HomeMy WebLinkAboutWSDOT-Cooley Ltr Denis Law Mayor
41,
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
May 9, 2018
Linda Cooley
Washington State Department of Transportation
600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405, NB82-250
Bellevue, WA 98004
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: WSDOT 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project, Stage 1 (LUA17-000808)
Dear Ms. Cooley:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated May 7, 2018.This
document is immediately available online at:
• https://bit.ly/2KtHQDt. This link goes directly to our Hearing Examiner's
Decisions. The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project
name.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason A. eth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clark Close,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Kyle Wunderlin, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(17)
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
RE: I-405 Renton to Bellevue Project, )
10 Stage 1
11 Shoreline Substantial Development ) FINAL DECISION
12 Permit, Critical Areas Permit and )
Shoreline Variance )
13 )
14 LUA17-00808 SM,CAR, SMV )
15
16 SUMMARY
17 The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit and
Shoreline Variance for the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Project, Stage 1. The project includes roadway,
18 bridge and trail work within the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment at May Creek. Project
19 improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path along the Eastside
Rail Corridor from Ripley Lane in north Renton to the City of Renton's northern boundary, adjacent
20 to Lake Washington, within the Shoreline Single Family Residential environment. The request
includes a shoreline variance from the design criteria for public access sites under RMC 4-3-090D.4.d.i
21 in order to deviate from trail width and permeable material requirements. The Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit, and Shoreline Variance are approved with conditions.
22
23 TESTIMONY
24 Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only
25 and should not be construed as containing any findings offact or conclusions of law. The focus
upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not
26 reflective of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no
assurance is made as to accuracy.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 1
1
Staff Testimony
2
Clark Close,Senior Planner,City of Renton described the project.He described the project as extending
3 approximately eight miles through the City of Renton. Two major bridge sets will be widened. Ten
4 streams will be crossed,including five fish bearing streams.The project is designed to remove materials
from in stream, remove piers and improve fish habitat. All in-stream areas and critical areas will be
5 restored.The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan.
It is not subject to zoning. The City and WSDOT will approve an interlocal agreement for the trail
6 along May Creek.
7
Applicant Testimony
8
Sean Quarrie of WSDOT stated the JARPA is complete. WSDOT is submitting a new NEPA
9 supplement in the beginning of June 2018.
10 Public Comments
11
No member of the public appeared to testify.
12
EXHIBITS
13
14
Exhibits 2-22 listed on page 2 of the April 17, 2018 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself
15 (Ex. 1), were admitted into evidence the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the
16 hearing include:
17 Ex. 23 —City of Renton PowerPoint
Ex. 24—City of Renton Maps
18
19 FINDINGS OF FACT
20 Procedural:
21 1. Applicant. Linda J. Cooley, WSDOT, 600 108th Avenue NE Suite 405, Bellevue, WA 98004.
22
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on April 17, 2018 in the City of
23 Renton Council Chambers.
24 3. Project Description. The applicant, WSDOT Northwest Region, is requesting a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance for the 1-405, Renton
25
to Bellevue Project, Stage 1. The Project includes roadway, bridge and trail work within the Urban
26 Conservancy shoreline environment at May Creek and Shoreline Residential environment adjacent
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -2
1 to Lake Washington.The May Creek Bridge and trail work is located at mile post(MP) 7.18 near NE
2 44th St, I-405 Exit 7 (Section 32 Township 24N Range 5E). May Creek originates well east of 1-405
and flows generally east to west toward Lake Washington. The May Creek project area is within the
3 following Critical Areas: flood plain and floodway, regulated slopes (15-90%) and high seismic
4 hazard areas. Much of the property, within the May Creek project area, is currently within WSDOT
right-of-way (ROW). Project improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and
5 pedestrian path (including associated sound walls) along the Eastside Rail Corridor(ERC) Regional
6 Trail from Ripley Lane in north Renton to the City of Renton's northern boundary.Almost all of this
portion of this public trail is within shoreline jurisdiction, beginning at MP 7.35. For this portion of
7 the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-foot wide asphalt trail
8 with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic that now uses the Lake
Washington Loop Trail will be shifted to the ERC trail.
9
The May Creek Bridge project will replace the northbound and southbound 1-405 bridge structures
10 over May Creek. The existing bridge span is approximately 160 feet long (20,000 square feet). The
11 replacement impervious bridge is a one span structure that will include lane widening on both north
and south bound lanes. The new surface area will add 10,000 square feet to the final bridge size and
12 will be located directly over the entire stream and directly adjacent to the Ordinary High-Water Mark
13 (OHWM). This work will also include piers within approximately 50 feet from the OHWM. This €'
work will include habitat improvements along the creek by removing angular rock fill material from
14 the floodplain and removal of the existing northbound bridge columns/abutments. It is estimated that
15 the proposed work will include the removal of 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
floodplain under the existing bridge structure.The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve
16 fish habitat along the stream channel and provide buffer enhancement.New vegetation will be planted
17 on the newly constructed streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer
enhancement. Improvements support the roadway and associated roadway facilities necessary to
18 provide a safe and efficient transportation corridor.An extension of City of Renton's May Creek Trail
19 will be constructed on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year
floodplain.The trail is proposed to be eight feet(8')wide and will extend from the end of the existing
20 May Creek Trail, that ends roughly 40 feet east of the eastern boundary of the WSDOT ROW, to
Jones Road. Only the portion of the trail within WSDOT's ROW is being permitted as part of this
21 application. The portions of the trail outside of WSDOT's ROW will be permitted separately and are
22 not included as part of this application.
23 Minor off-site improvements may include pavement markings, drainage improvements, permanent
24 signing, illumination, and barriers. Connecting Washington, as funded via the Renton to Bellevue
Stage 1 project, is part of a larger set of improvements. Construction is anticipated to start in 2019
25 and the project is expected to open to traffic in 2024. The project will use the design-build project
26 delivery method,the exact excavation and fill quantities are not yet known, construction sequencing
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 3
1 and methods may vary. The total funding for the full set of improvements, including project
2 engineering and ROW, is $890M.
3 WSDOT, as the lead agency, issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) and Adoption of
Existing Environmental Document for the I-405 Corridor Program on March 31,2006. This decision
4 was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with
5 the lead agency(Ex. 1). WSDOT intends to adopt supplemental NEPA environmental review in June
of 2018.
6
4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The project is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes
7 development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR), May Creek and the King
8 County Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail(ERC),zoned R-8. To the east is May Creek and vacant
City of Renton Parks property, zoned Resource Conservation (RC) and the ERC and single family
9
residential, zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). To the south is May Creek, WSDOT
10 right of way and the ERC,all zoned R-8. To the west is May Creek and City of Renton parks property,
zoned R-8 and COR, and the ERC and single-family residential, both zoned R-8. The project itself
11 crosses several zones including Residential-6 (R-6), R-8, COR and Resource Conservation (RC) The
12 project is not subject to zoning. Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the subject vicinity are
Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, Residential High Density and Commercial-
13 Office-Residential.
14 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project.
15 WSDOT, as lead agency, adopted a Determination of Nonsignificant Impact on March 14, 2006
(Ex.1). Subsequent environmental analysis were submitted to the City including a Temporary
16 Construction Easement (TCE) Affected Critical Area report (Ex. 4), a TCE Tree Removal and
Restoration Plan (Ex. 7), A TCE Restoration Enhancement Planting Plan (Ex. 8), May Creek
17 Enhancement Plans (Ex. 9), a Summary of Stormwater Management Concepts (Ex. 11), A 2017
Wetland and Stream Assessment Report(Ex. 12), a 2017 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report(Ex.
18
13), a 2006 Geology and Soils Technical Report (Ex. 16), and a Flood Risk Analysis (Ex. 22). The
19 environmental impacts of the proposal have been thoroughly assessed and mitigation measures
recommended in the various issue specific studies and analysis. Impacts are more specifically
20 addressed as follows:
21 A. Fish. No impacts to fish habitat are anticipated. The project has the potential to impact up to
22 10 streams, most of which are non-fish bearing, unnamed, ephemeral tributaries to Lake
Washington. There are five fish bearing streams that will be impacted, including Johns Creek,
23 May Creek, UNT.08.LW.0283 and two other small unnamed tributaries to Lake Washington
in the vicinity of the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC). The project will mitigate for
24 unavoidable impacts to critical areas (Ex. 14 and 15).
