HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Conditional Use1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: City of Renton
Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit and Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit
LUA17-000631, SSDP, SCUP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit (“SSDP”) and shoreline
conditional use permit (“SCUP”) for the repair, maintenance and partial redevelopment of “Apron
R” of the Boeing plant within its shoreline frontage on Lake Washington. Apron R is a concrete
staging and towing area for aircraft overhanging the shoreline. Proposed work within 200 feet of the
shoreline includes the replacement of all concrete on the apron and various stormwater
improvements. Proposed work waterward of the ordinary high water mark (“OHWM”) includes the
conversion of the existing overwater pile-supported section of the Apron to fill, a 3,165 sq. ft. water-
ward expansion of the Apron using in-water fill, construction of a 192 foot long structural wall to
contain the new fill, bulkhead replacement along a large section of the Apron, aquatic habitat
enhancement, and riparian plant installation along the new bulkhead. Utility lines are also proposed
for relocation. The shoreline permits are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
Alex Morganroth, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Morganroth
identified that the Apron improvements are divided into three “areas.” For Area 1, Area 1, the fill that
is proposed for this area of the project is what is triggering the need for a conditional use permit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
Currently it is pile supported. The proposal is to fill 11,000 square feet of lake. This will serve to
expand this as a pinch-point between a building and the water. In addition, this will serve to bypass
the existing tow-path when they are working on that path and allow Boeing to maintain their busy
schedule. In addition to improvements, mitigation is proposed on the entire bulkhead from the west
side over to the DNR property. The Applicant proposes a slight in-water slope for habitat and a ten-
foot wide planting strip. This will tie in to the DNR property. Currently there is nothing there due to
the pile support. The Applicant did a standard lake and stream study which found that this will
provide a much better habitat.
Area 2 is on the other side of the property, near the Hyatt building. There will be pavement
replacement and a new stem wall to replace the existing stem wall. There will be utility replacement
and walls will be raised 4 to 5 feet to relieve a water drainage issue. The Applicant will also replace
storm water outfalls, which will result in less sediment disturbance than currently occurs.
For Area 3, the Applicant proposes pavement replacement and stormwater outfall removal and
replacement, some of which crosses into DNR property. They Applicant has been working with
DNR to reach an agreement over removal and replacement of trees in a 15-foot wide easement in
order to remove utilities from the easement. The Applicant proposes removal of trees due to potential
damage to roots zones when pulling out utilities. The Applicant would replace removed trees with
like species. The Applicant has a letter of approval from DNR but needs to work out the final details.
WSDOT will also be involved with this. The easement is along the entire south side of the property.
The Shoreline Development Permit application is consistent with all applicable criteria. It is
consistent with the comprehensive plan if all recommended standards and conditions of approval of
city are complied with. There is no net loss of ecological functions. The Applicant has complied
with the critical areas ordinance and bulk and dimensional standards. The Applicant complies with
standards pertaining to adequacy of public services such as water and sewer. There is one
recommended condition of approval in this area. There is sewer infrastructure owned by King
County near the property. The County has requested notification when Boeing is working near this.
The recommended condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide 72 hours prior notice when
working in this area.
The Environmental Review Committee discussed the impacts on recreation and public access at its
meeting. (Exhibit: Map of the San Chastain Regional Trail.) The Sam Chastain Regional Trail
circumnavigates Lake Washington. The trail has a missing link in front of Boeing property. The City
worked with the Applicant in the late 90s and early 2000s to try to get that section of trail built, but
security issues since 911 made this complicated. The proposed project may impact the trail. There
are public access criteria for access to the shoreline in the shoreline master program. The original
easement on the property was moved to run adjacent to the property. With the proposed
improvements and mitigation, the City cannot use the easement any longer to complete the trail.
Conditions of approval were added to ensure public access. The east side of the property and a 10-
foot easement there would work to link the trail. The Applicant will need to work with the City to
move the easement or locate another approved site on the property. The relocated easement will 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 and Shoreline Conditional Use - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
recorded prior to construction permit issuance or an alternative date approved by current planning
manager. The Applicant may choose to incorporate trail design into their mitigation plan instead.
No other persons testified.
Exhibits
The January 16, 2018 staff report and Exhibits 1-23 identified at page 3 of the staff report itself were
admitted into the record during the hearing. City of Renton COR maps and Google aerial
photographs of the project site were also admitted1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Boeing Company. Applicant contact is Mark Clement, PO Box 3707,
MC 96-01, Seattle, WA 98124.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on January 16, 2018 in the
City of Renton Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit
(“SSDP”) and shoreline conditional use permit (“SCUP”) for the proposed repair and partial
redevelopment of “Apron R” of the Boeing plant within its shoreline frontage on Lake Washington.
Apron R is a concrete staging and towing area for aircraft overhanging the shoreline. Proposed work
within 200 feet of the shoreline includes the replacement of all concrete on the apron and various
stormwater improvements. Proposed work waterward of the ordinary high water mark (“OHWM”)
includes the conversion of the existing overwater pile-supported section of the apron to 11,000 square
feet of fill, a 3,165 sq. ft. water-ward expansion of the apron using the fill, construction of a 192 foot
long structural wall to contain the new fill, bulkhead replacement along a large section of the apron,
aquatic habitat enhancement, and riparian plant installation along the new bulkhead. The total new
impervious surface proposed is approximately 3,200 sq. ft. No new roof-top or above-grade
mechanical equipment is proposed for installation as a part of this project. No proposed structures
will exceed 35 feet in height.
