HomeMy WebLinkAboutI-405 Renton to Bellevue Project, Stage 1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance1
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: I-405 Renton to Bellevue Project,
Stage 1
Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, Critical Areas Permit and
Shoreline Variance
LUA17-00808 SM, CAR, SMV
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit and
Shoreline Variance for the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Project, Stage 1. The project includes roadway,
bridge and trail work within the Urban Conservancy shoreline environmen t at May Creek. Project
improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path along the Eastside
Rail Corridor from Ripley Lane in north Renton to the City of Renton’s northern boundary, adjacent
to Lake Washington, within the Shoreline Single Family Residential environment. The request
includes a shoreline variance from the design criteria for public access sites under RMC 4-3-090D.4.d.i
in order to deviate from trail width and permeable material requirements. The Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit, and Shoreline Variance are approved with conditions.
TESTIMONY
Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only
and should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus
upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not
reflective of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no
assurance is made as to accuracy.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 2
Staff Testimony
Clark Close, Senior Planner, City of Renton described the project. He described the project as extending
approximately eight miles through the City of Renton. Two major bridge sets will be widened. Ten
streams will be crossed, including five fish bearing streams. The project is designed to remove materials
from in stream, remove piers and improve fish habitat. All in-stream areas and critical areas will be
restored. The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan.
It is not subject to zoning. The City and WSDOT will approve an interlocal agreement for the trail
along May Creek.
Applicant Testimony
Sean Quarrie of WSDOT stated the JARPA is complete. WSDOT is submitting a new NEPA
supplement in the beginning of June 2018.
Public Comments
No member of the public appeared to testify.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 2-22 listed on page 2 of the April 17, 2018 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself
(Ex. 1), were admitted into evidence the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the
hearing include:
Ex. 23 – City of Renton PowerPoint
Ex. 24 – City of Renton Maps
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Linda J. Cooley, WSDOT, 600 108th Avenue NE Suite 405, Bellevue, WA 98004.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on April 17, 2018 in the City of
Renton Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The applicant, WSDOT Northwest Region, is requesting a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance for the I-405, Renton
to Bellevue Project, Stage 1. The Project includes roadway, bridge and trail work within the Urban
Conservancy shoreline environment at May Creek and Shoreline Residential environment adjacent
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 3
to Lake Washington. The May Creek Bridge and trail work is located at mile post (MP) 7.18 near NE
44th St, I-405 Exit 7 (Section 32 Township 24N Range 5E). May Creek originates well east of I-405
and flows generally east to west toward Lake Washington. The May Creek project area is within the
following Critical Areas: flood plain and floodway, regulated slopes (15-90%) and high seismic
hazard areas. Much of the property, within the May Creek project area, is currently within WSDOT
right-of-way (ROW). Project improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and
pedestrian path (including associated sound walls) along the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) Regional
Trail from Ripley Lane in north Renton to the City of Renton’s northern boundary. Almost all of this
portion of this public trail is within shoreline jurisdiction, beginning at MP 7.35. For this portion of
the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-foot wide asphalt trail
with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic that now uses the Lake
Washington Loop Trail will be shifted to the ERC trail.
The May Creek Bridge project will replace the northbound and southbound I-405 bridge structures
over May Creek. The existing bridge span is approximately 160 feet long (20,000 square feet). The
replacement impervious bridge is a one span structure that will include lane widening on both north
and south bound lanes. The new surface area will add 10,000 square feet to the final bridge size and
will be located directly over the entire stream and directly adjacent to the Ordinary High -Water Mark
(OHWM). This work will also include piers within approximately 50 feet from the OHWM. This
work will include habitat improvements along the creek by removing angular rock fill material from
the floodplain and removal of the existing northbound bridge columns/abutments. It is estimated that
the proposed work will include the removal of 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
floodplain under the existing bridge structure. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve
fish habitat along the stream channel and provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted
on the newly constructed streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer
enhancement. Improvements support the roadway and associated roadway facilities necessary to
provide a safe and efficient transportation corridor. An extension of City of Renton’s May Creek Trail
will be constructed on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year
floodplain. The trail is proposed to be eight feet (8’) wide and will extend from the end of the existing
May Creek Trail, that ends roughly 40 feet east of the eastern boundary of the WSDOT ROW, to
Jones Road. Only the portion of the trail within WSDOT’s ROW is being permitted as part of this
application. The portions of the trail outside of WSDOT’s ROW will be permitted separately and are
not included as part of this application.
Minor off-site improvements may include pavement markings, drainage improvements, permanent
signing, illumination, and barriers. Connecting Washington, as funded via the Renton to Bellevue
Stage 1 project, is part of a larger set of improvements. Construction is anticipated to start in 2019
and the project is expected to open to traffic in 2024. The project will use the design-build project
delivery method, the exact excavation and fill quantities are not yet known, construction sequencing
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 4
and methods may vary. The total funding for the full set of improvements, including project
engineering and ROW, is $890M.
WSDOT, as the lead agency, issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) and Adoption of
Existing Environmental Document for the I-405 Corridor Program on March 31, 2006. This decision
was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with
the lead agency (Ex. 1). WSDOT intends to adopt supplemental NEPA environmental review in June
of 2018.
4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The project is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes
development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR), May Creek and the King
County Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail (ERC), zoned R-8. To the east is May Creek and vacant
City of Renton Parks property, zoned Resource Conservation (RC) and the ERC and single family
residential, zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). To the south is May Creek, WSDOT
right of way and the ERC, all zoned R-8. To the west is May Creek and City of Renton parks property,
zoned R-8 and COR, and the ERC and single-family residential, both zoned R-8. The project itself
crosses several zones including Residential-6 (R-6), R-8, COR and Resource Conservation (RC) The
project is not subject to zoning. Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the subject vicinity are
Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, Residential High Density and Commercial-
Office-Residential.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project.
WSDOT, as lead agency, adopted a Determination of Nonsignificant Impact on March 14, 2006
(Ex.1). Subsequent environmental analysis were submitted to the City including a Temporary
Construction Easement (TCE) Affected Critical Area report (Ex. 4), a TCE Tree Removal and
Restoration Plan (Ex. 7), A TCE Restoration Enhancement Planting Plan (Ex. 8), May Creek
Enhancement Plans (Ex. 9), a Summary of Stormwater Management Concepts (Ex. 11), A 2017
Wetland and Stream Assessment Report (Ex. 12), a 2017 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report (Ex.
13), a 2006 Geology and Soils Technical Report (Ex. 16), and a Flood Risk Analysis (Ex. 22). The
environmental impacts of the proposal have been thoroughly assessed and mitigation measures
recommended in the various issue specific studies and analysis. Impacts are more specifically
addressed as follows:
A. Fish. No impacts to fish habitat are anticipated. The project has the potential to impact up to
10 streams, most of which are non-fish bearing, unnamed, ephemeral tributaries to Lake
Washington. There are five fish bearing streams that will be impacted, including Johns Creek,
May Creek, UNT.08.LW.0283 and two other small unnamed tributaries to Lake Washington
in the vicinity of the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC). The project will mitigate for
unavoidable impacts to critical areas (Ex. 14 and 15).
The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel
and provide buffer enhancement. Stage 1 of the project will improve fish habitat along the
stream banks by removing approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 5
floodplain under the existing May Creek Bridge structure (MP 7.18). Debris associated with
bridge demolition work will be collected using Debris catch system and disposed without
causing erosion to May Creek. The proposed May Creek Bridge is a one span structure.
