HomeMy WebLinkAboutTalbot Hill Substation Current Limiting Reactors, Conditional Use, Site Plan and Special Fense Permit - LUA-19-0000971
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Talbot Hill Substation Current Limiting )
Reactors ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
Conditional Use, Site Plan and Special ) FINAL DECISION
Fence Permit )
LUA19-000097, CUP-H, SA, ECF, SF )
Summary
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) requests approval of conditional use permit, site plan review and a
special fence permit application for construction of six 23' foot high current limiting reactors to be
added to the Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 S Puget Dr. The applications are approved
subject to conditions.
The Applicant raised two issues at the hearing, both of which are addressed by this decision. First,
the Applicant questioned the applicability of impact fees to the project. As identified in Conclusion
of Law No. 9 below, hearing examiners have no jurisdiction at this stage of review to consider the
applicability of impact fees. Such jurisdiction can only be invoked upon the appeal of an impact fee
assessment, which the City imposes during building permit review. As testified by staff, it is unlikely
that any traffic impact fees will be assessed against this project.
The second issue raised by the Applicant was the need for staff recommended condition No. 1, which
requires the Applicant to submit a revised geotechnical report addendum that addresses infiltration
1 More precisely, the CLRs are 23' and 10.25" in height. All references to the CLR height as 23 feet in this decision
should be construed as 23' an 10.25".
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1
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
potential. That condition is not adopted by this decision for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact
No. 4C, specifically because the existing addendum already contains a final opinion on infiltration
potential that is fully consistent with prior statements on infiltration in the Applicant's geotechnical
reports.
Testimony
Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only
and should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus
upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective
of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made
as to accuracy.
Angela Weihs, Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to Examiner
questions, Ms. Weihs clarified that the height of the H frame is 77 feet and the six current limiting
reactors will be 23 feet. Ms. Weighs also confirmed that the code, through site plan review,
authorized the Applicant to swap landscaping required around the perimeter of the pond to an area
south of the pond.
Carrie Kriner, Applicant's land use planner, noted that in regard to the first recommended condition
of approval requiring a revised geotechnical report to address infiltration, the Applicant has already
submitted an addendum to the Geotech report dated January 29, 2019 with the application that
addresses infiltration and that determined that infiltration isn't feasible. The Applicant has also
submitted a letter requesting waiver of transportation impact fees since the project doesn't generate
additional traffic.
Kelly Purnell, Applicant project manager, noted the project is a stand-alone project and not an
expansion of the substation. It's a mitigation project for the BPA electrical system. PSE is
connected with them between two substations with two 230 KV transmission lines. When the
Talbot substation was rebuilt BPA did an analysis of their system and realized that closing in the bus
tie would cause a potential for their protective equipment to be bypassed by the interconnection.
The CLRs are essentially coils, static pieces of equipment, that mitigate for that potential fault
impact. The original project was supposed to be on BPA property but due to space constraints it
was moved to the Talbot site and PSE took over construction of the project. In response to
Examiner questions, Mr. Purnell noted that a noise investigation was conducted on the CLRs and it
was determined they would create almost no noise. The CLRs were built to spec to minimize noise
as much as possible.
Justin Johnson, City engineering, noted that traffic impact fees was just mentioned as an FYI within
the staff report and staff doesn't believe any fees will be required. On the issue of infiltration, the
addendum identified that infiltration could be possible in a couple places but at the end of its
summary it concluded infiltration was infeasible. Staff just needs clarification on those conflicting
statements for the civil review of the project.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2
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
Exhibits
The June 9, 2019 Staff Report Exhibits 1-13 identified at Page 2 of the Staff Report were admitted
into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits have also been admitted:
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 15: Google Earth aerial of project vicinity
Exhibit 16: City of Renton COR maps
Exhibit 17: Reserved
Exhibit 18: Geotechnical Addendum dated January 29, 2019
Exhibit 19: February 4, 2019 letter requesting waiver of traffic impact fees.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Kerry Kriner, Puget Sound Energy, PO Box 97034, EST 4W,
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
2. Hem. A hearing was held on the applications on July 9, 2019 at noon in the City of
Renton Council chambers.