The existing apron was constructed in the 1940s and is comprised of 100 percent impervious
surfaces. The entire project area is highly developed and disturbed due to the presence of the Boeing
1 The first five minutes of the hearing did not get recorded by the Examiner’s recorder and it was during that time
that all exhibits were admitted. It’s unclear if a staff power point was also admitted during the hearing. For a
complete list of exhibits, reference will have to be made to the City’s recording for exhibits that are not identified in
the staff 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
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
plant site. The majority of the proposed changes to the apron that involve ground disturbing activities
are located in previously developed or altered area, with the exception of the conversion of 7,600 sq.
ft. of overwater coverage to fill and approximately 3,600 sq. ft. lake reclamation for the expansion of
Apron R.
The tow path located on Apron R is primarily functions as a road, as it contains a delineated path used
by airplanes to travel from Boeing plant to the Renton Municipal Airport. Due the location of the
existing Apron R transportation facility along the shoreline, the historic development patterns of the
plant, and the location of the Cedar River bridge, there are no other location alternatives that allow for
the planes to move between the Boeing production site and the Renton Municipal Airport. The
location of the recently renovated bridge, near the mouth of the Cedar River, does not allow an
alternative road of the tow path road without a complete redesign of the 153-acre Boeing site.
The Applicant has proposed the replacement of existing utilities within the apron and subsequent
shoreline jurisdiction. Utilities proposed for replacement include electrical, compressed air, chilled
water, fire water, and communications. Existing surface-mounted utilities would be moved
underground as part of the project and would create better visual compatibility with the existing
shoreline. The Applicant has also proposed to update the collection and conveyance systems for storm
water, as well the as oil control facilities. The system updates would ensure effective spill-
containment infrastructure is in place to prevent oil from entering the lake during an emergency spill
event, and increase the water quality of storm-water discharge entering the lake. Four new storm
water outfalls will be relocated in order to discharge at locations beyond shallow water habitat (2-
meter depth), which would minimize the impacts on the habitat of juvenile salmonids in the area.
In addition to the utilities on the apron, the Applicant has also proposed to remove and relocate
electrical, water, and mechanical utilities contained within a 15-wide easement on the adjacent DNR
property. Per an agreement with DNR, the Applicant would relocate the buried conduit containing the
utilities to the Boeing property and fully restore the disturbed area. Soil excavated during the removal
will stockpile and then be used as backfill when filling the trenches. The area will be replanted with
native species in accordance with DNR specifications. Additionally, the relocation of the utilities
would require the removal of five (5) trees on the DNR property. As part of the restoration, the
Applicant would replace the five (5) trees in locations approved by DNR to ensure no loss of
vegetation.
The project site is 153.30 acres in size and located at 737 Logan Ave N. The primary function of
Apron R is the transportation of completed airplanes from the Boeing Plant site to the Renton
Municipal Airport. The towing of the airplanes between the assembly line and the air field is a critical
function of Apron R, with an average of 42 airplanes per month utilizing the Apron R transportation
corridor. The aprons secondary function is to provide space for the staging of completed airplanes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
when undergoing final checks and inspections. The Applicant has proposed the removal of five trees
and various vegetation on a DNR mitigation site that adjoins the Apron on its northeast as part of a
utility removal project. The Applicant has also proposed the removal of non-native and invasive
species located near the shoreline along the DNR property.
3. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The site fronts Lake Washington to the north.
Adjoining the site to the west is the Cedar River and Renton Airport, to the south surface parking and
to the east the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. A
SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal on December 8, 2017 with 14
mitigation measures. No appeal was filed. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Ecological Function. The proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. The
Applicant has submitted a Standard Lake and Habitat Report, Ex. 9, and a draft Biological
Assessment, Ex. 10, which assess in detailed the impacts of the proposal to the shoreline
environment. The lake report, prepared by environmental consultants, concluded that the
project will result in no net loss of ecological functions in the aquatic or riparian zone in
the area adjacent to Apron.
The lake study describes how the loss of approximately a ¼ acre of low-functioning
aquatic habitat caused by the proposed fill would be offset by 0.16 acres of new riparian
habitat and 0.18 acres of invasive species removal and vegetation plantings in order to
create approximately 0.34 acres of new riparian vegetation habitat adjacent to the project
area. The upland riparian planting strip is proposed to be 10 feet in width and will run the
length of the bulkhead and connect to the DNR property. The species planted in the
riparian area will grow to maximum height of approximately 10 feet tall and will provide
shade during daytime hours and reduce the impact of artificial light during nighttime
hours. In addition, another 0.66 acres of nearshore shallow-water habitat will be created.
The new shallow-water habitat will require the construction of multi-level fill slopes to
support the multi-sloped benthic environment, which would reduce wind/wave erosion in
the new shoreline area while providing an improved, fish-friendly habitat for juvenile
salmonids. The roughly one total acre of habitat improvements installed along the project
shoreline will complement the DNR shoreline restoration on the adjacent property. The
ecological function of the shoreline along the Apron R is currently highly degraded and
serves little ecological or habitat function. The study concludes that mitigation efforts
combined with the planned storm water improvements will be a significant improvement
of the nearshore water and habitat quality in the area of Lake Washington near the project
site and will not result in any net loss of ecological function.
Maintenance and monitoring requirements may vary between the City of Renton and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations. To ensure the required reports are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
received by both agencies at consistent intervals and with consistent information, the
Applicant should comply with all report requirements from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. If the USACE does not require maintenance and monitoring, the Applicant
should default to the City of Renton’s requirements for maintenance and monitoring.
Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit maintenance and
monitoring reports after project completion consistent with the requirements of the
USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton regulations, unless mitigation and monitoring is
not required by USACE permits.
B. Critical Areas. The only critical area located in the project area is a High Seismic Area.
As required by the City’s critical area regulations, the Applicant submitted a geotechnical
report prepared by PanGEO Inc, dated September 2017, Ex. 8. The report includes
analysis and a series of recommendations based on the potential for liquefaction to occur
on the site during a seismic event. As part of a required SEPA mitigation measure, the
Applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical
report. Compliance with the Geotech report recommendations satisfies the requirements
of the City’s critical area regulations, which in turn leads to the determination that there
are no significant impacts associated with the proposed development in the High Seismic
Area.
C. Stormwater/Water Quality. Staff have determined that the preliminary design proposed
for stormwater control meets the requirements of the City’s stormwater regulations,
specifically the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design. Compliance with the
stormwater manual assures that the proposal will not create any significant stormwater or
water quality impacts. The Applicant has elected to provide enhanced water quality
treatment prior to discharge in provide a benefit to Lake Washington and its aquatic
habitat. Water quality treatment will consist of conveyance to oil/water separator vaults,
which will direct surface water to several Linear Modular Wetland systems prior to
discharge to the outfalls in Lake Washington.
To further protect water quality, the Applicant will be required to submit an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan at the time of construction permit application. The Applicant has
also identified a series of recommended best management practices in both the Standard
Stream Study and Habitat Report and geotechnical report. SEPA mitigation measures
require that the Applicant comply with the recommendations of both reports.
D. View/Aesthetic Impacts. The proposal will not obstruct any views. Most of the proposed
improvements will not occur at a higher grade than existing structures and many of the
improvements are located underground. The existing site already lacks view corridors due
to the large size of the existing airplane manufacturing plant structures and no new
buildings are proposed as a part of 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 and Shoreline Conditional Use - 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
E. Lighting. The Applicant has not proposed any new artificial lighting as a part of the
project. According to the Standard Lake and Habitat Study, the proposed installation of
new riparian plantings area averaging 10 feet in width will provide shade during the day
and block artificial light sources at night. The reduction of artificial light would provide a
more hospitable environment for juvenile salmonids and other fish when utilizing the
proposed aquatic habitat adjacent to the apron.
F. Archaeological. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse
impacts to archaeological resources. According to the State Department of Archaeology
& Historic Preservation (DAHP) there are two pre-contact archaeological sites recorded
within 3,000 feet of the project area, as well as pre-contact trail systems. See Ex. 13. The
presence of these sites and trails indicates that there is a high probability that the project
site contains various pre-contact archaeological resources. A SEPA mitigation measure
requires that if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian
artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop in accordance with RCW 27.53.060
and 27.44.020, and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton
Planning Department, concerned Tribes’ cultural committees, and the Washington State
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
Due to parts of the proposed project that would occur under the existing impervious
surface, DAHP has recommended that the Applicant hire a professional archeologist to
monitor ground disturbing activities. In addition, DAHP recommended the Applicant
prepare an archaeological monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan (MIDP) to be
submitted to DAHP and the interested Tribes for review prior to any ground disturbance.
A SEPA mitigation measure includes that the Applicant shall submit an Archaeological
Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan MIDP to DAHP and any interested Tribes for
review prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities.
The project proposal and notice of application were provided to reviewing agencies
including DAHP and, apparently, the Muckleshoot Tribe. No comments were received
from the Muckleshoot Tribe.
G. Noise. Noise impacts are limited to construction noise. The staff report notes that upon
completion of construction the proposal will not generate any more noise. During
construction, noise and vibration impacts would primarily result from removal of the
existing piles and the driving of the sheet pile wall and new stem wall. Noise impacts are
anticipated to be short-term impacts that would be completed within the approved fish
windows. The Applicant indicates that most of the construction noise impacts are
anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours, though may occasionally occur
on nights and/or weekends in order to complete the project within the restricted fish
window (no in-water construction work would occur from January 1st through July 15th
and August 1st through November 15th). The short 45-day construction window allowed
by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS dictates the impacts would be temporary.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
Pile-driving or removal will be limited to day-time hours and all construction activities
will be subject to City of Renton Noise Regulations. The equipment and construction
noise would be regulated through the City’s adopted noise level regulations per Chapter 8-
7 RMC. The City’s noise regulations limit haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm,
Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
Work on Saturdays is restricted to the hours between nine o’clock (9:00) a.m. and eight
o’clock (8:00) p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays.
H. Motor Vehicle and Boat Traffic. Trip generation is limited to construction work. In the
Construction Mitigation Description (Exhibit 7) submitted by the Applicant, proposed
hauling routes have been identified that will minimize the project’s impact on local
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. A small quantity of construction materials or equipment
may be delivered by barge due to their size but are not likely to significantly impact
existing water traffic due to the expected low volume of the deliveries during construction.
I. Public Access. The proposal adversely affects public access to shoreline resources by the
proposed filling waterward of the OHWM. In terms of loss of public access and use, this
impact is reasonably mitigated by proposed improvements to an off-site public shoreline
trail, the Sam Chastain Trail. This trail is a regional, multi-use trail that circumnavigates
Lake Washington. The trail is completely built-out except for a small segment in Renton,
which is planned to extend along the Lake Washington shoreline near the Boeing plant.