The project is anticipated to improve facilities by making fish passage improvements while
accommodating public access to park properties and corridors by adding or relocating usable
trails. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream
channel and provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly
constructed streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement.
Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that there will be no net loss of
ecological function. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report,
prepared by WSDOT, dated July 2017 (Ex. 12) and a Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report,
prepared by WSDOT, dated October 2017 (Ex. 13). The preliminary design utilizes several
avoidance and minimization opportunities including selective widening, widening to the
median, and use of over steepened slopes and retaining walls. Avoidance and minimization
efforts are categorized under Table 1 of the I-405 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report.
The project will have temporary and permanent impacts to several streams and associated
buffers. See Table 42, Summary of Stream and Stream Buffer Impacts in the Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Report (Ex. 13) for impact quantities. May Creek provides the highest
quality in-stream habitat of all of the impacted streams within this project. Several of the
impacted streams meet physical criteria for fish use, and Johns Creek has documented
occurrences of anadromous species. UNT.08.LW.0283 has documented resident fish, and
Stream 7.7A, and Stream 7.8 have the potential to support resident fish. However, insufficient
buffers, contributions of stormwater, and generally their location in highly urbanized areas
degrade all of these streams.
Johns Creek flows primarily within pipes under a large shopping center in Renton, between I-
405 and Lake Washington. The creek daylights near Southport just south of the entrance to
Gene Coulon Park, where several stormwater outfalls contribute to the stream. The project
proposes to install a new 72” stormwater outfall in this vicinity.
May Creek flows under a bridge at I-405 just south of the NE 44th Street Interchange. The
bridge is being replaced as part of the project and the existing bridge piers and footings will be
removed. The work will include fill removal within the channel to improve habitat conditions,
installation of LWD, and plantings. Construction impacts will be temporary, but there will be
some buffer impacts associated with roadway widening and bridge demolition access.
An unnamed tributary (UNT 08.LW.0283) to Lake Washington (formerly referred to as Gypsy
Creek in previous I-405 documents), meanders in open channel sections and pipes through the
NE 44th Ave Interchange and enters Lake Washington through the Virginia Mason Athletic
Center property. The stream will be impacted by roadway widening, construction of retaining
walls, and installation of fish passable culverts. There will be a short reach of the stream
permanently impacted upstream of I-405 where Lake Washington Blvd N will be relocated.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 6
Impacts to unnamed Stream 7.7a crosses I-405 north of UNT 08.LW.0283 near milepost 7.7
and unnamed Stream 7.8 crosses I-405 north of UNT 08.LW.0283 near milepost 7.8 will result
from the installation of a fish passable culverts. Five (5) existing fish barriers will be mitigated
by four (4) new fish passible structures.
B. Wildlife. Though the staff report (Ex 1) provided no specific analysis related to the project’s
effects on wildlife, staff noted the project, as proposed, complies with several Comprehensive
Plan and Shoreline Master Program goals and policies which explicitly promote wildlife
habitat protection. These include Goal L-U and Policy L-30 of the Comprehensive Plan and
Policy SH-14 of the Shoreline Master Program. As noted above in Finding of Fact 5A and
below in Findings of Fact Nos. C, D and G, fish habitat (Ex. 14 and 15) and wetlands (Ex. 12
and 13) will be enhanced and/or mitigated and stormwater drainage will be controlled to
protect the shoreline environment. The preliminary design utilizes several avoidance and
minimization opportunities including selective widening, widening to the median, and use of
over steepened slopes and retaining walls. Avoidance and minimization efforts are categorized
under Table 1 of the I-405 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report. A condition of approval
will require the applicant to submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a
period of five years from project completion for review and comment. WSDOT will report if
performance measures and success standards have been met. If the performance measures or
success standards have not been met, the City will require adaptive management strategies to
be deployed to achieve the final success standards.
C. Wetlands. The project, as proposed, is expected to result in temporary and permanent impacts
to wetlands, streams, and buffers. Impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized to the
greatest extent feasible. All of the proposed wetland mitigation has occurred in advance and is
located off-site. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report (Ex. 12)
and a Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report (Ex. 13). Based on the provided reports wetland
impacts were avoided and minimized by the project to the greatest extent feasible; however,
the Design Builder may identify further minimization measures through final design and
construction of the project.
The project is impacting Category II and IV wetlands, between MP 4.0 and 10.0, and is
proposing to mitigate all permanent wetland impacts within the City of Renton by using bank
credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank).
Compensatory mitigation for all permanent wetland and buffer impacts will be accomplished
by replacing wetland functions and acreage lost by debiting credits provided at a regulatory
approved mitigation bank. Credits are the “currency “of the mitigation bank. The value of each
credit is equal to its net ecological benefit. For Springbrook Bank, the value of one credit was
developed to be equal in value to 1 acre of Category II wetland. Specifically, the Bank requires
the use of 1.0 credit per acre (1:1 ratio) of permanent Category II wetland impacts, 0.85 credits
per acre (0.85:1 ratio) of Category III, and 0.70 credits per acre (0.70:1 ratio) of Category IV.
A modified ratio is applied for impacts occurring as a result of conversion from wetlands to
stream or impacts that will result in a temporal (as opposed to permanent) loss of wetland
functions due to long-term vegetation disturbance.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 7
Springbrook Bank is a large habitat restoration and wetland re-establishment site located in the
City of Renton, WA, Green-Duwamish WRIA 9. The Bank was created to provide
compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by
highway construction projects. The implementation of the Bank is intended to increase wetland
area and encourage improved hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functi ons, while
facilitating environmental education opportunities along Springbrook Creek in a highly
urbanized area.
The Springbrook site has previously established monitoring requirements and standards of
success. The use of credits, as part of this project, will not change any of their standards or
requirements. The stream and buffer mitigation site proposed in the project at May Creek and
UNT08.LW.0283, will have specific monitoring and site management requirements. Each site
will be monitored for five years to ensure plant establishment. Survival will be assessed by
WSDOT and the Project Design Builder after initial planting, and the landscape contractor will
replace all plantings that do not survive within the first year. The Design-Builder will also
reseed any areas of bare soil within the first year. Plant substitutions, if necessary, will be
agreed upon by the project biologist and landscape architect. Plants damaged or destroyed by
vandalism or wildlife grazing (by waterfowl, rodents, or ungulates) will also require
replacement. If necessary, the landscape contractor will have the option of protecting the plants
from vandalism or herbivore grazing. Plant monitoring and establishment activities are
proposed to occur annually for 5 years.
As noted above in Finding of Fact 5C, a condition of approval will require the applicant to
submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a period of five years from project
completion for review and comment. WSDOT will report if performance measures and success
standards have been met. If the performance measures or success standards have not been met,
the City will require adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final
success standards.
By following the avoidance and minimization effort, monitoring requirements of Springbrook
Bank site, Governor’s Executive Order 89-10 (Protection of Wetlands: “No Net Loss”), and
WSDOT Policy P2038, staff anticipates that the proposal will provide no net loss of ecological
functions and values consistent with the City of Renton’s Shoreline Master Program. As noted
in the staff report (Ex. 1), the project complies with several Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline
Master Program goals and policies that are specific to wetland preservation and protection
including Goal L-U of the Comprehensive Plan the development standards in sections 4-3-
090(D)(10)(d) RMC and 4-5-050(L)(1)(g)(i) RMC.