3. Project Description. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) requests approval of conditional use permit,
site plan review and special fence permit application for construction of six 23 foot high current
limiting reactors (CLRs) to be added to the Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 S Puget Dr. The
project site totals 13.4 acres. PSE proposes to install the six CLRs within a fenced enclosure adjacent
to the existing Talbot Hill Substation. The proposed CLRs are large, highly customized coils that are
each supported by three insulators. For safety and security purposes, the CLRs will also be installed
on elevated pedestals with foundations and enclosed by an eight foot security fence. A new 190-foot
long by 85-foot wide gravel pad will be constructed to support the CLRs and the enclosure. The
equipment will be accessed by a new approximately 330-foot long by 15-foot wide gravel access road
that will connect to an existing gravel driveway which extends from Puget Dr. SE to the substation
entrance on PSE parcel number 2023059003. Stormwater from the new impervious surface will be
split between a new infiltration drywell and the existing stormwater pond that serves the substation.
No modifications to the existing stormwater pond will occur. The proposal also includes the
installation of a new three -pole 230 kV H-frame (77 feet, 67 feet, and 77 feet above grade) outside the
fenced area to accommodate a reconfiguration of an existing transmission line needed as part of the
substation modernization. The maximum overall height of the new proposed CLRs is 23 feet and
10.25 inches. The maximum overall height of the new three -pole 230kV H-Frame is 77 feet. No tree
or significant vegetation removal is proposed as part of this project. The project site contains
moderate coahnine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes (within 50 feet).
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3
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
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. No water or sewer service is provided for the project and none
is needed.
B. Fire and Police. 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. No fire impact
fees are applicable to the project.
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.
PSE's proposed drainage improvements and mitigation is outlined in its Technical
Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 3). As outlined in the report, based on the City of
Renton's flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard area
matching Forested Site Conditions and is within the Black River Drainage Basin. The
development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual. All core requirements and the six special
requirements are discussed in the Technical Information Report.
The report states that the existing substation and access road to the south convey runoff
to the existing detention pond on site. The pond was designed in 2016 for adherence to
the City of Renton's Area -Specific Flow Control Facility. The existing substation runoff
is captured in catch basins and conveyed to the existing detention pond, which sits
immediately south of the existing substation. Surface runoff from the areas peripheral to
the existing substation also drain southward. The site for the expansion area also drains
primarily to the south and south west.
The proposed improvements would be graded to the south to drain to the existing pond
located to the south of the expansion area. The control structure in the existing pond
would be modified to control the additional impervious flow from the proposed pad. The
new access road would be constructed at existing grade to maintain existing drainage
patterns to the extent possible.
The report states that the existing pond has adequate capacity to receive the discharge
from converted surfaces. Following attenuation in the existing pond, stormwater will
discharge to the natural location southwest of the site.
Based on the proposal, the expansion project would not contribute any new Pollution
Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS) or Pollution Generating Pervious Surface (PGPS)
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 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
since the proposed land cover does not meet the definition of a pollution generating
surface. As a result, the report states that the project qualifies for the Surface Area
Exemption from the requirement to provide a water quality facility.
Staff and the Applicant have an amicable difference of opinion as to whether the Geotech
reports submitted by the Applicant have made any final conclusions regarding infiltration.
Admitted into the record are a February 1, 2017 geotechnical report, Ex. 5, and a
geotechnical addendum, Ex. 6. It is found that the Geotech addendum offers a final
opinion on suitability of infiltration as requested by staff.
Staff is certainly correct that the February 1, 2017 geotechnical report did not
conclusively address infiltration potential and in fact expressly deferred that opinion as
follows:
It may be possible to design stormwater facilities for infiltration, provided
the base of the facilities extends to the advance outwash. This may be
impractical considering the grades at the site, but we can provide
infiltration recommendations if this appears feasible.
Ex. 5, p. 7 (emphasis added).