25 The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel
26 and provide buffer enhancement. Stage 1 of the project will improve fish habitat along the
stream banks by removing approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -4
1 floodplain under the existing May Creek Bridge structure (MP 7.18). Debris associated with
bridge demolition work will be collected using Debris catch system and disposed without
2 causing erosion to May Creek. The proposed May Creek Bridge is a one span structure.
3
The project is anticipated to improve facilities by making fish passage improvements while
4 accommodating public access to park properties and corridors by adding or relocating usable
trails. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream
5 channel and provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly
constructed streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement.
6 Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that there will be no net loss of
7 ecological function. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report,
prepared by WSDOT, dated July 2017 (Ex. 12) and a Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report,
8 prepared by WSDOT, dated October 2017 (Ex. 13). The preliminary design utilizes several
avoidance and minimization opportunities including selective widening, widening to the
9 median, and use of over steepened slopes and retaining walls. Avoidance and minimization
10 efforts are categorized under Table 1 of the I-405 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report.
11 The project will have temporary and permanent impacts to several streams and associated
buffers. See Table 42, Summary of Stream and Stream Buffer Impacts in the Wetland and
12 Stream Mitigation Report (Ex. 13) for impact quantities. May Creek provides the highest
quality in-stream habitat of all of the impacted streams within this project. Several of the
13 impacted streams meet physical criteria for fish use, and Johns Creek has documented
14 occurrences of anadromous species. UNT.08.LW.0283 has documented resident fish, and
Stream 7.7A, and Stream 7.8 have the potential to support resident fish. However, insufficient
15 buffers, contributions of stormwater, and generally their location in highly urbanized areas
degrade all of these streams.
16
Johns Creek flows primarily within pipes under a large shopping center in Renton,between I-
17 405 and Lake Washington. The creek daylights near Southport just south of the entrance to
18 Gene Coulon Park, where several stormwater outfalls contribute to the stream. The project
proposes to install a new 72" stormwater outfall in this vicinity.
19
May Creek flows under a bridge at 1-405 just south of the NE 44th Street Interchange. The
20 bridge is being replaced as part of the project and the existing bridge piers and footings will be
removed. The work will include fill removal within the channel to improve habitat conditions,
21 installation of LWD, and plantings. Construction impacts will be temporary, but there will be
22 some buffer impacts associated with roadway widening and bridge demolition access.
23 An unnamed tributary(UNT 08.LW.0283)to Lake Washington(formerly referred to as Gypsy
Creek in previous 1-405 documents),meanders in open channel sections and pipes through the
24 NE 44th Ave Interchange and enters Lake Washington through the Virginia Mason Athletic
Center property. The stream will be impacted by roadway widening, construction of retaining
25 walls, and installation of fish passable culverts. There will be a short reach of the stream
26 permanently impacted upstream of 1-405 where Lake Washington Blvd N will be relocated.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 5
1 Impacts to unnamed Stream 7.7a crosses I-405 north of UNT 08.LW.0283 near milepost 7.7
and unnamed Stream 7.8 crosses I-405 north of UNT 08.LW.0283 near milepost 7.8 will result
2 from the installation of a fish passable culverts.Five(5) existing fish barriers will be mitigated
3 by four(4)new fish passible structures.
4 B. Wildlife. Though the staff report (Ex 1) provided no specific analysis related to the project's
effects on wildlife, staff noted the project, as proposed, complies with several Comprehensive
5 Plan and Shoreline Master Program goals and policies which explicitly promote wildlife
habitat protection. These include Goal L-U and Policy L-30 of the Comprehensive Plan and
6 Policy SH-14 of the Shoreline Master Program. As noted above in Finding of Fact 5A and
7 below in Findings of Fact Nos. C, D and G, fish habitat(Ex. 14 and 15) and wetlands (Ex. 12
and 13) will be enhanced and/or mitigated and stormwater drainage will be controlled to
8 protect the shoreline environment. The preliminary design utilizes several avoidance and
minimization opportunities including selective widening, widening to the median, and use of
9 over steepened slopes and retaining walls.Avoidance and minimization efforts are categorized
10 under Table 1 of the I-405 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report. A condition of approval
' will require the applicant to submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a
11 period of five years from project completion for review and comment. WSDOT will report if
performance measures and success standards have been met. If the performance measures or
12 success standards have not been met, the City will require adaptive management strategies to
be deployed to achieve the final success standards.
13
i C. Wetlands. The project,as proposed, is expected to result in temporary and permanent impactsacts14
to wetlands, streams, and buffers. Impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized to the
15 greatest extent feasible.All of the proposed wetland mitigation has occurred in advance and is
located off-site. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report (Ex. 12)
3
16 and a Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report(Ex. 13). Based on the provided reports wetland
impacts were avoided and minimized by the project to the greatest extent feasible; however,
17 the Design Builder may identify further minimization measures through final design and
18 construction of the project.
19 The project is impacting Category II and IV wetlands, between MP 4.0 and 10.0, and is
proposing to mitigate all permanent wetland impacts within the City of Renton by using bank
20 credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank).
' Compensatory mitigation for all permanent wetland and buffer impacts will be accomplished
21 by replacing wetland functions and acreage lost by debiting credits provided at a regulatory
I22 approved mitigation bank. Credits are the"currency"of the mitigation bank. The value of each
credit is equal to its net ecological benefit. For Springbrook Bank,the value of one credit was
,
r 23 developed to be equal in value to 1 acre of Category II wetland. Specifically,the Bank requires
the use of 1.0 credit per acre(1:1 ratio)of permanent Category II wetland impacts,0.85 credits
24 per acre (0.85:1 ratio) of Category III, and 0.70 credits per acre (0.70:1 ratio) of Category IV.
A modified ratio is applied for impacts occurring as a result of conversion from wetlands to
25 stream or impacts that will result in a temporal (as opposed to permanent) loss of wetland
26 functions due to long-term vegetation disturbance.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 6
1
1 Springbrook Bank is a large habitat restoration and wetland re-establishment site located in the
City of Renton, WA, Green-Duwamish WRIA 9. The Bank was created to provide
2 compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by
3 highway construction projects.The implementation of the Bank is intended to increase wetland
area and encourage improved hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions, while
4 facilitating environmental education opportunities along Springbrook Creek in a highly
urbanized area.
5
The Springbrook site has previously established monitoring requirements and standards of
6 success. The use of credits, as part of this project, will not change any of their standards or
7 requirements. The stream and buffer mitigation site proposed in the project at May Creek and
UNT08.LW.0283,will have specific monitoring and site management requirements. Each site
8 will be monitored for five years to ensure plant establishment. Survival will be assessed by
WSDOT and the Project Design Builder after initial planting,and the landscape contractor will
9 replace all plantings that do not survive within the first year. The Design-Builder will also
10 reseed any areas of bare soil within the first year. Plant substitutions, if necessary, will be
agreed upon by the project biologist and landscape architect. Plants damaged or destroyed by
11 vandalism or wildlife grazing (by waterfowl, rodents, or ungulates) will also require
replacement.If necessary,the landscape contractor will have the option of protecting the plants
12 from vandalism or herbivore grazing. Plant monitoring and establishment activities are
proposed to occur annually for 5 years.
13
14 As noted above in Finding of Fact 5C, a condition of approval will require the applicant to
submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a period of five years from project
15 completion for review and comment.WSDOT will report if performance measures and success
standards have been met. If the performance measures or success standards have not been met,
16 the City will require adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final
success standards.
17
18 By following the avoidance and minimization effort,monitoring requirements of Springbrook
Bank site, Governor's Executive Order 89-10 (Protection of Wetlands: "No Net Loss"), and
19 WSDOT Policy P2038, staff anticipates that the proposal will provide no net loss of ecological
functions and values consistent with the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. As noted
20 in the staff report(Ex. 1),the project complies with several Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline
Master Program goals and policies that are specific to wetland preservation and protection
21 including Goal L-U of the Comprehensive Plan the development standards in sections 4-3-
22 090(D)(10)(d)RMC and 4-5-050(L)(1)(g)(i)RMC.
