HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX May Creek South Trail Public Hearing Decision_202508061
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: May Creek South Trail
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline
Variance, Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit and Street Standard Modification
PR25-000033
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
The City of Renton requests approval of applications for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance and a street standard modification to
construct a trail along the south side of May Creek that includes two (2) viewpoints, multiple
boardwalk sections over delineated wetlands, and a bridge crossing. The trail will be located at 4260
Lake Washington Blvd, Renton, WA 98056. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
The project involves compensatory mitigation for direct impacts to the stream and its buffer but no
associated analysis establishing that the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. A
condition of approval has been added to those recommended by staff that requires a no net loss
analysis by a qualified professional.
Testimony
Jill Ding, senior Renton planner, summarized the staff report. Jennifer Spencer, Renton Recreation
Manager, spoke in favor of the proposal. No one else testified.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-23 identified at page 2 of the July 22, 2025 Staff Report were entered during the July 22,
2025 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the July 22, 2025
public hearing as well:
Exhibit 24 Staff power point
Exhibit 25 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Exhibit 26 Google Earth
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Jason Lederer, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11 am on July 22, 2025.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The City of Renton requests approval of applications for a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance
and a street standard modification to construct a quarter mile long soft surface trail along the south side
of May Creek that includes two (2) viewpoints, multiple boardwalk sections over delineated wetlands,
and a bridge crossing on a 8.21 acre parcel located at 4260 Lake Washington Blvd, Renton, WA 98056.
Frontage improvements are proposed along Lake Washington Blvd N.
The site is currently used as a public park. The ground surface along the north bank of May Creek at
the proposed pedestrian bridge is relatively level and the area is vegetated primarily with fir and
deciduous trees and undergrowth. The north bank is within the mapped 100-year flood plain of May
Creek. The south bank slopes moderately to steeply upward to the southwest at a grade of about 40%.
The south bank is being actively undercut by the creek and is vegetated primarily with blackberries.
A modified street standard is requested to remove the required street tree planter strip required by RMC
4-6-060 for Lake Washington Blvd N due to the presence of steep slopes within the project vicinity.
The Shoreline Variance has been requested to exceed the six-foot (6’) maximum trail width and
permeable surface requirement for tails within shoreline jurisdiction as regulated by RMC 4-3-
090D.4.di. The proposed trail would consist of an approximately six-foot (6’) wide trail with one-foot
(1’) wide shoulders and six-foot (6’) wide boardwalk sections at wetland crossings. The shoreline
conditional use permit is requested because the proposal includes expansion of an existing overwater
trail.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
4.Surrounding Uses. The project site is surrounded by a wide mixture of land uses, including a home
construction company site, I-405, and single and multifamily development.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. A State
Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued for the project on
June 23, 2025. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Net loss. As conditioned, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function.
A Biological Assessment (BA), prepared by WSP USA, dated September 2024 (Exhibit 7) and
a Wetland and Stream Delineation Report, prepared by WSP USA, dated April 2024 (Exhibit 8),
were included with the May Creek Trail South project application. The wetland and stream
report fails to do a net loss analysis and is limited to classifying and delineating the wetland and
stream.
The purpose of the BA is to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed activities on species
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The report evaluated the likely effects of
proposed alterations within the floodplain, riparian buffer zone, and channel migration zone. The
proposal includes an approximately 50-foot (50’) long spur trail within the 100-year floodplain.
This section would match the existing conditions and would not require grading or fill activities.
Two (2) trail sections would cross existing wetland areas and would be constructed as an elevated
boardwalk in these locations. The proposed bridge would not impact May Creek and the
proposed bridge abutments would be positioned above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM),
the floodway, and the 100-year floodplain.
The submitted Wetland and Stream Delineation Report identified four (4) wetlands (Wetlands
A-D) within the project site. All wetlands were classified as Category III wetlands. Wetland A
(0.14 acres) is a forested wetland located within the southern portion of the project site and is to
the south of May Creek. Wetland B (0.03 acres) is a scrub-shrub wetland located within the
southern portion of the project site, along the southern floodplain of May Creek. Wetland C (0.80
acres) is a forested wetland located within the southern portion of the project site, south of May
Creek. Wetland D (0.03 acres) is a scrub-shrub wetland located on the northern portion of the
project site, north of May Creek. All onsite wetlands are located within the 200-foot (200’)
shoreline jurisdiction of May Creek and would be regulated under the City’s Shoreline Master
Program. Category III wetlands within the Shoreline Master Program would be subject to a 60-
foot (60’) buffer.