D. Stormwater/Water Quality. A Summary of Stormwater Management Concepts was submitted
with the application (Ex. 11). The project is being developed at a conceptual level in advance
of final design and construction through design-build contracting. WSDOT has been
developing conceptual designs in accordance with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water
Design Manual and in coordination with Renton’s stormwater utility staff, with the intent to
establish and verify performance criteria that will be met by the final design (Ex. 21). The
Stage 1 project widening proposal will increase the pollutant generating impervious surface
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 8
are (PGIS) by 45.56 acres. Overall, PGIS will increase by approximately 23 percent (23%)
over current conditions. The project will include the following stormwater facilities:
• Existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems will be modified as required
for the new roadway geometry and as required for stormwater management using
equivalent catchment areas.
• Two (2) new flow control and many new runoff treatment facilities will be constructed
to mitigate new PGIS as well as to provide additional retrofit runoff treatment for
untreated WSDOT PGIS.
• One (1) spill containment pond will be replaced in kind.
• Five (5) existing fish barriers will be mitigated by four (4) new fish passible structures.
• One (1) new conveyance system will be constructed under Lake Washington Blvd N
to discharge into Johns Creek.
• Existing runoff treatment and flow control facilities will be modified or replaced with
measures complying with the current WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual where the
roadway widening impacts existing facilities.
A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide drainage plans and a drainage
report demonstrating compliance with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
E. Wellhead Protection. Portions of the I-405 widening project are located within the City of
Renton Wellhead Protection Zone 2 area. The overall purpose of the aquifer protection
regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from
contamination by hazardous materials. A condition of approval will require all fill material to
be obtained from approved local fill sources. The applicant will be required to provide a fill
source statement to the City to ensure clean fill is used. The fill source statement shall be
submitted with the construction permit application. Impacts to the Wellhead Protection Area
are not anticipated as a result of the subject project, provided the City of Renton codes are
complied with.
F. Utilities. The project will require the relocation of the existing 12-inch water main along the
south bank of May Creek. Several other utilities are located within the project area, though no
other City of Renton utilities will be impacted by the project.
Multiple King County facilities, including the May Creek Interceptor, the Eastside Interceptor
Sections 4 and 5, and the South Mercer Force Main, are all located within or near to the project
site. King County has a permanent easement for these facilities on the proposed development
site. The permanent easement assures the right to maintain and repair the facilities. In the event
that a facility must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided (Ex . 19). In
order to protect these wastewater facilities during construction, WSDOT and/or the City will
submit WSDOT’s construction drawings for the project to the Wastewater Treatment Division
for review and comment prior to permit issuance.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 9
A condition of approval will require utilities to be located and designed to avoid natural,
historic, archaeological or cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate
adverse impacts where unavoidable
G. Floodplain. WSDOT prepared a Flood Risk Analysis (Ex. 21). The May Creek Trail portion
of the project is located in Flood Zone AE (100-year floodplain) and Floodway Zone AE. The
replacement bridge work is within the 100-year floodplain. This work will include habitat
improvements along the creek by removing angular rock fill material from the floodplain and
removal of the existing northbound bridge columns/abutments. The applicant estimates the
project will include the removal of 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek
floodplain under the existing bridge structure. No fill or excavation is proposed below the
OHWM of May Creek.
An extension of City of Renton’s May Creek Trail will be constructed on the north side of May
Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain. Within WSDOT right-of-way,
the proposed work at May Creek will include the construction of the City’s May Creek Trail
on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel, outside the Ordinary High-Water Mark
(OHWM) and above the 100-year floodplain. There may be minor amounts of fill
(approximately 500 cubic yards) in some locations associated with final grading; however, the
project will result in a net reduction in fill materials in this area.
RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations requires zero-rise in floodplain elevations due to
construction projects. However, the current FEMA floodplain/floodway data and delineation
for May Creek is based upon old studies that used a 100 -year flood flow of 855 cfs derived
from pre-1980 FEMA stream flow data, which is less than the current estimated 100-year flood
flow of 1,290 cfs derived from the King County Gage 37a stream flow data. Therefore, a
condition of approval will require the applicant to prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per
section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100 -year
flood flow of 1,290 cfs. This analysis will include producing a floodplain/floodway map
depicting proposed improvements in relation to the floodplain and floodway of May Creek.
Additionally, WSDOT shall provide a zero-rise hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed
site conditions within the floodplain of May Creek per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual.
H. View/Aesthetic Impacts. Though the staff report (Ex 1) provided no specific analysis related
to the project’s effects on aesthetic impacts and view, staff noted the project, as proposed,
complies with several Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program goals and policies
which explicitly promote protection of views. These include Policy L-55 of the Comprehensive
Plan and Policy SH-39 of the Shoreline Master Program. The project is an existing interstate.
The view of the interstate and adjacent to it will be largely unchanged. However, the project
will create new public access trails with view of Lake Washington.
I. Parking. The staff report does not specifically address parking. No new parking is needed
associated with the highway improvements. There will be new trails constructed. These trails
are extensions of existing trails which already have adequate trailhead parking. The trail
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 10
systems are adopted in the City’s Bicycle and Trails Master Plan and the Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Areas Plan.
J. Archeological. The project proposal and notice of application were provided to reviewing
agencies including the State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP). The
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division indicated that comments and concerns will be
dealt with during the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permitting process. Comments
were also received from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater
Treatment Division regarding utilities and easements within or near the project site (Ex. 19).
The project site is in a high probability zone for archaeological artifacts given its proximity to
Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. Therefore, if archaeological deposits of
unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance
will be halted, and activities directed away from the area. In order to protect archaeological
resources a condition of approval will require the applicant to stop all activity and immediately
notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes’ cultural committees, and the
Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native
American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found.
K. Historical/Cultural Resources. To the greatest extent possible, both the location of the May
Creek Trail and the relocation of the Lake Washington Loop Trail have been carefully located
and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites. As noted
in Finding of Fact No. 5(J) above, a condition of approval will require a cessation of all
construction activities and the immediate notification of appropriate parties in the event items
of historical or cultural importance are discovered.
L. Temporary Construction Easement. Access to May Creek for sewer line and riparian
enhancement work will be required within the 100-foot vegetation management buffer.
WSDOT is proposing to restore the disturbed area (Area 2) to original or better condition with
mitigation for temporary impacts to include replanting and impact mitigation.
Impacts to May Creek include a 0.41-acre temporary stream buffer impact, a 0.12-acre
permanent stream buffer impact, and 0.24-acre of temporary stream impact. Approximately
0.295-acres are proposed for restoration onsite. An estimated 33 trees will need to be removed.
The species of impacted trees include black cottonwood, red alder, Western red cedar, and
Oregon ash (Ex. 20).
Per RMC 4-3-090E.10.b. Roads, perpendicular water crossings are permitted for authorized
uses consistent with the Shoreline Mater Program. The expansion of an existing roadway is
permitted provided no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline are expected
Therefore, vegetation conservation buffer impacts are permitted as proposed with the
associated mitigation.
