore geen filed and is now on file in the
office of the City Clerk and mage available for examination by the general puglic, is hereby adopted as
the Shoreline Master Program by the City of Renton. (Ord. 3756, 12 5 H)63, Rev. 722 1 965 (Min.), 3 12
1990 (Res. 2767), 716 1990 (Res. 2605), Re". 9 12 1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4 13 1998)
The following is an excerptThis section RMC 43-090 provides shoreline regulations from the officially
adopted Shoreline Master Program. The complete Shoreline Master Program, inclyding poliCies, shoyld
also ge consylted. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998)
B. AUTHENTICATION, RECORDCOMPONENTS OF PROGRAM:
The City Clerk is here9Y aythorized and directed to dyly aythenticate and record a copy of the a90ve
mentioned Shoreline Master Program together with any amendments or additions thereto, together with
an aythenticated copy of this Section. The components of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, and
their location in the City's plans and regulations. are as follows:
1. Goals, Objectives. Policies:
a, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Land Use.
Recreation, and Circulation Management
b, Comprehensive Plan Environment Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Natural
Resources and Hazard Management
c. RMC 4-3-090.0: Purposes and Priorities.
2. Use Environments:
a. General Boundaries: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the
State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management
b. General and Specific Boundaries: RMC 4-3-090 F, G, H, and I.
3. Use Regulations, and Provisions for Variances and Conditional Uses.
a. Shoreline Use Regulations: RMC 4-3-090.
b. Shoreline Permit Procedures, including Exemptions. Substantial Development Permit.
Variances. and Conditional Uses: RMC 4-9-190.
c. Non-conforming Uses in Shoreline Jurisdiction in RMC 4-10-100.
4. Definitions: RMC 4-11.
(Ord. 3094,1-10-1977, eft. 1-19-1977)
li§.tfliO~~ GMA indicates SMP goals and policies are part of the Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations are part of the GMA implementing development regulations. 1
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 98
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
'. 3480
13481
'3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
c. AMENDMENTS:
Any and all amendments, additions or modifications to said Master PmQram, shall be by ordinance. (Ord.
3756,12 5 19~3, Re\'. 722 19~5 (Min.), 312 1990 (Res. ;!7~7), 7 16 1990 (Res. 2605), Re". 9 12 1993
(Min.), Ord. 4716,4 13 1996; Amd. Ord. 4633, 9161996)
c. AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM:
1. Time: The City shall review its Master Program pursuant to the time and other procedural
requirements found in the Shoreline Management Act mcw 90.58) and the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70Al. (Ord. 3758. 12-5-1983, Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 716-1990
(Res. 2805), 9-12-1993 (Min.). Ord. 4716, 413-1998) ~gm:~: Moved from subsection 43-
090.N.)
2. Review Process: Any amendments to the Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning
Commission, which shall conduct one public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. which may hold one public hearing
before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Washington
State Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971
2747 [RCW 90.58), and the Growth Management Act [RCW 36.70A). (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev. 7-
22-1985 (Min.). 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787). 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), 9-12-1993 (Min.)' Ord. 4716, 413-
1998) r(§{i1t'G"~Ol:El: Moved from subsection 4-3-090.N with minor modifications .)
3. Adoption by Ordinance: Any and all amendments. additions or modifications to said Master
Program. shall be by ordinance. [~m~m: Part of original 4-3-090.C.]
D. PURPOSES AND PRIORITIES:
The purpose of these regulations is to manage the Shorelines of the State within the City of Renton in
accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58, planning appropriate
uses in recognition of the following use priorities:
1. Shoreline use priorities shall be consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for all Shorelines of the State.
LEach shoreline has its own unique qualities which makes it valuable, particularly Shorelines of
Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake Washington and the Green River. Preference
is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority for ~shorelines of ~statewide
~significance (as established by RCW 90.58.020):
~. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for sho relines of statewide
significance.
~Q. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
J9,. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4g. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5g. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev.
7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord.
4716,4-13-1998)
61. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
g. Provide for any other use or activity deemed appropriate or necessary.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 99
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
)535
.' 3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
E. REGULATED WATER BODIES:
1. Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State. which
includes Shorelines and Shorelines of Statewide Significance as defined in RMC 4-11 and as listed
below.
a. Shorelines: The Cedar River. Black River. Springbrook Creek. and May Creek are classified
as Shorelines.
b. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: The Green River and Lake Washington are classified
as Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
2. Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: 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 f1oodways. whichever is greater: and
b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
c. All marshes. boas. swamos. and river deltas. associated with streams. lakes and tidal
waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act.
3. Regulated Shoreline Segments: Approximately eighteen (18) miles of shoreline in the City of
Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These eighteen (18)
miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the
City of Renton, but also to the State Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part. In the City
of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act:
L .h-Cedar River.
L&Green River. The Green River itself is outside the City limits. but a portion of the 200 foot
jurisdictional area lies within Renton City limits. The City is required as the permitting agency to
apply the master program applicable to the Green River (Tukwila) if the. water body is outside the
City of Renton, but the 200-foot jurisdictional area falls within Renton City limits.
L~Lake Washington.
!t.:.4-May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31 st Street in the southeast quarter
of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its
mouth at Lake Washington.
!L)~.,-Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south.,.
L9,-Black River",
7. The jYrisdiction of this Master Program indydes shorelines of the State as defined in
sybsection F of this Section. (Ord. 3758, 1251983, Rev. 7221985 (Min.), 112 1990 (Res.
2737),715 1990 (Res. 2305), Re .... 9 12 1993 (Min.), am. 4715, 4 13 1993)
F. STATE OF 'PJASHINGTON CLASSIFICATION OF WATER BODIES:
[gs~~: Moved above.]
