Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision1 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: SPU Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Hearing Examiner Site Plan, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA21-000259, SA-A, CU-A, SSDP, SVAR, CU-S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant requests Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and a Shoreline Variance to replace the existing sockeye salmon broodstock collection facility (BCF) in the Cedar River adjacent to Cedar River Park. The permits are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 Exhibits Exhibits 1-11 identified at page 3 of the November 9, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the November 9, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the November 9, 2021 public hearing as well: Exhibit 12 Staff power point Exhibit 13 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data Exhibit 14 Google Earth FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Tessa Gardner, Floyd Snider / 601 Union Ave, Seattle, WA 98101 /tessa.gardner- brown@floydsnider.com. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11 am on November 9, 2021. Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant requests Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and a Shoreline Variance to replace the existing sockeye salmon broodstock collection facility (BCF) in the Cedar River adjacent to Cedar River Park. The project site is at River Mile 1.7 of the Cedar River, immediately upstream of WSDOT’s I-405 bridge over the Cedar River. Development would occur in the Cedar River and along its south bank on parcel 1723059014 owned by the City of Renton. Work would also occur on WSDOT-owned parcel 1723059179 where development would widen an existing access road. The existing parking lot on the parcel would be used temporarily for construction staging. Construction access/staging would also occur on the north side of the river on parcel 1723059013 (Cedar River Park) owned by the City of Renton and in WSDOT right-of-way for I-405. In 2008, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) constructed the original BCF. The BCF was constructed to facilitate on-going fish collection activities in support of the Cedar River Hatchery, located upstream. The Cedar River Hatchery program was established to satisfy terms of the Landsburg Mitigation Agreement, which is intended to mitigate for habitat loss for sockeye salmon above the Landsburg Diversion Dam. The purpose of the BCF Replacement Project is to replace the existing BCF with a new facility. Replacement is expected to improve operations at higher river flows, which will help to fulfill the goal of sufficient genetic diversity over a longer Sockeye collection period for the Cedar River Hatchery, given the ability to operate later into the season. Replacement of the existing BCF will also improve safety for facility operators by minimizing operational maintenance needs. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 Work proposed by the Applicant includes construction of a new in-water concrete sill on the bed of the Cedar River, construction of a new concrete retaining wall to support the boat ramp on the south side of the river, reconstruction of a portion of the boat ramp below the OHWM, and widening of the access road that connects the boat ramp to Houser Way S. During construction, the site would be accessed via both the boat ramp access road on the south of the river and Cedar River Park Dr on the north side of the drive. Staging of equipment would occur on both sides of the river. Project construction would occur over two seasons starting in late spring 2022 and ending in the fall of 2023. The proposed project does not include any on-site surface mounted utility equipment 4. Surrounding Uses. The project site is surrounded by public uses. The Cedar River Dog Park is located to the east and south. The Renton Community Center and Cedar River Park is located to the north and I-405 right of way is located to the west. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued for the project on October 20, 2020. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Structure Placement and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale are not expected to create undue adverse impact on adjacent uses, including noise impacts. Permanent structures would include a concrete sill, a concrete retaining wall located below ground surface, one light pole, a grasscrete pad adjacent to the boat ramp to support the crane outriggers during weir installation, and the widened/reconfigured access road. According to the staff report, these elements are similar to the existing structural elements on site being replaced and would not result in scale-related impacts to the natural or built environments. B. Views/Aesthetics. No obstruction of existing views of natural features are anticipated, including view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. No buildings are proposed as part of the project and therefore no views from public rights-of-way or trails would be impacted by the proposed addition. The proposed project would not establish a new use or development, as the proposed project intends to replace an existing facility that is seasonally part of the visual landscape and is often visited by community members to observe natural salmonid migration and the associated fish-handling. Seasonal operation of the above-water facilities would not preclude the public’s visual access to the shoreline due to the in-water nature of the structure. The replacement BCF would continue to add interest and educational opportunities related to the natural environment for the life of the project. C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts. The permanent concrete sill and retaining wall structure, as well as the seasonally-installed picket weir panels and trap box, are located in-water and would operate silently. The weir panels would be activated via an electronic actuator system that would not be audible to nearby properties over sound of the river and other noises typically found in an urban environment. The proposed project includes installation of one 14-foot tall light pole to the north of the existing boat ramp 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 approximately 15 feet north of an existing downward shielded light pole used to light the boat ramp area. The light would be utilized only during emergencies and to improve safety during low light conditions if emergency maintenance for the BCF is needed. Given the limited anticipated use for this light and existing lights on site, no excessive light and glare impacts are anticipated. D. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features. The proposal would not establish a new use or development, as the project objective is to replace an existing facility that is seasonally part of the visual landscape. The Applicant utilizes existing infrastructure on the site as much as possible to minimize the alteration of natural features. Impervious surfaces have been minimized through removal of a portion of the existing boat ramp and use of grasscrete pavers to support the installation crane outriggers instead of concrete. In addition, the slopes on site will be improved as part of the mitigation plan (Exhibit 4) proposed by the Applicant, resulting in reduced erosion during rain and flood events. Minimal upland grading is proposed as part of the project. E. Landscaping. The proposed project would occur entirely within designated critical areas, therefore no landscaping is required. However, new plantings introduced into the site as part of the Applicant’s critical areas mitigation will improve shoreline aesthetics and reduce noise and glare. The Applicant has proposed plantings along the south shoreline of the Cedar River as part of the shoreline mitigation plan (Exhibit 4). Plantings proposed as part of the restoration and mitigation plan include native species such as Black cottonwood, Red alder, Pacific willow, Snowberry, Nootka rose, Salmonberry, and Pacific ninebark. F. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The critical areas identified at the project site are each assessed individually below. All impacts to the critical areas are found to be adequately mitigated as the Applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of staff that with staff recommended conditions (all adopted by this Decision), the critical areas are mitigated to the extent required by the City’s critical area regulations. 1. Steep Slopes. The proposal will not create any steep slope hazard. The parcel to the south of the Cedar River is mapped with protected slopes (greater than 40 percent) and sensitive slopes (greater than 25 percent but less than 40 percent). The parcel to the north is also mapped with sensitive slopes. All work proposed would occur outside of the steep slopes area. 2. Seismic Hazard Area. The proposal will not add to any seismic hazard. The entire project site is mapped within an area considered as a high seismic hazard and as such, is prone to structure failures as a result of liquefaction during a seismic event. As such, the Applicant submitted a draft geotechnical report with the land use submittal. The geotechnical report will be reviewed at the time of civil construction permit application. 3. Flood Hazard. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any increase in flood hazard. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 Portions of the parcel to the south and parcel to the north of the Cedar River are within the 100-year floodplain. The regulatory floodway of the Cedar River also overlaps with portions of parcels 1723059014 (south bank) and 1723059013 (north bank). As an in- water feature, the BCF occurs in the preliminary floodway of the Cedar River. Per COR Maps, approximately 70 feet of the riparian area on the south bank and 30 feet on the north bank also occur within the preliminary floodway, while the upper 30 to 40 feet of the riparian area on the south bank and approximately 60 feet on the north bank falls within the 100-year floodplain. The upper portion of the south bank is designated Zone X, which refers to those areas with a 0.2% annual chance flood, 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot within a drainage area of less than 1 square mile, and those areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by levees. The upper portion of the north bank is designated as Zone AE, meaning base flood elevations have been determined, which refers to the water surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. A no-rise condition analysis was conducted to ensure that the placement of the BCF permanent weir would not cause an increase in flood levels within the Cedar River floodplain during the occurrence of the base (100-year) flood discharge (Exhibit 9). A Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) provided to McMillen Jacobs by the City of Renton was modified to include the BCF permanent weir, and determined that the BCF permanent weir would have a no-rise effect on the 1% annual chance flood or base flood elevation, if the weir elevation is at or below elevation 29.6 feet. In addition, the BCF permanent weir does not affect the floodway widths for the with floodway 1% annual chance flood water surface elevations. In order to ensure the elevation of the weir at project completion does not exceed the maximum elevation permitted under the submitted no-net rise certificate, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide a final elevation survey prior to close out of the civil construction permit documenting compliance 29.6-foot maximum elevation identified in the No-Rise Study (Exhibit 9). Alternatively, if the proposed elevation of the weir changes prior to construction, the Applicant may submit an amended No-Rise Study documenting compliance no-rise requirement in the floodway, to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to approval of the Civil Construction Permit. 