Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKC South Plant Biogas and Heating Systems Improvements Project, Conditional Use, Site Plan, Shoreline Exemption and Street Modification1 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: King County South Plant Biogas and Heating Systems Improvements Project Conditional Use, Site Plan, Shoreline Exemption and Street Modification LUA18-000188, SA-A, CU, SME, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary King County (KC) is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Exemption, and a Street Modification to replace the South Plant's Biogas Upgrading System and Heating System located at 1200 Monster Rd SW. The South Plant Biogas and Heating Systems Project would include the construction of a heat and energy recovery building, a new thermal oxidizer, heating system improvements within th e Digester Equipment Building, and utility connections. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only and should not be construed as contain ing 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. The findings and conclusions that serve as the basis for this permitting decision commence at page 3 of this decision. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 Clark Close, Renton Senior Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Clark submitted a memorandum from the Applicant, Ex. 27, which requested the removal of a condition requiring that Wetland A be placed in a native growth protection easement “NGPE”. In response to the concerns raised in Ex. 27, Staff doesn’t believe that placing the wetland in an NGPE would prevent the applicant from altering the critical area or its buffers in conformance with critical area regulations. Standard NGPE language allows changes in the future if consistent with applicable regulations. The City would be amenable to drafting more specific langua ge for King County prior to recording. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Clark explained that RMC 4 -3-050B.1.g.b requires the City to provide notice with the Notice of Application that the City will be waiving buffer requirements for Wetland B due to the presence of the road through the buffer. This wasn’t done so staff is proposing to provide the notice after the hearing. If anyone responded to the notice, the City could hold another public hearing. The examiner noted that the wetland notice was not included in the conditions of approval and Mr. Clark concurred that the condition could be added. In response to additional questions, Mr. Clark was unsure if some of the trees proposed to be removed had been retained to meet tree retention requirements for prior development stages of the site. The most recent development review for prior stages of development was 2003. Chris Dew, King County, requested removal of recommended Condition No. 4 or leave the record open for King County to provide further information on the condition. King County believes the condition to be overly restrictive for an essential public facility. Wetland A is an isolated wetland located well within the project boundaries within an area contemplated for future project expansion. The wetland is surrounded by impervious surfaces and maintained lawns. It exists due to poor on - site drainage and trees and shrubs planted as a requirement of past development. The current proposal will have no impact on Wetland A and any encroachments into the wetland or its buffers can be addressed in future permit review. King County also does not agree that wetland qualifies for protection under the City’s wetland regulations. In response to examiner questions, the Applicant stated they would waive an y objection to a second hearing if that becomes necessary in order to address any input received on the RMC 4 -3- 050B.1.g.b notice to waive buffer requirements for Wetland B. Exhibits The April 17, 2018 Staff Report Exhibits 1-23 identified at Page 2 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits have also been admitted: Exhibit 24: Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 25: City of Renton COR maps Exhibit 26: Google Earth aerial of project vicinity Exhibit 27: April 20, 2018 Applicant Note on Wetland A Exhibit 28: May 11, 2018 Applicant Materials re Wetland A Exhibit 29: May 22, 2018 City response to Applicant Wetland A argument 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 Exhibit 30: April 24, 2018 Notice of Application Exhibit 31: March 20, 2018 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 32: March 20, 2018 Affidavit of Mailing FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is the King County Wastewater Treatment Division attn: Chris Dew, King County WTD, King Street Center, 201 S Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications on April 24, 2018 in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The hearing was left open through May 1, 2018 for the Applicant and City to resolve disagreements over a staff recommended condition regarding Wetland A or in the alternative to submit additional written statements. On April 26, 2018 the Applicant requested that the close date of the hearing be extended to May 15, 2018 to provide for additional time to submit Wetland A comments and also to include the p ublic response deadline for the RMC 4-3-050B.1.g.b response to the waiver of the Wetland B buffer. The examiner authorized extension of the hearing to May 15, 2018 as requested. There was no public response to the Wetland B buffer issue by May 15, 2018. On May 15, 2018 Mr. Close requested extension of the hearing to May 22, 2018 b ecause the Applicant had submitted a 343-page document addressing Wetlands A and B. The examiner authorized the extension to May 22, 2018. 3. Project Description. King County (KC) is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Exemption, and a Street Modification to replace South Plant's Biogas Upgrading System and Heating System to improve the beneficial use of digester gas at the KC Wastewater Treatment Division's South Treatment Plant (STP) while also reliably supplying heat to meet process and space heating demands. The proposed project is located on parcel nos. 423049006, -9097 and -9111. The South Plant Biogas and Heating Systems Project would include the construction of a Heat and Energy Recovery Building, a new thermal oxidizer, heating system improvements within the Digester Equipment Building, and utility connections. The project site is located towards the north/central portion of the lot. The construction of a new Heating and Energy Recovery Building (HERB) and associated driveway, uncovered parking stalls, walkways, concrete equipment pads, stormwater improvements, utility connections, and landscaping consists of approximately 191,824 square feet of the site (Ex. 6). The Applicant’s request for a street standard modification is to RMC 4-6-060F.2, Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys, to waive the required street improvements on Monster Rd SW (Ex. 22). Improvements would include 17 feet of right -of-way dedication, 11-foot center turn lane, 8-foot wide sidewalk, 8-foot wide planter strip, 0.5-foot curb 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 gutter, 10-foot wide travel lane, 5-foot wide bike lane, and 8-foot wide parking lane on both sides of the road. Surrounding uses are all non -residential in nature. To the north is the Waterworks Gardens and vacant land. To the east, south and west are office buildings. To the south and west are also warehouses, a packaging plant, a minerals yard and vacant land. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. Preliminary fire flow is 2,000 gpm. Water service for the existing building shall be serviced by the existing private 12-inch water line that loops around the property. The applicant must ensure that the water line that they connect to is the correct line. Plans for the building permit would need to clearly show the connections to the private lines for domestic water as well as the sprinkler system (if required). These plans must also indicate the locations of the City of Renton 12-inch water meter. B. Fire and P olice. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical drainage review submitted by the Applicant are consistent with adopted city standards. As compliant with City standards, adequate provision is made for drainage. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated February 2018 (Ex. 17) was submitted with the Land Use Application. The drainage report was completed in accordance with the standards found in the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) and all nine (9) core and six (6) special requirements were addressed. Based on the City’s flow control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area matching Existing Site Conditions and is within the Black River Drainage Basin. The submitted geotechnical report and two (2) addendums provided information on the water table and soil permeability with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from the geotechnical engineer. There were three (3) PIT tests taken to measure the permeability of the soil and the infiltration rates were measured at approximately 0.02 inch/hour (without correction factors). The applicant is proposing to do a Treatment Trade as described in section 1.2.8.2C that meets the City of Renton requirements as outlined in the Surface Water design manual. For City approval, the applicant must show the 2,935 SF area of the offsite roadway that would flow onsite and be collected and treated to compensate for the 2,844 SF of onsite area not collected and tre ated. A Civil 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 Construction Plan and Permit would be required for the storm system improvements proposed by the project. Staff also provided advisory notes to the Applicant with respect to drainage (Ex. 23). D. Parks/Open Space. The project is not residential in nature and no parks facilities or impact fees are required. No additional open space is required. The proposed project improvements allow for adequate passive and active recreation by occupants or users of the site. E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposed development is expected to maintain the safety and efficiency of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation on the site. All vehicular access entering the property would be provided from private internal streets within the South Plant. The proposal utilizes existing interior linkages and public roads to get to and circulate the South Plant. The existing circulation allows for safe ingress and egress movements to and from the site. The primary access to the northern portion of the Plant, where the project would be developed, is via SW 7th St. However, there are additional driveways located off of Monster Rd SW, Longacres Dr SW and SW Grady Way. No off-site improvements are proposed. The Applicant submitted a trip generation memorandum prepared November 2017 (Ex. 18) which estimated that the new facilities would not have any impact on the number of traffic trips following construction. The project design included utilizing existing roads and driveways. It is anticipated that temporary impacts to traffic would result from the proposed project during construction. According to the Memo, the project is generally expected to require roughly 20 workers travelling to the site each weekday in personal vehicles (on average). Truck traffic would almost be exclusively for delivery of materials and equipment to the site and is expected to be on the order of 750 trips over the course of the two-year construction period. The project currently does not include any removal of excavation material from the site and as a result, truck traffic for hauling spoils off-site is not expected by the project manager. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable City standards. Since the proposal is consistent with City transportation standards, it is found to provide for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities and mitigation. F. Schools. The project is not residential in nature. No impacts to schools are anticipated and no fees are required. G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling facilities. Specifically, RMC 4-4-090(E)(3) requires a minimum of two (2) square feet per every thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area for rec yclables deposit areas and a minimum of four (4) square feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of one 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 hundred (100) square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposi t areas. The staff report doesn’t identify the area of proposed new building development, the area of existing building development or the amount of space currently devoted for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Consequently, it’s not possible to ascert ain from the information in the record how much refuse and recycling area is required for the project. A condition of approval requires conformance to RMC 4-4-090(E)(3) or the acquisition of a waiver to the extent authorized by City regulations. H. Parking. Adequate provisions are made for parking. The Applicant is proposing up to 10 new uncovered parking stalls (seven (7) on the north side of the new HERB and potentially a few more east of the thermal oxidizer). The new stalls would comply with the parking dimension of the code. The project would not eliminate any existing