HomeMy WebLinkAboutClement ltr �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
January 31, 2018
Mark Clement
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 3707, MC 96-01
Seattle, WA 98124
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit&
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (LUA-17-000631)
Dear Mr. Clement:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated January 30, 2018. This
document is immediately available:
• Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at
www.rentonwa.�ov/cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the
right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The
Hearing Examiner 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. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Alex Morganroth,Associate Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Katie Buchl-Morales,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
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 )
10 �� City of Renton ) FINAL DECISION
11 Shoreline Substantial Development �
Permit and Shoreline Conditional Use �
)
12 Permit )
)
13 LUA17-000631, SSDP, SCUP �
14
15 Summary
16
The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP") and shoreline
17 conditional use permit ("SCUP") for the repair, maintenance and partial redevelopment of"Apron
R" of the Boeing plant within its shoreline frontage on Lake Washington. Apron R is a concrete
1 g staging and towing area for aircraft overhanging the shoreline. Proposed work within 200 feet of the
19 shoreline includes the replacement of all concrete on the apron and various stormwater
improvements. Proposed work waterward of the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM") includes the
20 conversion of the existing overwater pile-supported section of the Apron to fill, a 3,165 sq. ft. water-
ward expansion of the Apron using in-water fill, construction of a 192 foot long structural wall to
21 contain the new fill, bulkhead replacement along a large section of the Apron, aquatic habitat
22 enhancement, and riparian plant installation along the new bulkhead. Utility lines are also proposed
for relocation. The shoreline permits are approved subject to conditions.
23
24 Testimony
25 Alex Morganroth, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Morganroth
26 identified that the Apron improvements are divided into three "areas."For Area 1, Area 1,the fill that
is proposed for this area of the project is what is triggering the need for a conditional use permit.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 1
1 Currently it is pile supported. The proposal is to fill 11,000 square feet of lake. This will serve to
expand this as a pinch-point between a building and the water. In addition, this will serve to bypass
2 the existing tow-path when they are working on that path and allow Boeing to maintain their busy
3 schedule. In addition to improvements, mitigation is proposed on the entire bulkhead from the west
side over to the DNR property. The Applicant proposes a slight in-water slope for habitat and a ten-
4 foot wide planting strip. This will tie in to the DNR property. Currently there is nothing there due to
the pile support. The Applicant did a standard lake and stream study which found that this will
5 provide a much better habitat.
6
Area 2 is on the other side of the property, near the Hyatt building. There will be pavement
'7 replacement and a new stem wall to replace the existing stem wall. There will be utility replacement
and walls will be raised 4 to 5 feet to relieve a water drainage issue. The Applicant will also replace
g storm water outfalls, which will result in less sediment disturbance than currently occurs.
9 For Area 3, the Applicant proposes pavement replacement and stormwater outfall removal and
10 replacement, some of which crosses into DNR property. They Applicant has been working with
DNR to reach an agreement over removal and replacement of trees in a 15-foot wide easement in
11 order to remove utilities from the easement. The Applicant proposes removal of trees due to potential
12 damage to roots zones when pulling out utilities. The Applicant would replace removed trees with
like species. The Applicant has a letter of approval from DNR but needs to work out the final details.
13 wSDOT will also be involved with this. The easement is along the entire south side of the property.
14 The Shoreline Development Permit application is consistent with all applicable criteria. It is
consistent with the comprehensive plan if all recommended standards and conditions of approval of
15 city are complied with. There is no net loss of ecological functions. The Applicant has complied
16 �'�'ith the critical areas ordinance and bulk and dimensional standards. The Applicant complies with
standards pertaining to adequacy of public services such as water and sewer. There is one
17 recommended condition of approval in this area. There is sewer infrastructure owned by King
County near the property. The County has requested notification when Boeing is working near this.
1 g The recommended condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide 72 hours prior notice when
19 �'orking in this area.
20 The Environmental Review Committee discussed the impacts on recreation and public access at its
meeting. (Exhibit: Map of the San Chastain Regional Trail.) The Sam Chastain Regional Trail
21 circumnavigates Lake Washington. The trail has a missing link in front of Boeing property. The City
22 worked with the Applicant in the late 90s and early 2000s to try to get that section of trail built, but
security issues since 911 made this complicated. The proposed project may impact the trail. There
23 are public access criteria for access to the shoreline in the shoreline master program. The original
easement on the property was moved to run adjacent to the property. With the proposed
24 improvements and mitigation, the City cannot use the easement any longer to complete the trail.
25 Conditions of approval were added to ensure public access. The east side of the property and a 10-
foot easement there would work to link the trail. The Applicant will need to work with the City to
26 move the easement or locate another approved site on the property. The relocated easement will be
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 2
1 recorded prior to construction permit issuance or an alternative date approved by current planning
2 manager. The Applicant may choose to incorporate trail design into their mitigation plan instead.
3 No other persons testified.
Exhibits
4
5 The January 16, 2018 staff report and Exhibits 1-23 identified at page 3 of the staff report itself were
admitted into the record during the hearing. City of Renton COR maps and Google aerial
6 photographs of the project site were also admittedl.
� FINDINGS OF FACT
8
9 Procedural:
10 1. Applicant. The Boeing Company. Applicant contact is Mark Clement, PO Box 3707,
MC 96-01, Seattle, WA 98124.
I1
2. Hearin�. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on January 16, 2018 in the
12 City of Renton Council Chambers.
13 3. Project Descri tion. The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit
14 ("SSDP") and shoreline conditional use permit ("SCUP") for the proposed repair and partial
15 redevelopment of"Apron R" of the Boeing plant within its shoreline frontage on Lake Washington.
Apron R is a concrete staging and towing area for aircraft overhanging the shoreline. Proposed work
16 within 200 feet of the shoreline includes the replacement of all concrete on the apron and various
1� stormwater improvements. Proposed work waterward of the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM")
includes the conversion of the existing overwater pile-supported section of the apron to 11,000 square
18 feet of fill, a 3,165 sq. ft. water-ward expansion of the apron using the fill, construction of a 192 foot
19 long structural wall to contain the new fill, bulkhead replacement along a large section of the apron,
aquatic habitat enhancement, and riparian plant installation along the new bulkhead. The total new
20 impervious surface proposed is approximately 3,200 sq. ft. No new roof-top or above-grade
21 mechanical equipment is proposed for installation as a part of this project. No proposed structures
will exceed 35 feet in height.
22
The existing apron was constructed in the 1940s and is comprised of 100 percent impervious
23 surfaces. The entire project area is highly developed and disturbed due to the presence of the Boeing
24
t The first five minutes of the hearing did not get recorded by the Examiner's recorder and it was during that time
25 that all exhibits were admitted. It's unclear if a staff power point was also admitted during the hearing. For a
complete list of e�chibits,reference will have to be made to the City's recording for exhibits that are not identified in
2f the staffreport.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 3
1 plant site. The majority of the proposed changes to the apron that involve ground disturbing activities
2 are located in previously developed or altered area, with the exception of the conversion of 7,600 sq.
ft. of overwater coverage to fill and approximately 3,600 sy. ft. lake reclamation for the expansion of
3 Apron R.
4 The tow path located on Apron R is primarily functions as a road, as it contains a delineated path used
5 by airplanes to travel from Boeing plant to the Renton Municipal Airport. Due the location of the
existing Apron R transportation facility along the shoreline, the historic development patterns of the
6 plant, and the location of the Cedar River bridge,there are no other location alternatives that allow for
� the planes to move between the Boeing production site and the Renton Municipal Airport. The
location of the recently renovated bridge, near the mouth of the Cedar River, does not allow an
g alternative road of the tow path road without a complete redesign of the 153-acre Boeing site.