The unfinished trail segment lies between the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the adjacent parcel
to the east of the Boeing plant site and the Cedar River Trail Park to the west of the
Boeing plant (see Exhibit 20). The planned route for the unfinished segment, illustrated in
the Sam Chastain Trail Plan, includes an overwater trail running between the Renton
Rowing Club dock and the DNR property, then over land on the DNR property, extending
across the northeast corner of Boeing Apron R, to where it connects to the existing
easement on the Hyatt Regency site.
Discussions between Boeing and the City regarding the multi-use trail section near Boeing
property started in the early 1990s and led to the creation of an access easement across
Boeing property, connecting the Renton Rowing Club dock (owned by the City) and the
DNR mitigation site adjacent to Apron R (previously owned by owning) (see Exhibit 20).
In May of 1996, the easement was relocated to the south and now runs directly adjacent to
an approximately 650-foot long section of the existing Apron bulkhead. To mitigate for
the lake fill, the Applicant has proposed mitigation along the Apron R bulkhead in Area 1.
Mitigation proposed includes the addition of a sloped fish habitat enhancement area and a
10-foot-wide riparian habitat zone adjacent to the Apron R bulkhead. As proposed, the
mitigation would be located within the existing trail easement and would impair existing
legal public access rights granted by the original easement. To protect the City’s existing
legal public access rights and to meet the intent of the public access section of the
Shoreline Master Program, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant agree to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
relocate the overwater easement to the original location as depicted in King County
Record #9209171541 (see Exhibit 20), which would move the trail outside the proposed
mitigation site.
The City also has an existing agreement with DNR to allow for the establishment of a trail
on the DNR property adjacent to the Boeing property. Proposed construction in Area 2
includes the raising of the northeast corner of the apron to direct surface water to new a
stormwater conveyance system. A new stem wall will be constructed approximately 10
feet landward of the existing stem wall and will create a 10-foot wide paved area between
the lake and the stem wall running from the edge of the Hyatt property to the DNR
property. To further meet the intent of the public access section in the Shoreline Master
Program and provide the ability for the public to access the future trail on the DNR
property, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant grant the city a 10-foot access
easement between the proposed new stem wall and east property line.
J. Compatibility. The existing primary use of the apron, as a transportation corridor for
aircraft, is highly compatible with the surrounding area due to the industrial nature of the
Boeing plant site. The nearest residential or commercial property is located approximately
1,300 feet to the east of the project site and will not be subject to any long-term impacts
caused by the fill and expansion. The new fill-supported west ramp area will be
constructed at the same grade as the rest of Apron R and the design will be substantially
similar to the existing section of apron.
K. Cumulative Impacts. The proposal will not result in significant cumulative impacts. The
existing use on the site, aircraft manufacturing, is unique to the Boeing plant site and is a
use not found anywhere else on Lake Washington. In addition, the plant is one of the only
industrial sites along the shores of Lake Washington and has been at its current location
since the early 1940s. As an industrial site located inside of a heavily urbanized area and
adjacent to a Shoreline of the State, it has many unique challenges that other developments
and uses in the vicinity do not have. The use on the site is also unique in that airplanes are
produced 24/7 and shutdowns cannot last for more than a few days without enormous
impact to Boeing, the local economy, and the state economy. Due to the extremely unique
characteristics of the site and use, developments with similar circumstances do not exist
and new ones with closer similarities are unlikely to be established. Therefore, cumulative
impacts of granting the Conditional Use Permit is not anticipated.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner SCUP applications as Type III
permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final
decision on Type III permits, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. SSDP applications
are classified as Type II permits by RMC 4-8-080(G). The SSDP of this case has been consolidated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
with the Type III review of the conditional use application pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C) for the
examiner to make the final decision on both applications.
2. Zoning/Shoreline Designation/Reach. The subject property is zoned UC, Urban Center. The
shoreline designation for the upland portion of the project site is Shoreline High Intensity. The
shoreline designation for the waterward area of the project site is Aquatic. The shoreline “reach”
designation is Lake Washington Reach I.
3. Review Criteria. The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits are set by RMC
4-9-190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all SMP use regulations and substantial compliance
with SMP policies. An SCUP is required for the proposal under RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(e), which
requires a shoreline conditional use permit for all fill proposed waterward of the OHWM. RMC 4-9-
190(I)(5)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline conditional use permits. The proposal complies with all
applicable SMP policies as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. The proposal complies with
applicable setback and height standards for the reasons identified in Finding No. 25(7) of the staff
report. All other applicable regulations are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law:
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; 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:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
(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.
4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological
functions and processes and no significant cumulative impacts. The Applicant has met its burden in
establishing the requisite mitigation sequencing, as avoidance is not possible due to the location of
the existing facilities and the area necessary for Apron R is the minimum necessary for aircraft
construction. In proposing mitigation that rehabilitates and enhances adjoining riparian areas in a
manner that results in no net loss of ecological function, the Applicant has sufficiently “rectified”
adverse impacts as contemplated in RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(a)(iii)(c) above.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive
provisions shall prevail.
(a) Aquifer protection areas.
(b) Areas of special flood hazard.
(c) Sensitive slopes, twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%), and protected slopes,
forty percent (40%) or greater.
(d) Landslide hazard areas.
(e) High erosion hazards.
(f) High seismic hazards.
(g) Coal mine hazards.
(h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
(i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2 through 5
only.