23 D. Stormwater/Water Quality. A Summary of Stormwater Management Concepts was submitted
with the application(Ex. 11). The project is being developed at a conceptual level in advance
24 of final design and construction through design-build contracting. WSDOT has been
developing conceptual designs in accordance with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water
25 Design Manual and in coordination with Renton's stormwater utility staff, with the intent to
26 establish and verify performance criteria that will be met by the final design (Ex. 21). The
Stage 1 project widening proposal will increase the pollutant generating impervious surface
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 7
1 are (PGIS) by 45.56 acres. Overall, PGIS will increase by approximately 23 percent (23%)
over current conditions. The project will include the following stormwater facilities:
2
3 • Existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems will be modified as required
for the new roadway geometry and as required for stormwater management using
4 equivalent catchment areas.
• Two (2)new flow control and many new runoff treatment facilities will be constructed
5
to mitigate new PGIS as well as to provide additional retrofit runoff treatment for
6 untreated WSDOT PGIS.
• One (1) spill containment pond will be replaced in kind.
7 • Five (5) existing fish barriers will be mitigated by four(4)new fish passible structures.
• One (1) new conveyance system will be constructed under Lake Washington Blvd N
8 to discharge into Johns Creek.
9 • Existing runoff treatment and flow control facilities will be modified or replaced with
measures complying with the current WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual where the
10 roadway widening impacts existing facilities.
11 A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide drainage plans and a drainage
report demonstrating compliance with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
12
13 E. Wellhead Protection. Portions of the I-405 widening project are located within the City of
1 Renton Wellhead Protection Zone 2 area. The overall purpose of the aquifer protection
14 regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from
contamination by hazardous materials. A condition of approval will require all fill material to
15 be obtained from approved local fill sources. The applicant will be required to provide a fill
16 source statement to the City to ensure clean fill is used. The fill source statement shall be
submitted with the construction permit application. Impacts to the Wellhead Protection Area
17 are not anticipated as a result of the subject project, provided the City of Renton codes are
complied with.
18
F. Utilities. The project will require the relocation of the existing 12-inch water main along the
, 19 south bank of May Creek. Several other utilities are located within the project area,though no
20 other City of Renton utilities will be impacted by the project.
21 Multiple King County facilities, including the May Creek Interceptor,the Eastside Interceptor
Sections 4 and 5,and the South Mercer Force Main,are all located within or near to the project
22 site. King County has a permanent easement for these facilities on the proposed development
site. The permanent easement assures the right to maintain and repair the facilities.In the event
23 that a facility must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided (Ex. 19). In
24 order to protect these wastewater facilities during construction, WSDOT and/or the City will
submit WSDOT's construction drawings for the project to the Wastewater Treatment Division
25 for review and comment prior to permit issuance.
26
i
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 8
i
1 A condition of approval will require utilities to be located and designed to avoid natural,
historic, archaeological or cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate
2 adverse impacts where unavoidable
3
G. Floodplain. WSDOT prepared a Flood Risk Analysis (Ex. 21). The May Creek Trail portion
4 of the project is located in Flood Zone AE (100-year floodplain) and Floodway Zone AE. The
replacement bridge work is within the 100-year floodplain. This work will include habitat
5 improvements along the creek by removing angular rock fill material from the floodplain and
removal of the existing northbound bridge columns/abutments. The applicant estimates the
6 project will include the removal of 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
7 floodplain under the existing bridge structure. No fill or excavation is proposed below the
OHWM of May Creek.
8
An extension of City of Renton's May Creek Trail will be constructed on the north side of May
9 Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain.Within WSDOT right-of-way,
10 the proposed work at May Creek will include the construction of the City's May Creek Trail
on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel, outside the Ordinary High-Water Mark
11 (OHWM) and above the 100-year floodplain. There may be minor amounts of fill
(approximately 500 cubic yards)in some locations associated with final grading; however,the
12 project will result in a net reduction in fill materials in this area.
13 RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations requires zero-rise in floodplain elevations due to
14 construction projects. However, the current FEMA floodplain/floodway data and delineation
for May Creek is based upon old studies that used a 100-year flood flow of 855 cfs derived
15 from pre-1980 FEMA stream flow data,which is less than the current estimated 100-year flood
flow of 1,290 cfs derived from the King County Gage 37a stream flow data. Therefore, a
16 condition of approval will require the applicant to prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per
section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100-year
17 flood flow of 1,290 cfs. This analysis will include producing a floodplain/floodway map
18 depicting proposed improvements in relation to the floodplain and floodway of May Creek.
Additionally,WSDOT shall provide a zero-rise hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed
19 site conditions within the floodplain of May Creek per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual.
20
H. View/Aesthetic Impacts. Though the staff report (Ex 1) provided no specific analysis related
21 to the project's effects on aesthetic impacts and view, staff noted the project, as proposed,
22 complies with several Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program goals and policies
which explicitly promote protection of views.These include Policy L-55 of the Comprehensive
23 Plan and Policy SH-39 of the Shoreline Master Program. The project is an existing interstate.
The view of the interstate and adjacent to it will be largely unchanged. However, the project
24 will create new public access trails with view of Lake Washington.
25 I. Parking. The staff report does not specifically address parking. No new parking is needed
26 associated with the highway improvements. There will be new trails constructed. These trails
are extensions of existing trails which already have adequate trailhead parking. The trail
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 9
<ti
1 systems are adopted in the City's Bicycle and Trails Master Plan and the Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Areas Plan.
2
3 J. Archeological. The project proposal and notice of application were provided to reviewing
agencies including the State Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation(DAHP).The
4 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division indicated that comments and concerns will be
dealt with during the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permitting process. Comments
5 were also received from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,Wastewater
6 Treatment Division regarding utilities and easements within or near the project site (Ex. 19).
7 The project site is in a high probability zone for archaeological artifacts given its proximity to
Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. Therefore, if archaeological deposits of
8 unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance
will be halted, and activities directed away from the area. In order to protect archaeological
9 resources a condition of approval will require the applicant to stop all activity and immediately
10 notify the City of Renton planning department,concerned Tribes' cultural committees,and the
Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native
11 American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found.
12 K. Historical/Cultural Resources. To the greatest extent possible, both the location of the May
Creek Trail and the relocation of the Lake Washington Loop Trail have been carefully located
13 and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites. As noted
14 in Finding of Fact No. 5(J) above, a condition of approval will require a cessation of all
construction activities and the immediate notification of appropriate parties in the event items
15 of historical or cultural importance are discovered.
16 L. Temporary Construction Easement. Access to May Creek for sewer line and riparian
enhancement work will be required within the 100-foot vegetation management buffer.
17 WSDOT is proposing to restore the disturbed area(Area 2)to original or better condition with
18 mitigation for temporary impacts to include replanting and impact mitigation.
19 Impacts to May Creek include a 0.41-acre temporary stream buffer impact, a 0.12-acre
permanent stream buffer impact, and 0.24-acre of temporary stream impact. Approximately
20 0.295-acres are proposed for restoration onsite.An estimated 33 trees will need to be removed.
The species of impacted trees include black cottonwood, red alder, Western red cedar, and
21 Oregon ash(Ex. 20).
22 Per RMC 4-3-090E.10.b. Roads, perpendicular water crossings are permitted for authorized
23 uses consistent with the Shoreline Mater Program. The expansion of an existing roadway is
permitted provided no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline are expected
24 Therefore, vegetation conservation buffer impacts are permitted as proposed with the
25 associated mitigation.
26 The provided tree removal and restoration plans are insufficient to determine if restoration and
replanting are adequate within the Temporary Construction Easement (TCE)Area (Ex. 7). A
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 10
1 fully executed May Creek inter-local agreement (ILA) between the WSDOT and the City of
Renton will afford each entity the opportunity to further define the conditions associated with
2 the impacts created by WSDOT completing the aforementioned work within the TCE area, as
3 well as the sewerline and riparian enhancement work at May Creek. The draft ILA agreement
addresses the temporary construction easement portion.