9
The Applicant has proposed the replacement of existing utilities within the apron and subsequent
10 shoreline jurisdiction. Utilities proposed for replacement include electrical, compressed air, chilled
11 �'�'ater, fire water, and communications. Existing surface-mounted utilities would be moved
underground as part of the project and would create better visual compatibility with the existing
12 shoreline. The Applicant has also proposed to update the collection and conveyance systems for storm
13 �'�'ater, as well the as oil control facilities. The system updates would ensure effective spill-
containment infrastructure is in place to prevent oil from entering the lake during an emergency spill
14 event, and increase the water quality of storm-water discharge entering the lake. Four new storm
15 �'�'ater outfalls will be relocated in order to discharge at locations beyond shallow water habitat (2-
meter depth),which would minimize the impacts on the habitat of juvenile salmonids in the area.
16
In addition to the utilities on the apron, the Applicant has also proposed to remove and relocate
17 electrical, water, and mechanical utilities contained within a 15-wide easement on the adjacent DNR
1 g property. Per an agreement with DNR,the Applicant would relocate the buried conduit containing the
utilities to the Boeing property and fully restore the disturbed area. Soil excavated during the removal
19 �,ill stockpile and then be used as backfill when filling the trenches. The area will be replanted with
20 native species in accordance with DNR specifications. Additionally, the relocation of the utilities
would require the removal of five (5) trees on the DNR property. As part of the restoration, the
21 Applicant would replace the five (5) trees in locations approved by DNR to ensure no loss of
22 vegetation.
23 The project site is 153.30 acres in size and located at 737 Logan Ave N. The primary function of
24 Apron R is the transportation of completed airplanes from the Boeing Plant site to the Renton
Municipal Airport. The towing of the airplanes between the assembly line and the air field is a critical
25 function of Apron R, with an average of 42 airplanes per month utilizing the Apron R transportation
26 corridor. The aprons secondary function is to provide space for the staging of completed airplanes
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 4
1 when undergoing final checks and inspections. The Applicant has proposed the removal of five trees
2 and various vegetation on a DNR mitigation site that adjoins the Apron on its northeast as part of a
utility removal project. The Applicant has also proposed the removal of non-native and invasive
3 species located near the shoreline along the DNR property.
4 3. Characteristics of Surroundin Area. The site fronts Lake Washington to the north.
5 Adjoining the site to the west is the Cedar River and Renton Airport, to the south surface parking and
to the east the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
6
5. Adverse Im acts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. A
� SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal on December 8, 2017 with 14
g mitigation measures. No appeal was filed. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
9
A. Ecolo�ical Function. The proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. The
10 Applicant has submitted a Standard Lake and Habitat Report, Ex. 9, and a draft Biological
11 Assessment, Ex. 10, which assess in detailed the impacts of the proposal to the shoreline
environment. The lake report, prepared by environmental consultants, concluded that the
12 project will result in no net loss of ecological functions in the aquatic or riparian zone in
the area adjacent to Apron.
13
14 The lake study describes how the loss of approximately a '/4 acre of low-functioning
aquatic habitat caused by the proposed fill would be offset by 0.16 acres of new riparian
15 habitat and 0.18 acres of invasive species removal and vegetation plantings in order to
create approximately 0.34 acres of new riparian vegetation habitat adjacent to the project
16 area. The upland riparian planting strip is proposed to be 10 feet in width and will run the
17 length of the bulkhead and connect to the DNR property. The species planted in the
riparian area will grow to maximum height of approximately 10 feet tall and will provide
lg shade during daytime hours and reduce the impact of artificial light during nighttime
hours. In addition, another 0.66 acres of nearshore shallow-water habitat will be created.
19 The new shallow-water habitat will require the construction of multi-level fill slopes to
support the multi-sloped benthic environment, which would reduce wind/wave erosion in
20 the new shoreline area while providing an improved, fish-friendly habitat for juvenile
21 salmonids. The roughly one total acre of habitat improvements installed along the project
shoreline will complement the DNR shoreline restoration on the adjacent property. The
22 ecological function of the shoreline along the Apron R is currently highly degraded and
serves little ecological or habitat function. The study concludes that mitigation efforts
23 combined with the planned storm water improvements will be a significant improvement
24 of the nearshore water and habitat quality in the area of Lake Washington near the project
site and will not result in any net loss of ecological function.
25
Maintenance and monitoring requirements may vary between the City of Renton and the
26 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations. To ensure the required reports are
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 5
1 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
2 Engineers. If the USACE does not require maintenance and monitoring, the Applicant
3 should default to the City of Renton's requirements for maintenance and monitoring.
Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit maintenance and
4 monitoring reports after project completion consistent with the requirements of the
USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton regulations, unless mitigation and monitoring is
5 not required by USACE permits.
6
B. Critical Areas. The only critical area located in the project area is a High Seismic Area.
� As required by the City's critical area regulations, the Applicant submitted a geotechnical
report prepared by PanGEO Inc, dated September 2017, Ex. 8. The report includes
g analysis and a series of recommendations based on the potential for liquefaction to occur
9 on the site during a seismic event. As part of a required SEPA mitigation measure, the
Applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical
10 report. Compliance with the Geotech report recommendations satisfies the requirements
of the City's critical area regulations, which in turn leads to the determination that there
11 are no significant impacts associated with the proposed development in the High Seismic
12 Area.
13 C. Stormwater/Water Quality. Staff have determined that the preliminary design proposed
for stormwater control meets the requirements of the City's stormwater regulations,
14 specifically the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design. Compliance with the
stormwater manual assures that the proposal will not create any significant stormwater or
15 water quality impacts. The Applicant has elected to provide enhanced water quality
16 treatment prior to discharge in provide a benefit to Lake Washington and its aquatic
habitat. Water quality treatment will consist of conveyance to oil/water separator vaults,
1� which will direct surface water to several Linear Modular Wetland systems prior to
discharge to the outfalls in Lake Washington.
18
19 To further protect water quality, the Applicant will be required to submit an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan at the time of construction permit application. The Applicant has
20 also identified a series of recommended best management practices in both the Standard
Stream Study and Habitat Report and geotechnical report. SEPA mitigation measures
21 require that the Applicant comply with the recommendations of both reports.
22 D. View/Aesthetic Impacts. The proposal will not obstruct any views. Most of the proposed
23 improvements will not occur at a higher grade than existing structures and many of the
improvements are located underground. The existing site already lacks view corridors due
24 to the large size of the existing airplane manufacturing plant structures and no new
buildings are proposed as a part of the project.