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: By State standards, the Green River and bake Washington are
classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance, and comprise approximately 5.3 miles of the
shorelines of the State reQylated by the City of Renton.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 100
3563
3564 2. Shorelines of the State: In a~~ition, the shorelines of the Ce~ar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek,
3565 an~ May Creek are shorelines within the City.
3566
3567 GE. THREE (3) ENVIRONMENTS DESIGNATED BY CITY:
3568
3569 1. Names of Environments: Three (3) environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, shall beare
3570 designated to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively
3571 different shoreline areas.
3572
3573 2. Basis for Designation: The environmental designation to be given any specificto an area shall be
3574 based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area
3575 being considered for development and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have
3576 been categorized according to the natural characteristics ald use regulations have been designated
3577 herein.
3578
3579 3. Map of Environments: The above information is illustrated in the following map. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-
3580 1983, Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.),
3581 Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998)
3582
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 101
3582
SHoRELlNEB'Nvm.ONMENTS
I ENViRONMENTS Urban
Conservan~y
NaLural
(\
---'. •••
3583
3584 [~MIf~~1f~fO!~: To Be Amended Per SMP Map Amendment Recommendations. See separate memo
3585 dated March 8, 2004 and associated revised map.]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 102
crrv OF RENTON
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
SPRINGBROOK CREE~(
StiOREUNE BOUNOARY MAP
~~~r--,rq=r~~
3586
3587 rF§llifOt'J§!IfBte: Text amended in F4 to strengthen idea of field review and report controlling regarding
3588 wetland location.]
)
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 103
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
36lO
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
4. Extent of Classifications
a. Aquatic Area: Shoreline Environment classifications extend from the centerline of the water body
to the shorelands, or City limits as appropriate, if the opposite shoreland is not within the City limits.
[~~r1i~i!-!0'fe: Follows from SMP Map amendment recommendations described under separate
cover.l
b. Associated Wetlands -Springbrook Creek: The Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in
Section 3 above identifies Use Environments for the Creek and associated wetlands as determined at
the time of the map wetland inventory. The application of the Renton Shoreline Master Program to
associated wetlands shall be based on the site-specific presence and extent of associated wetlands
at the time of application as determined by the Development Services Division.
MG. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1. Objective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to protect and preserve unique
and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is
intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev.
7-22-1985 (Min.) 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805) Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4-
13-1998)
2. Areas to Be Designated as a Natural Environment:
a. Areas that are unique or fragile.
b. Floodway areas.
3. Extent of the Natural Environment: That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying east of
Monster Road/68th Avenue S. and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek shall Deis
designated Natural (see the Shoreline Environment Map in subsection G-E..of this Section).
4. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Acceptable activities and uses in the Natural Environment are
limited to the following: The only human acti"ity that is acceptable is for fiood]Alay drainage or storage.
All other human activities including recreation are considered inappropriate.
a. Flood control: Public flood control structures and operations; floodway drainage and storage
activities.
b. Dredging: Dredging necessary for public flood control activities.
c. Public Access: Installation of public trails.
i. Hard surface trails when located on existing rights of way;
ii. Soft surface trails;
iii. Public viewing platforms or areas.
d. Local Service Utilities: Installation of necessary local service utilities subject to the standards
of Subsection K.18, Utilities.
e. Roads and Railroads: Necessary expansions or modifications of eXisting roads, railroads, and
bridges subject to the standards of Subsection K.15, Roads and Railroads, of this Section.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 104
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
\3670
>/3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
,3698
f. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed
uses in the Natural Environment: RMC 4-9-190
i. C.3, Normal maintenance or repair;
ii. C.5, Emergency construction;
iii. C.11. Marking of property lines;
iv. C.13. Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application;
v. C.14. Removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed;
vi. C .15. Watershed restoration projects:
vii. C.16. Improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage: and
viii. C.17. Hazardous substance remedial actions.
[g~iff~~e:l Follows from current Natural Environment language regarding allowances for
floodway drainage and storage and is more specific to accommodate the existing utility/flood
operations (including pump station) along the Black River. and the Parks Division plans for public
access.]
5. Dedication for Flood Storage: The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural
Environment shoreline areas can only be assured through public acquisition. Therefore, \WVhere
private development is proposed in these areas so designated, the City shall allow reasonable use of
property, but shall require adequate long-term on-site reqYire dedication as necessary for flood
storage. [~i:tjfeilffi~~Qfe1! Language added to address that the City must provide for reasonable use of
property and the primary concern is to assure flood storage whether that occurs through easement.
dedication of facilities. etc. It appears that the City now owns the vast majority of Natural designated
shorelines. particularly if redefining the extent of the Natural designation per the amendments in this
work program.]
tH. CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT:
1. Objective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and
manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state,
while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a
pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion
of the present and future needs of Renton.
2. Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
a. Areas of high scenic value.
b. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
c. Hazardous slope areas.
d. Flood-prone areas.
e. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development.
f. Areas with unique or fragile features.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 105
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754 )
3. Extent of the Conservancy Environment: The following segments are designated Conservancy:
LThat portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way;. and
lL Ithat portion of the south bank of the Cedar River, two thousand five hundred feet (2,500 ) east
of FAI-405 right-of-way, and south of Maple Valley Highway to the easternmost City limit
boundary as of the effective date of these regulations (I, 2004), and
c. That portion of the north and south banks of the Cedar River lying north of Maple Valley
Highway between 1351h Avenue SE extended and the easternmost City limit boundary as of the
effective date of these regulations <I 2004), and
d. Ithat portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from apprOXimately S. W. 27th Street on the north
to S.W. 31 st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of
the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of S.W. 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired
Wetlands Mitigation Bank;. shall be designated Conservancy (see the Shoreline Environment Map
and the Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in subsection G-E.of this Section~.
e. That portion of the south bank of the Black River lying east of Monster Road/68t Avenue S.
and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek (see the Shoreline Environment Map in
Subsection F of this Section).
4. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a
Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing
character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low-density
residential, passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation.
5. Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment:
a. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations, which shall be
. contained wholly within the dwelling \,jnit. rl§cIltrfr;ISllMre: Definition of home occupation limits
activities to inside a dwelling or accessory structure.]
b. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall be allowed only by
the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
c. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited in a Conservancy environment.
d. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy environment, only the following recreation uses shall be
limited to passive recreation permitted.
i. Permitted Uses: Public hiking and bicycle trails, non motorized public fishing, public
wading and swimming spots, public areas for nature study, public picnic areas. public
outdoor recreation facilities authorized by the City Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Master Plan.
ii. Conditional Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner: Public overnight camping areas.
e. Residential Uses:
i. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family residences.
ii. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two (2) units or more.
f. Utilities:
i. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be permitted for
approved activities and uses within the Conservancy environment and shall be
undergrmmd perwhen consistent with City Code requirements in subsection K.18,
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 106
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
,3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
ii. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Land Use Hearing
Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route.
g. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subject to the standards regulations of subsection
~K.15, Roads and Railroads, of this Section, Roads and Railroads.
h. Educational Facilities: Installation of facilities by public agencies for public educational
purposes such as, but not limited to, ecological or historical education when located outside of
unique or fragile areas.
i. Flood control: Public flood control structures and operations; f100dway drainage and storage
activities.
j. Dredging necessary for public flood control activities.
k. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed
uses in the Conservancy Environment: RMC 4-9-190
i. C.3, Normal maintenance and repair:
ii. C.4, Bulkhead;
iii. C.5, Emergency construction;
iv. C.6, Farming, irrigation, and ranching activities;
v. C.10, Canals, waterways, drains, and reservoirs;
vi. C.11, Marking of property lines;
vii. C.12, Maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, and drains;
viii, C.13, Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application;
ix. C.14, Removing or controlling noxious weeds;
x. C.15, Watershed restoration projects; and
xi. C.16, Fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; and
xii. C.17, Hazardous substance remedial actions.
[~litlr,I~I~j~~: Follows from SMP Map amendment memos March 8, 2004, for the Maplewood
Golf Course and Ron Regis Park additions to the SMP map as Conservancy, matching King
. County allowances for active recreation.]
JI. URBAN ENVIRONMENT:
1. Objective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines
within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge
and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable
and necessary urban uses,
2. Areas to Be Designated as Urban Environment:
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 107
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
.'3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
)
a. Areas of High Intensity Land Use: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use
including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not
necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those
areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to
accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban
expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site.
3. Extent of the Urban Environment: All shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not
designated a; Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban (see the Shoreline Environment Map
in subsection G-Eof this Section).
4. Acceptable Use and Activities: All uses shall be allowed as indicated by subsection b-K..of this
Section, Specific Use Regulations. Also all uses in 4-9-190.C, Exemptions from Permit System, are
allowed in the Urban Environment.
5. Use Regulations in the Urban Environment:
a. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource,
emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-
oriented industrial and commercial uses.
b. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and
physical access to water in the Urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the
acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall
be accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum
public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront
activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized
transportation routes such as bicycle and hiking paths.
KJ. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL SHORELINE USES:
1. Applicability and Exemptions:
a. Applicability:
i. General: The Renton Shoreline Master Program regulations apply to any use, activity,
or development on the Shorelines of the State within the City. No authorization to
conduct a use, activity or development shall be granted unless such use, activity, or
development is found consistent with the Renton Shoreline Master Program. :pm;
Section shall a~~ly to all shoreline yses whenever af)~licable. Iterns inclYQeQ here will not
necessarily be ref)eateQ in sblbsection l of this Section, S~ecific Use ReQbllations, anQ
shall be blseQ in the e'lalblation of all ~errnits.
ii. Nonconforming uses: See RMC 4-10-100 regarding the extent to which Renton
Shoreline Master Program standards apply to nonconforming uses and activities.
b. Exemptions:
i. Permit Exemptions: RMC 4-9-190.C identifies developments or activities which are
not required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit, but which must
otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of the Renton Shoreline Master Program.
ii. Use orActivity Exemptions: Reserved. [~/l~1il\1'fote: This is a larger issue for the
larger future SMP update.]
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 108
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
./3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
2. Environmental E~c::t&: [~Wf@rismm"e: Moved and integrated in new Section 6 below. Pollution
and Ecological Disruption discussion was deleted as too similar to No-Net-Loss of Functions
discussion below.]
a. Pellutien and Ecelegical Disruptien: The petential effects en water quality, '.'later and land
vegetatien, water life and other wildlife (including, fur example, spa'/ming areas, migration and
circulatien habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental aspects
must be considered in the design plans fur any activity or facility which may have detrimental
effects on the envimnment.
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants fur permits must explain the methods that '.vill be used to
abate, a"oid or otherwise control the harmful effects.
c. Erosien: Erosion is te be contmlled through the use of vegetation rather than structural means
where feasible.
d. Geology: Important geological factors such as possible slide areas on a site must be
considered. IJIlhate"er activity is planned under the application for the development permit must
be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing.
l. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects: [~arre"'iW'S;fN8'f~: Moved and integrated in new Section 6
below.]
a. The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and
shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and effurts made to avoid or minimi2e
detrimental aspects:
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires,
signs, lights, and other structures.
ii. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other
structures and activities.
iii. DeSign Theme: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other
aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a unifurm or coordinated design, planned
. fur the purpose of visual enhancement as well as fur serving a useful purpose.
iv. Visually Unpleasant Areas: landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public
vie'A' any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a site, for example, disposal
bins, storage yards, and outdoor work areas.
v. Outdoor Activities: "\fork areas, storage, and other activities on a site in a residential
area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible, to reduce distractions and
other effects on surmunding areas. Outdoor activities of commercial and industrial
operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor
areas shall not be used fur storage of more than minimal amounts of equipment, parts,
materials, products, or other objects.