However, the addendum was just as clear that the Applicant's geotechnical engineer now
did have a final opinion on infiltration as follows:
We understand the proposed stormwater improvements will be designed in
accordance with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. In
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5.2 of the Manual, we
evaluated the site for infiltration potential. Due to the presence of shallow,
medium dense to very dense glacial till, it is our opinion infiltration is not
feasible on site.
Ex. 6, p. 2 (emphasis added).
From the quotes above it is clear that the Applicant's geotechnical engineer deferred
opinion on infiltration potential in the Ex. 5 geotechnical report and then expressed that
final opinion in the Ex. 6 geotechnical report addendum. There is no conflict in the
statements made in the geotechnical report as asserted by staff, there was simply a
deferral and then an expression of opinion. This is not to say that the geotechnical
engineer's analysis was sufficiently complete or accurate 2, because that is not the issue
2 However, the preponderance/substantial evidence supports the opinion of the Applicant's geotechnical engineer that
infiltration is not feasible because there is no evidence contrary to that of the Applicant's expert and no deficiencies of
analysis apparent from the record or identified by staff or anyone else.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 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
presented by staff. Staff limited their concern to alleged conflict of statements and
absence of final opinion on infiltration. There was in fact no conflict in opinion and a
final opinion was rendered in the Ex. 6 geotechnical addendum. For this reason, staff
recommended condition No. 1, which requires additional infiltration analysis, is not
adopted by this decision.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project is not residential in nature and no park impact fees or
specific parks facilities are required.
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate transportation facilities.
The Talbot Hill substation property is accessed via an existing access driveway extending from
Puget Drive SE (See Exhibit 2). No new ingress and egress points are proposed on the public
street. As part of the project, the Applicant is proposing a new approximately 330-foot long by
15-foot wide gravel access road that will connect to this existing driveway. The project would
not generate a significant number of vehicle trips during construction or operation. Daily trips
during construction will likely include delivery of materials and commuting of the construction
crew. No additional trips would be required during operation of the substation, except for
routine inspections and operation. The proposed improvements will not result in increased
traffic to and from the substation site. Impacts to the surrounding area are not anticipated.
Public works staff have determined that the proposal will provide desirable transitions and
linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties and that the proposed
improvements are adequate to promote safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system.
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. No refuse and recycling facilities are required for the proposal.
H. Parking. Adequate provisions are made for parking. Vehicle traffic to and from the existing
substation use include routine inspections and operations. Planning staff has determined that
the substation site provides ample on -site paved space to accommodate parking for
inspection/maintenance vehicles.
I. Landscaping. As conditioned, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and
appropriate landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping
standards. Staff have found that existing landscaping conforms to the City's landscaping
requirements. Further, as outlined below, the landscaping serves as a sight obscuring buffer to
the nearest homes.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6
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
The project site received Site Plan Review approval in February of 2017 under LUA16-
000922 in order to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards for a new
detention pond. A tree removal and landscape plan (Exhibit 10) was reviewed and approved
in compliance with conditions of approval for LUA16-000922. The existing stormwater
detention pond approved under this permit is located along the southeastern edge of the
existing substation. As an alternative to the required fifteen feet of landscaping around the
stormwater pond perimeter, the Applicant proposed landscape screening southwest of the
stormwater pond, immediately south of the existing access driveway, and to the west of the
stormwater pond outside of the perimeter fence. This screening currently serves to fill in gaps
of existing natural vegetation screening that occurs between the substation and the nearest
residential homes approximately 460 feet to the south. The landscaping replaced non-native
plant cover such as blackberry shrubs and non-native grasses.
The existing sight -obscuring landscaped visual buffer is 20 feet in width in the two locations
and contain a mixture of trees and large shrubs, some of which will mature to 35 feet tall.
The visual buffer plantings included Vine Maple, Western Serviceberry, Beaked Hazelnut,
California Wax Myrtle, Silk Tassel and Strawberry Trees planted at 6 feet triangular on -
center spacing.
