Category: Shoreline Master Program

Developing the latest update to our Renton Shoreline Master Program has been a very involved, busy, controversial, and expensive project. The update– which we must complete in order to comply with state law– has cost over two-hundred thousand taxpayer dollars and thousands more in private-sector funds, and has taken over two years. During this time we have held numerous public meetings and hearing in such public forums as the Renton Planning Commission, the Renton City Council, and in our Renton Council Planning and Development Committee. We have also received countless letters from citizens and their attorneys, as well as phone calls, emails, and virtually all other forms of communication. ( For further background on this work, see my previous journal entries on this topic by clicking here.)

The result of all of these public meetings and hard work to date has been that Renton produced a 334-page ordinance , that you can see by clicking here

I was personally never fully satisfied by this ordinance, and joined my colleague Marcie Palmer in voting “No” on it after a lengthy, highly-attended public debate (which included testimony from a representative from the State Department of Ecology). I was particularity concerned about the ordinance provisions that mandated removal of river bulkheads, many of which protect our city’s downstream bridges and other critical infrastructure. This bulkhead removal is already putting our city at risk and costing Renton taxpayers dearly, as can be seen in journal entries and letters here.

While I voted “No” on this ordinance, the ordinance was nevertheless approved by Renton City Council on a 5-2 vote. And though I wasn’t thrilled about council moving ahead with this compromise, I accepted this result. In summary, the council majority was ready to “split-the-baby” on the remaining issues that our citizens and DOE could not agree on, and simply be done with this ordinance– a decision I can understand after two years of hard work. So while Marcie and I were ready to keep working the bulkhead issue, the rest of the council was ready to make some final compromises and move on. After ending up on the losing side of this vote, I thanked the council for affording us the time to debate the topic, and I reported on it in my journal here.

With the council capitulating to Department of Ecology (DOE) on so many areas including the bulkhead issue, this should have cleared the way for a DOE approval. Especially since DOE was with us on the floor of the council in the public meeting where we developed the final wording for our ordinance. Except now the DOE informs us they are not satisfied with the compromise that council approved on a 5-2 vote, and they have unilaterally decided that Renton needs to narrow our dock width standard.

The dock width standards are sensitive, because they pit clear safety and access issues against theoretical fish issues. Federal ADA access guidelines recommend a minimum of five feet and preferably more where people of limited mobility are trying to get into a boat or trying to turn around a wheel chair. On the other side of the issue, DOE officials say that predator fish like to hide in shadows under docks and ambush baby salmon, and that limiting the dock width to four feet helps reduce this threat. Renton’s ordinance had balanced these concerns by requiring that new and rebuilt docks be surfaced in light-transmitting metal or plastic screening instead of wood (so that 70 percent of the light penetrates the dock and prevents shadows). The limitation to a six-foot width along with increase in light transmission would give improved protection to baby salmon, meet the Army Corps of Engineers Standards, and meet guidelines associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act which state in part:

“Accessible boat slips must have clear pier space at least 60 inches wide and as long as the slip. Providing more than 60 inches wide clear space will improve safety for people with disabilities, especially on floating piers. This space is the minimum necessary for individuals with disabilities to have sufficient space adjacent to their boat slip to use a chair lift or transfer device for getting on or off their vessel and provide a turning space for changing directions. Every 10 feet of linear pier edge serving the accessible slips must have at least one continuous clear opening that is at least 60 inches wide. ”

While Renton Council reached it’s final SMP compromises in some highly public meetings, the State DOE testified to council last Monday that they subsequently held some private meetings of their own in which they decided that Renton’s standards for dock widths were not acceptable.

Specifically, they have decided that in the future all cities need to adopt standards limiting the dock with to four-feet in the first (near-shore) 30-feet of dock. But docks may reach their maximum length before they reach 30 feet long, since they can not got out further than the point where the water depth is ten feet. The only provision for a wider dock that would allow disabled access in the first thirty feet would be if the homeowner has state disabled status at the time of dock permitting. This has a couple problems: (1) it does not address the problem of the homeowner having extended family or friends that may boat with them, and need safe access, (2) it does not address the fact that it can take one to two years to get a dock permit, and cost tens of thousands to widen a dock, and it is therefore highly impractical to build it too narrow for ADA access and then widen it if the need arises.

Adding fuel to the controversy is the fact that two years ago the State DOE approved Redmond’s Shoreline Master Plan, which outright allowed six-foot dock widths. Many other cities on the lake are still working their SMPs, and are not as far along as us. If Renton agrees to a four-foot dock width limitation, and the council commits it to an ordinance, will we find by this time next year that we are one of the only jurisdiction that limits our docks to this potentially dangerous width?

The State DOE’s response to this question was that as a result of their (private) meetings, they intend to start demanding that all the cities limit their dock widths to four-feet within 30 feet of the shoreline. My view, which I expressed at the council meeting, was that if the State of Washington wants to limit all dock widths to four feet, then the State of Washington should follow a proper legislative process, including notice of new regulations, hearings, testimony before the legislature, public comment, public legislative debate, and a public vote by the state legislature. They should NOT try to limit all dock widths in the state to four feet by going to every city council and demanding it, especially when they have already approved a different standard for Redmond.