A portion of the site is within shoreline jurisdiction and subject to the regulations of the Shoreline
Master Plan. The trail was routed to avoid wetlands as much as possible but total avoidance is
not feasible based on existing conditions and site topography. The trail is designed to maintain
grades and widths that are ADA accessible while following the existing topography to minimize
grading needs. The proposed trail would be constructed as an elevated boardwalk through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
Wetland C. Impacts are proposed to be mitigated in accordance with the submitted mitigation
planting plans (Exhibits 2, 3, and 7).
The project was designed to avoid impacts to aquatic resources by siting the bridge footings and
trail outside of the OHWM of May Creek. The trail was designed to stay outside of the 100-year
floodplain other than from the spur viewpoints. To compensate for the unavoidable impacts
(both temporary and permanent), a comprehensive invasive species management plan and native
riparian vegetation planting plan (Exhibit 2) is proposed to enhance the existing functions of on-
site wetlands and buffers. The mitigation proposed is in alignment with King County’s 2001
May Creek Basin Action Plan and the WRIA 8 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors
report.
The BA concludes that, as proposed, the project is not likely to adversely affect threatened
salmonid species or critical habitat.
Despite the mitigation and findings outlined above, there is no finding by a qualified expert in
the record that the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. The BA analysis is
limited to impacts on protected species and habitat. The wetland/stream report doesn’t address
mitigation or project impacts. To mitigate impacts recognized as unavoidable, the project plans,
Ex. 2, propose compensatory mitigation. There is no analysis anywhere in the record that
addresses the adequacy of this compensatory mitigation. A condition of approval requires a no
net loss assessment on the adequacy of the compensatory mitigation.
B. Views/Aesthetics. No adverse view or aesthetic impacts are anticipated. The proposal does not
involve any structures above grade except for the proposed bridge over May Creek and
boardwalk sections at wetland crossings.
C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts.
Noise and vibration impacts would primarily result from construction work. According to the
applicant, all motorized equipment would meet all current emission standards, so emissions are
expected to be limited and diffuse (Exhibit 3). The proposed trail would not result in additional
emissions once the project is completed. No lighting is proposed.
D. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas because
those areas have been protected and mitigated as required by the City’s critical areas ordinance
as verified by City staff.
The site is mapped with moderate landslide hazard areas, sensitive slopes, protected slopes, a
high seismic hazard area, wetlands, a stream (May Creek), and a 100-year floodplain and
floodway associated with May Creek. The wetlands, flood hazard areas and May Creek have
been adequately protected as detailed in Finding of Fact 5A.
A Geotechnical Report, prepared by PanGEO, Inc., dated March 3, 2023 (Exhibit 6), was
submitted with the project application materials as required by the City’s critical area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
regulations. Filling, excavation, and grading are anticipated for the construction of the south
May Creek trail, installation of bridge abutments, and regrading of sidewalks on Lake
Washington Blvd N. Fill would consist of imported clean borrow material. Approximately 260
cubic yards of cut and approximately 200 cubic yards of fill are anticipated.
The Geotechnical Report included recommendations for bridge and walkway foundation
support, trail cuts and fills, and modular block and gabion walls. The City’s Environmental
Review Committee adopted a SEPA mitigation measure requiring that construction on the
project site comply with the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report.
G. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses.
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the proposal would be compatible with other
uses in the area and uses planned under the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program.
The surrounding uses in the area include an existing trail system to the west and east of the
project site, as well as residential uses to the south. The proposed trail system would provide
access to the shoreline for the surrounding residential uses.
A neighboring property owner submitted a letter expressing concern over the proximity of the
trail to this property. The staff report notes that at its closest point, the proposed trail would be
approximately sixty-seven feet (67’) from the neighboring property to the south and would be
buffered by the neighboring properties by existing vegetation. The commentator was not present
at the hearing to address the issue. As far as can be ascertained from the record, it appears that
the proposal will be adequately separated from adjoining property owners to prevent any trail
nuisance.