The provided tree removal and restoration plans are insufficient to determine if restoration and
replanting are adequate within the Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) Area (Ex . 7). A
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 11
fully executed May Creek inter-local agreement (ILA) between the WSDOT and the City of
Renton will afford each entity the opportunity to further define the conditions associated with
the impacts created by WSDOT completing the aforementioned work within the TCE area, as
well as the sewerline and riparian enhancement work at May Creek. The draft ILA agreement
addresses the temporary construction easement portion.
As a result of the proposed temporary construction road impacts to City property needed to
access May Creek from southbound I-405, a condition of approval will require the applicant
to submit the following report and plans (5 items) for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager: 1) an arborist report; 2) a final restoration and monitoring plan for
May Creek; 3) a temporary irrigation plan; 4) a final landscape and planting plan; and 5) a
utility plan prior to construction permit approval.
M. Noise. Noise and vibration impacts will primarily result from the demolition of the north and
southbound bridge superstructure over May Creek. Construction of the new May Creek Bridge
will include, but is not limited to, installation of a debris catch system to the existing bridge
girders from an under bridge inspection truck (UBIT) or boom lift, regrading, removal of
existing abutment, construction of the May Creek Trail, construction and widening of I-405
and I-405 on and off ramps, construction of temporary access road to May Creek, construction
of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path with associated sound walls in the ERC, roadside and
temporary road and utility impacts, mitigation and landscape planting, and stormwater
treatment improvements.
Equipment used on site may include, but is not limited to, back hoes, excavators, loaders,
graders, rollers, dump trucks, concrete trucks, mobile and stationary cranes, drilling machines,
pile drivers, and hand tools. In addition, there may be concrete pours associated with bridge
abutment and bridge deck construction.
Construction is anticipated to start in 2019 and the Project is expected open to traffic in 2024.
Construction hours will conform to the City of Renton’s noise daytime ordinance requirements
to the extent possible. For nighttime work, WSDOT will obtain a noise variance at a future
date.
6. Need for Variance. The variance to the six-foot maximum trail width requirement necessary
for the reasonable use of the subject property. The assessment of necessity whether the trail width
needs to be eight feet as opposed to six feet. A six-foot trail width is permitted for trails located within
the shoreline buffer of May Creek itself.
As discussed in the staff report, eight feet is necessary to accommodate the high volumes anticipated
for the trail as well as to provide sufficient width for wheelchairs to pass it each other. Parts of the trail
will only be 4-5 feet as the exterior trail system approaches Cougar Mountain, but it is reasonable to
conclude that the shoreline portions of the trail will be much more heavily travelled both because of
the views and the relatively flat topography. The City has concluded eight feet is necessitated along
the shoreline portions to allow for ADA access on what is anticipated to be a heavily used regional
trail, which is both a connection to a larger system and a designation in itself given the lake views.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 12
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II
applications and shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires
consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The shoreline
variance has the highest numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as
Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the
authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the
City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project itself crosses several zones including
Residential-6 (R-6), R-8, COR and Resource Conservation (RC) The project is not subject to zoning.
Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the subject vicinity are Residential Low Density,
Residential Medium Density, Residential High Density and Commercial-Office-Residential. Trails are
not identified in the table of uses governed by RMC 4-2-060, but it appears the use will have to be
considered authorized as a park or impliedly as a transportation facility. Further, as determined in
Conclusion of Law No. 28, the use is specifically authorized by the City’s Shoreline Master Program
(“SMP”).
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. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances. The applicable
regulations and policies are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of
law:
SMP Policies
SMP Policy SH-6: Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and
nonregulatory means that may include regulation of development within the shoreline jurisdiction,
ecologically sound design, and restoration programs, including:
1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to
provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required
human needs.
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, when feasible,
increased to the fullest extent possible to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for list ed
salmon stocks and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks.
3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 13
4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of
recreation and provide opportunities for education and interpretation. Access and use should
be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas.
4. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, water quality
and water flow are not affected by the proposal. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the
proposal will be beneficial to aquatic habitat over time and is fully mitigated to prevent adverse habitat
impacts during construction. Wildlife habitat is increased by the proposed removal of invasive
vegetation and replacement with native vegetation and the addition of trees. The trail provides an
opportunity to observe and learn from the shoreline and ample preserved and protected vegetation of
the site.
SMP Policy SH-14: Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that prevents
or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological condition does not become worse than
the current condition. This means ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all
development and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as
practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline
ecological functions that should be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat,
food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected
include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground
water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris
recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel
formation/maintenance.
5. As described above in Finding of Fact 5C, not net loss of ecological functions is anticipated.
Wetland and stream impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent feasible. Wetland impacts
have been identified and will be mitigated prior to the start of the project via use of wetland mitigation
credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The project will improve fish
passage by installing new fish passage culverts and replacing older, less habitat friendly culverts. Fill
will be removed from May Creek. The project is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and its Shoreline Master Program. This policy objective is satisfied.
Objective SH-E: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be recognized and
economic uses or activities that are water-oriented should be encouraged and supported.
6. The project does not involve any commercial development. However, the project will
contribute to the creation or extension of two new regional trails. The May Creek Trail in particular
will offer a water oriented public recreational activity with views of the waterfront.
Policy SH-18: All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of ecological
functions during construction and operation.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 14
7. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 5, no net loss of ecological functions is anticipated.
The project will involve a temporary construction easement along May Creek. As the project is being
Design Built, the full details of the impact are not yet known. Therefore, a condition of approval will
require the applicant to an arborist report, a final restoration and monitoring plan for May Creek, a
temporary irrigation plan, a final landscape and planting plan and a utility plan for review and approval
by the Current Planning Project Manager for construction work associated with the temporary access
road to May Creek prior to construction.
SMP Objective SH-F: Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the
natural amenities.
8. The project increases public accessibility by providing a new regional trail and extension of an
existing regional trail. Natural amenities are improved by the proposed restoration plan. The new
trails and enhanced or restored natural environment support this Shoreline objective.
SMP Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and
is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or
improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas
to which public access is provided, including trail systems.
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project will not adversely affect the natural
environment, natural processes or ecological functions and will in fact result in a substantial benefit
to those shoreline resources while providing a regional trail with views of Lake Washington.
SMP Policy SH-26: Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided.
10. The trails and shoreline access point of the proposal provide both passive and active
recreational opportunities to the public.
SMP Policy SH-30: Development and management of public access should recognize the need to
address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should recognize and be
consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just compensation shall be provided to property
owners for land acquired for public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall
be provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with the public.
11. No adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties is anticipated. The land is existing
WSDOT right of way and City of Renton parks property. The public will have full access to the new
regional trails.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 15
SMP Policy SH-39: Viewpoints, parking, trails, and similar improvements should be considered for
transportation system projects in shoreline areas. Bridge abutments should incorporate stairs or trails
to reach streams where appropriate.
12. The project will provide a new regional trail with shoreline views and an extension of an
existing regional trail. No new parking is proposed but adequate parking exists to existing and future
trail users. The May Creek trail will run along May Creek. This policy is satisfied.
SMP Policy SH-42: Rail lines within the shoreline should provide opportunities for public access
and circulation:
1) The rail line along the east shore of Lake Washington should be reserved for use as a public
trail if rail use ceases. If rail use continues, joint trail and rail use should be explored.
