Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_On_Hold_Letter_190807_v1 August 7, 2019 Martin Reimers Concept Architecture 1712 Pacific Ave, Suite #107 Everett, WA 98201 Subject: “On Hold” Notice 4th Dimension Building, LUA19-000153, SA-H, ECF, V-H Dear Mr. Reimers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on July 17, 2019. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before November 7, 2019 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: On July 31, 2019, Karen Walter with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division provided agency comments and questions regarding the subject application. Please provide information and data to address these questions. A copy of the comments and the West Fork Maplewood Creek Survey are provided as an enclosure to this letter. At this time, your project has been placed “on hold” pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Senior Planner Enclosure(s): Comments from Karen Walter with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, including the West Fork Maplewood Creek Survey cc: 4th Creek Meadows LLC / Owner(s) Hari Ghadia /Applicant Rubin, Walter / Parties of Record 1 Clark Close From:Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent:Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:03 PM To:Clark Close Cc:Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject:FW: City of Renton LUA Acceptance: 4th Dimension Building, LUA19-000153, Notice of Application Attachments:ERC_NOA_DNSM_Project_Acceptance_Agencies_190716.pdf; Site Plan.pdf; ECF_ 4th_Dim_SEPA_190709_v1.pdf; West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Survey.pdf Clark, We have reviewed the available information for the proposed 4th Dimension commercial building project referenced above. We have several questions about this project: Per the narrative, the proposed variance and the stream report, the applicant is seeking to relocate a portion of a piped stream section that ultimately flows into the west fork of Maplewood Creek. The project documents indicate that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing 24 inch piped section of stream and relocate it into a new open channel that will be under the new building. However, note that the Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) notes that this pipe will be relocated around the northern end of the building. A 24” pipe is likely undersized to handle flows from a 4 foot wide stream channel and stormwater inputs (described as collecting “significant upstream drainage basin” in the TIR) Stream classification The stream report (Raedeke 2019) notes the open channel section off-site to the east to be approximately 4 feet in width and receiving flow from an offsite wetland to the east. None of these features are currently mapped on State or Renton’s critical areas maps More data is needed to demonstrate that the stream does not meet the physical criteria from WAC 222-16-031 for presumed fish habitat. One of the two criteria may be met based on the upstream open channel section exceeding 2 feet in width. Streambed gradient is needed. Also, we are unaware of any definitive natural barriers downstream. They may exist and need to be established downstream (not culverts and not stormwater pipes) using WDFW’s barrier assessment manual (2019). Please note that intermittent or seasonal flow does not necessarily determine fish habitat. Coho salmon are known and documented to use intermittent streams. The Raedeke report did not consider the most recent survey of the West Fork of Maplewood Creek that we know of from Cedarock Consultants (see attached). This survey did not extend all the way to NE 4th or the project site and was completed in a single year when portions of the stream were dry so it has limitations. However, from the data collected, the West Fork Maplewood Creek has more stream habitat that is shown in any of the project documents or Renton’s 2016 stream map. In short, the stream needs to be correctly classified before the project continues with environmental review and design. With the correct classification, the project needs to provide design details for the relocated/open stream channel particularly if it is to be located under a new building. The project also needs to evaluate the potential project impacts to stream functions. The checklist doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of a piped stream onsite. Finally, the City should check with WDFW to see if the proposal can be permitted under the State’s Hydraulic Code. City CAO Mapping corrections The City also needs to update its critical areas maps showing the connectivity with the offsite wetland and the open/piped sections of the West Fork of Maplewood Creek. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and will likely have comments once we have received information and data to address the questions above. 