H. Navigation. The staff report notes that the staff has determined that the proposal will not affect
navigation of the creek. The bridge is only six feet wide and the creek narrower than that. The
staff powerpoint photographs show a fairly shallow and narrow creek that very likely isn’t
navigable. Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the proposal is not found to
adversely affect navigation of the creek.
6. Shoreline Variance Necessity. Approval of the requested shoreline variance is necessary
for the proposal. The unique conditions of the project site necessitate the variance request.
As previously noted, the project site contains natural features including May Creek and four (4)
wetlands. The trail was routed to avoid wetlands as much as possible but total avoidance is not feasible
based on existing conditions and site topography. In addition, the applicant contends that the trail design
maintains grades and widths that are ADA accessible while following the existing topography to
minimize grading needs.
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the hardship is related to unique conditions, specifically
the ADA requirements regarding trail width and would not be related to the applicant’s own actions. In
addition, the proposed hard surface boardwalk over the wetland areas would be necessary to provide a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
stable walking surface through these sensitive areas. The basic function of the proposal, which is to
provide shoreline access and enjoyment while connecting to the surrounding trail network, could not be
achieved by an alternative location.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances as Type III
applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits and street
modifications as Type II permits. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be
processed under “the highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated applications are
subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type III review is subject to an open record
hearing and final decision prepared/conducted by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal
to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Shoreline Designation/Design District Designations. The subject property is zoned R-6 and
has a comprehensive plan land use designation of RMD. The parcel is located in the Urban Conservancy
Environment Designation.
3. Review Criteria/Street Modification. Applicable review criteria are quoted in italics in the
remaining portions of this Decision and applied with corresponding conclusions of law. The findings
and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the staff report are adopted by reference and found to justify
approval of the street modification request.
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
4. The criterion is met. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and
regulations as detailed in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. The most important and pervasive
requirement in the City’s shoreline regulations and policies, reflecting state shoreline priorities, is that
the proposal result in no net loss of ecological function. As determined in FOF No. 5A, the proposal
meets that standard.
Shoreline Conditional Use
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(i): The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the
Shoreline Master Program;.
5. The criterion is met.
The proposal is a high priority under the policies enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. RCW 90.58.020 states
that preference shall be given to uses in the following order of preference which: 1) recognize and
protect the statewide interest over local interest; 2) preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3)
result in long term over short term benefit; 4) protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5)
increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6) increase recreational opportunities
for the public in the shoreline; and 7) provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100
deemed appropriate or necessary. The project is designed and conditioned to assure no adverse impacts
as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5, which meets the preferred uses 2, 3, and 4 specified above. As
previously noted, the proposal is also consistent with the SMP, in particular because it results in no net
loss of ecological function.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(ii): The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5H, the proposal doesn’t adversely
affect navigation of the creek. Further, the proposal enhanced public access to the creek by connecting
to a trail system that access the creek and providing additional trail access along the creek.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iii): The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be
compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program;
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5G, the use is compatible with the surroundings. As
determined in Findings No. 16 and 19 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iv): The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the
shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(v): The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
9. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
Shoreline Variance
RMC 4-9-190I4b: Decision Criteria: Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where
denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all
instances the Applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the
public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
i. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland as defined
in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the Applicant can demonstrate all of the
following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the
applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
10. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage. The criterion is met. The requested additional trail
width is necessary to conform to the Trail Class 4 standards and associated American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements. To accomplish this, the proposed bridge must have a width of eight feet (8’)
and the proposed soft surface trail requires a total footprint of eight feet (8’), which includes a six-foot
(6’) trail width with one-foot (1’) wide shoulders on either side.
RMC 4-9-190I4bib: That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master
program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
11. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The hardship is caused by the natural features (wetland an
stream) of the project site and could not be reasonably avoided as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-190I4bic: That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the
area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program
and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
12. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. As
determined in Findings No. 16 and 19 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan.
RMC 4-9-190I4bid: That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
the other properties in the area;
13. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. Any variance for a project that provides for environmentally
responsible public shoreline access would likely be approved.