13. Project proposes to construct a bike and pedestrian trail within the ERC from Ripley Lane in
Renton to Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue. Since King County bought the ERC, this portion has been
open to the public as a trail even with the rails intact. At this time, King County is in the process of
removing the existing rails and creating a path on the existing railroad ballast between Ripley Lane
and Lake Washington Blvd where it turns towards Newcastle Beach Park. Bicycle and pedestrian
traffic that now uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will be shifted to the ERC trail.
SMP Policy SH-43: Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the
shoreline:
1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non-motorized circulation,
of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the
Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical
and visual access to the shoreline.
2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links together shoreline public access
into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools, public and private
open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights of way, waterways,
and other opportunities.
3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities
and the comprehensive trails system that provides non-motorized access throughout the City.
4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and
implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the
Cedar River, the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River.
14. As previously noted, an extension of City of Renton’s May Creek Trail will be constructed on
the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain. The trail is
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 16
proposed to be eight feet (8’) wide and will extend from the end of the existing May Creek Trail, that
ends roughly 40 feet east of the eastern boundary of the WSDOT ROW, to Jones Road. Project
improvements also include the construction of a paved bicycle and pedestrian path (including
associated sound walls) along the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) Regional Trail from Ripley Lane in
north Renton to the City of Renton’s northern boundary. Almost all of this portion of this publi c trail
is within shoreline jurisdiction, beginning at MP 7.35. For this portion of the project, WSDOT will
widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel
shoulders. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic that now uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will be shifted
to the ERC trail.
SMP Policy SH-44: Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access standards
and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious surfaces, where feasible, and managing
surface water runoff to achieve appropriate water quality.
15. No City of Renton roads will be impacted by the project. The project is a widening of I-405
and includes the provision of public access trails. As noted in Finding of Fact 5 above, the project will
be conditioned to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
SMP Objective SH-J: Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired
ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of public and private
programs and actions. This Master Program includes a restoration element that identifies restoration
opportunities and facilitates appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal
of this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions.
16. The project will improve shoreline ecological functions by removing prior fill from May
Creek, providing habitat restoration and enhancement along the Creek and mitigating all wetland and
habitat impacts by contributing to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank.
SMP Use Regulations
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2):
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
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 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 ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are
not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature
maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to,
water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge;
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 17
sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter
input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance.
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions
or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated
on- or off-site.
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval
shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation
such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall
occur in the following prioritized order:
(a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action, or moving the action.
(b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
(c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(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 measures.
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed
development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the
Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to
provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological
functions.
17. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
functions and processes. The project is designed to comply with the Governor’s Executive Order 89-
1T (Protection of Wetlands: “No Net Loss”) and WSDOT Policy P2038. Adverse impacts are also
rectified by the substantial restoration associated with the proposal. A condition of approval will
require the applicant to submit monitoring reports to the City of Renton annually for a period of five
years from project completion for review and comment. WSDOT will report if performance measures
and success standards have been met. If the performance measures or success standards have not been
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 18
met, the City will require adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final suc cess
standards.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or
educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer
(including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities,
trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers
and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
1. Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious
material, including boardwalks;
2. The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a
location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes;
3. The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of
the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated
structure as an alternative to fill;
4. Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section.
18. The trail is not anticipated to be within a wetland or associated buffer. However, Finding of
Fact No. 16 of the Staff Report (Ex. 1) suggests work within existing wetlands and wetland buffers
may be required, including the potential construction of a boardwalk within wetlands and wetland
buffers. There are no Category I wetlands or buffers on or adjacent to the subject site. The trail and
boardwalk are permitted uses within the Category II-IV buffers.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(x): Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect
wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland
function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection.
Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create,
rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values.
(a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized order
provided for in subsection D2aiii of this Section.
(b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements shall
be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of:
Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and Washington State
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 19
Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this
Code provides differing standards.
(c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following order
of preference:
(1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
(2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural and/or historic
functions.
(3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of
nonnative, invasive plant species.
(4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands…
(e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall
occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include
enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and
impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures…
(i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the location that
will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success;
provided, that mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same
watershed sub-basin as the permitted alteration.
(j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off-site shall be permanently protected and
managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values
into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other
protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4.
(k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on
weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible after the permitted
alteration.
(l) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in
accordance with RMC 4-3-050M16. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored
for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but generally
not for a period less than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year
and annually for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent reporting shall
be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend 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
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 20
monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when
any of the following conditions apply:
(1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan;
(2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the
impacted critical area;
(3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer
time for establishment.
19. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of wetland
function and values. As previously determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the proposal will mitigate
all anticipated impacts prior to construction through the use of wetland mitigation credits at the City’s
required 1:1 ratio required for wetland buffer alterations. All compensatory mitigation is off-site and
within the same sub-basin. The wetland mitigation site is located at the Springbrook Creek Wetland
and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Springbrook Bank is a large habitat restoration and wetland re-
establishment site located in the City of Renton, WA, Green-Duwamish WRIA 9. Compliance with
compensatory mitigation is addressed below. As noted above, a condition of approval will require the
submittal of monitoring plans.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall
incorporate the following design and other features:
i. Relation to Other Facilities:
(a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses,
and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for
handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible.
(b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public
street, on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments
required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required
in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space
per five thousand (5,000) square feet of public access area for more than three (3) spaces.
Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access
area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped
accessible.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 21
(c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City’s
transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within
shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site.
ii. Design:
(a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to
reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge and to view the water and the shoreline from
adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline’s edge
as feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological
features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions.
(b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations
adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by
screening or other separation techniques.
20. The proposal is adjacent to other public areas since it will connect to what will eventually be a
regional trail. The parking requirements of the criterion above are imposed as conditions of approval.
It is recognized that the trail system should be considered as a whole in assessing whether adequate
on-street parking is required. As previously discussed, the trail implements some of the objectives of
the City’s Trails and Bicycles Master Program. As noted previously the trail both accesses the water’s
edge and provides for shoreline views. There is nothing in the record to suggest the proposed trail
will be in proximity to any residential windows or private open spaces to the extent that trail users will
disturb privacy.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(3)(b)(viii) Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located
within shoreline vegetated buffers shall not exceed four feet (4') in width; provided, that where ADA
requirements apply, such facilities may be increased to six feet (6') in width. Stairways shall conform
to the existing topography to the extent feasible.
21. The applicant has proposed to construct an ADA compliant, soft surfaced, 8-foot wide trail
within the shoreline vegetated buffer. The applicant is proposing a shoreline variance for the May
Creek Trail expansion on the north side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100 -year
floodplain. The proposed trail that WSDOT intends to construct is a 16-foot wide zone for an
expansion of the May Creek Trail under the I-405 May Creek Bridge. The applicant is proposing to
construct a portion of the May Creek Trail under the May Creek Bridge. The proposed trail segment
will be limited to an eight-foot (8’) wide soft surface path. An y additional connections made outside
the width of the new bridge or superstructure will be permitted separately (i.e. not part of this
application).
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 22
For the ERC portion of the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-
foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Current bicycle and pedestrian traffic that
uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will relocated to the proposed new ERC trail corridor. See the
discussion regarding the Shoreline Variance at Conclusions of Law No. 37-42 below.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the
following location and design criteria:
i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated
open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway
parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological
features, may be set back from the water’s edge, and may provide limited and controlled access
to sensitive features and the water’s edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to
control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails
shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width
to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.