2 Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Jennifer Cisneros [mailto:JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:53 PM To: Karen Walter; Laura Murphy; 'separegister@ecy.wa.gov'; 'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov'; 'misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov'; 'Sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov'; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov'; 'Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov'; 'jgreene@kingcounty.gov'; 'steveo@newcastlewa.gov'; 'andy.swayne@pse.com'; 'facilitysubmittal@pscleanair.org' Cc: Clark Close Subject: City of Renton LUA Acceptance: 4th Dimension Building, LUA19-000153 Hello, Please see attached documents for City of Renton LUA acceptance for the following project: 4th Dimension Building LUA19-000153 Attached are the Notice of Application, the Site Plan, and the Environmental Checklist. As the project progresses, more information will be available by request and through our online Public Notice of Land Use Applications Map. Regards, Jenny Cisneros | Planning Technician City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6583 | Fax: (425) 430-7300 | jcisneros@rentonwa.gov Office Hours: Tuesday – Friday 6:30am-5:00pm CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. 19609 244th AVENUE NE ⋅ WOODINVILLE, WA 98077 ⋅ P:425/788-0961 ⋅ F:425/788-5562 MEMORANDUM Date: June 4, 2007 To: Elizabeth Higgins – City of Renton From: Carl Hadley Subject: Fish Presence/Absence Surveys – West Fork Maplewood Creek Introduction In a letter to Matt Cyr (ESM Consulting Engineers) dated May 23, 2007, the City of Renton requested further information verifying water classification for the West Fork of Maplewood Creek1. This memo provides a description of research and a field survey that were completed to evaluate water typing, summarizes results of the field survey, and provides water typing recommendations based on those results. Background Cedarock Consultants conducted a similar survey of the East Fork of Maplewood Creek in April 20062. Maplewood Creek was walked a distance of approximately 1.3 miles from the fish ladder at the northern edge of the Maplewood Golf Course on the Cedar River floodplain upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks, and then up the East Fork onto the upper plateau. Electrofishing was conducted in the upper watershed. Salmonid fish use in the system was verified upstream past the confluence of the two forks for approximately 0.7 miles. No fish were encountered past this point and physical reasons (barriers and seasonal flow) are believed to preclude fish from using the channel on the upper plateau. Methods Maplewood Creek was walked from the confluence of the East and West Forks of Maplewood Creek upstream 200 feet past NE 2nd Place, a distance of approximately 0.8 miles. The survey took place on June 1, 2007. Features such as barriers, major flow inputs (springs), and fish observations were GPS located. Photographs were taken of the channel at periodic intervals and of some of the barriers. Fish barriers were defined as permanent natural features exceeding the ability of salmonids to pass in an upstream direction. Salmonid passage ability identification generally utilized criteria presented in Powers and Orsborn 1985 (Analysis of Barriers to Upstream Fish Migration) and Bell 1991 (Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria). 1 Letter from Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton to Matt Cyr, ESM Consulting Engineers re. Rosewood Highlands Preliminary Plat. May 23, 2007. 2 Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2006. Memorandum to Jill Ding, City of Renton re. Shy Creek Preliminary Plat. May 9, 2006. West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Results Physical Channel Characteristics Instream flow ranged from approximately 2 cubic feet per second (900 gallons per minute [gpm]) near the confluence with the East Fork of Maplewood Creek to being completely dry 0.4 miles upstream (N47.4819 W122.1585, WGS 84). The West Fork Maplewood Creek channel can be divided into two major types: canyon reach and plateau reach. The dividing line is well-defined and located at the Bremerton Place NE crossing (approximately 0.5 miles upstream of confluence). Downstream of this point the channel is highly confined within a relatively deep canyon with steep walls. Substrate is dominated by gravel and cobble and ranges from boulders to sands. Spawning habitat was abundant. Bankfull width ranges between 8-feet and 15-feet. Stream depths at ordinary high water ranged from 6-inches and 18-inches. Habitat was dominated by riffle/run complexes with approximately 10 percent pools. Most pools were created around woody debris. Upstream on the plateau the channel is poorly defined and has been highly disturbed. Much of the channel has been realigned and ditched. Substrates range from quarry spall to dirt. While the passage of flow is evident in most areas, vegetation commonly grows within the channel. No spawning habitat was observed on the plateau. The canyon reach has a higher pool frequency, greater average stream depth, and coarser substrate than the upper plateau. Overall habitat diversity in the canyon reach is much higher in comparison to the upper plateau. Barriers No permanent and absolute blockages to upstream fish migration (e.g. bedrock waterfalls) were identified during the survey. A number of small blockages consisting of woody debris and/or rock accumulations were observed within the canyon reach upstream of the perennial flow reach. Riparian vegetation in this area contains many large conifers which can partially block the channel when they topple. Several examples of this were observed and it is likely this process will continue in the future. These blockages range from two to three feet in height and hinder or preclude upstream fish migration based on the absence of staging pools downstream, obstruction height, and low or absent flows when resident trout commonly migrate upstream (summer and fall). Juvenile