4
As a result of the proposed temporary construction road impacts to City property needed to
5 access May Creek from southbound 1-405, a condition of approval will require the applicant
to submit the following report and plans (5 items) for review and approval by the Current
6 Planning Project Manager: 1) an arborist report; 2) a final restoration and monitoring plan for
7 May Creek; 3) a temporary irrigation plan; 4) a final landscape and planting plan; and 5) a
utility plan prior to construction permit approval.
8
M. Noise.Noise and vibration impacts will primarily result from the demolition of the north and
9 southbound bridge superstructure over May Creek. Construction of the new May Creek Bridge
10 will include, but is not limited to, installation of a debris catch system to the existing bridge
girders from an under bridge inspection truck (UBIT) or boom lift, regrading, removal of
11 existing abutment, construction of the May Creek Trail, construction and widening of I-405
and 1-405 on and off ramps,construction of temporary access road to May Creek, construction
12 of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path with associated sound walls in the ERC, roadside and
temporary road and utility impacts, mitigation and landscape planting, and stormwater
13 treatment improvements.
14 Equipment used on site may include, but is not limited to, back hoes, excavators, loaders,
15 graders,rollers, dump trucks, concrete trucks,mobile and stationary cranes,drilling machines,
pile drivers, and hand tools. In addition, there may be concrete pours associated with bridge
16 abutment and bridge deck construction.
17 Construction is anticipated to start in 2019 and the Project is expected open to traffic in 2024.
18 Construction hours will conform to the City of Renton's noise daytime ordinance requirements
to the extent possible. For nighttime work, WSDOT will obtain a noise variance at a future
19 date.
20 6. Need for Variance. The variance to the six-foot maximum trail width requirement necessary
for the reasonable use of the subject property. The assessment of necessity whether the trail width
21 needs to be eight feet as opposed to six feet. A six-foot trail width is permitted for trails located within
22 the shoreline buffer of May Creek itself.
23 As discussed in the staff report, eight feet is necessary to accommodate the high volumes anticipated
for the trail as well as to provide sufficient width for wheelchairs to pass it each other. Parts of the trail
24 will only be 4-5 feet as the exterior trail system approaches Cougar Mountain, but it is reasonable to
conclude that the shoreline portions of the trail will be much more heavily travelled both because of
25 the views and the relatively flat topography. The City has concluded eight feet is necessitated along
26 the shoreline portions to allow for ADA access on what is anticipated to be a heavily used regional
trail,which is both a connection to a larger system and a designation in itself given the lake views.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 11
1
Conclusions of Law
2
3 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II
4 applications and shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires
consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The shoreline
5 variance has the highest numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as
6 Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the
authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the
7 City Council.
8 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project itself crosses several zones including
9 Residential-6 (R-6), R-8, COR and Resource Conservation(RC) The project is not subject to zoning.
Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the subject vicinity are Residential Low Density,
10 Residential Medium Density,Residential High Density and Commercial-Office-Residential.Trails are
11 not identified in the table of uses governed by RMC 4-2-060, but it appears the use will have to be
considered authorized as a park or impliedly as a transportation facility. Further, as determined in
12 Conclusion of Law No. 28,the use is specifically authorized by the City's Shoreline Master Program
("SMP").
13
14 3. Review Criteria The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits are set by RMC 4-
9-190(B)(7),which requires compliance with all SMP use regulations and substantial compliance with
15 SMP policies. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances. The applicable
16 regulations and policies are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of
law:
17
SMP Policies
18
SMP Policy SH-6: Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and
19 nonregulatory means that may include regulation of development within the shoreline jurisdiction,
20 ecologically sound design, and restoration programs, including:
21 1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to
22 provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required
human needs.
23
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, when feasible,
24 increased to the fullest extent possible to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed
25 salmon stocks and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks.
26 3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 12
?1k
1 4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of
2 recreation and provide opportunities for education and interpretation. Access and use should
be restricted, if necessary,for the conservation of these areas.
3
4. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5,as conditioned,water quality
4 and water flow are not affected by the proposal. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the
5 proposal will be beneficial to aquatic habitat over time and is fully mitigated to prevent adverse habitat
impacts during construction. Wildlife habitat is increased by the proposed removal of invasive
6 vegetation and replacement with native vegetation and the addition of trees. The trail provides an
7 opportunity to observe and learn from the shoreline and ample preserved and protected vegetation of
the site.
8
SMP Policy SH-14: Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that prevents
9 or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological condition does not become worse than
10 the current condition. This means ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all
development and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as
11 practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline
12 ecological functions that should be protected include, but are not limited to,fish and wildlife habitat,
food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected
13 include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground
14 water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris
recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel
15 formation/maintenance.
16 5. As described above in Finding of Fact 5C, not net loss of ecological functions is anticipated.
17 Wetland and stream impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent feasible.Wetland impacts
have been identified and will be mitigated prior to the start of the project via use of wetland mitigation
18 credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The project will improve fish
19 passage by installing new fish passage culverts and replacing older, less habitat friendly culverts. Fill
will be removed from May Creek. The project is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan
20 and its Shoreline Master Program. This policy objective is satisfied.
21 Objective SH-E: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be recognized and
22 economic uses or activities that are water-oriented should be encouraged and supported.
23 6. The project does not involve any commercial development. However, the project will
contribute to the creation or extension of two new regional trails. The May Creek Trail in particular
24 will offer a water oriented public recreational activity with views of the waterfront.
25
Policy SH-18: All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of ecological
26 functions during construction and operation.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 13
1 7. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 5, no net loss of ecological functions is anticipated.
2 The project will involve a temporary construction easement along May Creek.As the project is being
Design Built,the full details of the impact are not yet known. Therefore, a condition of approval will
3 require the applicant to an arborist report, a final restoration and monitoring plan for May Creek, a
4 temporary irrigation plan,a final landscape and planting plan and a utility plan for review and approval
by the Current Planning Project Manager for construction work associated with the temporary access
5 road to May Creek prior to construction.
6 SMP Objective SH-F: Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the
7 natural amenities.
8 8. The project increases public accessibility by providing a new regional trail and extension of an
existing regional trail. Natural amenities are improved by the proposed restoration plan. The new
9 trails and enhanced or restored natural environment support this Shoreline objective.
10 SMP Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and
11 maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and
is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or
12 improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas
13 to which public access is provided, including trail systems.
14 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project will not adversely affect the natural
environment, natural processes or ecological functions and will in fact result in a substantial benefit
15 to those shoreline resources while providing a regional trail with views of Lake Washington.
16
SMP Policy SH-26: Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided.
17
10. The trails and shoreline access point of the proposal provide both passive and active
18 recreational opportunities to the public.
19 SMP Policy SH-30: Development and management of public access should recognize the need to
20 address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should recognize and be
consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just compensation shall be provided to property
21 owners for land acquired for public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall
22 be provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with the public.
23 11. No adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties is anticipated. The land is existing
WSDOT right of way and City of Renton parks property. The public will have full access to the new
24 regional trails.
25
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 14
1 SMP Policy SH-39: Viewpoints,parking trails, and similar improvements should be considered for
2 transportation system projects in shoreline areas. Bridge abutments should incorporate stairs or trails
to reach streams where appropriate.
3
12. The project will provide a new regional trail with shoreline views and an extension of an
4 existing regional trail. No new parking is proposed but adequate parking exists to existing and future
5 trail users. The May Creek trail will run along May Creek. This policy is satisfied.
6 SMP Policy SH-42: Rail lines within the shoreline should provide opportunities for public access
and circulation:
7
1) The rail line along the east shore of Lake Washington should be reserved for use as a public
8 trail if rail use ceases. If rail use continues,joint trail and rail use should be explored.
9 13. Project proposes to construct a bike and pedestrian trail within the ERC from Ripley Lane in
10 Renton to Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue. Since King County bought the ERC,this portion has been
11 open to the public as a trail even with the rails intact. At this time, King County is in the process of
removing the existing rails and creating a path on the existing railroad ballast between Ripley Lane
12 and Lake Washington Blvd where it turns towards Newcastle Beach Park. Bicycle and pedestrian
traffic that now uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will be shifted to the ERC trail.