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 6
1 E. Li htin . The Applicant has not proposed any new artificial lighting as a part of the
project. According to the Standard Lake and Habitat Study, the proposed installation of
2 new riparian plantings area averaging 10 feet in width will provide shade during the day
3 and block artificial light sources at night. The reduction of artificial light would provide a
more hospitable environment for juvenile salmonids and other fish when utilizing the
4 proposed aquatic habitat adjacent to the apron.
5 F. Archaeolo ical. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse
6 impacts to archaeological resources. According to the State Department of Archaeology
& Historic Preservation (DAHP) there are two pre-contact archaeological sites recorded
7 within 3,000 feet of the project area, as well as pre-contact trail systems. See Ex. 13. The
presence of these sites and trails indicates that there is a high probability that the project
8 site contains various pre-contact archaeological resources. A SEPA mitigation measure
9 requires that if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian
artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop in accordance with RCW 27.53.060
10 and 27.44.020, and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton
Planning Department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State
11 Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
12 Due to parts of the proposed project that would occur under the existing impervious
13 surface, DAHP has recommended that the Applicant hire a professional archeologist to
monitor ground disturbing activities. In addition, DAHP recommended the Applicant
14 prepare an archaeological monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan (MIDP) to be
submitted to DAHP and the interested Tribes for review prior to any ground disturbance.
15 A SEPA mitigation measure includes that the Applicant shall submit an Archaeological
16 Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan MIDP to DAHP and any interested Tribes for
review prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities.
17
The project proposal and notice of application were provided to reviewing agencies
1 g including DAHP and, apparently, the Muckleshoot Tribe. No comments were received
19 from the Muckleshoot Tribe.
20 G. Noise. Noise impacts are limited to construction noise. The staff report notes that upon
completion of construction the proposal will not generate any more noise. During
21 construction, noise and vibration impacts would primarily result from removal of the
22 existing piles and the driving of the sheet pile wall and new stem wall. Noise impacts are
anticipated to be short-term impacts that would be completed within the approved fish
23 windows. The Applicant indicates that most of the construction noise impacts are
anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours,though may occasionally occur
24 on nights and/or weekends in order to complete the project within the restricted fish
25 window (no in-water construction work would occur from January 1 st through July 15th
and August lst through November 15th). The short 45-day construction window allowed
26 by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS dictates the impacts would be temporary.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 7
1
Pile-driving or removal will be limited to day-time hours and all construction activities
2 will be subject to City of Renton Noise Regulations. The equipment and construction
3 noise would be regulated through the City's adopted noise level regulations per Chapter 8-
7 RMC. The City's noise regulations limit haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm,
4 Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
Work on Saturdays is restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight
5 o'clock(8:00)p.m.No work is permitted on Sundays.
6
H. Motor Vehicle and Boat Traffic. Trip generation is limited to construction work. In the
'7 Construction Mitigation Description (Exhibit 7) submitted by the Applicant, proposed
hauling routes have been identified that will minimize the project's impact on local
g vehicular and pedestrian traffic. A small quantity of construction materials or equipment
9 may be delivered by barge due to their size but are not likely to significantly impact
existing water traffic due to the expected low volume of the deliveries during construction.
10
I. Public Access. The proposal adversely affects public access to shoreline resources by the
11 proposed filling waterward of the OHWM. In terms of loss of public access and use, this
l2 impact is reasonably mitigated by proposed improvements to an off-site public shoreline
trail, the Sam Chastain Trail. This trail is a regional, multi-use trail that circumnavigates
13 Lake Washington. The trail is completely built-out except for a small segment in Renton,
which is planned to extend along the Lake Washington shoreline near the Boeing plant.
14 The unfinished trail segment lies between the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the adjacent parcel
to the east of the Boeing plant site and the Cedar River Trail Park to the west of the
I S Boeing plant (see Exhibit 20). The planned route for the unfinished segment, illustrated in
16 the Sam Chastain Trail Plan, includes an overwater trail running between the Renton
Rowing Club dock and the DNR property, then over land on the DNRproperty, extending
17 across the northeast corner of Boeing Apron R, to where it connects to the existing
easement on the Hyatt Regency site.
18
19 Discussions between Boeing and the City regarding the multi-use trail section near Boeing
property started in the early 1990s and led to the creation of an access easement across
20 Boeing property, connecting the Renton Rowing Club dock (owned by the City) and the
DNR mitigation site adjacent to Apron R (previously owned by owning) (see Exhibit 20).
21 In May of 1996, the easement was relocated to the south and now runs directly adjacent to
22 an approximately 650-foot long section of the existing Apron bulkhead. To mitigate for
the lake fill, the Applicant has proposed mitigation along the Apron R bulkhead in Area 1.
23 Mitigation proposed includes the addition of a sloped fish habitat enhancement area and a
10-foot-wide riparian habitat zone adjacent to the Apron R bulkhead. As proposed, the
24 mitigation would be located within the existing trail easement and would impair existing
legal public access rights granted by the original easement. To protect the City's existing
25 legal public access rights and to meet the intent of the public access section of the
26 Shoreline Master Program, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant agree to
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 8
1 relocate the overwater easement to the original location as depicted in King County
Record #9209171541 (see Exhibit 20), which would move the trail outside the proposed
2 mitigation site.
3
The City also has an existing agreement with DNR to allow for the establishment of a trail
4 on the DNR property adjacent to the Boeing property. Proposed construction in Area 2
includes the raising of the northeast corner of the apron to direct surface water to new a
5 stormwater conveyance system. A new stem wall will be constructed approximately 10
6 feet landward of the existing stem wall and will create a 10-foot wide paved area between
the lake and the stem wall running from the edge of the Hyatt property to the DNR
'7 property. To further meet the intent of the public access section in the Shoreline Master
Program and provide the ability for the public to access the future trail on the DNR
g property, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant grant the city a 10-foot access
9 easement between the proposed new stem wall and east property line.
10 J. Com atn ibility. The existing primary use of the apron, as a transportation corridor for
aircraft, is highly compatible with the surrounding area due to the industrial nature of the
11 Boeing plant site. The nearest residential or commercial property is located approximately
12 1,300 feet to the east of the project site and will not be subject to any long-term impacts
caused by the fill and expansion. The new fill-supported west ramp area will be
13 constructed at the same grade as the rest of Apron R and the design will be substantially
similar to the existing section of apron.
14
K. Cumulative Impacts. The proposal will not result in significant cumulative impacts. The
15 existing use on the site, aircraft manufacturing, is unique to the Boeing plant site and is a
16 use not found anywhere else on Lake Washington. In addition, the plant is one of the only
industrial sites along the shores of Lake Washington and has been at its current location
17 since the early 1940s. As an industrial site located inside of a heavily urbanized area and
adjacent to a Shoreline of the State, it has many unique challenges that other developments
1 g and uses in the vicinity do not have. The use on the site is also unique in that airplanes are
19 produced 24/7 and shutdowns cannot last for more than a few days without enormous
impact to Boeing, the local economy, and the state economy. Due to the extremely unique
20 characteristics of the site and use, developments with similar circumstances do not exist
and new ones with closer similarities are unlikely to be established. Therefore, cumulative
21 impacts of granting the Conditional Use Permit is not anticipated.