RMC 4-9-190I4bie: That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
14. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact 5A and 6, the trail has been
designed to avoid the wetlands as much as possible and also maintain site topography while still
providing public shoreline access that connects to the existing May Creek trail system.
RMC 4-9-190I4bif: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
15. Criterion Met. The criterion is met because it provides for public shoreline access without
creating significant adverse impacts as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5.
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s applications for a shoreline variance, shoreline conditional use permit, shoreline
substantial development permit and street standard modification are met by the proposal and the
applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 23, 2025:
a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted
Geotechnical Report, prepared by PanGEO, Inc., dated March 3, 2023, and any future
addenda.
b. When feasible, any wood from onsite tree removal shall be reused onsite.
c. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts)
are found, 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 State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
2. The Applicant shall submit a no net loss analysis prepared by a qualified professional
subject to approval by the planning manager prior to any development activity that
demonstrates that the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. Additional
mitigation, as necessary, shall be implemented to meet the no net loss standard. As an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline Permits
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
option, the no net loss analysis can be prepared as a supplement to reports or civil drawings
prepared for the proposal.
Decision issued August 6, 2025.
Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the shoreline conditional use and variance application(s) subject to this
decision as Type III application(s) subject to appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board and the shoreline
substantial development permit as a Type II decision appealable to the Washington State Department
of Ecology. The street modification is appealable to King County Superior Court within 21 days of the
date of this decision as governed by the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C
RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
May Creek Trail South
Land Use File Number:
LUA25-000091, SSDP, CUP-H, V-H, ECF, MOD
Date of Meeting
June 23, 2025
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact
Jason Lederer
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Project Location
4260 Lake Washington
Blvd N, Renton, WA
98056
The following exhibits are included with the ERC Report:
Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibit 2: May Creek Trail South 60% Plan Set
Exhibit 3: SEPA Environmental Checklist, prepared August 28, 2024
Exhibit 4: Shoreline Conditional Use, Shoreline Variance, and Modification Justifications,
dated March 7, 2025
Exhibit 5: May Creek Frontage Road Improvements Plan Set
Exhibit 6: Geotechnical Report, prepared by PanGEO, Inc., dated March 3, 2023
Exhibit 7: Biological Assessment, prepared by WSP USA, dated September 2024
Exhibit 8: Wetland and Stream Delineation Report, prepared by WSP USA, dated April 2024
Exhibit 9: Drainage Report, prepared by WSP USA, dated September 2024
Exhibit 10: Arborist Report, prepared by Davey Resource Group Inc., dated December 3, 2022
Exhibit 11: Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet
Exhibit 12: Duwamish Tribe Comment Letter, dated April 28, 2025
Exhibit 13: Staff Response to the Duwamish Tribe’s Comment Letter, dated May 19, 2025
Exhibit 14: King County Wastewater Treatment Division (KCWTD) Comment Letter, dated May
19, 2025
Exhibit 15: Staff Response to KCWTD’s Comment Letter, dated May 21, 2025
Exhibit 16: Public Comment Email from Roman Spektor, dated May 12, 2025
Exhibit 17: Staff Response to Roman Spektor’s Comments, dated May 16, 2025
Exhibit 18: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Comment Letter,
dated June 12, 2025
Exhibit 19: Staff Response to WDFW Comment Letter, dated June 12, 2025
Exhibit 20: Advisory Notes
Docusign Envelope ID: 3947FE7A-D463-41BB-933E-23F73F139047
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
May Creek South Trail
Land Use File Number:
LUA25-000091, SSDP, CUP-H, V-H, ECF, MOD
Date of Hearing
July 22, 2025
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Jason Lederer
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057
Project Location
4260 Lake Washington
Blvd N, Renton, WA
98056
The following exhibits are included with the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner:
Exhibits 1-20: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibit 21: Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 22: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M), dated June 23, 2025
Exhibit 23: Off-Site Parking Exhibit
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
May Creek South Trail
Project Number:
LUA25-000091, SSDP, CUP-H, V-H, ECF, MOD
Date of Public Hearing
July 22, 2025
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Jason Lederer
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057
Project Location
4260 Lake Washington
Blvd N, Renton, WA
98056
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision Report:
Exhibit 1-20 As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 21-23 As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 24: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 25: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 26: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/