parking spaces. The existing and proposed designated parking spaces appear to provide adequate parking for employees. No additional onsite or off-site parking spaces is required. I. Landscaping. It is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping standards. The applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscape Plan (Ex. 11) with the project application materials. The conceptual landscape plan illustrates plant materials that would be used to enhance the visual character of the building and site improvements. Together the retained and new landscaping consists of a variety of vegetation along the property edges and around the proposed and existing structures to help create human scale, add visual interest along the building façades. As there are no vehicular parking requirements for a wastewater treatment plant and the proposed number of stall is less than 14, no interior parking lot landscaping would be required. The landscape plan proposes 14 new sweetgum trees, 29 new Douglas fir trees and a meadow seed mix for disturbed areas. At the time of building permit submittal, a detailed landscape plan would b e submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a final detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On March 5, 2018, King County (SEPA lead agency), issued a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the South Plant Biogas and Heating Systems Improvements (Ex. 2). Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 A. Views. No impact to views is anticipated. The proposed Heating and Energy Recovery Building overall building height will be less than 30 feet (Ex. 7 -9). The facility improvements will not impact territorial views or views of Mt. Rainier. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. The anticipated maximum building height is 30 feet. The exterior wall treatment has been designed to match the other existing buildings onsite using similar massing and materials. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy for residential uses. The new improvements are not anticipated to increase impacts beyond the existing uses at the site. All impacts from noise generated by construction would be short-term, temporary in nature and would take place during daylight hours. Construction noise would likely exceed existing background noise levels. Noise levels would vary depending on the specific equipment use for particular activities. Based on similar construction projects, typical noise levels can be expected to range from 70 to 90 decibels (dBA) measured at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Throughout the project construction, short -term, intermittent construction related noise may include engine and mechanical equipment noises associated with the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, excavators, cranes, haul trucks, generators, chainsaws, and air compressors. Construction -related noises would be limited to the City of Renton constr uction hours. Work outside of normal construction hours is by City of Renton permission only. No hauling or work is allowed on Sunday (Ex. 23). Construction BMPs would be used to minimize construction noise. See the Environmental Checklist for a list of BM Ps (Ex. 3). The noises generated, as a result of the proposed completed facilities, are not anticipated to exceed City of Renton maximum permissible sound levels. Temporary site lighting may be used at the beginning and end of work days during construction when daylight hours are short. As a part of the completed project, the entrances to Heating and Energy Recovery Building would be lit similar to existing site lighting at STP for safety and security. All exterior lights would be focused or shielded as necessary to cast light only in areas that require it and to minimize light spilling onto neighboring properties. No glare impacts are anticipated by the project. Surface mounted equipment located in industrial developments that are greater than one hundred feet (100') from residentially zoned property and/or public streets are exempted from general screening requirements. D. Critical Areas and Natural Features. The proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The site is mapped with the following critical areas: regulated slopes (>15% & <=90%), moderate/high coal mine hazards, high seismic hazard areas, moderate/high landslide hazards, and a 100 -year flood hazard area (FEMA Zone – AE) 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 associated with Springbrook Creek (Exhibits 19 and 20) and a regulated shoreline. Each of the critical areas is more individually assessed as follows: (1) Wetlands. The project site affects two wetlands. Wetland A is located on th e project site and is exempt from the City’s wetland regulations becau se it qualifies as an artificially created landscape amenity. The buffer of Wetland B, an off-site buffer, extends on to the project. The project is also exempt from the Wetland B buffer because Wetland B is separated from the project site by a road that makes the buffer portion on the project site nonfunctional. Wetland A was initially identified as a “small palustrine scrub-shrub, depressional wetland” by the Applicant in its wetland report, Ex. 19 . The Applicant subsequently contested the regulatory status of the wetland in response to staff recommended Condition No. 4, which required that the wetland be protected by a native growth protection easement. As a result of post-hearing briefing and an updated wetland report, Ex. 28, the City and Applicant came to agreement that Wetland A does not qualify as a protected wetland under City regulations because it is exempted from the wetland definition as a landscaping amenity. It is determined that the City and Applicant have correctly identified Wetland A a s exempt from the City’s wetland regulations under RMC 4 -30-050(B)(1) because the wetland qualifies as a landscaping amenity. As detailed in the post-hearing materials, Ex. 28 and 29, Wetland A was created in the last few years by the installation of water tolerant plants into soils compacted by the Applicant. The compacted soils resulted in poor drainage conditions and pooling of water. Since all the attributes of Wetland A that qualify it as a wetland (mainly vegetation and hydrology) were created by the landscaping features installed by the Applicant, it is concluded that Wetland A is a landscaping amenity that is exempt from the City’s wetland regulations. Wetland B corresponds to a Category II rating with moderate habitat function. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050B.1.g, the City or Renton has the authority to not regulate certain upland sites separated from a critical area, if the site is separated from critical areas by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures, roads, or other substantial existing improvements. In this case, the project is separated from Wetland B by the paved 20-foot wide north plant road with raised vertical curbs. In addition, an approximately 8-foot wide paved path is located adjacent to the road. The substantial width of the existing impervious road with vertical curbs, combined with the width of the existing paved trail, serves as an effective barrier. These improvements completely restrict and redirect the flow of ground and surface water, and otherwise impair delivery of functions from upland sites located within the project area to Wetland B. Upon further review of the Wetland Assessment Report, staff concurs with the Wetland Assessment Report 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 findings that the existing road creates a barrier and the buffer regulatio ns would not extend beyond the road onto the project site. (2) Steep Slopes. The geological characteristics of the project site have been fully evaluated and all necessary mitigation measures have been recommended in a geotechnical report prepared by the Applicant, Ex. 14. No portion of the project will be built into or adversely affect protected slopes, so no adverse impacts so the slopes are adequately protected. (3) Coal Mining Hazards. According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, the site is located within a critical area consisting of a moderate coal mine hazard because the site is within approximately 200 feet of a mapped historical coal mine consisting of a series of mine adits extending north from the former mine entrance near the northeast corner of the Cogeneration Building (Ex. 16). The geotechnical engineer states that they are of the opinion that the mine adits do not extend beneath the footprint of the proposed Heat and Energy Recovery Building or the proposed thermal oxidizer as a result of advanced borings. The conclusion of the Geotechnical Report Addendum indicated that there was no subsurface or surface evidence of past mining activity at the proposed Facility site and there is low probability that construction of the proposed Facility is at risk of coal mine hazards such as subsidence. (4) Seismic Hazard. The geotechnical report, Ex. 14, mitigates against any seismic risks. According to the report, slope instability due to ground shaking is low and not considered a design issue for this project due to its distance to the nearest fault zone (5 to 6 miles south to southwest of the Seattle Fault Zone) and the relatively long repeat time for fault movement. Therefore, the geotechnical engineer is recommending that the facility be supported on a mat found ation, which the report concludes is sufficient to address seismic issues. (5) Landslide Hazard Area. Critical areas regulations impose a 50-foot buffer and 15- foot building setback are required from Very High Landslide Hazard Areas. As best as can be ascertained from the record, the project complies with these buffer requirements so impacts to landslide hazard areas are sufficiently addressed. (6) Flood hazard area. A flood hazard area is mapped on a portion of the project site. No work would be completed within either the wetland or the wetland buffer. No permanent facilities or fill would be located within the mapped flood hazard area. (7) Shorelines. The project is exempt from shoreline regulations as identified in the Conclusions of Law and for that reason no adverse shoreline impacts are anticipated from the permanent construction. The regulated shoreline is the shoreline of Springbrook Creek, which flows along the east perimeter of the plant 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 site before joining the Black River to the north. The portion of the project within shoreline jurisdiction has a fair market value of less than $6,900. It is also clear that the proposal will not interfere with normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state as no permanent part of the project will encroach into state waters. The proposal does involve temporary impacts that are fully mitigated. The applicant is proposing a temporary construction entrance within a portion of the shoreline jurisdiction of Springbrook Creek. No trees would be removed within the shoreline, and there would be no impacts to the existing vegetated riparian buffer. In order to address the temporary impacts created by the construction entrance, t he Applicant submitted a Standard Stream Study (dated January 5, 2018; Ex. 20). According to the Report, construction and use of the temporary construction entrance would result in no net loss of ecological functions or processes. Existing vegetation on the proposed temporary construction entrance site consists of herbaceous species (grasses). The structural and species diversity was identified as low. Minor grading would be required for construction of the temporary construction entrance. As part of the civil construction plans, the Applicant will develop and implement a temporary erosion and sediment control plan during construction and operation of the temporary construction entrance to ensure no changes in turbidity or water quality. The site of the proposed temporary construction entrance is located in an area that was filled, to a depth of 25 feet with silty sand and gravel and graded as part of the previous STP construction projects. There are no wetlands, water bodies or steep slopes present within the proposed temporary construction access. Following construction, the temporary construction entrance (approximately 290 cubic yards of soil and 120 yards of quarry spalls) will be removed and the area be regraded to existing grades and revegetated consistent with previously existing vegetation. No permanent changes are proposed to the existing onsite drainage conditions. E. Tree Retention. Adequate provisions are made for tree retention as the Applicant has demonstrated that trees will be retained as required by the City’s tree retention standards. The Applicant submitted a Tree Report (dated February 15, 2018; Ex. 10), including a Level 1 (planning level) tree risk assessment for the 180 existing trees at the King County South Treatment Plant near impacts associated with the proposed Biogas and Heating System Improvements. Of the 180 assessed trees, 42 trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) greater than 6” are proposed for removal. 