4. Public Access: rmru~im: Moved and integrated in new Section 6 below.]
a. VVhere possible, space and right of way shall be left available on the immediate shoreline so
that trails, nonmotorized bike paths, andlor other means of public use may be developed
pmviding greater shoreline utilization.
b. Any trail system shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential pmperty rights.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13,2004 109
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
.3948
·3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
c. No proper1¥ shall be acquired for public use ',I.'ithout just compensation to the owner.
5. Facility Arrangement Shoreline Orientation: VVhere feasible, shoreline developments shall
locate the "'ater dependent, '""ater related and ',I.'ater enjoyment portions of their developments along
the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. [l?JITf<?fJ~: Moved and integrated in new Section
6 below.)
6. landscaping: The natural ami proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous
character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and shall be compatible
with the ~Iorthwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed
shorelines should be recogni~ed and preserved as valuable resources. [~~1l Section
removed. Requirement for "natural and proposed landscaping should~"b'e representative of
indigenous character," etc .. duplicative of J.6.d, e, and f.)
7. Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and
incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be p=otected from development and encroachment.
[gc1iJferJ'S~!~: New Sections 2 to 5 intended to provide protection for streamsllakes and associated
riparian areas.)
2. Studies Required:
. When Standard Stream or Lake Stud Is Re uired: If a ro osed develo ment site contains
Shoreline of the State or associated buffer area, or the project area is within one hundred feet
(100') of the Shoreline of the State even if the water body is not located on the subject property
'-'. but the Reviewing Official determines that alterations of the subject property could potentially
impact the water body in question, then the applicant shall be required to conduct a Standard
tream or Lake Stud er RMC 4~8~ 120.
b. When Supplemental Stream or Lake Study is Required: Changes to buffer requirements, or
alterations of the Shoreline of the State requires a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study as
identified in RMC 4-8-120.
c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan Required: A Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan shall be
required per RMC 4-8-120.0., if impacts are identified within a required Supplemental Stream or
Lake Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the Administrator shall be
based on the criteria located in Subsection J.2.c.ii. below.
i. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plan is required. the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for the
approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits,
whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan
prior to commencement of any mitigation activity.
ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Shorelines
and Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan the
Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria:
(a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iv)
below:
(i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing
Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable:
(ii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within' the same drainage subbasin
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 110
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
;4003
. ·'4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over
mitigation on the subject site:
(iii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin
within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions
within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
(iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City
limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same
drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved
ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the
Renton City limits and it meets City goals.
(b) Contiguous Corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve
contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development
on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same
aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed: and
(c) Non-indigenous species: Wildlife. or fish species not indigenous to the region shall
not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal
permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-090.J.6.g.i: and
Cd) Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report
"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream· Buffer
Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock ConSUltants, dated X, 2003,
unless superceded with a City-adopted study. to determine the existing or potential
ecological function of the stream or lake or riparia'n habitat that is being affected.
Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate
alterations to streamllake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or
greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts
upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-Ioss of riparian habitat
or water body function shall be demonstrated: and
(e) Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: For any required Stream or
Lake Mitigation Plans. the applicant shall:
(i) Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise. the supervisory capability. and the
financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and
(m Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and making corrections during
the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet prOjected goals; and
(iii) Protect and manage. or provide for the protection and management of the
mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for Iong-
term persistence of the mitigation area: and
(iv) Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections as appropriate:
and
(v) For onsite or offsite mitigation proposals. abutting or adjacent property owners are
notified when mitigation has the potential to considerably decrease the development
potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a stream alteration were
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 111
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
. 4051
_}4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
proposed and altered the location of a required buffer on an abutting property. the
abutting property owner should be notified. Notification shall be given as follows:
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-
8. notice of the mitigation proposal shall be given by posting the site and
notifying abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be
impacted_
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application. the mitigation
proposal shall be identified in the notice of application and mailed to abutting
or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted.
(f) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of
activities allowed within or abutting a streamllake or its buffers. as necessary to minimize
or mitigate any potential adverse impacts_ Conditions may include. but are not limited to.
the following:
(j) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as
snags and downed wood;
(ij) Limitation of access to the habitat area. including fencing to deter unauthorized
access;
(iii) Seasonal restriction of construction activities: and
(iv) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation
activities .
(g) Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the
mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC
365-195-905: or where there is an absence of valid scientific information. the steps in
RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iii. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance surety to ensure
completion and success of proposed mitigation. per RMC 4-1-230. The surety device shall be
sufficient to guarantee that structures. improvements. and mitigation required by permit
condition perform satisfactorily for a minimum of 5 years after they have been completed_
iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in this Subsection may be
modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved habitat
functions. on a per function basis. can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage basin as a
result of alternative mitigation measures.
d. Studies Waived:
i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when the
applicant provides satisfactory evidence that:
(a) A road. building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed
activity. or
(b) The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot. and
based on evidence submitted. the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to
nearby water bodies regulated under this Section. or
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 112
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
'4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
(c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when:
(a) No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed:
or
(b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an
additional study is not necessary.
iii. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been
identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study.
e. Independent Secondary Review: Studies may require secondary review pursuant to RMC 4-
9-190.EA.
3. Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed, except
where the buffer is to be enhanced or in conformance with allowances of Section JA or 5.
4. Shoreline Buffers: The following shoreline setbacks/buffers shall be required:
a. Buffer Width:
i. Standard Buffer Width: Shorelines shall have a minimum 100-foot buffer measured from
the ordinary high water mark of the regulated shoreline of the state.
:';(l~i;f~~~l~:~!~~::f~~'~~u~~:~~,!ii~~E~~!f~r~:~,~~,~~ .. jPS~~~~~i~:;g~;.r~g.~~;~g;~,~;;;~,»~}~~gr9r
b. Use of Buffers:
i. Natural or Partially Developed Shorelines: Buffers shall be maintained as stated in
Subsections J.3, Disturbance Prohibited: J.6.e, Native Growth Protection Areas Required:
and J.6.g .. Revegetation Required.
ii. Developed Shorelines: On sites predominantly containing impervious surfaces in the
shoreline buffer areas the buffer widths shall be considered building setbacks, with the
setback area to be managed in accordance with Subsection J.5.b, Sites with Developed
Shorelines.
c. Increased Buffer Width:
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
expanded up to an additional fifty feet (50') on the windward side, when determined
appropriate to site circumstances and ecological function by the Responsible Official.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High landsldeLandslide Areas:
When the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide
hazard area or buffer, the streamllake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the
protected slope or the very high landslide hazard buffer.
III. Notification: Notification of an increased buffer width may be required pursuant to
J.2.c.ii.e.v.
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 113
·"f
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
}4162 , 4163
. )
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
ct". R~duction of Buffer or Setback Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request. and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study. the Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard buffer
widths/setbacks where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections below
and any mitigation requirements applied as conditions of approval.
ii. Public Notice: Public notification of any buffer reduction determination shall be dven as
follows:
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of
the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record
in accordance with RMC 4-8.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, per RMC 48, the buffer
determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of application,
and upon determination, notification of parties of record shall be made.
HE.Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: If a proposal meets Subsections (a) or
(bra!-(c) and meets the environmental criteria of (d), minimum buffer widths may be reduced
as stated in Subsection JA.d.iv below:
(a) The abutting land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%)
slopes; the width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of
anadromous fish or non-fish habitat; the width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat;
and no direct or indirect. short-term or long-term, adverse impacts' to regulated water
bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's
determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to
Subsection J.2 and RMC 4-8-120 and RMC 4-9-190 EA; or
(b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream through the entirety of its course
through the property, or removal of a legally installed, as determined by the
Administrator, salmonid passage barrier;or'
(c) The proposal includes priority uses pursuant to RCW 90.58.020 which cannot be
accommodated reasonably using standard buffers/setbacks; and
Cd) Environmental Criteria: Proposals meeting Subsection (a) or (b) or (c) shall also
meet the following environmental criteria:
(i) Buffer Enhancement:
• 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: or
• In the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not
possible, the proposal includes on-or off-site riparianllakeshore or
aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative
impact on shoreline ecological functions: and
Oi) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of streamllake/riparian
ecological function: and
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 114
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
)4217 '··4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
7 ('~
,9-JI 01 ~~/
(
(ivl The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal is based on consideration of
the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an X absence of valid scientific information. the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
1\ iv. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: If the criteria in Subsection
JA.d.iii are met. the reduced buffer or setback width shallrihtbeless than the following
~inimum standards.
(al 75 feet for non-water-oriented development. unless otherwise listed below.
;:) 50 feet. for water related or. water enjoYment development. unless otherwise. listed ....
A ,~~ '.. ::feetfflrmUlthfa",iI::::~,opment In the Urban EnVlrnnmental~ng .,e;edar .•. ~ ~~-\River. ...... .. .... . . . . . . .
(el 25 feet for existing essential public facilities in the Urban Environment not
otherwise considered water dependent. The appropriate buffer/setback shall be
based on the facility type. conformance with adopted master plans. ability to provide
for safe public access. or other legal or safety concerns.
(f) 25· feet for water dependent development that does not require an abutting
shoreline location.
(g) 0 feet for water dependent development if the use depends on an abutting
shoreline location.
(h) 0 feet for public access connections to the water's edge. or public access water
body crossings. or public access segments connecting to existing trails where an
alternate alignment is not practical. or where public access alignment avoids impacts
to other critical areas. or where safety requires an abutting location; otherwise 25 feet
for public access proposals paralleling the water.
(i) 0 feet for necessary roads. bridges. and railroads and utilities when consistent with
the standards of Subsection K.
(j) 0 feet for piers. docks. marinas. boat launches. and bulkheads when consistent
with applicable standards in Subsection K.
(k) As determined by the Administrator, for development proposed on sites separated
from the shoreline by existing intervening lots/parcels. roads, or other significant
improvements on an adjoining property. but no less than the standards of the
underlying zone.
v. Documentation: Reduced buffer width determinations and evidence shall be included in
the application file.
, :.':-
Draft Best Available Science Regulation Amendments, July 13, 2004 115
Effect of Proposed Stream Regulations on the City's
Buildable Lands Analysis
August 12, 2004
Overview
Stream buff~rs are. p~oposed to be increased, butth,e incr~as~d buf~s ar~ not anticipate~ to significantly
affect the City'S eXlstlngland'use plans and population allocatlons/J]' , owth
capacity above its targets, and the City's net density approac edits ensities in stream buffers. The
City's zoning districts, particularly multifamily, commercial, industrial and mixed use districts, offer ,
flexibility in building heights, setpacks, lot sizes,densities, etc. to accommodate sUbstantial development. ,
Last, the proposed stream regulations allow for administrative buffer reductions, administrative buffer ;
averaging, and modifications orvariancesforreductions/avera'ging below theadministrativelevel~.···
provided there is no-net-Ioss of stream ecological function. .