22 Conclusions of Law
23
24 1. Authoritv. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner SCUP applications as Type III
permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the autharity to hold a hearing and issue a final
25 decision on Type III permits, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. SSDP applications
26 are classified as Type II permits by RMC 4-8-080(G). The SSDP of this case has been consolidated
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 9
1 with the Type III review of the conditional use application pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C) for the
2 examiner to make the final decision on both applications.
3 2. Zonin�/Shoreline Designation/Reach. The subject property is zoned UC, Urban Center. The
shoreline designation for the upland portion of the project site is Shoreline High Intensity. The
4 shoreline designation for the waterward area of the project site is Aquatic. The shoreline "reach"
5 designation is Lake Washington Reach I.
6 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 SMP policies. An SCUP is required for the proposal under RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(e), which
" 8 requires a shoreline conditional use permit for all fill proposed waterward of the OHWM. RMC 4-9-
9 190(I)(5)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline conditional use permits. The proposal complies with all
applicable SMP policies as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. The proposal complies with
10 applicable setback and height standards for the reasons identified in Finding No. 25(7) of the staff
11 report. All other applicable regulations are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law:
12
13 SMP Use Regulations
14 �C 4-3-090(D)(2):
15
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
16
1� i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that
prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in
1 g 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 (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline
19 ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to,fish and wildlife habitat,
20 food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected
include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge
21 and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic
matter input; nutrient and pathogen rerrtoval; and stream channel formation/maintenance.
22
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or
23 processes,project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off-site.
24
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required.• An application for any permit or approval shall
25 demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the
activiry does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following
26 prioritized order:
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 10
1
(a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or
2 moving the action.
3
(b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
4 implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to
avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
5
6 (c)Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
'7 (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
8
9 (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute
resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective
10 measures.
11 b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed
12 development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Progz�am and the
Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to
13 Provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions.
14 4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
functions and processes and no significant cumulative impacts. The Applicant has met its burden in
15 establishing the requisite mitigation sequencing, as avoidance is not possible due to the location of
16 the existing facilities and the area necessary for Apron R is the minimum necessary for aircraft
construction. In proposing mitigation that rehabilitates and enhances adjoining riparian areas in a
17 manner that results in no net loss of ecological function, the Applicant has sufficiently "rectified"
adverse impacts as contemplated in RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(a)(iii)(c) above.
18
19
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
20
i. Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated in
21 accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-OS0, Critical Area Regulations, adopted by reference
22 except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2cii of this Section. Said provisions shall apply to
any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or
23 written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be
constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full
24 compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within
25 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 of the
26 Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 11
1 between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive
provisions shall prevail.
2
3 (a)Aquifer protection areas.
(b)Areas of special flood hazard.
4 (c) Sensitive slopes, twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%), and protected slopes,
forty percent(40%) or greater.
5 (d) Landslide hazard areas.
6 (e) High erosion hazards.
(�High seismic hazards.
'7 (� Coal mine hazards.
(h)Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
g (i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2 through 5
9 only.
10 5• As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), the only critical area at the project site is a high
seismic area. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), as conditioned the proposal is
ll compliant with the City's critical area regulations as they apply to the high seismic area.
12 RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat:
13
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management facilities including
14 water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the current
stormwater management standards. Water qualiry treatment facilities shall be provided for moderate
15 alteration of nonconforming structures, uses and sites as provided for in RMC 4-10-095.
16
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for control of erosion
17 and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through approved
temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or administrative conditions.
18
19 iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize interference
with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine directly onto the water. Exterior
Z p lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices such that glare or direct illumination does not
extend into water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches to ensure that lights are
21 extinguished when not in use.
22 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), the proposal will conform to the City's current
23 stormwater standards and the Applicant will be implementing best management practices for erosion
and sediment control. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E), the proposal will not create
24 any adverse light impacts as no new lighting is proposed.
25 RMC 4-3-090(D)(3): Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects:
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 12
1 a. General:Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed and operated to
allow the public's visual acce.ss to the water and shoreline and maintain shoreline scenic
2 and aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural features, such as shoreforms and
3 vegetative coveY.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and criteria shall c�pply
4 to developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Mast�er Pro�am:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi family
5 and/or multi-lot development.s are proposed,prirraary s�tructures shall provide for view
6 corridors between buildings where views of the shoreline are available from public
right-of-way or trails.
'7 ii. Maximurn Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to cz height of reo more than
thirty five feet(35) above average finished grade level except at specific locations
8 specified in Table 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards....
9 iv. Lighting Requirements: Displcry anc�other exterior lighting shcrll be designed and
operated so as to prevent glczre, to uvoid illuminating nearby properties usecl for
10 noncommercial purposes, and to prevent hazards f'or public trczffic. Methods of
controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to, li�nits on the height of light
11 structure, limit�s on light levels offixtures, light shield,s; and screening.
12 v. Reflected Lights to Be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjucent to the w�zter shall
employ materials that limit reflected light.
13 vi. Integrcztion a�c�Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical
eguipment shctll be incorporuted int�o buildin�architectural features, suclt as pitched
14 roofs, to the mcrximum extent feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be
incorpoYated into architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent
15 tivith building exterior mc�terial,s that obstruct.s views of"such ec�asipment.
16 vii. Visuczl Prominence of Freestanc�ing Structt�res to 13e Minimizecl.� Facilities not
incorporatec�into buildings znclu�ing fences,piers,poles, wire,s, lights, and other
17 freestcrn�'ing structures shall be clesigned to minirrzize visual prominence....
1 g c. Community Disturbances:Noise, odors, night lightin� water and land tra�c, a�d other
19 structi�res and activities shall be considered in the design plans and th�ir impacts avoided
or mii�igcrtecl.
Zp r� Design Reguirerrtents:A�chitectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns, and
other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be ir� conformance with urban design and
21 other standards contained in RMC-�-3-1 U0, Urban Design Regialations, and other
22 applicable provisions of RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, as well as specific
�olicies and stanclards of the Shoreline Master Program.
23 e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC -�--t-t���? concerning screening of
mechanical equipment and oirtdaor service and storc�ge areus shall apply within.shorelines
24 with the additional criteria that the provisions for bringing str^uctures or sites into
25 conformance shall occur for minor alter^aZion or renovcztion as provided in RMC�-�-]�t3.
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 13
1 7. The proposed improvements are well below 35 feet in height and are also well below the
height of surrounding buildings. The proposed structures block no view corridors, so no
� reconfguration is necessary to protect view corridors. No new lighting is proposed so lighting
3 standards do not apply. Visual prominence is minimized given the low height of the structures in
relation to the scale of surrounding buildings. The record is silent on odors but given that the
4 proposal is limited to a concrete tow and staging area it is reasonable to conclude that no offensive
odors are associated with the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E) and (H), the
5 proposal will not generate any significant lighting or traffic impacts. No design standards appear to
6 apply to the project. No above-ground mechanical equipment is proposed.