In addition, existing tree canopy/vegetation screening is located between the substation and
residential uses to the south, which blocks views from the southeast and southwest of the
site.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On
June 17, 2019 the City issued a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) for the project.
Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are
more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Views. No impact to views is anticipated. The landscape of the areas is relatively flat
with large trees and heavy vegetation restricting visibility from the site. The nearest
residential uses are more than 460 feet from the substation. Due to the existing
vegetation, the CLRs and H frame will be of limited visibility to nearby homes and will
not impair any views. The proposed improvements would not block view corridors to
shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use. Talbot Substation is an
existing substation that was constructed in the early 1960's. The substation is over 460
feet from the nearest residential lot and completely surrounded by transmission corridors.
The proposal includes existing vegetation screening as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4I,
which will restrict views of the substation and proposed improvements to the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposed improvements are part of the same use that has been on the
site for more than 50 years. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character
of the neighborhood.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7
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
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.
City staff have determined that noise volumes would not result in an impact to the
surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant states that noise from the CLRs will not
exceed existing site noise levels and will be within the regulated noise thresholds. As
stated above, the substation is over 460 feet from the nearest residential lot and
completely surrounded by transmission corridors. Therefore, any noise generated by the
substation and proposed improvements is anticipated to be absorbed by the surrounding
corridors.
The application materials do not include a lighting proposal for the CLRs, nor was a
lighting plan provided with the application; therefore, a condition of approval requires
that if lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
review that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075.
Critical Areas and Natural Features. The proposal will not create any significant adverse
impacts to critical areas. The only critical areas at the project site are Moderate coalmine
hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes. Staff have found the proposal
to be consistent with the City's critical areas ordinance. The staff findings are based
upon a geotechnical report (Exhibit 5), dated February 1, 2017, and an addendum letter
(Exhibit 6), dated January 29, 2019 that addresses all of the geological hazards. The
geotechnical report includes specific recommendations for: site preparation, shallow and
mat foundations, drilled shafts, retaining walls, earthwork, temporary slopes, erosion and
sedimentation control, and the stormwater pond for the substation expansion project
reviewed and approved in 2017 under file number LUA16-000922. The addendum letter
recommends that the earthquake engineering, foundation design, and earthwork
recommendations previously presented in the geotechnical report be used for design of
the proposed CLR improvements. The report concludes that if recommended measures
are taken the project site will be suitable for development. The recommendations of the
geotechnical report and addendum are made conditions of approval. Impacts are more
specifically addressed as follows:
i. Coalmine Hazards. The report and addendum state that the site is mapped in a
moderate coal mine hazard area; however, based on the depth of historical coal
mining activity and the relatively shallow depth of the proposed improvements,
there is a low coal mine hazard at the site.
ii. Landslide and Sensitive Slope Hazard. The addendum identifies that the site is
mapped in a 25 to 40 percent steep slope area and in a moderate landslide
hazard area; however, the geotechnical engineer has concluded that the
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8
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
proposed improvements would not adversely affect the stability of the slopes in
or around the site.
E. Tree Retention. No tree or significant vegetation removal is proposed as part of the
project.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority The hearing examiner conditional use permit application qualifies as Type III
review. All other consolidated project applications are Type III or lower. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2)
requires consolidated permits to collectively 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. Zonin /g Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Residential
Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R8 zoning classification.
3. Review Criteria/Refuse and Recycle Modification/Landscape Variance. A hearing examiner
conditional use permit (Type III review) is required by RMC 4-2-0600 for large scale utilities. It is
uncontested that the proposal qualifies as a large scale utility under RMC 4-11-210. Conditional use
criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D).
A special fence permit is required by RMC 4-4-040G1b because the Applicant's eight foot high
proposed fence is more than 6 feet in height. RMC 4-4-040G2 sets the review criteria for special
fence permits.
The project site received Site Plan Review approval in February of 2017 under LUA16-000922 in
order to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.H1,
major modifications to an approved site plan require a new application. Addition of the CLRs and
H frame to the site qualifies as a major modification of the 2017 site plan. RMC 4-9-200E3 sets the
review criteria for site plan applications.