Buildable Lands Analysis Summary
• . The City's buildable lands analysis in_~~~~tL~dicated a Citywide capacity for 10,62(yhollsing u:
basedon its Comprehensive Plan land'-Useq-scheme, not including the new Urban Center zone
adopted in 2003which allows for an additional range of 4,048 to 5,125 dwellings through the year .
2030. This is 71 % to 154% above the City's assigned 2022 dwelling target-of6,198' un.its. The . '
buildable lands calculations assumed reductions for critical areas,(steep;slopes·aridh~j~t.landsy--' •.
• !he City'~ buil~able lands analysis inf~~!~~Jf!~dicated an employm~nt capac!ty Citywidecfor 32,205
Jobs, not Including the new Urban Centef\-zone employment allOWing potentially betwe~n 2,300 to
41,400 additional jobs. This is 17% to 166% above the City's assigned 20 ent'target of
27,597 jobs. The buildable lands calculations addressed reductionsJ r critical areas a noted above.
• The proposed regulations allow for already developed stream buffers to maintain impervious surfaces
(buffers would function as setbacks in this case), For developments on shorelines with partially
developed or natural buffers, development may need to cluster onsite. However, City regulations for
the ,office, and industrial zones allow substantial heights and minimal setba,cks; which
, flexibility in arranging developments 1. For resideritiafdevelopments, it is irnpoi1:aritto
1 For exampl.e, the following mixed use, industrial, and commercial zone summaries. give a sampling of flexible st~"ndards: . .'
The COR zone alioiNs up to 125 foot building heights, a 10 foot front yard, no stlindard rear or side yards, and no minimum lot sizes. . .' .
Features of the Industrial zones that allow for flexibilitY include: no minimum lot depth; n610tcoverage standards, no minimum
side or rear yards u!1less abutting residential zones, ?P}ootbuilding heights in.theJI,.. zone witi:l the ability to request conditional
use permits for greater heights, and no building heightiimitsin theJM and IH zones. •. ~...
The CA zone has the following features: 50 foot height limit with ability to request additional height with conditional use permits;
no minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths; front yard setbacks of 10 feet; and no minimum rear or side yard widths for
properties that do not abut residential zones.
August 11, 2004 Page lof3
lot size, width, or depth. Building heights, densities, and use allowances would accommodate a
variety of structures including multi-storey attached units.
Since the 2002 bu' a, e ,', ' s analysis made reductionsforwetlands and steep slopes, but not streams
outside:ofiw~tlar:l., ;';(Z)ity,isti:l.f ,;pr:epar:edstr$~ny~nd;b.uil(j?~le:landsinf()rmation'for"ERC consideration . . . ", .. ", .. :'.' ..... " .. '.." ..
The general approach was to 1) determine the area of 'the stream corridors, 2) calculate the ratio of
developed versus undeveloped and redevelopable properties in the City's buildable lands analysis for
single family zones; ,;3) determine the net acres of buildable parcels affected by stream corridors; and 4)
determine the change in the number of possible units. Multifamily zones, commercial zone~, and mixed
use zones were not included in this analysis. Densities assumed in the buildable lands analysis for these
zones were 'based on recent achieved or prototype densities rather than the maximum densities allowed
which is conservative. Also, these zones allow greater height to,express the density/intensity potential.
:~he table below identifies the,outcomeOfdiSC~~!ltjng~~the buildable lands analysis.2 '
Stream Reductions'~ Single: FamHy Buildable Lands
R~5Liiiear Feel of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of StreamR-8 Area R~10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct.
meters ft class meters ft. class meters ft, class
643.68
,:; .. ,:c e~
... ' .. '."
168.47 552.75
288.66 947.10
216.72 711.06
56;37 184,94
438.34 143,8J9
16.52 54.19
34.37 112.75
,,57.33 188.09 ~' .. :.".'
,17,87 58.63
78.40 257~24
40.06 131.44
75~04 246.19
141.90 465.59
" ,58.48 191.89 : ..
,30.65 toO.55
.59: l6; .• d ~4;!12
'88~N'289.20 --, 5lh6"18V';!>!:> .. , .....
138:8cf 45$.41
'22:95 "75.30
22.00 72~19
44.72 146.73
"25:01, ,82;07 "i
12.80 41.99
186.36 611.46
45:15'148:13
77;15,.253.12
16,582.42 71.33 234.02
1 28,412.96
1 2:1,331.78
5,548;12
1 "43;145.83,
2 1,625:83
2 , 3,382.55
. ~, '5,642.67
2 1.i58~89
2" 7,717.16
2 3,943.25
3 '1,230.96
3 2,327~94
3 9q9.44 ,
:3', ' 502:7:6
"'<:'.";3 "J.
·,,.',3
111.71
' 41.56
3 ;~~937;76 : ,
'4
376·~9
'",., ", ':,' .. '
144;38
293.47
164)13
'83.98
4 1,222.93
"4"296~25
,4506:23, .
366.53
156~05
-.... ::
2 The City's buildable lands analysis removed critical areas, but n()t b,uffers as these are credited for density, and in nonresidential
zones, flexibility in heights and other development standardsallbw deifelopmentpotential to be expressed.
August 11,2004 Page 2 of3
)
R-5 Linear Feet of Stream R-5 Area R-8 Linear Feet of Stream R-8 Area R-10 Linear Feet of Stream R-10 Area Total Reduct.
meters ft. class meters ft. class meters ft. class
8.72 28.60 4 57.20
94.84 311.17 4 622.34
SF 643.68 153,511.33 2,215.26
Acres 0.01 3.52 0.05
Unit Reduction 6 dulac 0.09 6.7 dulac 23.61 9.53 dulac 0.48
"
Notes.