But what happened next put me on my soapbox about the legislative process and open public meetings. The State DOE implied that if Renton did not capitulate on their DOE dock-width desires, then the state DOE might just go back into Renton’s Ordinance (which again was the product two-years of public meetings and legislative action), and perhaps arbitrarily change other things they don’t like. This was a threat–pure-and-simple– to try to make Renton lawmakers fear that the private policy-making of one of our state agencies would trump our public meetings and our elected-representative role, and leave our citizens with no meaningful way to apply for a dock permit. In short, the DOE threat amounted to EXACTLY what the state legislature wanted to PREVENT when they wrote the Open Public Meeting Act:

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they
have created.” Washington State Legislature, 1971, Statement of Purpose in Open Public Meeting Act (42.30 RCW)

Near the end of our Monday discussion on this topic, I reiterated that if the State of Washington wishes to uniformly restrict dock widths, the State should use their own legislative process for making a new state-wide law, and give all cities a chance to weigh in at once, as well as give citizens an opportunity to contact their state legislators. In the meantime, the State DOE could do whatever they thought they had the power to do to limit dock widths in Renton, but they could not get me to agree that we should arbitrarily change our ordinance because of their DOE threat to impose other arbitrary (revenge-motivated) hardships on Renton if we didn’t.

If the state changes anything that we did not publicly discuss in our legislative hearings, I will contact the State Attorney General and ask for an investigation of State violation of Open Public Meetings Act. If the state DOE changes only the dock width, I will follow the issue to make sure that Renton has been treated fairly when compared to other jurisdictions, and if other cities are given permission for six-foot docks within thirty feet of shore, I will fully expect the DOE to give Renton the same consideration.

This topic will be back before Council Committee of the Whole tomorrow evening at 5:30.

After more than an hour of unusually technical and highly passionate debate last night, Renton City Council voted four-to-three against the Planning and Development Committee Report recommending that the current version of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) be approved immediately in it’s current form. Instead, the council ultimately decided via a six-to-one vote to move the SMP discussion to the Committee of the Whole (a committee which is composed of the whole council and chaired by Council President Don Persson.) In addition, we scheduled the issue for discussion and intended resolution at the September 27, 2010 Committee of the Whole Meeting, immediately prior to the regular council meeting (exact time to be announced next week).

Council members are intending to use the next two weeks to dig deeper into remaining issues brought up by the public at last night’s audience comment, as well as to collect written staff responses to concerns Marcie Palmer and I wanted formal closure on. Specifically, Marcie Palmer is asking the Parks Department for an assessment of how the proposed SMP language will affect maintenance and/or expansion of park facilities, and I have asked for an assessment by Public Works regarding whether proposed SMP provisions could increase risk to bridges and city center river-front property, and if so how can we mitigate this (see my previous blog entry).

Citizens who wish to participate in this process are advised that (per normal protocol) you will not have an opportunity to speak at the Committee of the Whole meeting on the 27th, but you can instead make comments to council at the normal audience comment periods near the start and end of next week’s council meeting (on September 20). You can also participate via email and letter. The Council President has requested that everyone please try to keep their inputs as crisp and to-the-point as possible, as council is working through copious written materials already in the records.

The rock bulkhead on the shoreline of this Renton home provides crucial protection from wave-induced erosion caused by large boats and winter storms. I agree with property owners that existing bulkheads should be entitle to be used throughout their useful service lives even when upland changes are being made.

After months of hard work by Renton city staff and Renton’s shoreline property owners, the new Renton Shoreline Management Program is getting close to being ready for council approval. (Click here to see my previous articles on this topic). However, I have a remaining concern which relates to the proposed regulation of existing bulkheads. I’ll explain the issue in three parts:

First, my sincere appreciation:

I am grateful to all the affected parties for the collaborative work they have performed to get us to this point. Everyone–city staff, planning commissioners, state officials, shoreline owners, and elected officials–all have demonstrated a strong desire to maintain a healthy shoreline with good wildlife protection. Merging this shared desire with other legitimate interests in recreation, economic development, flood management, and private property rights has taken time and patience. Mayor Law and his senior staff have played an important role in providing the time and opportunity for these issues to get worked out.

Second, some background on riverfront zoning, and on existing bulkheads in general.

For at least two decades, many citizens have requested new ways to enjoy the the Cedar River through water-front dining, water-front cafes, and waterfront event space (for weddings, etc). Under Mayor Jesse Tanner, we rezoned property on the north bank of the Cedar River east of I-405 to accomodate such a vision. (Technically referred to as COR zoning, this allows a broad range of water-front and other types of high-end uses.) The Stoneway Concrete company even moved its concrete batch plant out of this zone to clear the way for this type of multi-use development. We hoped then and still intend to see a river-front “Carillon Point”-type development encompassing the old Stoneway site, the Rivierra Apartments site, and the site of other existing uses which all seem to “turn their back” on the River. The envisioned redevelopment could also include hotels, high-end office space, and condominiums, uses that would work synergistically with Cedar River Park and the Cedar River Trail. Office workers, hotel guests and residents could enjoy lunchtime walks in the park and on the trail, while trail and park users could stop into the new cafes for lunch, snacks, beverages, or simply to get out of a rainstorm. Everyone involved understands that such a development would be subject to a 50-foot building setback from the river. But fifty feet is close enough for the buildings to capture the river’s beauty and sounds, and visitors could dine outside closer to the river’s edge. The SMP should provide enough flexibility so that diners can see the water. Citizens of Renton could enjoy riverfront that is currently inaccessible to the public.