� RMC 4-3-090(D)(4): Public Access: �
n. Physical or �sual Access Requirecl for New Development: Physical or visual acces�s to
g s�horelines shall be incorporatecl in all new development when the development would
� 9 either generate a demand for one or more fo�^ms of such access, would ifnpair existing
legal access opportunities or rights, or is requirec� to meet the ,specific policies and
10 regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for
specified shoreline reczches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-
11 31 Table of Pi�blic Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for
12 piiblic access, i�aclucling off=site f�cilities designatec� in the table Public Access
Requirement�s by Reach in subsection D�,f'of this Section.
13
b. Public Access Required:Public access shall be provided for the follotiving development;
14 subject to the criterin in subsection D�1d of this Section.
15
16 ii. Non-water-dependent development and us�s s�hall provide communiry anc�/or
public access consistent with the specifrc use sta�tclards in sz�b,section E of this Section,
1� Use Regulations, unless ecological restoration is provided.
1 g v. Any use of pz�blic ac�uatic land.s, except�zs related to,single family residential use v f
19 the shoreline, including docks accessory to single fan�ily residential use.
20 8. Shoreline use regulations do not appear to expressly require any public access for the project
as referenced in RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(b)(ii) above. However, public access is still required under
21 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(b)(v) because the Applicant proposes the use of public aquatic lands, more
22 specifically the filling in of those lands. The public access requirement is met by conditions that
require the conveyance of public access easements to the City, as described in Finding of Fact No.
23 5��•
24 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall
25 incorporate the following location and de.sign criteria:
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 14
1 i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space:Public access on sites
where vegetated open space is provided along the s�horeline shall consist of a public
� edestria�t walkwa arallel to the OHWMo the ro er The walkwa shall be
P Y P .f P C� �'• Y�.
3 bt fferec�from sensitive ecological.features, may be set hack from the water's edge,
and may provide lifnited and cov�trolled access to sensitive,feattires and the water's
4 edge where appropriate. Fencing mcry be provided to control damage to plants and
other sensitive ecological features and where appropYiate. Trails shall be constriicted
5 of permeable rrtaterials and limitec�to four feet(4) to six feet(6) in width to reduce
6 impacts to ecologicczlly sensitive resources.
ii. Acce.ss Rec�uirements for Sites Without Tlegetat�ed Open Space: Public acce,ss on
'7 sites or portions of�sites not including vegetated open spczce shall be not less than ten
percent(10%)of the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand
g (3,D00) square feet, whichever is greater, on development.s including non-water-
9 deperrdent uses. For water-dependent uses, the amount and location may be vcrried in
caccoNdance with the criteria in subsection F3 of this Section. Puhlic access facilitic�s
10 shall exterzd along the entire wc�ter frontage, unless such facilities intef fere with the
functions of wnter-dependent uses. The mirrimum width of public access facilities shc�ll
11 l�e ten feet (10) and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the
12 development;provided, that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle and Trails
Master Plan shc�ll be develo�ec�in czccordance with the standards of that plan.,,
13 iv. Resolution of D�erent Standards: Where City trail or trarrsportcztion plans and
development standards spec�dimensions that differ,fi�om those in subsections D4di,
14 D4dii, or D4dzii of this Sect�ion, the standard that best serves public access, while
recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological f'unctions, shull
15 prevail.
16 v. Acces.s Rec�uirernents Determinec�by Reach:A coordinated program for public
access for specifiecl shoreline reaches is established zn the Comprehensive Plun,
17 Shoreline Management Elemc�nt, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by
Reach and in subsection D4f of this Section, Tc�ble of Piablic Acces.s Rec�uirement,s by
1 g Reach:
19 (�) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access crs guidance in
applying these provisions to individual development sites.
Zp (b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in
planning and implementing public project.s.
21 vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The Ciry shcxll provide a firnd f'or off=site public
22 access and may a,ssess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of
their public access require�nents. Such a f'itnd and charges may be part o,f or
23 coordinated with pczrk impact,fees. Off-site public access shall be developed in
accorc�ance with the reach policies for public c�ccess.
24
25 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(t�: Public Access Requirements by Reach: The following table identifies the
performance standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by the
26 use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 15
1 ..
2
Lake Public access is currently not feasib(e on the three acres of upland State-owned
3 Washington aquatic lands managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped,
4 Reach I public access should be provided parallel to the shoreline along the entire property,
5 consistent with standards of this Section, together with goals for ecological
restoration and water-dependent and water-oriented use.
6
� ..
8 9. The staff report and administrative record contains no information on compliance with the
public access design standards quoted above. The "Reach" that applies to the project site recognizes
9 that public access isn't currently feasible. The "Reach" notes that upon redevelopment that public
10 access should be provided along the shoreline, but this sentiment is most likely premised upon a
major redevelopment that would enable a safe and practical separation between trail users and Boeing
11 operations. Those parameters are not possible under the limited scope of the redevelopment coupled
with the proximity of existing buildings and manufacturing activities. Consequently, the comments
12 of the "Reach" are construed as waiving access requirements for the Proposal to the extent
13 Practicable, as authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(v)(a), which provides that the Reach provisions
shall provide "guidance" as to how to apply design guidelines. The trail easeinents required as
14 conditions of approval as described in Finding of Fact No. 5(I) are a reasonably good accommodation
between the feasibility limitations recognized by the Reach �nd the options reasonably available to
15 accommodate public access requirements.
16
1� RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Building and Development Location—Shoreline Orientation:
1 g a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water-
19 enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be designed
in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize
20 vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff,• protect riparian, nearshore and
wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural
21 resources; and preserve aesthetic values.
22 b. Design and Performance Standards:
23
i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land
24 alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
25 ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by
26 topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany development
proposals;provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel less than twenry thousand
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 16
1 (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include the
2 following general information:
3 (a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear designation of
existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features.
4
(b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features, together with
5 the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological functions.
6
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with
� substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
g (a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing, grading, and
9 alteration of topography and natural features.
10 (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of under-
building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
11
12 (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever feasible.
�3 (d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural shoreline stabilization
over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization
14 is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-dependent uses, where no alternative
locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result.
15
16 iv. Localion for Accessory Development:Accessory development or use that c�oes not require a
shoreline location shcall be loccated outsic�e of s�horeline jitirisdiction unless such development is
17 reqiaired to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or developments or unless otherwise
allowed in a High Intensity designcetion. When sited within shoreline jz�risdictiorr, uses ancl/or
1 g dev�lopments such as parking, service bt�ildings or areas, ac�cess roads, utilities, signs and
19 �storage of materials,shall be located inland away from the land/water interface cznd landwurd of
water-oriented developments ancl/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the water is
Z p reasonably necessary.
�1 v. Navigation and Recreation t�o I3e Preserved: Shoreline uses sh�rll not deprive ot�her uses of
22 reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing wat�er-related recreation shall be preservec�.