4. Habitat Conservation Area/Shoreline. As mitigated, the proposal will not adversely affect the Cedar River as a habitat conservation area (HCA). The Applicant has prepared a critical areas study with proposed mitigation necessary to support a finding that the proposal will create no net loss in ecological function. HCAs include habitats that have a primary association with the documented presence of proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, and/or of local importance, per RMC 4-3-050. Because the Cedar River contains Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead, which are federally listed threatened species, the Cedar River constitutes an HCA regulated under RMC 4-3-050.G.6 and a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area under RMC 4-3- 090.D.2.c.ii. Because the Cedar River is shoreline of the state (Type S water), work within 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 the river and the riparian corridor is regulated under Renton’s SMP (RMC 4 -3-090) as opposed to typical stream development and mitigation standards under the critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050). Additionally, land adjacent to the Cedar River in the Natural or Urban Conservancy environment is considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area subject to the provisions of the SMP (RMC 4-3-090.D). Requirements for development in HCA related to the proposed BCF include that shoreline use and development results in no net loss of ecological functions and processes. To ensure no net loss, the Applicant proposes to conduct riparian and channel margin enhancement on a total of 10,900 sq. ft. of the low flood terrace and gravel bar at the project site. Due to recent flooding in winter 2020, existing understory vegetation and large wood debris on the flood terrace was largely washed away. Invasive species such as Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry persist and are recolonizing denuded soils. To provide an aquatic component to the mitigation design, an LWM complex is proposed along the left bank to the Cedar River approximately 130 feet upstream of the proposed BCF. This complex would be partially buried and anchored into the substrate with root wads oriented toward the river to provide habitat complexity, cover, and woody substrate for algae and macroinvertebrates. Proposed riparian improvements include restoration of the 3,733 sq. ft. of temporary clearing limits, re-establishment of riparian vegetation in 489 square feet of the existing boat ramp removal, and enhancement of 6,680 sq. ft. of degraded riparian buffer. Vegetation management would include removal of invasive species and installation of native trees and shrubs suitable to the site conditions. Species proposed include Red alder, Pacific willow, Snowberry, Nootka rose, Salmonberry and Black cottonwoods. The planted area would be treated with an erosion control fabric (e.g., jute or coir) and mulching as appropriate to promote plant establishment, erosion control, and weed prevention. According to the consultant, the principal impacts associated with the proposed BCF requiring mitigation include a loss of river substrate supporting potential spawning and benthic production, and removal of riparian vegetation. These ecological functions are not considered limiting in the project reach and impacts to fish production and stream ecology are not considered significant. The proposed on-site mitigation would offset the loss of these functions over time. The critical areas report concludes that the proposed on- site mitigation would provide greater ecological benefit to the Cedar River relative to the minor loss of function due to the project impacts and therefore would result in no net loss of ecological function. Maintenance and monitoring requirements may vary between the City of Renton and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations. In order to ensure the required reports are received by both agencies at consistent intervals and with consistent information, the Applicant should comply with all report requirements from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the USACE does not require maintenance and monitoring, 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 the Applicant should default to the City of Renton’s requirements for maintenance and monitoring. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant shall submit maintenance and monitoring reports after project completion consistent with the requirements of the USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton regulations 5. Aquifer Recharge Area. The site is located in Wellhead Protection Zone 1. The aquifer is adequately protected as the proposal complies with the City’s Zone 1 regulations. The proposed use, as well as the activities to occur as a result of construction, are not prohibited in the WPA. However, due to the scope of the project and proposed excavation, the Applicant must address and comply with RMC 4-4-030(C)(8) Construction Activity Standards – Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Zones 1 and 2 at the time of civil construction permit submittal (Exhibit 10). G. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and does not represent an overconcentration of use. The project would not establish a new use or development, but rather replace an existing facility that is seasonally part of the visual landscape and is visited by community members to observe natural salmonid migration and fish-handling. Seasonal operation of the existing BCF has not had significant impacts on other authorized uses in the area such as public recreation and there is no reason to conclude that the replacement BCF impacts would be any difference. According to the Applicant, the facility would continue to add interest and educational opportunities related to the natural environment for both passive and active users of the site. If the land to the north of the site is ever redeveloped with commercial, office, and residential uses as is intended in the Commercial-Office-Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation, the proposed BCF would be highly compatible with the future uses due the majority of operations occurring on the southern shore. The area south of the southern shoreline has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Residential Low Density (LD) but is likely to remain a public recreation area due to the topography and other critical areas located on the site. Therefore, the proposed BCF would continue to be compatible with the established uses to the south of the site. Staff concurs that as a water-oriented use, the proposed BCF is compatible with the other authorized uses within the area and uses planned under the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program, which encourages water- oriented uses. H. Overconcentration. The proposal does not involve any overconcentration of structures on-site or constitute an overconcentration of use in the area. No buildings are proposed as part of the project. The only structure proposed as part of the BCF, the concrete sill, is located in the river itself. No other structures are proposed for the upland area and therefore the project would not result in overscale structures or an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 8 8 The proposed replacement BCF is one of only two natural resource extraction/recovery uses in the City of Renton, the other of which is located over a mile to the west and is not related to the collection of salmonids. Therefore, both the existing and proposed replacement BCF facility are extremely unique uses that are not over-concentrated within a particular area of the city. The project location is well suited for the replacement BCF, as an existing BCF and the associated infrastructure to serve the new facility is already in place and requires only moderate impacts to the river and upland area when compared to establishing an entirely new location for the facility. The purpose of the BCF, to collect salmonids, is inherently reliant on being locate at an in-water location where salmon spawn, and therefore the Cedar River is an ideal location. Lastly, the location is well-suited due to the established relationship between City of Renton and SPU have with respect to the operation of a natural resource extraction/recovery use at the site. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. No water or sewer service is necessary or required for the proposal. B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed because the Applicant has submitted a stormwater facility design that Public Works staff have determined complies with the City’s stormwater standards. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 7), which proposes a drainage system that staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. The proposed project would create approximately 1,922 sq. ft. of new and replaced impervious surface. A final Technical Information Report submitted with the civil construction permit application shall include qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, which should address the direct impacts of the development on salmon, salmonoid and spawning habitat as it relates to water quality, discharges, pollutants, and increased volumes along the proposal’s shoreline and associated drainage basin. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 9 9 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal does not trigger the need for any parks or open space mitigation under City standards. E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. The proposed project does not include new access or circulation routes; existing transportation infrastructure would be utilized. Access to the site is via an existing private road off of Houser Way S. Since the proposal is replacing an existing facility without any apparent significant increase in trip generation, no traffic impacts or mitigation are anticipated. No loading or storage areas are proposed as part of the project. Pedestrian connections to and on the project site would not be impacted as a result of the project. Existing sidewalks along Houser Way S provide access to the upland portions of the site, and an on-site pedestrian pathway is located on the Renton Community Center site to the north. The existing public access from the Cedar River Trail to the access road and boat ramp on the south bank of the Cedar River would be maintained. These pathways provide desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Due to the nature of the use, the provision of additional transit facilities is not appropriate. During and after completion of the project, park users will continue to have access to shoreline via existing bus routes, parking facilities, and bicycle racks provide by the city on the north side of the river adjacent to the site. F. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. Due to the unique nature of proposed BCF, an in-water structure, and the fact that the BCF is replacing an existing structure, no parking is proposed or required as part of the project. When parking is needed for maintenance or removal of the weir during seasonal operation, the Applicant’s contractors currently utilize the existing parking at the Cedar River Trail trailhead adjacent to the site. The Applicant has indicated they will continue to utilize the trailhead parking lot after completion of the replacement BCF. 7. Shoreline Variance Necessity. Approval of the requested shoreline variance is necessary for replacement of the BCF. The unique conditions of the project site necessitate the variance. The basis of the shoreline variance request is to remove a tree and some associated vegetation. As outlined in COL No. 3D, tree and vegetation removal is generally prohibited within critical areas. The tree and vegetation must be removed to accommodate the installation of grasscrete pavers necessary for operation of a crane that will be used to replace the BCF. Installation of the grasscrete pavers will necessitate the eastern displacement of a boat launch currently located at the site, which will also apparently involve the removal of vegetation. There are no reasonable alternatives available that would avoid the tree and vegetation removal. The Applicant seeks to replace the BCF 20 feet east from its current location, so that the existing BCF can continue to serve its purpose over the two construct ion seasons necessary to complete the replacement. The project location is set by the ownership rights of the Applicant and the 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 10 10 mitigation objectives of the BCF. As shown in the photographs of the critical areas report, the southern shore from which the project is accessed is heavily forested and vegetated, such that any other location close to the project site would also involve tree and vegetation removal. 