22. The applicant is proposing a shoreline variance for the May Creek Trail expansion on the north
side of May Creek parallel to the channel and above the 100-year floodplain. The applicant is
proposing to construct a portion of the May Creek Trail under the May Creek Bridge. The proposed
trail segment will be limited to an eight-foot (8’) wide soft surface path.
For the ERC portion of the project, WSDOT will widen the existing rail prism and construct a twelve-
foot wide asphalt trail with four-foot wide gravel shoulders. Current bicycle and pedestrian traffic that
uses the Lake Washington Loop Trail will relocated to the proposed new ERC trail corridor. The
proposed trails generally run parallel to the shoreline as required above and also connects to the water’s
edge as authorized. See the Shoreline Variance discussion regarding the trail width in the Conclusions
of Law No. 37-42 below.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(May Creek Reach): At the time of redevelopment, public access should be
provided consistent with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire
property with controlled public access to the water consistent with standards of this Section, and goals
of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
23. As determined in other parts of the decision, the proposal meets all RMC 4-3-090(D)
requirements as well as all SMP policies and use regulations pertaining to preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Building and Development Location – Shoreline Orientation:
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water-
enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 23
designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to
maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian,
nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic
and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values.
b. Design and Performance Standards:
i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs
land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided
by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany
development proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel
less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement.
Such assessments shall include the following general information:
(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.
(b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features,
together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological
functions.
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with
substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
(a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing,
grading, and alteration of topography and natural features.
(b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of
under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
(c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever
feasible.
(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 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.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 24
24. The trail, which qualifies as a water-enjoyment use, is located close to the shoreline while
avoiding the most sensitive portions of the site by avoiding all significant trees (Ex. 20) and staying
out of the wetland (although potentially encroaching into its buffer). Impervious surfaces are
minimized by the use of porous trail materials. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the proposal is
designed and mitigated to prevent any adverse impacts to riparian, near shore and wetland habitat. An
archaeological assessment has been prepared for the project and the conditions of approval require an
immediate cessation of construction activities if archeological resources are discovered . As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no adverse aesthetic or view impacts are anticipated from the
project. The existing environmental reports (Ex. 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20 and 210 provide an
assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation
characteristics of the site and contain all the information required above. As previously discussed the
trail avoids sensitive portions of the site, avoids the removal of trees and avoids impermeable surfaces.
No shoreline stabilization is necessitated by the proposal.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(6): Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources:
a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal,
and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural,
and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such
information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in
areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural
resources.
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical,
cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application
for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups
have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an
area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a
qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review
by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are
discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped
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, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 25
Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a
qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in
coordination with appropriate agencies.
25. A detailed archaeological assessment has been prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the
subject site, but there is no information in the record. The Muckleshoot Tribe has provided comments.
The recommendations of the archaeological assessment require that construction cease and persons be
contacted if any artifacts are discovered during construction as required by the criterion above. As
noted in Conclusion of Law No. 25, a condition of approval makes this a requirement.
RMC 4-3-90(D)(10)(a) General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be
designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent
feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water
interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of
system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or
set back further from the land/water interface.
ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical,
archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural
movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals over the life of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way
as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal
materials.
v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using
bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other
features that provide for these functions.
vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible,
including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails.
26. To the greatest extent possible, both May Creek Trail and the relocation of the Lake
Washington Loop Trail have been carefully considered to be located and designed to avoid significant
natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 26
Debris associated with bridge demolition work will be collected using Debris catch system and
disposed without causing erosion to May Creek. The proposed May Creek Bridge is a one span
structure. The project is anticipated to improve facilities by making fish passage improvements while
accommodating public access to park properties and corridors by adding or relocating usable trails.
As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5 above, the project has been designed to allow passage of flood
waters, fish passage and wildlife movement. The project has been designed to accommodate utilities,
viewpoints, public access and trails.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(d):
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological
functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration
in the design of shoreline trails.
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property
owners including privacy and noise.
iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
(a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other
water bodies.
(b) For interpretive facilities.
(c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at
grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface
and groundwater movement.
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft
surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and
the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use
located in less ecologically sensitive areas.
27. Improvements to both the May Creek Trail and ERC Trail are designed to protect the existing
environment and shoreline ecological functions and minimize the impact on adjacent properties.
WSDOT is proposing to extend the City’s May Creek Trial under the I-405 May Creek Bridge with
an eight foot (8’) wide trail and WSDOT is proposing a 12-foot wide bike and pedestrian trail within
the ERC from Ripley Lane, north to Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue. The location and design of the
trails are appropriate for the designated areas. King County DNRP, Parks and Recreation Division will
maintain the ERC trail and the City of Renton Community Services Division will maintain the May
Creek Trail.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 27
Table 4-3-090(E)(1) Shoreline Use Table: Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails are permitted, provided
that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area.
28. The proposed use is authorized by the SMP. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the
proposed trail will not degrade ecological functions. The minor construction and absence of view
impacts will also not degrade the natural character of the shoreline area.
RMC 4-3-090(E)(8): Recreation:
a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-site mitigation.
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and are
consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to
the ecological features and shoreline environment…
b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a
substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the shoreline.
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be
located on the shoreline.
ii. Water-related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the
shoreline. …
d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the
following criteria are considered:
i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the
shoreline are protected.
ii. Accessibility to the water’s edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in
consideration of natural features.
iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demand s of
the local community.
iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and uses
are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 28
v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the
adjoining property.
vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed
public use…
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance
between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the
shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process
that provides for a balance of these elements.
29. As previously discussed there is no net loss in ecological function associated with the proposal.
The level of human activity is limited to walking and possibly bicycling and should have little impact
on the shoreline habitat. As a water related recreation facility, the trail is located near the shorel ine.
As previously determined natural character is preserved. Accessibility to the water’s edge is provided.
No water dependent uses are displaced. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no adverse impacts
will be generated by the project, which includes impacts to adjoining uses. Parking demand is
addressed in the conditions of approval. As previously discussed, the extensive restoration and
mitigation associated with the proposal is well balanced with public recreational needs.
RMC 4-3-0090(E)(10): Transportation:
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve
no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the
following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water
interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis
of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline
jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface.
ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical,
archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural
movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals over the life of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way
as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal
materials.
v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 29
vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using
bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other
features that provide for these functions.
vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible,
including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails.
30. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
function. The transportation regulations above that require facilities to be located as far away from
shorelines as possible conflict with the policies that require recreational facilities and public access
facilities to be located close to the shoreline. Given that the public access/recreational policies are
more specifically targeted at the project and that shoreline policies strongly encourage public access
to the shoreline, the public access/recreational regulations supersede the conflicting transportation
facility regulations. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse impacts to
archaeological, natural, historical, or cultural resources. Also, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5
the project will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Excavation will be very
modest and there is nothing to suggest that groundwater movement will be affected. A condition of
approval will require all drainage facilities to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design
Manual. Erosion during construction and construction debris is addressed in detail in the mitigation
measures that apply to the project and there is nothing to suggest that erosion will be a problem once
construction is completed. The trail does not trigger any significant need for shoreline protection. The
trail provides both viewpoint and physical access features.