23
10. The most sensitive portion of the project site is the shoreline, but RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) is not
24 construed as prohibiting placement of the Apron in the shoreline area. The project site has no water-
25 dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment portions, so RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) cannot be read to
preclude the siting of Apron R along the shoreline. Further, RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) only requires that
26 project design "directs" land alteration away from sensitive areas, which is not construed as
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 17
1 mandatory but only when placing proposed development in less sensitive areas is not reasonably
practicable. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no other area in the project site where the
2 Apron expansion could be placed. Environmental impacts have been fully assessed as required by
3 RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(ii) as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). The proposed filling for Apron R
along with its proposed expansion constitutes an alteration of natural features, but as noted previously
4 that cannot be avoided and is therefore considered a minimum alteration due to site constraints. Due
to the nature of the use, structural shoreline stabilization has been employed on the site since the
5 plant's creation. The proposed project will continue to rely on structural stabilization, but will also
6 incorporate mitigation measures in order to substantially decrease the impact on the nearshore
riparian and aquatic habitats.
7
As to the limitations on accessory structures set by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(iv), the tow path located
g on Apron R primarily functions as a road (under Transportation Use), as it contains a delineated path
9 used by airplanes to travel from Boeing plant to the Renton Municipal Airport. Roads are a permitted
use in the UC Zone. Per the Shoreline Use Table, roads are permitted in the Shoreline High Intensity
10 Overlay if they are permitted in the underlying zone. As an allowed use in the Shoreline High
Intensity Overlay that cannot be reasonably placed anywhere else, the proposed Apron
11 expansion/redevelopment is authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(iv).
12 The proposed development will not affect the nearby Renton Rowing Club and will not impede
13 access to navigable waters due to the location of planned apron expansion on Boeing's property.
14
RMC 4-3-090(D)(6):Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources:
15 ,
16 a. Detailed Cultural Assessrrtents May Be Required: The Ciry will work with tribal, State, Federal,
and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and
17 archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information
from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with
1 g undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources.
19
20 b. Coordination Encouraged.• Owners of properry containing identified or probable historical,
cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for
21 development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of
22 Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample
time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
23
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an area
24 of known or probable cultural resources, the Ciry shall require a site assessment by a qualified
25 professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified
parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
26 affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 18
1
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are
2 discovered in the rocess o develo ment, work on that
P f p portion of the site shall be stopped
3 immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find,
4 the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
5 Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may
6 provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies.
� 11. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), there is a high probability that the project area
contains various pre-contact archaeological resources. As a result, as identified in Finding of Fact
g No. 5(F), measures have been taken and are required as conditions of approval to assure that cultural
9 resources are adequately protected pursuant to recommendations made by DAHP in conformance
with the requirements of the criterion quoted above.
10
11 RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Industrial Use:
1� a. Use Preferences and Priorities:Irrdustrial c�evelopments shall be perazitted si�bject to
13 the following.•
14 ii. Existing Non-Water-DependenC U.ses: Existing non-water-dependent uses may be
retainecl and expandec�, .subject to provisions for nonconforming uses activities ar�d
15 sites;provided, that expansion of�structures�within the required setback between the
16 buildi�g and the wuter shall be prohibitec�unlea�s it is demonstrated thut the impacts
of Zhe expansion can be mitigated through on-site measures such as buffer
17 enhancement or low impact stormwczter c�evelopment. Chcrnges in use are limiled to
existing structi.ires.
18
19 h• Clustering of Non-Water-Oriented Oses:Any new use of facility or expansion of
existirag f'acilities shall minirr�ize and cluster those water-depe�dent and water-related
20 portions of'the development along the shoreline and place inlcznc�all,fcrcilities which are
not water-dependent.
21 ...
22 d. Materials Storage:New inclustrial development may not introduce exterior storage of
materials outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a
23 Shoreline Conditiorrcrl Use Permit subjeet to the additional critericz thczt exterior storczge is
essenl�ial to the use.
24 e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall c�emons�trate that no spill or discharge
�� to surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstr�ate in the permit application a
specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with
26 the industrial use and activzty.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 19
1 g. Seenic and Aesthetic Qualities:New or expanclecl inditstrial developments shall take
int�o consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with
� adjacent uses as provided in subsection D3 of this Section, Use Compatibility and
3 Aesthetic Effects, and sub.section DS of this Section, Building cznd Development Location—
Shoreline nrientation.
4
12. The Boeing plant is an existing non-water dependent use. As determined in Finding of Fact No.
5 5(A), the proposed expansion will result in no net loss of ecological function. Consequently, the
6 expansion is authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a)(ii). Since no part of the Boeing facility is water
dependent or water related and there is nowhere else to place the proposed Apron expansion, the
'7 waterward expansion is consistent with RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b). No materials storage is proposed.
No unauthorized discharge is proposed, as the Boeing Manufacturing Facility operates under a
g Washington State Department of Ecology Industrial Stormwater Permit, which requires a Stormwater
9 Pollution Prevention Plan. For the reasons identified in Finding off Fact No. 5(D), the proposal will
not adversely affect scenic or aesthetic qualities.
10
1 1 RMC 4-3-090(D)(10): Transportation:
12 a. General Stctndards: Netiv anc�expanded transportation faeilities shall be designec�to
achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent
13 fea.sible the following stczndard.s shall be applied to all transportation projects and
facilities:
14 i. Facilities shall be located ozrtside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the
15 lan�/wczter interfaee crs possible. Ex�an,sion of existing trcznsportation faeilities shczll
include ancclysis of system options that assess the potential for czlternative routes
16 outsic�e shoreline jatriscliction or set backfiirther fi•om the land/water inteNface.
ii. Facilities shall he locczted and d�signecl t�o avoid s�ignificant rtatural, historiccal,
17 archaeologicczl, or cultural sites, and mitigate i�rncrvoidable impacts.
iii. Facilities shcall be designed and maintained to pYevenC soil erosion, to permit
1 g natural movement of gro�a�ndwater, and not adversely ccffect water qz�aliry oN crquatic
19 plants and animals ove�the life of the f'acility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials fronz constri�ction shall be dispasec�of in such
20 a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body ancl shall be s�ecified
in submittal materials.
�1 v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
� 22 vi. Facilities shall allow passc�ge of floocl wate�s,fish passage, and wildlife movement
by using bridges with the longest spcan feasible or when bridges are not feasible,
23 culvert,s and other features that provide for these fi�nctions.
� vii. Facilitie�s shc�ll be de.signed to accommoc�ate as many compatible uses as feasible,
24 i»cluding, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint�,publie aceess, or trails.
25 b. Roads:
i. New�ublic or private road.s and driveways shnll be locatec�irrland fNom the
26 land/water interfnce,preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use-20
1 (a) Perpenclicular water crossin�s are requi�ed,for access to authorized uses
� consislent with the.Shoreline Ma.ster Progrc�m; or
(b) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian ancl nonmotorized use and
3 provide an opportuni-ry for a substc�ntial number of people to enjoy shoreline
areas, and are consistent with policies arrd regulations for ecological protection.
4 ii. Road loeations shall be planned to fit the lopography,�where possible, in orcler thcrt
minimu�n alteration of existing ncztural conditions will be neces,sary....
5 f.Aviation:
6 i. Prohibited Near Ncatural or Urban Conservancy Areas:Aviation facilities are
prohibited within two hundred feet(200) of a Natttral or Urban C'onservancy
'7 Shoreline Overlay District....