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 hearing examiner site plans, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits 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 and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The parcel is also subject to Urban Design District C and is located in the High Intensity shoreline designation. 3. Review Criteria/Required Permits. Applicable review criteria are quoted in italics in the remaining portions of this Decision and applied with corresponding conclusions of law. The reasons the permits under review are required are detailed as follows: A. Site Plan. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires site plan approval for all development in the COR zone that is not SEPA exempt. B. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9- 190(B)(3). C. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Shoreline conditional use permits are required for the construction of natural resource/extraction projects in the High Intensity shoreline designation. RMC 4-3-090E1 provides that in the High Intensity shoreline designation, RMC 4-2-060 governs allowed uses, with requirements for conditional use permits to be construed as requirements for shoreline conditional use permits. RMC 4-2-060 provides that natural resource extraction/recovery is authorized with a conditional use permit. RMC 4-11-140 focuses its definition of natural resource extraction/recovery upon forestry and mineral extraction practices. Nonetheless , staff have historically construed the term as including the currently existing salmon facility and deference will be given to staff’s application of the term to the current proposal. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 11 11 D. Shoreline Variance. The Applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-4- 130D.3 and RMC 4-3-050C. to remove one tree within the Cedar River Reach C Regulated shoreline area, a Shoreline of the State. RMC 4-4-130D.3 provides that no tree removal or land clearing is permitted in critical areas or buffers associated with shorelines of the state. In addition, RMC 4 -3- 050C.3 provides that the removal of non-dangerous trees is not an exempt activity within critical areas and associated buffers and therefore requires a variance. Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2)(b). Level of Detail: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. 4. The criterion is met. The majority of the 49 pages of the staff report assesses compliance with site plan review criteria, which includes requirements for consistency with the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, design district requirements and any applicable planned action ordinance. The conclusions of that detailed assessment are summarized in this Decision. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 161 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 17 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “C” and consistent with Design District “C” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 18 of the staff report. 1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this recommendation are “FOF No. _____.” 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 12 12 As to compliance with any planned action ordinance, the project site is subject to the Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance (Ordinance 5813). On September 27, 2021 the Environmental Review Committee issued a SEPA Concurrence Memo finding that the Park 5 Apartments project would be consistent with that planned action ordinance A Planned Action Concurrence Review (Exhibit 1) identified the proposal’s impacts could be mitigated by measures identified in Attachment B of the Planned Action. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide implementation procedures for each of the mitigation measures identified in Attachment B of the Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance #5813 or provide a written narrative of how the particular measure is not applicable to the project. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 6. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation and loading areas by FOF 6(E), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E) and lighting by FOF 5(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 13 13 ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is not required for the project as described in FOF No. 5(E), however the Applicant’s proposed critical areas mitigation includes introduction of plantings that will improve aesthetics and mitigate against light and glare. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), the project utilizes an existing circulation system and access points. The existing system, already well integrated into public uses, appears to include the requisite safe, efficient and desirable linkages and circulation required by the criterion quoted above. No loading or delivery areas are necessary or proposed. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 14 14 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. The criterion is inapplicable. The replacement BCF does not include the creation of new open spaces. Existing open space on both the south and north upland portions of the site would not be impacted by the project. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is inapplicable. As identified in FOF No. 5B, the proposal does not result in any adverse view impacts so the project cannot be conditioned to provide for any view corridors, nor would the creation of any view corridors be possible given that most of the project is below the water level. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in FOF No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 13. The criterion is met. The Applicant has submitted a detailed phasing plan as identified in FOF No. 3. CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 15 15 14. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, development standards and the design district requirements as determined in COL No. 5. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 5H. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 16. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 17. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5A and G, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 18. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 6G, the site is served by adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 19. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 20. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 21. The criterion is met. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped or within critical areas. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 16 16 Shoreline 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. 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. 22. The criterion is met. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 20 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. 5F4, the proposal meets that standard. 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; 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 17 17 23. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage. The criterion is met. There are no reasonable alternatives available to avoid the necessity for tree and vegetation removal for the reasons identified in FOF No. 7. 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; 24. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The hardship is caused by the natural features of the project site. Specifically, the project site is in a critical area where vegetation and tree removal cannot be reasonably avoided for the reasons identified in FOF No. 7. 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; 25. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5G and H. RMC 4-9-190I4bid: That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 26. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The proposal is highly unique and it’s unlikely that any other project of similar character will occur near the project area. However, if that were to occur, it would easily meet the variance criteria as does this project. RMC 4-9-190I4bie: That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and 27. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The Applicant is proposing to replace the BCF while maintaining operations of the current BCF by displacing the new BCF just 20 feet from the existing BCF. The proximity of the new improvements has enabled the Applicant to minimize disturbance of river trees and vegetation. RMC 4-9-190I4bif: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 28. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the shoreline building coverage variance because it enables reasonable use of property without creating significant adverse impacts as determined in Findings of Fat No. 5. 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 18 18 DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the Applicant’s site plan, conditional use, shoreline variance, shoreline conditional use and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The Applicant shall submit maintenance and monitoring reports after project completion consistent with the requirements of the USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton regulations. If not required by the associated USACE permits, the Applicant shall comply with the maintenance and monitoring requirements for mitigation plans as outlined in RMC 4-3-050.L 2. The Applicant shall enter into a new Access Facility Management Plan with the City, or revise the existing plan, prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. 3. The Applicant shall provide a final elevation survey prior to close out of the civil construction permit documenting compliance 29.6-foot maximum elevation identified in the No- Rise Study (Exhibit 9). Alternatively, if the proposed elevation of the weir changes prior to construction, the Applicant may submit an amended No-Rise Study documenting compliance no- rise requirement in the floodway, to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to approval of the Civil Construction Permit. 4. No construction shall occur during the Renton River Days festival, or any other City - sponsored event held at the Cedar River Park or Renton Community Center. Any construction- related activities shall cease at least two (2) days before the scheduled event and shall not continue until at least two (2) days after the event concludes, unless an alternate timeline is approved by Community Services Administrator. The City should make a reasonable effort to accommodate construction by the Applicant that will not unduly interfere with City sponsored events. The Applicant shall contact the City’s Community Services Department a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to any event to ensure the site is safe and secure for event attendees. 5. The Applicant shall fabricate and install updated interpretative signage on both the north and south sides of the Cedar River near the project site. The Applicant shall provide a signage plan to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval of the design, content, and location of the signage prior to Civil Construction Permit issuance. 6. The Applicant shall provide a materials disposal plan for the dredging that includes information regarding the location and method of disposing of all dredged material. The plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to civil construction permit issuance. Decision issued November 18, 2021. Hearing Examiner 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 Site Plan and Shoreline Permits CAO VARIANCE - 19 19 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the 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 appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.