13
14 SMP Policy SH-43: Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the
shoreline:
15
1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non-motorized circulation,
16 of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the
17 Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical
and visual access to the shoreline.
18
2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links together shoreline public access
19 into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools,public and private
20 open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights of way, waterways,
and other opportunities.
21
3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities
22 and the comprehensive trails system that provides non-motorized access throughout the City.
23 4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and
24 implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the
Cedar River, the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River.
25
26 14. As previously noted, an extension of City of Renton's May Creek Trail will be constructed on
the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain. The trail is
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 15
1 proposed to be eight feet (8')wide and will extend from the end of the existing May Creek Trail,that
2 ends roughly 40 feet east of the eastern boundary of the WSDOT ROW, to Jones Road. Project
improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path (including
3 associated sound walls) along the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) Regional Trail from Ripley Lane in
4 north Renton to the City of Renton's northern boundary. Almost all of this portion of this public trail
is within shoreline jurisdiction, beginning at MP 7.35. For this portion of the project, WSDOT will
5 widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel
6 shoulders.Bicycle and pedestrian traffic that now uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will be shifted
to the ERC trail.
7
SMP Policy SH-44: Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access standards
8 and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious surfaces, where feasible, and managing
9 surface water runoff to achieve appropriate water quality.
10 15. No City of Renton roads will be impacted by the project. The project is a widening of I-405
and includes the provision of public access trails.As noted in Finding of Fact 5 above,the project will
11 be conditioned to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
12 SMP Objective SH-J: Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired
13 ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of public and private
programs and actions. This Master Program includes a restoration element that identifies restoration
14 opportunities and facilitates appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal
15 of this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions.
16 16. The project will improve shoreline ecological functions by removing prior fill from May
Creek,providing habitat restoration and enhancement along the Creek and mitigating all wetland and
17 habitat impacts by contributing to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank.
18
SMP Use Regulations
19
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2):
20
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
21
i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner
22 that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and
23 processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to
minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
24 (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are
25 not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature
maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to,
26 water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge;
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 16
,,j
1 sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment;organic matter
2 input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance.
3 ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions
or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated
4 on-or off-site.
5 Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval
6 shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation
such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall
7 occur in the following prioritized order:
8 (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
9 action, or moving the action.
10 (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking
11 affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
12
(c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
13 environment.
14 (d)Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance
15 operations during the life of the action.
16 (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar
substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking
17 appropriate corrective measures.
18 b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed
19 development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the
Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to
20 provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological
21 functions.
22 17. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
23 functions and processes. The project is designed to comply with the Governor's Executive Order 89-
1T (Protection of Wetlands: "No Net Loss") and WSDOT Policy P2038. Adverse impacts are also
24 rectified by the substantial restoration associated with the proposal. A condition of approval will
require the applicant to submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a period of five
25 years from project completion for review and comment. WSDOT will report if performance measures
26 and success standards have been met. If the performance measures or success standards have not been
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 17
1 met, the City will require adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final success
2 standards.
3 RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or
educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer
4 (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities,
5 trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers
and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
6
1. Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious
material, including boardwalks;
8 2. The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a
9 location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes;
10 3. The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of
11 the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated
structure as an alternative to fill;
12
4. Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section.
13
18. The trail is not anticipated to be within a wetland or associated buffer. However, Finding of
14 Fact No. 16 of the Staff Report (Ex. 1) suggests work within existing wetlands and wetland buffers
15 may be required, including the potential construction of a boardwalk within wetlands and wetland
buffers. There are no Category I wetlands or buffers on or adjacent to the subject site. The trail and
16 boardwalk are permitted uses within the Category II-IV buffers.
17
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(x): Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect
18 wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland
function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection.
19 Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create,
20 rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values.
21 (a)Preferred Mitigation Sequence:Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized order
22 provided for in subsection D2aiii of this Section.
23 (b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements shall
be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of
24 Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in
25 Washington State—Part 1:Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and Washington State
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 18
1 Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this
2 Code provides differing standards.
3 (c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following order
of preference:
4
(1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
5
(2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural and/or historic
6 functions.
7
(3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of
8 nonnative, invasive plant species.
9 (4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands...
10 (e)Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall
11 occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include
enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and
12 impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures...
13 (i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the location that
14 will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success;
provided, that mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same
15 watershed sub-basin as the permitted alteration.
16 G) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off-site shall be permanently protected and
17 managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values
into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other
18 protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4.
19
(k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on
20 weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible after the permitted
alteration.
21
22 (1) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in
accordance with RMC 4-3-050M16.All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored
23 for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but generally
24 not for a period less than five (5)years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year
and annually for the next five (5)years following construction and subsequent reporting shall
25 be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
26 actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modem or extend the
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 19
1 monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10)years when
2 any of the following conditions apply:
3 (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan;
4 (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the
impacted critical area;
5
(3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer
6 time for establishment.
7
19. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of wetland
8 function and values.As previously determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5,the proposal will mitigate
9 all anticipated impacts prior to construction through the use of wetland mitigation credits at the City's
required 1:1 ratio required for wetland buffer alterations. All compensatory mitigation is off-site and
10 within the same sub-basin. The wetland mitigation site is located at the Springbrook Creek Wetland
11 and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Springbrook Bank is a large habitat restoration and wetland re-
establishment site located in the City of Renton, WA, Green-Duwamish WRIA 9. Compliance with
12 compensatory mitigation is addressed below.As noted above, a condition of approval will require the
submittal of monitoring plans.
13
14 RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall
incorporate the following design and other features:
15
i. Relation to Other Facilities:
16
(a)Preferred Location:Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses,
17 and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for
18 handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible.
19 (b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet(400') of a public
street, on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments
20 required to provide more than twenty(20)parking spaces,public parking may be required
21 in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one
thousand(1,000)square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space
22 per five thousand(5,000)square feet of public access area for more than three (3)spaces.
23 Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access
area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped
24 accessible.
25
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 20
1 (c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's
2 transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within
shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site.
3
ii. Design:
4
(a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to
5 reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water and the shoreline from
6 adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge
as feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological
7 features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions.
8 (b)Privacy:Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations
9 adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by
screening or other separation techniques.
10
20. The proposal is adjacent to other public areas since it will connect to what will eventually be a
11 regional trail. The parking requirements of the criterion above are imposed as conditions of approval.
12 It is recognized that the trail system should be considered as a whole in assessing whether adequate
on-street parking is required. As previously discussed, the trail implements some of the objectives of
13 the City's Trails and Bicycles Master Program. As noted previously the trail both accesses the water's
14 edge and provides for shoreline views. There is nothing in the record to suggest the proposed trail
will be in proximity to any residential windows or private open spaces to the extent that trail users will
15 disturb privacy.
16
RMC 4-3-090(D)(3)(b)(viii) Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located
17 within shoreline vegetated buffers shall not exceed four feet (4') in width;provided, that where ADA
18 requirements apply, such facilities may be increased to six feet(6') in width. Stairways shall conform
to the existing topography to the extent feasible.
19
21. The applicant has proposed to construct an ADA compliant, soft surfaced, 8-foot wide trail
20 within the shoreline vegetated buffer. The applicant is proposing a shoreline variance for the May
21 Creek Trail expansion on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year
floodplain. The proposed trail that WSDOT intends to construct is a 16-foot wide zone for an
22 expansion of the May Creek Trail under the 1-405 May Creek Bridge. The applicant is proposing to
23 construct a portion of the May Creek Trail under the May Creek Bridge. The proposed trail segment
will be limited to an eight-foot (8') wide soft surface path. Any additional connections made outside
24 the width of the new bridge or superstructure will be permitted separately (i.e. not part of this
25 application).
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -21
1 For the ERC portion of the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-
2 foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Current bicycle and pedestrian traffic that
uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will relocated to the proposed new ERC trail corridor. See the
3 discussion regarding the Shoreline Variance at Conclusions of Law No. 37-42 below.
4 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the
5 following location and design criteria:
6 i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space:Public access on sites where vegetated
open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway
7 parallel to the OHWMof the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological
8 features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access
to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to
9 control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails
10 shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet(4') to six feet(6') in width
to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.