8 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no other location for the proposed Apron
9 expansion, which as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, serves in part as a private road for the towing of
aircraft. All environmental impacts identified above have been adequately mitigated for the reasons
10 identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(b) does not apply as the "road" is not a
new road, but rather an improvement/redevelopment of an existing road. As an aviation facility, the
11 proposal is not prohibited by RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(� because it is not near a natural or urban
12 conservancy area.
13 �MC 4-3-090(D)(11): Utilities:
14 a. Criteria for All Utilities:
i. L�cal utility services neec�ed to serve water-dependent and ot�her permitted uses in
15 the shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection and visual
16 compatibility.
ii. Major utility,�ys�tems shall be located out.side of shoreline jurisdiction, to the ext�ent
17 feasible, exeept for eleirrents that are rvc�ter-dependent cxnd erossings of wnter boclies
anc�other elements of shorelands by linear facilities.
Ig iii. New public or private utilities�shall be located inland fi�om the land/water
19 interface, preferably out of shoreline jurisc�iction, unless:
(a) Perpenc�icular water crossings are unavoiclable; or �
20 (b) Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses consistent with the
Shoreline Master Program.
21 iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cablea� ancl other fczcilities on land running
22 roughly parallel to the shoreline s�hall be located as far from the water's edge as
feasible and preferably outside of shoreline jurisdict�on.
23 v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other f'acilities on
aquatic lanc�s running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may re lcaire pe�iodic
24 maintenance that would disrupt shoreline�cological ficnctions shall be discoitraged
except where no other feczsible alternative exists. When permitted,provisions shall
25 assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or
26 significant impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use -21
1 vi. Utilities s�hall b�locatec�in existing rights-of=way c�nd corridors, whenever
reasonably feasible.
� vii. Local service utilities serving new development shall be locatec�underground,
3 wherever reasonably feasible...
ix. In areas where utiliCy installations would be anticipated to significantly alter
4 natural groundwczter flows, a barrier or conduit to impede changes to natural flow
characteristic.s shall be provided.
5 x. Excavated rhaterials from constructior► of utilities�shall be disposed of outside of the
6 vegetation consen�ation buffer except f utilized for ecological restoration and shall be
specified in submittal materials.
� xi. Utilities shull be located and designed to avoid naturnl, historic, archaeological or
cultural resources to the maxitnum extent.feasible and miti�-ate adverse impacts where
g unavoidable.
9 xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated Co result in no net
los.s of�shoreline ecological functions with appropr�iate on- anc�off-site mitigation
10 inclucling compensatory mitigation.
xiii. All utility development shcrll be consistent with and coorcdinated with all local
11 �overnment anc��State plcenning, including co►nprehensive plans cand single purpose
�� plans to meet the needs offi�ture populatio�rs in area,s plannec�to acco�nmodate
�rowth.
13 xiv. Site planning an�rights-of-way f'or utiliry develc�pment should provide,for
co�npatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, ancl recreatio�or other
14 upprvpriate a�se whe�rever pos.sible. Utiliry right-of-way acquisition should be
coordinatec�with transportation and recreation planning.
15 xv. Tlegetation Gon.servation:
16 (a)Native vegetcrtion shall be naaintai�ted whenever reasonably feczsible.
(b) Whe�utility projects nre cor�a�leted in the water or shorelanc�, the disturbed
17 area shall be restored as nearly as pos.sible to the ori�;inal condition.
(e)All vegetation ancl screening sh�rll be harcly enot�gh to withstand the travel of
1 g service trucl�s anc�similar tr�a�c in ctreczs where such activity occz�Ys....
19 b. Special Consider�ttions f'or Pipelines:
i. Install�rtion c�ncl operation ofpipelin�es shall protect the nc�tural conditions of�
Z p ac�jacent water coaarses and shorelines.
ii. Water quality is not to be degraded to the cletrirnent of aquutic life nor shc�ll wuter
21 c�ztality standarc�s be violated....
22 d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications:
i. Electrical Distribution:New electrical distribution lines within the shoreline shall
23 be placed unclerground;provided, that distrihution lines that cross water or other
critical areas may be allowed to be placed above ground if:.,:
24 ii. Water Lir�es:
(a) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlancl.s or other critical czreas unless
25 there is no reasonably.feasible alternative route.
26 (b) Sizes and specifications shall be det�ermirted by t�he Public Work,s Department
in accvrdafzce with American Water Works Association (AWWA)guic�elines....
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 22
1 iv. Stormwater Management:
2 (a) The C:ity will work with private property owners and ather jurisdictions to
maintain, enhance and restore natural drainage systems to protect water quality,
3 reduce flooding, reduce public costs and prevent cessociated environmental
c�egradation to contribute to the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological
4 function.s.
� (b)All new development shall meet current starmwater management
requirerrzents for detention and treatrytent.
6 (c) Indiviclual single fanzily residences may be subject to water quality
management requirements to e�sure the quality of adjacent water bodies.
7 � (d) Stormwater pond.s, basins and vaults shall he located as far from the water's
edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservatinn buffers.
g (e) The location clesign and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit
9 impacts on receiving wczters and comply with all appropriate local, State, and
Federal requirements. Infiltrcztion of stormwater shall be pref'errec�, where
10 reasonably feasible.
(� Stormwater fnanagement mcry inelucle a low impczet development,stoNmwater
ll conveyance.systerva in the vegetcition buff'er, if the system is designed to mimic the
12 function and appearance of cr natt�ral shoreline system cznd complies with all
other rec�iiirements and standard.s of subsection Fl of this Section, Vegetation
13 Conservation.
14
14. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, a wide range of utilities that are underground will be
15 replaced, above-ground utilities will be placed underground and utilities in the adjoining DNR
16 Property will be relocated underground and further away from the shoreline. No work on any major
utilities and no installation of new utilities is proposed. All of these actions will either have no
17 impact or a positive impact on the shoreline environment. The removal of utilities from the DNR
properties will involve the removal of five trees, but those five trees will be replaced. Existing
ig stormwater outfalls currently discharge to the aquatic area. No feasible alternative exists since the
19 treated stormwater must be discharged into the lake. The relocated stormwater outfalls would be
placed in a manner so as to prevent erosion and the loss of ecological function and would also convey
20 treated water into the lake as opposed to sheet-flowing off of the apron. There are no rights-of-way in
the project vicinity and most of the utilities would be relocated into a transportation corridor (Apron
21 R tow path). Utility installations are not anticipated to alter natural groundwater flows due to their
22 location under existing impervious surface. As conditioned, all excess material from utility
installation would be disposed of offsite in approved locations. Material excavated from the DNR site
23 would be replaced after removal to restore the site to its original condition. Impacts to archaeological
impacts are fully mitigated as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F). As all utility work is on private
24 property, except for the DNR work, no coordination beyond DNR is necessary for the utility work in
25 terms of planning for future growth.
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 23
1 RMC 4-3-090(F)(2): Landfill and Excavation:
a. General Provisiorzs:Landfill and excavation shall orrly be permitted in conjunction with
� an approvecl use or development c�nd allowed with c�ssurance of no net loss o,f shoreline
3 ecological functions. Excavation below the OHWM is considered "dredging" and is
addressed in a separate section.