5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), the only critical area at the project site is a high
seismic area. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), as conditioned the proposal is
compliant with the City’s critical area regulations as they apply to the high seismic area.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat:
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management facilities including
water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the current
stormwater management standards. Water quality treatment facilities shall be provided for moderate
alteration of nonconforming structures, uses and sites as provided for in RMC 4-10-095.
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for control of erosion
and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through approved
temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or administrative conditions.
iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize interference
with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine directly onto the water. Exterior
lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices such that glare or direct illumination does not
extend into water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches to ensure that lights are
extinguished when not in use.
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), the proposal will conform to the City’s current
stormwater standards and the Applicant will be implementing best management practices for erosion
and sediment control. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E), the proposal will not create
any adverse light impacts as no new lighting is proposed.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(3): Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
a. General: Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed and operated to
allow the public’s visual access to the water and shoreline and maintain shoreline scenic
and aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural features, such as shoreforms and
vegetative cover.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and criteria shall apply
to developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi-family
and/or multi-lot developments are proposed, primary structures shall provide for view
corridors between buildings where views of the shoreline are available from public
right-of-way or trails.
ii. Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a height of no more than
thirty five feet (35') above average finished grade level except at specific locations
specified in Table 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards….
iv. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed and
operated so as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby properties used for
noncommercial purposes, and to prevent hazards for public traffic. Methods of
controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to, limits on the height of light
structure, limits on light levels of fixtures, light shields, and screening.
v. Reflected Lights to Be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall
employ materials that limit reflected light.
vi. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical
equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched
roofs, to the maximum extent feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be
incorporated into architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent
with building exterior materials that obstructs views of such equipment.
vii. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to Be Minimized: Facilities not
incorporated into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires, lights, and other
freestanding structures shall be designed to minimize visual prominence….
c. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other
structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided
or mitigated.
d. Design Requirements: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns, and
other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be in conformance with urban design and
other standards contained in RMC 4-3-100, Urban Design Regulations, and other
applicable provisions of RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, as well as specific
policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC 4-4-095 concerning screening of
mechanical equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall apply within shorelines
with the additional criteria that the provisions for bringing structures or sites into
conformance shall occur for minor alteration or renovation as provided in RMC 4-9-190.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
7. The proposed improvements are well below 35 feet in height and are also well below the
height of surrounding buildings. The proposed structures block no view corridors, so no
reconfiguration is necessary to protect view corridors. No new lighting is proposed so lighting
standards do not apply. Visual prominence is minimized given the low height of the structures in
relation to the scale of surrounding buildings. The record is silent on odors but given that the
proposal is limited to a concrete tow and staging area it is reasonable to conclude that no offensive
odors are associated with the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E) and (H), the
proposal will not generate any significant lighting or traffic impacts. No design standards appear to
apply to the project. No above-ground mechanical equipment is proposed.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4): Public Access:
a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access to
shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would
either generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing
legal access opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for
specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-
31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for
public access, including off-site facilities designated in the table Public Access
Requirements by Reach in subsection D4f of this Section.
b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the following development,
subject to the criteria in subsection D4d of this Section.
…
ii. Non-water-dependent development and uses shall provide community and/or
public access consistent with the specific use standards in subsection E of this Section,
Use Regulations, unless ecological restoration is provided.
…
v. Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single family residential use of
the shoreline, including docks accessory to single family residential use.
8. Shoreline use regulations do not appear to expressly require any public access for the project
as referenced in RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(b)(ii) above. However, public access is still required under
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(b)(v) because the Applicant proposes the use of public aquatic lands, more
specifically the filling in of those lands. The public access requirement is met by conditions that
require the conveyance of public access easements to the City, as described in Finding of Fact No.
5(I).
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall
incorporate the following location and design criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 15
CAO VARIANCE - 15
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.
ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space: Public access on
sites or portions of sites not including vegetated open space shall be not less than ten
percent (10%) of the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand
(3,000) square feet, whichever is greater, on developments including non-water-
dependent uses. For water-dependent uses, the amount and location may be varied in
accordance with the criteria in subsection F3 of this Section. Public access facilities
shall extend along the entire water frontage, unless such facilities interfere with the
functions of water-dependent uses. The minimum width of public access facilities shall
be ten feet (10') and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the
development; provided, that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle and Trails
Master Plan shall be developed in accordance with the standards of that plan.,,
iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and
development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections D4di,
D4dii, or D4diii of this Section, the standard that best serves public access, while
recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions, shall
prevail.
v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public
access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan,
Shoreline Management Element, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by
Reach and in subsection D4f of this Section, Table of Public Access Requirements by
Reach:
(a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in
applying these provisions to individual development sites.
(b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in
planning and implementing public projects.
vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for off-site public
access and may assess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of
their public access requirements. Such a fund and charges may be part of or
coordinated with park impact fees. Off-site public access shall be developed in
accordance with the reach policies for public access.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(f): Public Access Requirements by Reach: The following table identifies the
performance standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by the
use regulations or development standards 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 and Shoreline Conditional Use - 16
CAO VARIANCE - 16
…
Lake
Washington
Reach I
Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of upland State-owned
aquatic lands managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped,
public access should be provided parallel to the shoreline along the entire property,
consistent with standards of this Section, together with goals for ecological
restoration and water-dependent and water-oriented use.