RMC 4-3-0090(E)(10)(d): Trails:
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained
in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions.
Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the
design of shoreline trails.
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners
including privacy and noise…
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface
trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the
number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located
in less ecologically sensitive areas.
31. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the trail is designed to avoid environmental impa cts and
there are no impacts anticipated on adjoining property owners. The trail surface is relatively narrow
and considered a soft surface to assure compatibility with shoreline resources.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 30
RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(b) Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations Below Ordinary High
Water Mark: Landfills and excavations shall generally be prohibited below the OHWM, except for
the following activities, and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of ecological functions
as documented in appropriate technical studies:
i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an approved ecological
restoration activity;
ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation facilities and utilities
currently located within shoreline jurisdiction, when alternatives or less impacting approaches
are not feasible;
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or public access; when
alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible; and provided, that filling and/or
excavation are limited to the minimum needed to accommodate the facility;
v. Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved shoreline protection facilities,
or the repair of existing shoreline protection facilities;
vi. Approved flood control projects;
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including vegetation restoration; and
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or otherwise authorized by the Department of
Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the
proposed fill for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
32. No fill or excavation is proposed below the OHWM of Ma y Creek. The applicant is proposing
to remove approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek floodplain under the
existing bridge structure. This work will include habitat improvements along the creek by removing
angular rock fill material from the floodplain and removal of the existing northbound bridge
columns/abutments. There may be minor amounts of fill (approximately 500 cubic yards) in some
locations associated with final grading; however, there will be net reduction in fill materials in this
area. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel and
provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly constructed streambank,
providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement. Detailed analysis of ecological
conditions demonstrate that there will be no net loss of ecological function.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 31
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall
be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations, adopted
by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2cii of this Section.. Said provisions
shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a
shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no
development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided
without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program.
Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together
with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions
of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or
inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the
most restrictive provisions shall prevail.…
(b) Areas of special flood hazard…
RMC 4-3-050(G)(2) Critical Aras Buffers and Structure Setbacks from Buffers Table.
33. The project includes construction of embankments, ramps, overpasses, noise walls, drainage
systems, stormwater detention and treatment facilities, sanitary sewer mains and a fish passable stream
crossing. Maintenance, operation, repair, and the construction of new trails are exempt activities within
habitat conservation areas, streams and wetlands, provided that impacts are minimized, and disturbed
areas are restored during or immediately after the use of construction equipment (RMC 4-3-
050(C)(3)). As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the critical areas and buffer exemptions.
The project, as proposed, is expected to result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands,
streams, and buffers. Impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
As proposed and conditioned, a landscape architect will prepare a roadside restoration plan and
inventory of trees for removal and the applicant will restore the disturbed areas to original or better
condition with mitigation for temporary impacts to include replanting and site impact mitigation (Ex.
9).
RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(e) Additional Restrictions within Floodways:
i. Increase in Flood Levels Prohibited: Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional
engineer demonstrates through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with
standard engineering practice that:
(a) Encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the
base flood discharge; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 32
(b) There are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties;
and
(c) There are no higher flood elevations upstream; and
(d) The impact due to floodway encroachment shall be analyzed using future land use condition
flows.
…
iii. If this subsection G is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply
with all applicable flood hazard areas reduction provisions of this Section.
iv. Bridges Crossing Floodways: In mapped or unmapped flood hazard areas, future flow conditions
shall be considered for proposed bridge proposals crossing floodways.
34. No increase in flood levels is anticipated at the subject property or upstream. As demonstrated
previously, there are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties (See
Conclusions of Law No. 11, 20, 27 and 31).
The project is being developed at a conceptual level in advance of final design and construction
through design-build contracting. WSDOT has been developing conceptual designs in accordance
with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual and in coordination with Renton’s
stormwater utility staff, with the intent to establish and verify performance criteria that will be met by
the final design (See Flood Risk Analysis, Ex. 21). Future flow conditions should be considered for
proposed bridge proposals crossing floodways.
As described above in Finding of Fact No. 5, the current FEMA floodplain/floodway data and
delineation for May Creek is based upon old studies that used a 100-year flood flow of 855 cfs derived
from pre-1980 FEMA stream flow data, which is less than the current estimated 100-year flood flow
of 1,290 cfs derived from the King County Gage 37a stream flow data. , a condition of approval will
require the applicant to prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100-year flood flow of 1,290 cfs. This analysis will
include producing a floodplain/floodway map depicting proposed improvements in relation to the
floodplain and floodway of May Creek. Additionally, WSDOT shall provide a zero-rise hydraulic
analysis of the existing and proposed site conditions within the floodplain of May Creek per section
4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(g)(i) Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other
alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or
other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be cr eated on the
site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 33
volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or
strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high
flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect
bank stability or existing habitat. Effective base flood storage volume shall be based on the elevations
shown in the flood hazard areas map, identified in subsection E3 of this Section or as determined
through a study where no base flood evaluation information exists.
35. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 34, the project is not expected to reduce the effective
base flood storage volume of the floodplain. As described above in Conclusion of Law No. 32, the
project will remove approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material from the May Creek floodplain under
the existing bridge structure. This should serve to increase, rather than decrease the flood storage
volume in the floodplain. Additionally, the work will include habitat improvements along the creek
by removing angular rock fill material from the floodplain and removal of the existing northboun d
bridge columns/abutments. There may be minor amounts of fill (approximately 500 cubic yards) in
some locations associated with final grading; however, there will be net reduction in fill materials in
this area. The May Creek Bridge replacement work will improve fish habitat along the stream channel
and provide buffer enhancement. New vegetation will be planted on the newly constructed
streambank, providing approximately 0.30 acres of stream buffer enhancement. Together, these
measures should increase the base flood storage volume. A condition of approval will require
compensatory storage, if the analysis described in Conclusion of Law No. 34 reveals the project will
reduce the base flood storage volume and thereby require compensatory storage.
RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(g)(i) Mitigation Location: The applicant shall be required to conduct a stream
or lake mitigation plan pursuant to RMC 4-8-120 if impacts are identified within a stream or lake
study. The approval of the stream or lake mitigation plan by the Administrator shall be based on the
following criteria.
i. Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in this subsection L:
(a) On-Site Mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless a finding is made that on-
site mitigation is not feasible or desirable;
(b) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Subbasin as Subject Site: Off-site
mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the
subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation
on the subject site;
(c) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site
mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the
Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City
over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project;
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 34
(d) Off-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin Outside the City Limits: Off-
site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin ou tside
the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over
mitigation within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets
City goals.
36. The applicant provided a Wetland and Stream Assessment Report (Ex. 12) and a Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Report (Ex. 13). The applicant will provide both on-site and off-site mitigation. As
noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, wetland mitigation will be accomplished off-site through the use of
wetland mitigation credits at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The staff
have determined the off-site mitigation at Springbrook will achieve equal or improved ecological
function over mitigation at the subject site. Compensatory mitigation for all permanent wetland and
buffer impacts will be accomplished by replacing wetland functions and acreage lost by debiting
credits provided at a regulatory approved mitigation bank. All of the proposed wetland mitigation has
occurred in advance and is located off-site.