4 h. Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations Below Ordinary High Water
Mark: Landfills and excavations shall generally be prohibited below the OHWM, except
5 for the followiv�g activities, and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of
6 ecological functions as docitmented in a��propricete technical sta�dies:...
iii. Alteration, rrtaintenance ctnd/or repair of existing transportation facilities anc�
� utilities currently located within shoreline jurisc�iction, when alternatives or less
impacting appNoaches are not feasible;
g c. Review Standards:All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in terms of nll of the
9 following standard.s:
i. The o�verall value to the public of the results of the fill or excavation site as opposed
10 to the value of the shoreline in its existing state as well as evcrluation of alternatives to
fill that would achieve some or all of the objectives of the proposal.
11 ii. Ef'fects on ecological fi�nctions including, hut not limited to,fi�netions of the
�2 substrate of streams anc�lake,s cxnd effects on czquatic org«nisrra.s, including the food
chain, effects on vegetc�tion funetions, effect.s on local currents and erosion and
13 deposition patterns, effects on surfczce and subsurface drainage, and effects on flood
waters.
14 iii. Whether shoreline st�abilization will be necessary to protect rrtaterials placed or
removed c�nd whether.sueh stabilization rr�eets the polieies cmcl stanc�a�ds o�'the
15 Shc�reline Master Program.
16 iv. Whether the landfill or excavation wilZ adver.sely alter the normcxl.flow offlood
water, incla�cling obstrtactions of flood overflow chcznnels or swales, after takin�into
1� account any compensating floocl storage provided by the propo.sal.
v. Whether public or tribal right�s to the use anc�enjoyment of the.shoreline av�d it�s
� 1 g resourees c�nd arnenities ar� impairec�.
19 d 1'erfornic�nce Standards:Performance standarc�s for fill�xnd excavation include:
i. Distisrbed areas shall he irrtmediately stabilized and rev�getc�ted to nvoid or
Zp minimize�rosion and sedimentatron impczcts, both during irritial work and oveN time.
Nati�rcrl ancl self-sustaining control nzethod,s are preferred over structures.
21 ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with
22 existircg topogrczphy.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required:All,fill and excavation waterward of the OHWM
23 not associated with ecological restorution,flood control or approved shoreline
stabilization shall require a Shoreline Conditional U.se Permit.
24
l 5. The proposal meets the criteria of RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(a) because, as noted in the staff report,
25 Apron R qualifies as a transportation facility that is authorized in the applicable zoning district and
26 shoreline designation. and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal will result in no
net loss of eco(ogical function. The proposal meets the criteria of RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(b) because the
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 24
1 proposal involves an existing facility and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 3 there is no
reasonable alternative. Overall, the project will significantly improve upon ecological function. As
� noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the shoreline along the project site is highly degraded and the
3 mitigation proposed and required of the Applicant will substantially improve the shoreline ecological
functions including water quality, vegetation, and habitat. The fill required for the replacement of the
4 pi(e-supported structure and expansion of the west ramp will be placed behind a new structural wall.
Aquatic habitat enhancement fill will restore the natura] shoreline elements to the lake in front of the
5 walL There are no mapped flood p(ains within the project area. Therefore, the placement of fill wi(1
6 not affect the flow of flood water. Due to the location of the proposed fill on the Boeing property, the
flll associated with the apron extension will not infringe on public or tribal access rights. No public
'7 comments were received during the comment period, including the Muckleshoot Tribe. Disturbances
to the DNR site will be revegetated as required by the performance standards above. The Applicant
g has applied for a conditional use permit for the landfill as required above.
9
Shoreline Conditional Use
10
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(i): The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
11
IZ 16. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(J), the use is consistent and compatible with other
permitted uses within the area.
13
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(ii): The use will not interfere with the public use ofpublic shorelines.
14
15 17. As addressed in the public access findings (see Finding of Fact No. 5(I)) and conclusions of
this decision,the proposal will not interfere with public use of public shorelines.
16
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iii): Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the
1� Shoreline Master Program.
1 g 18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(J), the use is compatible with the surroundings. Since
19 the proposal (1) results in no net loss of ecological function, (2) doesn't interfere with navigation, (3)
results in improvements to public shoreline access; and (4) is consistent with all applicable shoreline
20 policies and use regulations for the reasons identified in this decision,the proposal is compatible with
the Shoreline Master Program.
21
22 RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iv): The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Shoreline Master Program.
23
19. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 18.
24
25 RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(v): The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 25
1 WAC 173-27-160: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master
program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the
2 policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to
3 the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use
and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.
4 (1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may
be authorized provided that the Applicant demonstrates all of the following:
5 (a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
6 (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(c) That the proposed use of the site and 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;
g (d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
9 which it is to be located; and
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
10 (2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits
11 were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the
12 conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
13
20. All requirements quoted above are met. The proposed use is consistent with the polices of
14 RCW 90.58.020 and those of the shoreline master plan for the reasons identified in Conclusion of
Law No. 18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(I), the proposal will not interfere with public
15 use of the shorelines, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, and the proposal will not
16 adversely affect the shoreline environment. Given that the proposal will overall enhance the shoreline
environment and as mitigated will improve public shoreline access, the public interest will suffer no
17 detrimental effect. The proposal will not result in any significant cumulative impacts for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(K).
18
19 DECISION
20 The shoreline substantial development permit and shoreline conditional use permit applications
meet all applicable shoreline use and policy requirements for the reasons identified in the
21 Conclusions of Law of this decision as mitigated below. The permit applications are approved
22 subject to the following conditions:
23 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 18, 2017.
24 2. The Applicant shall contact King County at least 72 hours prior the start of any
25 construction and work with County staff to ensure the project does not impact any adjacent
sewer infrastructure.
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 26
1 3. The Applicant shall work with the City to relocate the existing easement (Recording
2 #9609040765) to the location of the original easement (Recording#9209171541) or another
location approved by Community Services Department. The relocated easement shall be
3 recorded prior to Construction Permit issuance, or by an alternative date approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager. Alternatively, the Applicant could propose to incorporate
4 the trail design into the mitigation plan and build the trail in the location of the existing
easement as a part of the Apron R construction permits.
5 4. The Applicant shall grant the City a minimum 10-foot wide public trail easement
6 running parallel to the entirety of the proposed stem wall on the east side of property. The
easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department and the
7 City Attorney's Office. Once approved, the easement shall be recorded prior to construction
permit issuance, or by an alternative date approved by the Current Planning Project
g Manager.
9 5. The Applicant shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager with copies of
both the approved USACE Section 10/404 Permit and Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
10 associated with the submitted Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (#NWS-2017-37)
prior to the start of any in-water work.
11 6. The Applicant shall submit maintenance and monitoring reports after project
12 completion consistent with the requirements of the USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton
regulations, unless mitigation and monitoring are not required by USACE permits.
13 �• 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.
14
15 DATED this 30th day of January, 2018.
16
17 �l'� -''� C='�
Ph� �A.41br+echts
18
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
19
20 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
21
22 As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
23 hearing examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
24 decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
25
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
26 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use- 27
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
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 28