…
9. The staff report and administrative record contains no information on compliance with the
public access design standards quoted above. The “Reach” that applies to the project site recognizes
that public access isn’t currently feasible. The “Reach” notes that upon redevelopment that public
access should be provided along the shoreline, but this sentiment is most likely premised upon a
major redevelopment that would enable a safe and practical separation between trail users and Boeing
operations. Those parameters are not possible under the limited scope of the redevelopment coupled
with the proximity of existing buildings and manufacturing activities. Consequently, the comments
of the “Reach” are construed as waiving access requirements for the Proposal to the extent
practicable, as authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(v)(a), which provides that the Reach provisions
shall provide “guidance” as to how to apply design guidelines. The trail easements required as
conditions of approval as described in Finding of Fact No. 5(I) are a reasonably good accommodation
between the feasibility limitations recognized by the Reach and the options reasonably available to
accommodate public access requirements.
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 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 17
CAO VARIANCE - 17
(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.
iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does not require a
shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is
required to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or developments or unless otherwise
allowed in a High Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or
developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and
storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of
water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the water is
reasonably necessary.
v. Navigation and Recreation to Be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive other uses of
reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-related recreation shall be preserved.
10. The most sensitive portion of the project site is the shoreline, but RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) is not
construed as prohibiting placement of the Apron in the shoreline area. The project site has no water-
dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment portions, so RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) cannot be read to
preclude the siting of Apron R along the shoreline. Further, RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a) only requires that
project design “directs” land alteration away from sensitive areas, which is not construed as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 18
CAO VARIANCE - 18
mandatory but only when placing proposed development in less sensitive areas is not reasonably
practicable. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no other area in the project site where the
Apron expansion could be placed. Environmental impacts have been fully assessed as required by
RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(ii) as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). The proposed filling for Apron R
along with its proposed expansion constitutes an alteration of natural features, but as noted previously
that cannot be avoided and is therefore considered a minimum alteration due to site constraints. Due
to the nature of the use, structural shoreline stabilization has been employed on the site since the
plant’s creation. The proposed project will continue to rely on structural stabilization, but will also
incorporate mitigation measures in order to substantially decrease the impact on the nearshore
riparian and aquatic habitats.
As to the limitations on accessory structures set by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(iv), the tow path located
on Apron R primarily functions as a road (under Transportation Use), as it contains a delineated path
used by airplanes to travel from Boeing plant to the Renton Municipal Airport. Roads are a permitted
use in the UC Zone. Per the Shoreline Use Table, roads are permitted in the Shoreline High Intensity
Overlay if they are permitted in the underlying zone. As an allowed use in the Shoreline High
Intensity Overlay that cannot be reasonably placed anywhere else, the proposed Apron
expansion/redevelopment is authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b)(iv).
The proposed development will not affect the nearby Renton Rowing Club and will not impede
access to navigable waters due to the location of planned apron expansion on Boeing’s property.
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 19
CAO VARIANCE - 19
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 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.
11. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), there is a high probability that the project area
contains various pre-contact archaeological resources. As a result, as identified in Finding of Fact
No. 5(F), measures have been taken and are required as conditions of approval to assure that cultural
resources are adequately protected pursuant to recommendations made by DAHP in conformance
with the requirements of the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Industrial Use:
a. Use Preferences and Priorities: Industrial developments shall be permitted subject to
the following:
…
ii. Existing Non-Water-Dependent Uses: Existing non-water-dependent uses may be
retained and expanded, subject to provisions for nonconforming uses activities and
sites; provided, that expansion of structures within the required setback between the
building and the water shall be prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the impacts
of the expansion can be mitigated through on-site measures such as buffer
enhancement or low impact stormwater development. Changes in use are limited to
existing structures.
…
b. Clustering of Non-Water-Oriented Uses: Any new use of facility or expansion of
existing facilities shall minimize and cluster those water-dependent and water-related
portions of the development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are
not water-dependent.
…
d. Materials Storage: New industrial development may not introduce exterior storage of
materials outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit subject to the additional criteria that exterior storage is
essential to the use.
e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall demonstrate that no spill or discharge
to surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstrate in the permit application a
specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with
the industrial use and activity.
…
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 20
CAO VARIANCE - 20
g. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: New or expanded industrial developments shall take
into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with
adjacent uses as provided in subsection D3 of this Section, Use Compatibility and
Aesthetic Effects, and subsection D5 of this Section, Building and Development Location –
Shoreline Orientation.
12. The Boeing plant is an existing non-water dependent use. As determined in Finding of Fact No.
5(A), the proposed expansion will result in no net loss of ecological function. Consequently, the
expansion is authorized by RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(a)(ii). Since no part of the Boeing facility is water
dependent or water related and there is nowhere else to place the proposed Apron expansion, the
waterward expansion is consistent with RMC 4-3-090(D)(5)(b). No materials storage is proposed.
No unauthorized discharge is proposed, as the Boeing Manufacturing Facility operates under a
Washington State Department of Ecology Industrial Stormwater Permit, which requires a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan. For the reasons identified in Finding off Fact No. 5(D), the proposal will
not adversely affect scenic or aesthetic qualities.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(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.
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.
b. Roads:
i. New public or private roads and driveways shall be located inland from the
land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 21
CAO VARIANCE - 21
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are required for access to authorized uses
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; or
(b) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian and nonmotorized use and
provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy shoreline
areas, and are consistent with policies and regulations for ecological protection.
ii. Road locations shall be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in order that
minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary….
f. Aviation:
i. Prohibited Near Natural or Urban Conservancy Areas: Aviation facilities are
prohibited within two hundred feet (200') of a Natural or Urban Conservancy
Shoreline Overlay District….