11
22. The applicant is proposing a shoreline variance for the May Creek Trail expansion on the north
12 side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain. The applicant is
13 proposing to construct a portion of the May Creek Trail under the May Creek Bridge. The proposed
trail segment will be limited to an eight-foot(8')wide soft surface path.
14
For the ERC portion of the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-
15 foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Current bicycle and pedestrian traffic that
16 uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will relocated to the proposed new ERC trail corridor. The
proposed trails generally run parallel to the shoreline as required above and also connects to the water's
17 edge as authorized. See the Shoreline Variance discussion regarding the trail width in the Conclusions
18 of Law No. 37-42 below.
19 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(May Creek Reach): At the time of redevelopment,public access should be
20 provided consistent with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire
property with controlled public access to the water consistent with standards of this Section, and goals
21 of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
22 23. As determined in other parts of the decision, the proposal meets all RMC 4-3-090(D)
23 requirements as well as all SMP policies and use regulations pertaining to preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
24
RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Building and Development Location—Shoreline Orientation:
25
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water-
26 enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 22
1 designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to
2 maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff;protect riparian,
nearshore and wetland habitats;protect wildlife and habitats;protect archaeological, historic
3 and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values.
4 b. Design and Performance Standards:
5 i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs
6 land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
7 ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided
by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany
8 development proposals;provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel
9 less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement.
Such assessments shall include the following general information:
10
(a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear
11 designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and
12 other features.
13 (b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features,
14 together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological
functions.
15
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with
16 substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
17 (a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing,
18 grading, and alteration of topography and natural features.
19 (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of
under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
20
21 (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever
feasible.
22
(d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural shoreline
23 stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited
24 instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses,particularly water-
dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of
25 ecological functions will result.
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -23
1 24. The trail, which qualifies as a water-enjoyment use, is located close to the shoreline while
2 avoiding the most sensitive portions of the site by avoiding all significant trees (Ex. 20) and staying
out of the wetland (although potentially encroaching into its buffer). Impervious surfaces are
3 minimized by the use of porous trail materials. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the proposal is
4 designed and mitigated to prevent any adverse impacts to riparian,near shore and wetland habitat. An
archaeological assessment has been prepared for the project and the conditions of approval require an
5 immediate cessation of construction activities if archeological resources are discovered. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no adverse aesthetic or view impacts are anticipated from the
6 project. The existing environmental reports (Ex. 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20 and 210 provide an
7 assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation
8 characteristics of the site and contain all the information required above. As previously discussed the
trail avoids sensitive portions of the site,avoids the removal of trees and avoids impermeable surfaces.
9 No shoreline stabilization is necessitated by the proposal.
10 RMC 4-3-090(D)(6): Archaeological,Historical,and Cultural Resources:
11 a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal,
12 and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural,
and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such
13 information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in
14 areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural
resources.
15
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical,
16 cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application
17 for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups
18 have ample time to assess the site and idents the potential for cultural resources.
19 c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an
20 area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a
qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review
21 by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
22 Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
23 d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are
discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped
24 immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator
25 of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification
of such find, the property owner shall not the Washington State Department of Archaeology
26 and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -24
7a
1 Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a
2 qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in
coordination with appropriate agencies.
3
25. A detailed archaeological assessment has been prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the
4 subject site,but there is no information in the record.The Muckleshoot Tribe has provided comments.
5 The recommendations of the archaeological assessment require that construction cease and persons be
contacted if any artifacts are discovered during construction as required by the criterion above. As
6 noted in Conclusion of Law No. 25, a condition of approval makes this a requirement.
7 RMC 4-3-90(D)(10)(a) General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be
8 designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent
feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
9
i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water
10 interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of
11 system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or
set back further from the land/water interface.
12
ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical,
13 archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
14
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural
15 movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
16 animals over the life of the facility.
17 iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way
as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal
18 materials.
19 v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
20 vi. Facilities shall allow passage offlood waters,fish passage, and wildlife movement by using
21 bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other
features that provide for these functions.
22
23 vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible,
including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint,public access, or trails.
24
26. To the greatest extent possible, both May Creek Trail and the relocation of the Lake
25 Washington Loop Trail have been carefully considered to be located and designed to avoid significant
26 natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -25
1 Debris associated with bridge demolition work will be collected using Debris catch system and
2 disposed without causing erosion to May Creek. The proposed May Creek Bridge is a one span
structure. The project is anticipated to improve facilities by making fish passage improvements while
3 accommodating public access to park properties and corridors by adding or relocating usable trails.
4
As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5 above, the project has been designed to allow passage of flood
waters, fish passage and wildlife movement. The project has been designed to accommodate utilities,
5 viewpoints,public access and trails.
6 RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(d):
7 i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and
8 maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological
functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration
9 in the design of shoreline trails.
10 ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property
a 11 owners including privacy and noise.
12 iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
13 (a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other
14 water bodies.
15 (b) For interpretive facilities.
16 (c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at
grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface
17 and groundwater movement.
18 iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft
19 surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and
the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use
20 located in less ecologically sensitive areas.
21 27. Improvements to both the May Creek Trail and ERC Trail are designed to protect the existing
22 environment and shoreline ecological functions and minimize the impact on adjacent properties.
23 WSDOT is proposing to extend the City's May Creek Trial under the I-405 May Creek Bridge with
an eight foot(8')wide trail and WSDOT is proposing a 12-foot wide bike and pedestrian trail within
24 the ERC from Ripley Lane, north to Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue. The location and design of the
trails are appropriate for the designated areas.King County DNRP,Parks and Recreation Division will
25
maintain the ERC trail and the City of Renton Community Services Division will maintain the May
26 Creek Trail.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -26
}
1 Table 4-3-090(E)(1) Shoreline Use Table: Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails are permitted,provided
2 that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area.
3 28. The proposed use is authorized by the SMP. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the
proposed trail will not degrade ecological functions. The minor construction and absence of view
4 impacts will also not degrade the natural character of the shoreline area.
5 RMC 4-3-090(E)(8): Recreation:
6 a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
7
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on-and off-site mitigation.
8
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and are
9 consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
10 iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to
11 the ecological features and shoreline environment...
12 b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a
substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the shoreline.
13
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be
14 located on the shoreline.
15
ii. Water-related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the
16 shoreline. ...
17 d. Public Recreation:Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the
18 following criteria are considered:
19 i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the
shoreline are protected.
20
ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in
21 consideration of natural features.
22 iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of
23 the local community.
24 iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and uses
25 are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -27
1 v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the
2 adjoining property.
3 vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed
public use...
4
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance
5 between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the
6 shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process
that provides for a balance of these elements.
7
29. As previously discussed there is no net loss in ecological function associated with the proposal.
8 The level of human activity is limited to walking and possibly bicycling and should have little impact
9 on the shoreline habitat. As a water related recreation facility, the trail is located near the shoreline.
As previously determined natural character is preserved. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided.
10 No water dependent uses are displaced. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no adverse impacts
11 will be generated by the project, which includes impacts to adjoining uses. Parking demand is
addressed in the conditions of approval. As previously discussed, the extensive restoration and
12
mitigation associated with the proposal is well balanced with public recreational needs.
13 RMC 4-3-0090(E)(10): Transportation:
14
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve
15 no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the
16
following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
17 i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water
interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis
18 of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline
19 jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface.
20 ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical,
archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
21
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural
22 movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
23 animals over the life of the facility.
24 iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way
25 as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal
materials.
26
v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
{
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 28
1 vi. Facilities shall allow passage ofjlood waters,fish passage, and wildlife movement by using
2 bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other
features that provide for these functions.
3
vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible,
4 including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint,public access, or trails.