39 trees would be removed due to impacts of construction, three (3) trees would be removed due to 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 poor condition of the trees which makes their location near construction and proposed facilities high risk. The existing assessed trees were planted as part of previous development projects with sufficient space between them to allow development of even canopies. The proposed tree removals would likely not impact the health or durability of existing trees to remain. The project proposes to retain seventy-six (76%) of the existing significant trees onsite. The significant trees range in size from 6 to 17 DBH. The proposed percentage of retained trees exceeds the minimum required threshold to retain 10 percent (10%) of the significant trees per RMC 4‐4-130H. No replacement trees would be required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Nevertheless, 43 new trees would be planted onsite as part of the improvement project. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. A hearing conditional use permit (Type III review) is required by RMC 4-2-060 for sewage disposal and treatment plants in the IH zone. All other consolidated project applications are Type II or lower. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the conditional use and site plan approval. As outlined in RMC 4- 8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning classification. 3. Review Criteria/Street Modification. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9- 030(D), shoreline exemptions by 4-9-190(C) and site plan review standards by RMC 4-9- 200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted belo w in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The proposal satisfies all quoted standards as conditioned for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. The street standard modification identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250(D). The modification request is concluded to meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in Staff Report Findings of Fact No. 21. CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, a s applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as outlined in Findings No. 16-17 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. There is no evidence in the record of any overconcentrated sewage disposal and treatment plants as these uses are limited in nature and serve a larger region. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for sa fe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. SITE PLAN RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Pl an; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessib ility to attractive natural features; 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As conditioned, the proposal will comply with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. No new loading areas are proposed or required of the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide b uffering to adjacent uses. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting imperv ious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 14. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant privacy or noise impacts. The scale of the proposal, composed of new structures less than 30 feet in height, is entirely appropriate and compatible with existing development on site and the industrial and commercial nature of the surrounding uses . Natural features are adequately protected. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D, E and G), natural features (topography, trees and critical areas) are adequately protected. As conditioned, the proposal complies with the City’s landscaping standards as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 . Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10 percent (10%) of the number of required off-street parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing new bicycle parking with the new building. As there are no vehicular parking requirements specified in RMC for a wastewater treatment plant, no bicycle parking is required. No loading areas are proposed. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 16. The site provides for open space that meets the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. The proposed project elements, such as the temporary construction access, will be designed to protect existing natural systems where applicable as described in Finding of Fact No. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. The project is not phased. SHORELINE EXEMPTION 4-9-190(C): The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program and are exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (S SDP). An exemption from an SSDP is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. … 2. Projects Valued at $5,000 or Less: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State. 21. The proposal is exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the portion of the project within shoreline jurisdiction has a fair market value of less than $6,900. WAC 173-27-040(2)(a) requires that the $5,000 exemption level be adjusted for inflation every five years. As noted in the staff report, as adjusted, the threshold amount for this project is $7,047.00. It is also clear that the proposal will not interfere with normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. DECISION As conditioned below, the Site Plan, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Exemption, and Street Modification applications meet all applicable permit criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. The project is subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant, King County Wastewater Treatment Division's South Treatment Plant (STP), shall complete a recording of a declaration of lot combination or lot line adjustment prior to building 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 2. The applicant shall provide a final detailed landscape pla n for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study and Addendums prepared by Shanno n & Wilson, Inc. (dated January 6, 2017, March 16, 2017 and December 8, 2017) or an updated report(s) submitted at a later date. 4. A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) shall be recorded over the top of Wetland B and associated buffers. The NGPE shall be submitted with the construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties or critical areas. Pedestrian scale and down - lighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. The lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 6. The Applicant shall provide for the amount of recycling and refuse deposit area required by RMC 4-4-090(E)(3) for the new building area as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(G) or in the alternative acquire a waiver/variance as authorized by City regulations. DATED this 11th day of June, 2018. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) ca lendar 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.