13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no other location for the proposed Apron
expansion, which as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, serves in part as a private road for the towing of
aircraft. All environmental impacts identified above have been adequately mitigated for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(b) does not apply as the “road” is not a
new road, but rather an improvement/redevelopment of an existing road. As an aviation facility, the
proposal is not prohibited by RMC 4-3-090(D)(10)(f) because it is not near a natural or urban
conservancy area.
RMC 4-3-090(D)(11): Utilities:
a. Criteria for All Utilities:
i. Local utility services needed to serve water-dependent and other permitted uses in
the shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection and visual
compatibility.
ii. Major utility systems shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, to the extent
feasible, except for elements that are water-dependent and crossings of water bodies
and other elements of shorelands by linear facilities.
iii. New public or private utilities shall be located inland from the land/water
interface, preferably out of shoreline jurisdiction, unless:
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or
(b) Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses consistent with the
Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cables and other facilities on land running
roughly parallel to the shoreline shall be located as far from the water’s edge as
feasible and preferably outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other facilities on
aquatic lands running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may require periodic
maintenance that would disrupt shoreline ecological functions shall be discouraged
except where no other feasible alternative exists. When permitted, provisions shall
assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or
significant impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 22
CAO VARIANCE - 22
vi. Utilities shall be located in existing rights-of-way and corridors, whenever
reasonably feasible.
vii. Local service utilities serving new development shall be located underground,
wherever reasonably feasible…
ix. In areas where utility installations would be anticipated to significantly alter
natural groundwater flows, a barrier or conduit to impede changes to natural flow
characteristics shall be provided.
x. Excavated materials from construction of utilities shall be disposed of outside of the
vegetation conservation buffer except if utilized for ecological restoration and shall be
specified in submittal materials.
xi. 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.
xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to result in no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions with appropriate on- and off-site mitigation
including compensatory mitigation.
xiii. All utility development shall be consistent with and coordinated with all local
government and State planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose
plans to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate
growth.
xiv. Site planning and rights-of-way for utility development should provide for
compatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other
appropriate use whenever possible. Utility right-of-way acquisition should be
coordinated with transportation and recreation planning.
xv. Vegetation Conservation:
(a) Native vegetation shall be maintained whenever reasonably feasible.
(b) When utility projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed
area shall be restored as nearly as possible to the original condition.
(c) All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of
service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs….
b. Special Considerations for Pipelines:
i. Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of
adjacent water courses and shorelines.
ii. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of aquatic life nor shall water
quality standards be violated….
d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications:
i. Electrical Distribution: New electrical distribution lines within the shoreline shall
be placed underground; provided, that distribution lines that cross water or other
critical areas may be allowed to be placed above ground if…:
ii. Water Lines:
(a) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlands or other critical areas unless
there is no reasonably feasible alternative route.
(b) Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department
in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines….
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 23
CAO VARIANCE - 23
iv. Stormwater Management:
(a) The City will work with private property owners and other jurisdictions to
maintain, enhance and restore natural drainage systems to protect water quality,
reduce flooding, reduce public costs and prevent associated environmental
degradation to contribute to the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(b) All new development shall meet current stormwater management
requirements for detention and treatment.
(c) Individual single family residences may be subject to water quality
management requirements to ensure the quality of adjacent water bodies.
(d) Stormwater ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as far from the water’s
edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservation buffers.
(e) The location design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit
impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, State, and
Federal requirements. Infiltration of stormwater shall be preferred, where
reasonably feasible.
(f) Stormwater management may include a low impact development stormwater
conveyance system in the vegetation buffer, if the system is designed to mimic the
function and appearance of a natural shoreline system and complies with all
other requirements and standards of subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation
Conservation.
14. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, a wide range of utilities that are underground will be
replaced, above-ground utilities will be placed underground and utilities in the adjoining DNR
property will be relocated underground and further away from the shoreline. No work on any major
utilities and no installation of new utilities is proposed. All of these actions will either have no
impact or a positive impact on the shoreline environment. The removal of utilities from the DNR
properties will involve the removal of five trees, but those five trees will be replaced. Existing
stormwater outfalls currently discharge to the aquatic area. No feasible alternative exists since the
treated stormwater must be discharged into the lake. The relocated stormwater outfalls would be
placed in a manner so as to prevent erosion and the loss of ecological function and would also convey
treated water into the lake as opposed to sheet-flowing off of the apron. There are no rights-of-way in
the project vicinity and most of the utilities would be relocated into a transportation corridor (Apron
R tow path). Utility installations are not anticipated to alter natural groundwater flows due to their
location under existing impervious surface. As conditioned, all excess material from utility
installation would be disposed of offsite in approved locations. Material excavated from the DNR site
would be replaced after removal to restore the site to its original condition. Impacts to archaeological
impacts are fully mitigated as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F). As all utility work is on private
property, except for the DNR work, no coordination beyond DNR is necessary for the utility work in
terms of planning for future growth.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 24
CAO VARIANCE - 24
RMC 4-3-090(F)(2): Landfill and Excavation:
a. General Provisions: Landfill and excavation shall only be permitted in conjunction with
an approved use or development and allowed with assurance of no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions. Excavation below the OHWM is considered “dredging” and is
addressed in a separate section.