5 30. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
6 function. The transportation regulations above that require facilities to be located as far away from
shorelines as possible conflict with the policies that require recreational facilities and public access
7 facilities to be located close to the shoreline. Given that the public access/recreational policies are
8 more specifically targeted at the project and that shoreline policies strongly encourage public access
to the shoreline, the public access/recreational regulations supersede the conflicting transportation
9 facility regulations. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse impacts to
10 archaeological, natural, historical, or cultural resources. Also, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5
the project will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals.Excavation will be very
11 modest and there is nothing to suggest that groundwater movement will be affected. A condition of
12 approval will require all drainage facilities to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design
Manual. Erosion during construction and construction debris is addressed in detail in the mitigation
13 measures that apply to the project and there is nothing to suggest that erosion will be a problem once
14 construction is completed. The trail does not trigger any significant need for shoreline protection. The
trail provides both viewpoint and physical access features.
15
RMC 4-3-0090(E)(10)(d): Trails:
16
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained
17 in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions.
18 Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the
design of shoreline trails.
19
20 ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners
including privacy and noise...
21
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface
22 trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the
23 number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located
in less ecologically sensitive areas.
24
31. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the trail is designed to avoid environmental impacts and
25 there are no impacts anticipated on adjoining property owners. The trail surface is relatively narrow
26 and considered a soft surface to assure compatibility with shoreline resources.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance -29
1 RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(b) Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations Below Ordinary High
2 Water Mark: Landfills and excavations shall generally be prohibited below the OHWM, except for
the following activities, and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of ecological functions
3 as documented in appropriate technical studies:
4 i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an approved ecological
5 restoration activity;
6 ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
7 iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation facilities and utilities
currently located within shoreline jurisdiction, when alternatives or less impacting approaches
8 are not feasible;
9
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or public access; when
10 alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible; and provided, that filling and/or
excavation are limited to the minimum needed to accommodate the facility;
11
12 v.Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved shoreline protection facilities,
or the repair of existing shoreline protection facilities;
13
vi. Approved flood control projects;
14
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including vegetation restoration; and
15
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of Ecology
16 pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
17 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or otherwise authorized by the Department of
Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the
18 proposed fill for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
19
32. No fill or excavation is proposed below the OHWM of May Creek. The applicant is proposing
20 to remove approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek floodplain under the
existing bridge structure. This work will include habitat improvements along the creek by removing
21 angular rock fill material from the floodplain and removal of the existing northbound bridge
22 columns/abutments. There may be minor amounts of fill (approximately 500 cubic yards) in some
23 locations associated with final grading; however, there will be net reduction in fill materials in this
area.The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel and
24 provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly constructed streambank,
providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement. Detailed analysis of ecological
25 conditions demonstrate that there will be no net loss of ecological function.
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 30
1 RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall
2 be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations, adopted
by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2cii of this Section.. Said provisions
3 shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a
4 shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no
development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided
5 without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program.
6 Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together
with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions
7 of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or
8 inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the
most restrictive provisions shall prevail....
9
(b)Areas of special flood hazard...
10
RMC 4-3-050(G)(2) Critical Aras Buffers and Structure Setbacks from Buffers Table.
11
33. The project includes construction of embankments, ramps, overpasses, noise walls, drainage
12 systems,stormwater detention and treatment facilities,sanitary sewer mains and a fish passable stream
13 crossing.Maintenance,operation,repair,and the construction of new trails are exempt activities within
habitat conservation areas, streams and wetlands,provided that impacts are minimized, and disturbed
14 areas are restored during or immediately after the use of construction equipment (RMC 4-3-
15 050(C)(3)).As conditioned,the proposal is consistent with the critical areas and buffer exemptions.
16 The project, as proposed, is expected to result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands,
streams, and buffers. Impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
17 As proposed and conditioned, a landscape architect will prepare a roadside restoration plan and
18 inventory of trees for removal and the applicant will restore the disturbed areas to original or better
condition with mitigation for temporary impacts to include replanting and site impact mitigation(Ex.
19 9)
20 RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(e)Additional Restrictions within Floodways:
21
i. Increase in Flood Levels Prohibited: Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
22 improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional
23 engineer demonstrates through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with
standard engineering practice that:
24
(a)Encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the
25 base flood discharge; and
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 31
1 (b) There are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties;
2
and
3 (c) There are no higher flood elevations upstream; and
4 (d) The impact due to floodway encroachment shall be analyzed using future land use condition
flows.
5
6 ...
7 iii. If this subsection G is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply
with all applicable flood hazard areas reduction provisions of this Section.
8
iv. Bridges Crossing Floodways: In mapped or unmapped flood hazard areas,future flow conditions
9 shall be considered for proposed bridge proposals crossing floodways.
10 34. No increase in flood levels is anticipated at the subject property or upstream.As demonstrated
1 previously,there are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties (See
Conclusions of Law No. 11, 20, 27 and 31).
12
The project is being developed at a conceptual level in advance of final design and construction
13 through design-build contracting. WSDOT has been developing conceptual designs in accordance
14 with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual and in coordination with Renton's
stormwater utility staff,with the intent to establish and verify performance criteria that will be met by
15 the final design (See Flood Risk Analysis, Ex. 21). Future flow conditions should be considered for
16 proposed bridge proposals crossing floodways.
17 As described above in Finding of Fact No. 5, the current FEMA floodplain/floodway data and
delineation for May Creek is based upon old studies that used a 100-year flood flow of 855 cfs derived
18 from pre-1980 FEMA stream flow data, which is less than the current estimated 100-year flood flow
19 of 1,290 cfs derived from the King County Gage 37a stream flow data. , a condition of approval will
require the applicant to prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of
20 Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100-year flood flow of 1,290 cfs.This analysis will
21 include producing a floodplain/floodway map depicting proposed improvements in relation to the
floodplain and floodway of May Creek. Additionally, WSDOT shall provide a zero-rise hydraulic
22 analysis of the existing and proposed site conditions within the floodplain of May Creek per section
23 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
24 RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(g)(i) Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other
alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or
25 other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the
26 site or off the site illegal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 32
i;.
1 volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or
2 strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high
flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect
3 bank stability or existing habitat. Effective base flood storage volume shall be based on the elevations
4 shown in the flood hazard areas map, identified in subsection E3 of this Section or as determined
through a study where no base flood evaluation information exists.
5
35. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No.34,the project is not expected to reduce the effective
6 base flood storage volume of the floodplain. As described above in Conclusion of Law No. 32, the
7 project will remove approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek floodplain under
the existing bridge structure. This should serve to increase, rather than decrease the flood storage
8 volume in the floodplain. Additionally, the work will include habitat improvements along the creek
9 by removing angular rock fill material from the floodplain and removal of the existing northbound
bridge columns/abutments. There may be minor amounts of fill (approximately 500 cubic yards) in
10 some locations associated with final grading; however, there will be net reduction in fill materials in
11 this area. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel
and provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly constructed
12 streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement. Together, these
13 measures should increase the base flood storage volume. A condition of approval will require
compensatory storage, if the analysis described in Conclusion of Law No. 34 reveals the project will
14 reduce the base flood storage volume and thereby require compensatory storage.
15 RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(g)(i)Mitigation Location: The applicant shall be required to conduct a stream
16 or lake mitigation plan pursuant to RMC 4-8-120 if impacts are identified within a stream or lake
study. The approval of the stream or lake mitigation plan by the Administrator shall be based on the
17 following criteria.
18 i. Mitigation Location:Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in this subsection L:
19 (a) On-Site Mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless a finding is made that on-
20 site mitigation is not feasible or desirable;
21 (b) 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
22 subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation
23 on the subject site;
24 (c) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site
25 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
26 over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 33
{
1 (d) Off-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin Outside the City Limits: Off-
2 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
3 mitigation within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets
4
City goals.
1
5 36. The applicant provided a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report(Ex. 12) and a Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Report(Ex. 13). The applicant will provide both on-site and off-site mitigation. As
6 noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, wetland mitigation will be accomplished off-site through the use of
7 wetland mitigation credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The staff
have determined the off-site mitigation at Springbrook will achieve equal or improved ecological
8 function over mitigation at the subject site. Compensatory mitigation for all permanent wetland and
9 buffer impacts will be accomplished by replacing wetland functions and acreage lost by debiting
credits provided at a regulatory approved mitigation bank. All of the proposed wetland mitigation has
10 occurred in advance and is located off-site.