coho are not likely able to pass all the barriers in a given year. Adult coho might be able to negotiate some or all of the barriers but there is no spawning habitat upstream. The culvert under Bremerton Place NE is not considered a barrier to fish migration though a pile of rubble immediately downstream presents an obstacle. Fish Presence Juvenile salmonids were observed visually from the confluence upstream approximately 0.1 miles. The salmonids were approximately 1 to 1.5-inches in length and were likely resident trout fry. Numerous examples of good pool habitat were searched upstream of this point but no additional fish were noted. However, visual examination of pools with large substrate is difficult and it is probable that more fish were present. West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 3 of 7 King County biologists, including Gino Lucchetti, surveyed Maplewood Creek in 1993. Although the County focused their efforts on the East Fork, they also did some work in the West Fork. Mr. Luchetti was contacted and provided the following written observations (italicized text added for clarity): “This (West Fork Maplewood Creek) is in an area where fish distribution would be expected to be variable due to variation in flows, passability of log jams and sediment. For example, what appeared to be limiting upstream extent in the WF was a combination of intermittent flow and a blockage. This condition seemed to be caused in part by a large-ish (3' high) log jam a very short distance up from the confluence. Behind the jam was an extensive upstream sediment wedge (much of which came from recent upstream slides, so it seemed excessive) causing flows to be intermittent in that area. Otherwise in good water years I would expect fish to have been at least a short way up that fork as well.” These observations coincide relatively well with current conditions. The log blockage he described is still present but most of the sediment has eroded and a well defined, flowing channel is present. Springs Numerous springs were noted in the canyon reach beginning at N47.4801 W122.1555 and continuing upstream for about 1,000 feet (N47.4819 W122.1585). Within this area, instream flow went from 10 gpm to around 900 gpm. This area may be the source of year-round flows. The channel upstream of this area flows seasonally and any fish use upstream is dependent on individuals migrating up-channel as rainfall runoff causes flow to begin each fall or early winter. Recommendations Fish presence was noted upstream 0.1 miles past the confluence and moderate to good quality habitat separated by partial barriers was observed upstream for approximately 0.5 miles. However, the channel is seasonal past river mile 0.4 and several more significant upstream migration blockages were observed between river mile 0.4 and 0.5. Because the channel was dry upstream of river mile 0.4 it was impossible to assess potential fish use of the channel upstream of this point. But based on habitat quality and the presence of migration barriers, fish use is probably limited to the perennial flow area plus the seasonal flow area downstream of the blockages. The City of Renton water classification map should be modified to upgrade the West Fork of Maplewood Creek to Class 2 (fish-bearing) upstream from the confluence with the East Fork to at least the first migration barrier shown on Figure 2 (Survey Note #3). Assuming the precise location of these migration barriers varies temporally but are likely to accumulate in the canyon as quickly as they degrade based on the abundance of new raw material (large trees), a more environmentally conservative assumption would place the end of fish-bearing waters at approximately the head of the canyon reach (immediately downstream of the Bremerton Place NE crossing). West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Though it can not be verified at this time due to the absence of flow, the intermittent stream channel upstream of the canyon is unlikely to be used by fish based on the lack of flow upstream of a series of partial to complete migration barriers, and the lack of salmonid habitat. Therefore, the current City of Renton classification as Class 4 remains appropriate for this stream reach. Figure 1. Current City of Renton water classification map showing survey locations and water class change recommendations. Class 2 - fish bearing; Class 3 – perennial, non-fish-bearing; Class 4 - intermittent, non-fish-bearing. Legend Renton Class 2 Renton Class 3 Renton Class 4 Change to Class 2 Surveyed Area START BARRIER REACH West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Figure 2. Location of fish presence/absence observations and survey notes. Figure 3. Relief map for area showing canyon reach and possible fish use. Legend (Figures 2 and 3) Watercourse Survey notes #1 Probable fish use Possible fish use Survey Notes #1 – Last fish observation #2 – End of surface flow #3 – First migration barrier #4 – End of canyon reach #5 – Photo (Figure 4) #6 – Photo (Figure 6) #7 – Photo (Figure 7) #1 #2 #3 #4 #6 #5 #7 West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Figure 4. Typical channel in fish-bearing area (Note #5 in Figure 2). Figure 5. End of perennial flow reach (Note #2 in Figure 2). West Fork Maplewood Creek Fish Presence/Absence Surveys June 4, 2007 Page 7 of 7 Figure 6. Typical migration barrier (Note #6 in Figure 2). Figure 7. Typical ditched channel in intermittent reach (see Note #7 in Figure 2).