Effective June 9, 2008, the USACE (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 325 and 332), and
Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR Part 230) issued a final rule that establishes a preferen ce
for the use of available mitigation bank credits. Since a mitigation bank must have an approved
mitigation plan and other assurances in place before any of its credits can be used to offset permitted
impacts, some of the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory mitigation are reduced. an
estimated 169,710 square feet (3.896 acres) of Springbrook credits is required to compensate for
wetland impacts (Exhibit 13). Because the project is Design -Build, the project may be modified in a
manner that results in a different required credit amount. As WSDOT is proposing to use the
City/WSDOT Springbrook Bank credits for mitigation associated with wetland impacts resulting from
the WSDOT l-405/SR-167 Direct Connector Project, the City, as co-manager of the Wetland Bank,
must concur with the debit of credits, prior to approval by the USACE Wetland Bank Oversight
Committee.
With respect to on-site mitigation, installation and removal of the bridge piles on the bridge over May
Creek will occur during the times authorized by the Hydraulic Project Approval and the Federal
Services Biological Opinion. On-site restoration would compensate for temporary impacts to May
Creek. Stream mitigation measures must provide equal or better biological functions and values,
compared to the existing conditions. WSDOT will ensure the projects stream mitigation elements are
constructed and maintained in accordance with WDFW (2003) ISPG (a joint guidance document
developed by WDFW) to address the potential mechanisms of streambank failure, or other degradation
of mitigation areas.
This project is proposing to utilize the “Design-Build” method of delivery, meaning that all of the
impacts and corresponding mitigation discussed in the reports are based on low-level conceptual
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 35
project design, which would be refined and finalized by a Design-Build contractor prior to
construction.
Shoreline Variance Criteria
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(i): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the
subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on
shorelines in the same vicinity.
37. The property is characterized by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because it is
uniquely situated to provide public access to the shoreline and water’s edge while also serving as an
essential link of a regional trail network.
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(ii): The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the Applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines
in the same vicinity.
38. As shown in regulations previously reviewed, trails of six -foot width are authorized in the
shoreline buffer to May Creek. As noted in the staff report, an eight-foot width is important for a public
trail along the shoreline because volumes for those areas tend to be higher and eight feet is necessary
to accommodate the additional traffic and to provide for enhanced ADA accessibility.
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iii): The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any adverse impacts and
will substantially improve upon ecological functions and provide a valuable recreational asset to the
community. Under these circumstances there is no material detriment and no injury to other properties.
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iv): The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
40. The proposal is consistent with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as outlined in
the bulk of this decision. The overall objective of the goals of the shoreline management act and the
SMP is to protect shoreline resources while providing for public enjoyment of the shorelines. The
proposal accomplishes both objectives by providing for public access and a significant restoration
program.
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(v): The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be
done to the area by granting the variance than will be done to the Applicant by denying it, the variance
shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of
his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 36
41. More harm will be done by denying the variance than approving it since the variance will
facilitate public access to a shoreline for a project that, if approved, will substantially benefit the
shoreline environment. The variance is also necessary for the reasonable use of the property given (1)
the relative modest deviation involved; (2) the substantial public benefit served by the proposal; (3)
the substantial need for the deviation in order to make the project serve as both an important trail link
and a water’s edge access point; and (5) the lack of any adverse impacts associated with the request.
Reasonable use and necessity is also discussed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6. As determined
in the previous conclusion of law, the variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Shoreline Management Act and the SMP.
RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(vi): The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
41. The six-foot trail width requirement precludes and significantly interferes with a reasonable
use of property as contemplated in WAC 197-27-170(a) for the reasons identified in Conclusion of
Law No. 40. The hardship addressed by the variance request is caused by a natural feature of the
property as required by WAC 197-27-170(b), specifically, this property differs greatly from other
properties along the shoreline in the same vicinity because the future trail segment is entirely located
under the May Creek Bridge that is proposed to be replaced. The concept of the bridge replacement
assumes removal of existing angular rock and proposed stream bank grading. The location of the future
trail would be entirely with the scheduled earth removal area associated with the grading work. The
proposed future trail zone would be a minimum of 16 feet wide. As much as possible, WSDOT’s
design build directs land alteration to the least sensitive portion of the site.
The extension of the trail is intended to be a public natural area park facility. The additional width
increases ADA accessibility access to natural areas. Due to the need to provide a safe accessible trail
in this location, the recommended width of 8-feet is reasonable and the minimum necessary width
under the May Creek Bridge to allow safe comfortable passing space.
The trail is compatible with surrounding uses as well as uses planned under the SMP and
comprehensive plan as required by WAC 197-27-170(c) because it is part of a priority trail project in
the City’s Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, does not create any structures visible to adjoining properties
or waterward of the shoreline and does not adversely affect surrounding uses. As determined in
Finding of Fact No. 5 the proposal will not adversely affect the shoreline environment as required by
WAC 197-27-170(c). The variance will not be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other
properties in the area as contemplated by WAC 197-27-170(d) because as determined in Conclusion
of Law No. 37, this property is uniquely situated to provide a public access trail.
The variance request is the minimum necessary to afford relief as required by WAC 197 -27-170(e)
because without it the trail would not be ADA accessible. As required by WAC 197-27-170(f) and for
the reasons stated in Conclusion of Law No. 40, the public will suffer no substantial detrimental effect
by the approval of the variance.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 37
DECISION
The shoreline substantial development permit, critical areas permit, and shoreline variance are
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Northwest Region,
shall submit the following five (5) items for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager for construction work associated with the temporary access road to May
Creek prior to construction permit approval:
a. An arborist report;
b. A final restoration and monitoring plan for May Creek;
c. A temporary irrigation plan;
d. A final landscape and planting plan; and
e. A utility plan.
2. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic, archaeological or cultural
resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate adverse impacts where unavoidable. If
any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found,
all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City
of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes’ cultural committees, and the Washington
State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation.
3. WSDOT shall prepare a floodplain/floodway analysis per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual utilizing the 100-year flood flow of 1,290 cfs. This
analysis shall include producing a floodplain/floodway map depicting proposed improvements
in relation to the floodplain and floodway of May Creek. Additionally, WSDOT shall provide
a zero-rise hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed site conditions within the floodplain
of May Creek per section 4.4.2 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. If
the analysis reveals the project will reduce the base flood storage volume, the applicant will
provide compensatory storage in accordance with RMC 4-3-050(G)(4)(g)(i).
4. The applicant shall submit monitoring reports detailing the adherence to performance standards
and success standards with respect to the preservation, enhancement and functionality of fish
habitat, wildlife habitat and wetlands function to the City of Renton annually during
construction and for a period of five years from project completion for City review and
comment. WSDOT will report if performance measures and success standards have been met.
If the performance measures or success standards have not been met, the City will require
adaptive management strategies to be deployed to achieve the final success standards.
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, Critical Areas Permit and Shoreline Variance - 38
5. All fill material shall be obtained from approved local fill sources. The applicant shall provide
a fill source statement to the City to ensure clean fill is used. The fill source statement shall be
submitted with the construction permit application.
6. The applicant shall provide drainage plans and a drainage report demonstrating compliance
with the adopted 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
7. Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public street, on-street public
parking shall be provided, where feasible. Parking for public access shall include the parking
spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public
access area is handicapped accessible.
DATED this 7th day of May 2018.
________________________________
Emily Terrell
City of Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
As consolidated, 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.