11 Effective June 9, 2008, the USACE (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 325 and 332), and
12 Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR Part 230) issued a final rule that establishes a preference
for the use of available mitigation bank credits. Since a mitigation bank must have an approved
13 mitigation plan and other assurances in place before any of its credits can be used to offset permitted
14 impacts, some of the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory mitigation are reduced. an
estimated 169,710 square feet (3.896 acres) of Springbrook credits is required to compensate for
15 wetland impacts (Exhibit 13). Because the project is Design-Build, the project may be modified in a
16 manner that results in a different required credit amount. As WSDOT is proposing to use the
City/WSDOT Springbrook Bank credits for mitigation associated with wetland impacts resulting from
17 the WSDOT 1-405/SR-167 Direct Connector Project, the City, as co-manager of the Wetland Bank,
18 must concur with the debit of credits, prior to approval by the USACE Wetland Bank Oversight
Committee.
19
With respect to on-site mitigation, installation and removal of the bridge piles on the bridge over May
20 Creek will occur during the times authorized by the Hydraulic Project Approval and the Federal
21 Services Biological Opinion. On-site restoration would compensate for temporary impacts to May
Creek. Stream mitigation measures must provide equal or better biological functions and values,
22 compared to the existing conditions. WSDOT will ensure the projects stream mitigation elements are
23 constructed and maintained in accordance with WDFW (2003) ISPG (a joint guidance document
developed by WDFW)to address the potential mechanisms of streambank failure,or other degradation
24 of mitigation areas.
25 This project is proposing to utilize the "Design-Build" method of delivery, meaning that all of the
26 impacts and corresponding mitigation discussed in the reports are based on low-level conceptual
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 34
1 project design, which would be refined and finalized by a Design-Build contractor prior to
2 construction.
3 Shoreline Variance Criteria
4 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(i): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the
subject property, or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties on
5 shorelines in the same vicinity.
6 37. The property is characterized by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because it is
7 uniquely situated to provide public access to the shoreline and water's edge while also serving as an
essential link of a regional trail network.
8
9 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(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
10 in the same vicinity.
11 38. As shown in regulations previously reviewed, trails of six-foot width are authorized in the
12 shoreline buffer to May Creek.As noted in the staff report,an eight-foot width is important for a public
trail along the shoreline because volumes for those areas tend to be higher and eight feet is necessary
13 to accommodate the additional traffic and to provide for enhanced ADA accessibility.
14 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iii): The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public
15 welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
16 39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5,the proposal will not create any adverse impacts and
will substantially improve upon ecological functions and provide a valuable recreational asset to the
17 community.Under these circumstances there is no material detriment and no injury to other properties.
18 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iv): The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and
19 intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
20 40. The proposal is consistent with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as outlined in
21 the bulk of this decision. The overall objective of the goals of the shoreline management act and the
SMP is to protect shoreline resources while providing for public enjoyment of the shorelines. The
22 proposal accomplishes both objectives by providing for public access and a significant restoration
program.
23
24 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(v): The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be
done to the area by granting the variance than will be done to the Applicant by denying it, the variance
25 shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of
26 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 the Shoreline Master Program.
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 35
.)
yE
i
i
I
1 41. More harm will be done by denying the variance than approving it since the variance will
I2 facilitate public access to a shoreline for a project that, if approved, will substantially benefit the
shoreline environment. The variance is also necessary for the reasonable use of the property given(1)
3 the relative modest deviation involved; (2) the substantial public benefit served by the proposal; (3)
4
the substantial need for the deviation in order to make the project serve as both an important trail link
s
and a water's edge access point; and (5)the lack of any adverse impacts associated with the request.
5 Reasonable use and necessity is also discussed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6.As determined
6 in the previous conclusion of law,the variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
I Shoreline Management Act and the SMP.
i
7
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(vi): The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
8
41. The six-foot trail width requirement precludes and significantly interferes with a reasonable
9 use of property as contemplated in WAC 197-27-170(a) for the reasons identified in Conclusion of
i
3 10 Law No. 40. The hardship addressed by the variance request is caused by a natural feature of the
1 property as required by WAC 197-27-170(b), specifically, this property differs greatly from other
j 11 properties along the shoreline in the same vicinity because the future trail segment is entirely located
12 under the May Creek Bridge that is proposed to be replaced. The concept of the bridge replacement
assumes removal of existing angular rock and proposed stream bank grading.The location of the future
1 13 trail would be entirely with the scheduled earth removal area associated with the grading work. The
14 proposed future trail zone would be a minimum of 16 feet wide. As much as possible, WSDOT's
I design build directs land alteration to the least sensitive portion of the site.
1 15
The extension of the trail is intended to be a public natural area park facility. The additional width
16 increases ADA accessibility access to natural areas. Due to the need to provide a safe accessible trail
17 in this location, the recommended width of 8-feet is reasonable and the minimum necessary width
under the May Creek Bridge to allow safe comfortable passing space.
18
The trail is compatible with surrounding uses as well as uses planned under the SMP and
' 19
comprehensive plan as required by WAC 197-27-170(c)because it is part of a priority trail project in
y 20 the City's Trails and Bicycle Master Plan,does not create any structures visible to adjoining properties
or waterward of the shoreline and does not adversely affect surrounding uses. As determined in
F 21 Finding of Fact No. 5 the proposal will not adversely affect the shoreline environment as required by
WAC 197-27-170 c The variance will not be agrant of special privilege not enjoyed other
22 ( )• p p � gby
properties in the area as contemplated by WAC 197-27-170(d) because as determined in Conclusion
23 of Law No. 37,this property is uniquely situated to provide a public access trail.
24 The variance request is the minimum necessary to afford relief as required by WAC 197-27-170(e)
25 because without it the trail would not be ADA accessible.As required by WAC 197-27-170(f)and for
3 the reasons stated in Conclusion of Law No. 40,the public will suffer no substantial detrimental effect
26 by the approval of the variance.
, SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 36
,
1
1 DECISION
2 The shoreline substantial development permit, critical areas permit, and shoreline variance are
3 approved, subject to the following conditions:
4 1. The applicant, Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)Northwest Region,
shall submit the following five (5) items for review and approval by the Current Planning
5 Project Manager for construction work associated with the temporary access road to May
6 Creek prior to construction permit approval:
a. An arborist report;
7
b. A final restoration and monitoring plan for May Creek;
8
c. A temporary irrigation plan;
9
10 d. A final landscape and planting plan; and
11 e. A utility plan.
12 2. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic, archaeological or cultural
resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate adverse impacts where unavoidable. If
13 any Native American grave(s)or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts)are found,
14 all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City
of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington
15 State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation.
16 3. WSDOT shall prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100-year flood flow of 1,290 cfs. This
17 analysis shall include producing a floodplain/floodway map depicting proposed improvements
18 in relation to the floodplain and floodway of May Creek. Additionally, WSDOT shall provide
a zero-rise hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed site conditions within the floodplain
19 of May Creek per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. If
the analysis reveals the project will reduce the base flood storage volume, the applicant will
20 provide compensatory storage in accordance with RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(g)(i).
21 4. The applicant shall submit monitoring reports detailing the adherence to performance standards
22 and success standards with respect to the preservation, enhancement and functionality of fish
habitat, wildlife habitat and wetlands function to the City of Renton annually during
23 construction and for a period of five years from project completion for City review and
comment. WSDOT will report if performance measures and success standards have been met.
24 If the performance measures or success standards have not been met, the City will require
25 adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final success standards.
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 37
1 5. All fill material shall be obtained from approved local fill sources. The applicant shall provide
a fill source statement to the City to ensure clean fill is used. The fill source statement shall be
2 submitted with the construction permit application.
3
6. The applicant shall provide drainage plans and a drainage report demonstrating compliance
4 with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
5 7. Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public street, on-street public
parking shall be provided, where feasible. Parking for public access shall include the parking
6 spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public
7 access area is handicapped accessible.
8
DATED this 7th day of May 2018.
9
10
t U l
11
Emily Terr Il
12 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
13
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
14
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
15 application(s) subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
16 hearing examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day
17 appeal period.
18 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 38