All applicable review criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
CONDITIONAL USE
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,
the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9
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
4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
development standards as outlined in Findings No. 14-17 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 overconcentration of utility facilities in the vicinity of
the project area. Google Earth, Ex. 15, shows the vicinity is dominated by single-family use.
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. 513, 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, City Public Works staff have found that the site is
served by adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians
and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities. At the hearing the Applicant contested the applicability of traffic
impact fees to the project. The Examiner has no jurisdiction to consider that issue at this stage of
review. Impact fees are assessed at the time of building permit review and determined
administratively. See RMC 4-1-190G 1 a. Administrative decisions regarding the amount of impact
fees, if any, can be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to RMC 4-1-190L. City staff testified
at the hearing that it is unlikely any impact fees would be assessed against the project.
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.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10
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
10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any
adverse light, noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
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 Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in
RMC 4-3-100.
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;
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11
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
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility
to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance
the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
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 determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City's refuse
and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely
affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City's
landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide buffering 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. 5C.
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 impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection
of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian
movements.
14. The criteria quoted above are met. On site impacts are not a major concern since there is no
residence or other space typically occupied by people. On -site privacy is not a concern. The CLRs
are in the middle of numerous other electrical facilities typically associated with an electrical
substation and are at a maximum height of 23 feet, which does not stand out amongst the other
facilities of the site. Due to compliance with the City's critical areas ordinance, there are no natural
features adversely affected by the proposal. Landscaping is in conformance with City standards and
is generally not necessary to soften on -site appearance since the site is only rarely occupied by
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12
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
people. Perimeter landscaping and 460 feet of separation from the nearest residences assures that
the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses to the extent that the criteria above address adjacent
uses.
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. 4E.
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 project is exempt from open space requirements.
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. 5A.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
18. The City's critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of
significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project protects all affected critical areas
as required by the critical area regulations.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13
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
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.
SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT
RMC 4-4-040G2a: The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard
space;
21. The Applicant asserts that the strict application of the fencing height regulations for the
proposed electrical utility infrastructure is not practical or safe. The existing substation facility on
the site is surrounded by an 8-foot high barbed chain link fence (See Exhibit 13), which meets Puget
Sound Energy (PSE) safety and security standards. The Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA)
substation to the east across Beacon Way South has similar fencing for safety and security purposes.
The Applicant states that, to not allow an 8-foot high fence around the Current Limiting Reactors
(CLRs) would be inconsistent with existing utility facilities within the zoning district and would
deprive PSE from the ability to safely and securely operate the CLRs.
RMC 4-4-040G2b: The proposed fence does not detract from the quality of the residential
environment by being out of scale or creating vast blank walls along public roadways;
22. The fence is fully compatible with surrounding use for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact
No. 5B. Allowing an 8-foot high fence is consistent with existing utility infrastructure fencing on the
site and within the adjacent utility corridor properties. The fenced enclosure will be set back on the
property, uphill from residential development in the vicinity, but not directly adjacent to the site. The
adjacent property includes an existing regional utility corridor with electric infrastructure and other
underground utilities operated by various providers. The property downhill to the south of the site is
also owned by Puget Sound Energy and contains transmission lines, significant trees, and
recreational facilities. This parcel serves as a buffer to the residential community to the south
RMC 4-4-040G2c: The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically
pleasing manner; and
23. The 8-foot high chain -link fence is consistent with existing utility infrastructure fencing on the
site and in the vicinity and meets safety and security standards.
RMC 4-4-040G2d: The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian
traffic.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14
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
24. The project site does not abut a public street. The nearest private street is more than 185.6 feet
away from the proposed fence enclosure.
DECISION
As conditioned below, the site plan, conditional use and special fence permit 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 shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and
its addendum.
2. If lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
review that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2019.
e-
PW A.Olbrechts
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.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 15