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:…
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;
c. Review Standards: All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in terms of all of the
following standards:
i. The overall value to the public of the results of the fill or excavation site as opposed
to the value of the shoreline in its existing state as well as evaluation of alternatives to
fill that would achieve some or all of the objectives of the proposal.
ii. Effects on ecological functions including, but not limited to, functions of the
substrate of streams and lakes and effects on aquatic organisms, including the food
chain, effects on vegetation functions, effects on local currents and erosion and
deposition patterns, effects on surface and subsurface drainage, and effects on flood
waters.
iii. Whether shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect materials placed or
removed and whether such stabilization meets the policies and standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Whether the landfill or excavation will adversely alter the normal flow of flood
water, including obstructions of flood overflow channels or swales, after taking into
account any compensating flood storage provided by the proposal.
v. Whether public or tribal rights to the use and enjoyment of the shoreline and its
resources and amenities are impaired.
d. Performance Standards: Performance standards for fill and excavation include:
i. Disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized and revegetated to avoid or
minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial work and over time.
Natural and self-sustaining control methods are preferred over structures.
ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with
existing topography.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: All fill and excavation waterward of the OHWM
not associated with ecological restoration, flood control or approved shoreline
stabilization shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
15. The proposal meets the criteria of RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(a) because, as noted in the staff report,
Apron R qualifies as a transportation facility that is authorized in the applicable zoning district and
shoreline designation. and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal will result in no
net loss of ecological function. The proposal meets the criteria of RMC 4-3-090(F)(2)(b) because 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 and Shoreline Conditional Use - 25
CAO VARIANCE - 25
proposal involves an existing facility and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 3 there is no
reasonable alternative. Overall, the project will significantly improve upon ecological function. As
noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the shoreline along the project site is highly degraded and the
mitigation proposed and required of the Applicant will substantially improve the shoreline ecological
functions including water quality, vegetation, and habitat. The fill required for the replacement of the
pile-supported structure and expansion of the west ramp will be placed behind a new structural wall.
Aquatic habitat enhancement fill will restore the natural shoreline elements to the lake in front of the
wall. There are no mapped flood plains within the project area. Therefore, the placement of fill will
not affect the flow of flood water. Due to the location of the proposed fill on the Boeing property, the
fill associated with the apron extension will not infringe on public or tribal access rights. No public
comments were received during the comment period, including the Muckleshoot Tribe. Disturbances
to the DNR site will be revegetated as required by the performance standards above. The Applicant
has applied for a conditional use permit for the landfill as required above.
Shoreline Conditional Use
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(i): The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
16. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(J), the use is consistent and compatible with other
permitted uses within the area.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(ii): The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
17. As addressed in the public access findings (see Finding of Fact No. 5(I)) and conclusions of
this decision, the proposal will not interfere with public use of public shorelines.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iii): Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the
Shoreline Master Program.
18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(J), the use is compatible with the surroundings. Since
the proposal (1) results in no net loss of ecological function, (2) doesn’t interfere with navigation, (3)
results in improvements to public shoreline access; and (4) is consistent with all applicable shoreline
policies and use regulations for the reasons identified in this decision, the proposal is compatible with
the Shoreline Master Program.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(iv): The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Shoreline Master Program.
19. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 18.
RMC 4-9-190(I)(5)(b)(v): The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 26
CAO VARIANCE - 26
WAC 173-27-160: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master
program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the
policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to
the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use
and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.
(1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may
be authorized provided that the Applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
(b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized
uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline
master program;
(d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
which it is to be located; and
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
(2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits
were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the
conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
20. All requirements quoted above are met. The proposed use is consistent with the polices of
RCW 90.58.020 and those of the shoreline master plan for the reasons identified in Conclusion of
Law No. 18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(I), the proposal will not interfere with public
use of the shorelines, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, and the proposal will not
adversely affect the shoreline environment. Given that the proposal will overall enhance the shoreline
environment and as mitigated will improve public shoreline access, the public interest will suffer no
detrimental effect. The proposal will not result in any significant cumulative impacts for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(K).
DECISION
The shoreline substantial development permit and shoreline conditional use permit applications
meet all applicable shoreline use and policy requirements for the reasons identified in the
Conclusions of Law of this decision as mitigated below. The permit applications are approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 18, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall contact King County at least 72 hours prior the start of any
construction and work with County staff to ensure the project does not impact any adjacent
sewer infrastructure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 27
CAO VARIANCE - 27
3. The Applicant shall work with the City to relocate the existing easement (Recording
#9609040765) to the location of the original easement (Recording #9209171541) or another
location approved by Community Services Department. The relocated easement shall be
recorded prior to Construction Permit issuance, or by an alternative date approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager. Alternatively, the Applicant could propose to incorporate
the trail design into the mitigation plan and build the trail in the location of the existing
easement as a part of the Apron R construction permits.
4. The Applicant shall grant the City a minimum 10-foot wide public trail easement
running parallel to the entirety of the proposed stem wall on the east side of property. The
easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department and the
City Attorney’s Office. Once approved, the easement shall be recorded prior to construction
permit issuance, or by an alternative date approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager.
5. The Applicant shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager with copies of
both the approved USACE Section 10/404 Permit and Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
associated with the submitted Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (#NWS-2017-37)
prior to the start of any in-water work.
6. The Applicant shall submit maintenance and monitoring reports after project
completion consistent with the requirements of the USACE permits in lieu of City of Renton
regulations, unless mitigation and monitoring are not required by USACE permits.
7. 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.
DATED this 30th day of January, 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) 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SSDP and Shoreline Conditional Use - 28
CAO VARIANCE - 28