The owners of the Stoneway site and Riviera Apartments are positioned to create hotel, office and waterfront dining space, similar to the Carillon Point Beach Cafe shown above.

The old Stoneway industrial site is situated above typical winter flood waters, and the Stoneway shoreline is protected by a long-standing bulkhead that has proven reliable in the past. Similarly, most developed properties on Lake Washington have bulkheads of some type protecting their homes from the scouring effects of high waves during winter storms. Very few Renton lakeside properties have sufficient land to accommodate a gently-sloping beach. Most have an embankment, protected from sloughing by concrete or rock bulkheads. These bulkheads require substantial design and permitting efforts in addition to the costs of construction, and can cost more than one hundred thousand dollars on many home sites. Renton has installed many flood control measures and lakeside bulkheads on public property, such as the flood walls along the airport, and bulkheads near our restaurants in Coulon Park. And it’s not just Renton–last year our region created a new taxing district to pay for new levees and flood protections on the Green River, while the City of Seattle has been undergoing contortions trying to find funding for a new sea wall to protect its Puget Sound waterfront.

As a city official and a taxpayer, I’m appreciative of those riverfront and lakefront property owners who have used their private funds and negotiated the labyrinth of permitting agencies, hired the contractors, and installed storm protection for their property. When urban shorelines have inadequate flood and storm protection, we all end up paying for it one way or another. Left to nature, rivers will meander and scour– it’s what they do. They remove sediment on the high-velocity outside edge of river bends, undercut natural embankments, and carve wider and wider valleys. It’s a beautiful thing in an alpine meadow or at the Grand Canyon, but it is generally disastrous within an urban area like Renton.

Washaway Beach, on the Washington coast, provides a dramatic demonstration of the destructive power of shoreline erosion.

Finally, here is my concern.

The problem with the current draft of Renton’s SMP is that, if adopted, it would require property owners to evaluate removal or reduction of their existing protective bulkheads if the owner adds 1000 square feet or more of new construction to his/her property, or proposes a change in use of the property, even if the owner plans no change to the bulkhead. Under the draft SMP’s current language, the property owner would be required to hire a geotechnical engineer who would opine whether the bulkhead is necessary to protect the property from imminent damage during only THE THREE YEARS following the engineer’s review, an unreasonably short time in view of the uncertainty regarding when the next big storm will hit. If, in the opinion of the engineer, the property would not be imperiled in the next three years without the bulkhead, then the bulkhead would have to come out or be modified at great expense to a different design–or else the homeowner would not be allowed to do the 1000 square-foot addition.

To make matters worse, even if the engineer concluded that the existing bulkhead was needed, there could be a series of time-consuming and expensive reviews and appeals of this decision by government agencies or other persons.

While it is laudable to want to restore the lake and river shorelines to the most natural state possible, the primary effect that this proposed policy governing existing bulkheads will have is to keep residential and business properties from being remodeled or redeveloped. Property owners will be very reluctant to take on a building expansion or replacement project if they are faced with the risk of having to modify their existing bulkheads, structures that often may have 50 or 100 years of useful service life left in them.

Furthermore, this proposed new requirement is throwing doubt and confusion at the owners of property along the Cedar River where the city has done massive legwork–and even negotiated removal of a concrete plant–to prepare for future cafes, restaurants, and hotels (“Carillon Point on the River”). The current SMP language raises the specter that the existing bulkheads on the Cedar River shoreline might be required to come out as a condition of site redevelopment. Anxiety stemming from that specter is likely to dampen redevelopment prospects for the old Stoneway site.

I think a much better approach would be for the SMP to read that when a bulkhead is ultimately replaced–which will happen when it’s reached the end of its serviceable life (such as when the concrete crumbles, the steel rusts through, the wood rots away, or the entire bulkhead is undercut by the river or lake)–AT THAT TIME the need for the bulkhead should be reviewed by an appropriate engineer and local and state agencies. That would be the point in time at which all interests logically converge. That is the time that the shoreline must be disturbed to remove or replace the bulkhead. And that is the time that the property owner is forced by nature (not the city) to pay for studies and reconstruction.

The text of the state SMP guidelines supports the view that the right time to review the need for existing bulkheads is when the bulkheads are being replaced. So I believe the Department of Ecology and other stakeholders would accept this change.

With such a change I feel we would be about ready to approve the SMP.

For reference, the river-front Stoneway Industrial site in it’s current condition.