Stream arl~~. de!:luctE!(j from buildable lands considered in September 2002 King County Buildable lands Report.
,Stream;~~~~i~f~:~r~jt~ifor-;?~n~itie~:il1:.th~'Jl§ll\derisity;defi~itii:iJ)t~B~;I,ir.WI)()t:~e.d,u~ted, R-1, No stream removals per City GIS. ". ". . " , ," "'.' ·c. :"
R-14, not estimated; not likely to have further reductions, and streams are not mapped.
Multifamily, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use zones, not estimated since there are greater heights allowed and since dwellings
(where allowed) were not calculated at maximum densities in the buildable lands model.
Stream width assumptions:
Class 1, 30 feet, measurement of Cedar River at Maple Valley Road at the R-8 zone, per King County I-Map.
May Creek at R-8 along 1-405 is less wide, but 30' used for conservative estimate.
Class 2, 30 feet, measurement at Honey Creek Estates II plat, although that includes associated wetlands; and is likely
conservative.
Class 3, estimated 5 feet wide.
Class 4,estimated 2 feet wide, from sample development site on SE 128th, an upstream segment of Maplewood Creek.
Given the City's substantial growth capacity above targets and the City's net density approach, the
general conclusions above did not substantially change as a result of the stream aildbuildable lands
review.
References
" City of Renton. July 8, 2003. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS.
King County. September 2002. King County Buildable Lands Evaluation Report.
---
August 11, 2004 Page 3 of3
24.19
I
I
I
I
I
I
(,
50' SETBACK
PUBUCl.AND
LAKE
WASHINGTON
PUBUCLAND
/MAYCREEK
DELTA
DAl£: 07/24/03
FEET .. ~
200 ~
FILE; Kl779017P01T14F-3-4-04
~ (
\ ..
REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW
, 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Figure 3.4-4
Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
\)
OHW
100' SETBACK-----
PUBLIC u\ND
LAKE
WASHINGTON
PUBLIC U\ND
SCALE IN fEET ~.. .. . ~.
o 100 200
I
FlLE: Kl779017P01T14F-3-4-05
100' SETBACK
------
\
REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES· ., ..
Figure 3.4-5
Option "B" 100400t Setback
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
' ..
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
J. H. BAXTER & CO., a California corporation,
and PORT QUENDALL COMPANY, a
Washington corporation,
Appellants,
vs.
CITY OF RENTON
Respondent.
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMORANDUM TO HEARING
EXAMINER .
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of J. H. Baxter and Co., a California limited
partnership ("Baxter") seeking reversal of the detennination of nonsignificance respecting the
City of Renton's proposed amendments to its critical area ordinances and to the Shoreline Master
Program. Baxter seeks the Hearing Examiner's detennination that the very substantial increase in
critical area buffer requirements will have significant impacts to the environment that necessitate
a complete and full environmental impact study.
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMO~UMTOHEMUNG
EXAMINER-l
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATTlE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381-3574
1 While Baxter herein submits its views and analysis seeking such determination by the
2 hearing examiner, Baxter also fully joins with and supports the position presented by Barbee
3 Forest Products Inc., Barbee Mill Co., Inc., and Altino Properties, which are submitted separately
4 in this same appeaL Baxter incorporates the presentation, analysis and argument presented by
5 Barbee in its memorandum to Hearing Examiner.
6
7 II. PERTINENT FACTS
8 The City of Renton is presently undertaking to update its critical area regulation and
9 Shoreline Master Program consistent with its responsibilities under the Growth Management Act
10 After undertaking the required public process, the City issued a notice of proposed determination
11 of nonsignificance ("DNS"). Parts of the ordinances under consideration increase the buffers for
12 Class I waters to 100 feet from the existing 25 foot set back. We submit this action has significant
13 environmental impact
14 Baxter is a member ofa Joint Venture, Quendal Terminals, which owns 20 acres of Lake
15 Washington Waterfront property, which is heavily contaminated. Baxter was the previous owner
16 of property immediately north of Quendal Terminals property commonly referred to as the Baxter
17 site. This property had been sold for redevelopment Baxter operated at the Baxter site for nearly
18 50 years a wood treating facility for the purposes of processing telephone poles, pilings and
19 related products such as cross arms and railroad ties, for distribution to the public, utilities and
20 railroads. Quendal Terminals was owned and operated by Riley Tar and Chemical for greater than
21 70 years manufacturing roofing tars and creosote from coal tar produced at various locations such
22 as Seattle Gas Works, Tacoma Gas Works and other such facilities throughout the Pacific
23 Northwest and elsewhere.
24
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMO~UMTOHE~G
EXAMINER-2
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381·3574
..
1 During the course of these operations, both sites had become contaminated with creosote
2 and related products. These contaminations have required both sites to be listed by Department of
3 Ecology and require the need for remediation. Both sites have substantial Lake Washington
4 waterfront. In each property the contamination is near and adjacent to the lakeshore and in some
5 instances may have penetrated below the surface underneath the lakebed.
6 Also along Lake Washington, in the City of Renton, there are a number of other properties
7 that are now or in the past have been utilized as industrial properties. Also, along the Cedar River
8 additional properties have been used industrially. All properties that are or have been utilized for
9 industrial purposes frequently have been contaminated by there industrial processes prior to the
10 awareness of the need for safeguards that presently exist.
11 While the law imposes a duty to remediate such sites upon the owners and upon· the
12 industries that operated such sites, the unfortunate practical reality has been and still is that these
13 properties frequently are not able to be remediated until a conversion. in use occurs. This process
14 of redevelopment is referred to as "Brownfield Developments". For example, Southport located
15 adjacent to the Boeing plant in Renton Washington, was a former site utilized by Puget Energy
16 for a standby electrical generating facility as well as an industrial storage area. This site was listed
17 by the Department of Ecology and was deemed to be contaminated. Its cleanup only happened
18 with its redevelopment as "Southport" even though Puget Energy is a very solvent company.
19 Similarly, all industrial sites that have contaminated waterfront properties whose
20 properties are adjacent to or near the shore lands, in order to economically support the
21 redevelopment and reconversion of the property to higher and better uses including residential
22 and or commercial, need to create the potential use environment wherein the remediation will be
23 paid for by the redevelopment.
24
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMORANDUM TO HEARING
EXAMINER-3
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE. SUITE 3210
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381·3574
1 One way that this redevelopment motivates remediation is the utilization of development
2 as part of the containment system that constitutes the remediation. Thus, parking lots, buildings
3 and other urban type developments constitute "caps" for the contained contamination. This
4 "capping" is part of the development and is a cost that a developer would have to expend in
5 development in any regard. Because it is strategically located at a location where containment is
6 required as remediation, a well-planned and calculated redevelopment can use the benefits of the
7 required remediation of contaminant for redevelopment If such contaminant is within 100 feet
8 these proposed new restrictions frustrate the redevelopment and the remediation.
9
10 III. ISSUE BEFORE HEARING EXAMINER
11 This is a challenge to the threshold detennination by the City of Renton that no
12 Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is required prior to the adoption of proposed
13 amendments to the Critical Area Ordinances or Amendments to the Shoreline Management Act
14 Thus has City considered the impacts of its action in a real and meaningful way and does the
15 action proposed by the City impose probably significant adverse impacts?
16
17 IV. ARGUMENT
18 We submit that the State of Washington requires that an "EIS must be prepared whenever
19 more than a moderate effect on the environment is a reasonable probability". Norway Hill
20 Preservation and Protection Association v King County Council 87 Wn. 2d 267 at 278, 552 P. 2d
21 674 at 680. We urge that the Hearing Examiner find that the impacts of such additional
22 regulations upon the industrially impacted and contaminated sites will have significant adverse
23 environmental impacts by its "chilling" effects upon the ability and desire of any owner or
24
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMO~UMTOHE~G
EXAMINER-4
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381·3574
1 developer to move forward under these regulations to redevelop such property. These regulations
2 will reduce the likelihood of any remediation and! .or the extent of such remediation, to the
3 significant detriment of the environment. This is especially true within 100 feet of the shoreline.
4 Under Byers v Board of Clallam County Commissioners, 84 Wn. 2d 796, 529 P_ 2d 823
5 (1974), even land use proposals intended to protect or improve the environment may require an
6 Environmental Impact Statement "EIS" under State Environmental Protection Act ("SEP A")
7 Alpine Lakes Protective Society v Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 102 Wn.
8 App. 1, 979 P_ 2d 929 (1999), requires that the record must demonstrate that environmental
9 factors·were considered in.a manner sufficient to amount to prove compliance with the procedural
10 requirements of SEP A and that the decision to issue even an MDNS was based on information
11 sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. See also, Moss v. Bellingham, 109
12 Wash. App. 6, 31 P. 3d 703 (2001)_ Thus the City of Renton cannot assume from the fact its
13 intended purpose in adopting proposed amendments would be beneficial to the environment
14 satisfies the requirement that it be fully evaluated as to any significant adverse effects that may be
15 generated from its action. We respectfully submit that the city did not even make an effort to do
16 so and thus, given our demonstration of the potential significant adverse effects, that the action of
17 the city fails this test and should be reversed.·
18
19 V. SIGNIFICANT APPLICATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT RULE
20 Under the foregoing factual -statement set forth above and in accordance with the
21 declaration and evidence submitted by others who have participated in Brownfield developments,
22 we believe that the city has failed to meet its required obligation to consider and evaluate the
23 potential for significant negative impact on those industrially operated and contaminated
24
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMO~UMTOHE~G
EXAMINER-5
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381-3574
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
properties in the City of Renton. This is a significant number of properties. Along Lake
Washington most properties that have potential for redevelopment are the industrial properties.
Additional industrial properties front Cedar River. These properties mayor may not contain
contamination. However, all such properties may significantly be frustrated from redevelopment
and thus remediation. This is a significant adverse environmental impact arising from the
ordinances under consideration. The failure to explore and evaluate such issues shows the failure
of the City and highlights the need for a full EIS. Thus an EIS should have been prepared and the
Hearing Examiner is urged to order that the City do so.
0/
DATED this ~day of November, 2004 at Seattle, Washington.
APPELLANT J. H. BAXTER'S
MEMORANDUM TO HEARING
EXAMINER-6
Respectfully Submitted by,
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. HANKEN
(jrl0mey for J. H. Baxter & Co., Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES C. HANKEN
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3210
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 689-1205
FAX (206) 381-3574
Kathy Keolker-Wheelerr Mayor
November 1, 2004
James C. Hanken
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, W A 98104
CITY OF RENTON
. Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Re: Appeal of Determination of non-Significance for City of Renton Best Available Science
Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, LUA-04-084, ECF
Dear Mr. Hanken:
Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been rescheduled for
Tuesday, November 16,2004 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council
Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in
Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FKlnt
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Rebecca Lind, Development Services
Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton
All Parties of Record
----lO-S-S-s-ou-th-G-~-I:a-dy-W-ay---R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-g-0S-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-5-15----~
~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE \:CI This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer