No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-2021 - Donnellys exhibits CRY OF RENTON OCT 0 6 2021 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Hearing documents: I was told by a DOE person that the preliminary plat document is a legal document and has to be adhered to. I, Claudia R. Donnelly, confirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth so help me God. 6,64,,dia. R. tternrizi 6� 4- jc 49.6 a ( date Items to discuss: School district and traffic on 156th Avenue SE Tree retention/Neighbor's trees Renton's environmental policy Surface water Detention ponds Working on the weekends Eagle INTRODUCTION: My parent's owned the property in question from 1957 to 2007. From 2004—2006, mom lived in the house on the property. I was one of her caregivers—basically her number 1 caregiver. I would go up in the morning—give her some fruit and check her diabetes —take care of her and walk the property. I would also go up during the day and in the afternoon to feed her dinner. Mr. Varma didn't purchase the property until 2007—before my mother passed away. s'( \( L)c)\ Schools: Traffic: I saw the traffic first hand on 156t. The traffic comes from Kent, Fairwood, Maple Valley, Covington and Briarwood. People don't obey the speed limit—which is 25 mph. I would have to wait until the traffic had passed before I could either turn into the driveway or back up into the road to leave the house. The road was dangerous for my elderly mother to even walk across the street to get her mail. It is/was even dangerous for me to walk on the shoulder. On page 18 of 23, it states that "the bus stop for the Briarwood Elementary school is located approximately 0.1 miles from the project site. Students would cross 156th and walk south along the west shoulder of the street. Students would then turn west at SE 132' and walk north shoulder before arriving to the bus stop. The existing shoulders would provide a safe walking route for students to walk to the bus stop". "the nearest bus stop for both Maywood Middle School and Liberty High School is located approximately 0.14 miles from the project site—on the same street as the bus stop for Briarwood Elementary students". As stated, 156`h, in my opinion, is a dangerous road. Kindergartners are aged 5-6 years old. I would never allow my 5-6 year old walk by themselves on this dangerous road. On Duvall and NE 4th by the cemetery, are crosswalks and a stop lights to protect students and others from crossing those roads. Why not put one on 156t? Or maybe Mr. Varma can work with the school district's transportation department to make a new bus stop closer to his proposed project? On September 13, 2021, I visited SE 132"d Street. I took several pictures—seen after this page. Page 18 states: "Students would then turn west at SE 132"d St and walk on the north shoulder before arriving to the bus stop. The existing shoulders would provide a safe walking route for students to ralk to the bus stop". To me, there are no shoulders—kids would have to walk on the road to the bus stop. Also, the report talks about school impact fees to ease the impact of these students to the Issaquah School District. It also talks about the Renton School District. What district are the impact fees to be paid? Safe area to walk to the bus stop? How many of you have walked along 156th Avenue SE during rush hour? I have many times. How about requiring a traffic cross walk and lights like you see on NE 4th by the cemetery or Duvall by Hazen High s School? See picture taken September 13, 2021. Or work with the Issaquah School District to get a closer bus stop? Also on page 18 of 23—it talks about the schools being in the Issaquah School District yet in one sentence that says: "A school impact fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impact to the Renton School District". What is the school district— Renton or Issaquah? It is Issaquah. Pxhllz•its EXHIBITS: For the pictures I have, the first one shows the cross walk like I suggested to cross 156th—only this one is on Duvall. The next one shows 156`h looking south—taken from the Fire Station. Where the cars are is approximately the driveway to said property. Next picture shows the street sign to SE 132"d St. The next one shows SE 132"d Street; then there is a picture looking north on 156`'Avenue SE. It shows the area where the kids can walk—not very big. The last picture shows the shoulder area where we are told is safe for the kids to walk on SE 132' St.? Ms. Weihs told me she wrote the report—did she ever visit the site to see about the condition of the road on SE 132"d St? I suggested that maybe Mr. Varma can talk to the school district about moving the bus stop? It happens —in 1972, I worked part time for 1 year in the Bellevue School District Transportation Office and they were forever getting calls about moving a bus stop to a different location—so it can happen. (My memory). 1p r 4%Ii , ilt 1,,,,, * opi, , , ,,. , '.1...r:. , , 9 , t. pi I I ill I Pd It' r i -4..,r f 1. i.i1 K� It F. Wbit. ii /, v r' / 1 ;k• 'T1 414t, ,. , «� ` tier„ _ , er (,rosswalFk as -L.) uv L co-. 1 by H.a7ze,., ` .t,5ts s c,koOl s+14,1,2 o c4nd r&s1 1tnEo . CI 13 ( 21 t 4 , : J 1 //�t �• , •k �: .� W tia. )5 d. IdtH' /.. ,^ �.r. ' * f CI 6,ZY • '/ e f LIMIT + . F • #y�� • 25 ' 1 , i T'{i•'t.. t , I , ---, k .. T u.. 'f''• y f R f Pilrk-"Nul'illIllir:.lai7111"i"IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'11- 1111111- I • — Ntirt' .. . ,.,, .. ............. ____,...... I5 ( C4vC . SE -Fr, ,AI FIrt '5 cck-io►l — Ioo14i +r) 1 Soi.)+VN - 9(131 ...I • $- ,,n i - z* • p,„ ,.b :; ,' A r 4 )1r.'-'''' ',Illitivr, -.. • ? ,: A k., It 4..: - ,- ,,,,t'. .itliet7,. : . ......1 I, 41 ' r S k T f lFy o 5-1-P€e+ St %n `113'z VI rIal AN5 YYY ti a '' �ti s. a ; :Y fir:, �� `fLL . T ,,; 7t, ' ,; i ''.,::::::•k- -;:::':.,it:''''' ..7.:.-.? ', '''' ---1—."-:.---'''.."- ------'''''..", --:7:„,41:ik..*;1:::":::;•:-•1.1: l, zN i • f. 1; 4-ti -- js' 4' tea, _ Z z_ t • Q4 '' yI f��pyy£"{ T - ilk--; i LO- libli\ .Q ..... ___, • A. f i j ,., Y.—aar _ \' --b- r "F j.. I .y'. .r . 4, # :' A 4 of +,fafr\,- iiist;'- ' 1 r Z FY / r, A I{ ° . :srMI rr r- ., S 6. ( nd S'*. Iv o►aing wes+ b6ilrxt,. W here are 9 -the 5'6o�ll.[n.o -Fm rr -. "sae W atktin1 • /t3 (2-1 -e_,C Tree Retention: / Neighbor's Trees: Environmental Concerns: Another big lie. Renton talks tree retention, but it doesn't happen. In Forest Terrace, document attached, it states that the developer will save 119 of the property's 847 viable trees. See note to Vanessa Dolbee and Alex Morganroth about clear cutting that took place. Also see the pictures I have provided. And look at pictures from other developments that had a lot of trees—Allure on the hill above City Hall had 1300 trees and look how many were saved? Mr. Varma's property has 198 trees and they propose to save 33? The trees will all be gone—with no consequences to the developer. Look at the other developments where clear cutting took place. Becky's trees: In the next property to the north, Becky Frandsen and her husband own a piece of land that have a lot of trees on them. This family wants Mr. Varma to save all of the trees on the project site that are used as a wind break for their trees. They talked to somebody—an arborist?who told them that "removal of so many trees from the Varma property will affect their trees adversely." Mrs. Frandsen tried to talk to Mr. Morganroth—but wasn't able to. Did Alex give the email she sent him to Ms. Weihs? Otherwise, they may have to bring those trees down to protect their house. As far as I know, the city didn't investigate this concern/problem. Nothing is written in the preliminary plat report about this property? Next is a copy of the preliminary plat arborist's document about the Varma property. It states that the atborist examined the trees on the Frandsen's property. Did he have their permission? Will they be clear cut if the rest of his property is clear cut? Renton doesn't require developers to use silt fences or cover piles of dirt up or sweep the dirt off the road. If a developer needs a NPDES permit—like Mr. Varma does—sometimes -- they don't get the NPDES permit or the grading permit. I show some work being done on SR 900—close to the entrance of Greenes Stream that flows through my yard to May Creek. I had to call DOE to get Renton officials to require the developer to put up silt fences and to sweep the road of dirt. Other pictures shows other developments with no silt fences up. In Stonegate, the developer cleared some of the lots for building the homes without having a valid building permit. The last 2 pictures are from a project on SR 900 in 2018. Note that there are no silt fences up— stormwater runoff can go into either Greenes Stream at MP 15 or by going west, it can go into a wetland and then Honey Creek—another tributary of May Creek. Several years ago, Mr. Varma constructed a house at 13010— 156`h Avenue SE. One time I drove past this site and no erosion control—silt fences—were up to protect the ditch water from getting sedimentation. This water eventually goes into Cedar River. I drove past at another time—I think they were installing a sewer line—and when I got home, I called either Renton Code Enforcement or DOE. The city also wants bike lanes constructed. For the Windstone development, they were also to construct a bike lane—but then contractors would use it for parking when building two new homes. I saw police cars going by the bike lanes full of contractor's cars/trucks. The officers didn't stop to clear the bike lanes for use by bicyclists. They just drove on by. I would complain, but nothing ever happened. Last but not least, is a copy of the last page of a letter Susan Fiala—planner— sent me in 2005 about erosion control. edit bits EXHIBIT: • The first item is from the preliminary plat document for Forest Terrace. At the end, it states: "The applicant has proposed to retain 119 of the subject property's 847 viable trees. The first two pictures shows the aftermath of the clear cut—with someone working on a Sunday. The next two emails are to Alex Morganroth—who was the original planner and Vanessa Dolbee—Director of Planning asking about the trees? I received no reply from anyone. Last is a ERTS report to DOE about this development not doing erosion control. The next 3 pictures show the eventual development of Allure—above Renton City Hall. You can see how many trees there are present. There were 1300 trees on this site. The residents of that area were heartbroken when the trees came down. This picture also shows that Renton officials did't make the developer use silt fences for erosion control. Next pictures show the development of Mountain Vue further down on 156`h. This developer only save "1" tree—that was on the property line. Again, note, no erosion control features. They were getting ready for winter—no straw is down and the hill isn't covered and no silt fences. The bottom picture is for the Renton 14 site on NE 4`''—close to 156". Next is a GIS map from King County, showing the location of Mr. Varma's property along with Mr. and Mrs. Van Frandsen's property —where their trees are located. Mrs. Frandsen tried to speak to Alex • Morganroth about their trees, but they never connected. I have an email from her about their trees. As far as I can tell, no one from Renton talked to them about the trees on their property. The property owners—Mr. and Mrs. Van Frandsen— next door to Mr. Varma's property are/were concerned with what will happen to the trees on their property once Mr. Varma clear cuts his property. The next 3 pages concern the Mr. Varma's arborist report—did he go onto the Frandsen's property to examine the trees he wrote about or did he do it from Mr. Varma's property. If Mr. Varma intends to clear cut like other developers, will the Frandsen's trees also come down? Several years ago, Mr. Varma built a house at 13010— 156`h Avenue SE. He had a driveway close to the house at 13016— 156`h Avenue SE. I drove by one time and didn't see any silt fence up to protect the downstream area—Cedar River from the erosion control. I think he was installing the sewer line. I either called Renton Code Enforcement or filed a complaint with DOE. Eventually, he put a silt fence up. Last, but not least is a copy of a letter page from Susan A. Fiala about erosion control. The installation of silt fences on the cleared perimeter (outside buffer) is the first erosion control me"Tasure in place. The silt fence prevents runoff from entering the storm water system until the temporary channels and pond (for sediment) is installed. This is all done in conjunction with the initial grading and clearing of the site. Usually, the clearing, installation and connection of the * temporary or even permanent pond is done during the dry season to help minimize the possibility of silt leaving the site. No work is allowed without the erosion control in place. " Tree Retention: Neighbor's Trees: Environmental Concerns: Another big lie. Renton talks tree retention, but it doesn't happen. In Forest Terrace, document attached, it states that the developer will save 119 of the property's 847 viable trees. See note to Vanessa Dolbee and Alex Morganroth about clear cutting that took place. Also see the pictures I have provided. And look at pictures from other developments that had a lot of trees—Allure on the hill above City Hall had 1300 trees and look how many were saved? Mr. Varma's property has 198 trees and they propose to save 33? The trees will all be gone—with no consequences to the developer. Look at the other developments where clear cutting took place. Becky's trees: In the next property to the north, Becky Frandsen and her husband own a piece of land that have a lot of trees on them. This family wants Mr. Varma to save all of the trees on the project site that are used as a wind break for their trees. They talked to somebody—an arborist?who told them that "removal of so many trees from the Varma property will affect their trees adversely." Mrs. Frandsen tried to talk to Mr. Morganroth—but wasn't able to. Did Alex give the email she sent him to Ms.Weihs? Otherwise, they may have to bring those trees down to protect their house. As far as I know, the city didn't investigate this concern/problem. Nothing is written in the preliminary plat report about this property? Next is a copy of the preliminary plat arborist's document about the Varma property. It states that the atborist examined the trees on the Frandsen's property. Did he have their permission? Will they be clear cut if the rest of his property is clear cut? Renton doesn't require developers to use silt fences or cover piles of dirt up or sweep the dirt off the road. If a developer needs a NPDES permit—like Mr.Varma does—sometimes -- they don't get the NPDES permit or the grading permit. I show some work being done on SR 900—close to the entrance of Greenes Stream that flows through my yard to May Creek. I had to call DOE to get Renton officials to require the developer to put up silt fences and to sweep the road of dirt. Other pictures shows other developments with no silt fences up. In Stonegate, the developer cleared some of the lots for building the homes without having a valid building permit. The last 2 pictures are from a project on SR 900 in 2018. Note that there are no silt fences up— stormwater runoff can go into either Greenes Stream at MP 15 or by going west, it can go into a wetland and then Honey Creek—another tributary of May Creek. Several years ago, Mr. Varma constructed a house at 13010— 156th Avenue SE. One time I drove past this site and no erosion control—silt fences—were up to protect the ditch water from getting sedimentation. This water eventually goes into Cedar River. I drove past at another time—I think they were installing a sewer line—and when I got home, I called either Renton Code Enforcement or DOE. The city also wants bike lanes constructed. For the Windstone development, they were also to construct a bike lane—but then contractors would use it for parking when building two new homes. I saw police cars going by the bike lanes full of contractor's cars/trucks. The officers didn't stop to clear The last pictures are from 2018 — at a trailer park — Fir Grove — above me. The owners were replacing their sewer system and left dirt on the road and no silt fences up. Surface water from this site going west bound ended up in a large wetland or Honey Creek. If the water went eastbound, it would have gone into Greenes Stream. I had to call DOE to get some protection for these streams. ctit Y 0ia DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , ing Division . 411) Duth Grady Way, 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 1425-430-7200, ext. 2HYo mtonwa.gov • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE — MITIGATED (DNS-M) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES 4UMBER: LUA18-000124, ERC, PP, MOD T: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. / ihalvorsen@barghausen.com/ 18215 72nd Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 AME: Forest Terrace Preliminary Plat 3CRIPTION: Project applicant has requested an ERC reconsideration of DNS-M mitigation measure#6 that would require restoration of Union Ave NE to current City standards from curb to curb along the property's frontage.The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval, Environmental Review(SEPA), Critical Areas Variance, and two (2) modifications to subdivide a 596,570 square foot (13.70 acre) site located at 2611 Union Ave NE (subject property) into 25 single-family residential lots,four(4) open space tracts, and one (1) drainage tract.The subject property is located in the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning classification and Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Proposed lot sizes would range from 9,038 to 19,584 square feet with an overall density of approximately 2.14 dwellings per net acre. One (1) existing single-family residence • on the subject property would be removed. Access to the site would be via a new public residential access street extending from Union Ave NE through the subject property with stubs for future connectivity along the north and western property limits. The applicant would also construct frontage improvements on Union Ave NE along the subject property and the frontage of 2623 Union Ave NE. Stormwater would be conveyed via a system of catch basins and storm pipes throughout the development with flow control provided via two (2) detention tanks and one (1) detention vault located on the northwest portion of the property. A proposed stormfilter would provide water quality treatment. New eight(8) inch sewer and eight(8) inch water mains would be constructed within the subdivision's new public street and connect to the existing sewer and water facilities located in Union Ave NE.The applicant has requested a critical areas variance to remove an existing protected slope on the eastern portion of the subject property to construct a section of the new internal public street with the remaining slope proposed to be replaced with a terraced retaining wall. The applicant has requested a modification to the residential retaining wall height limitation of six (6) feet with proposed rockeries up to 10-feet in height in the southwestern portion of the of the subject property. A second modification is requested for frontage improvements along Union Ave NE for a modified minor arterial standard.A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA18-000125) is also under review for the subject property and the abutting 2623 Union Ave NE that would alter the abutting lot's property lines to accommodate the proposed subdivision's new public street alignment and frontage improvements on Union Ave NE. The City's Critical Areas map identifies potential regulated slopes on the property between 25-40 percent with isolated areas greater than 40-percent.The applicant has proposed to retain 119 of the subject property's 847 viable trees. The applicant has submitted an arborist report, geotechnical report, transportation impact analysis, and drainage report with the preliminary plat application. PROJECT LOCATION: 2611 and 2623 Union Ave NE/APNs 042305-9142 and 042305-9114 LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division , -....,:'.!r,;?',.:.,r,•.,t .vt.f. • ',....I.• S , Aof•.w,, s, . . if ,''...'• t q ' ••••• .• • 'i4.:sti. ir' • V, .' t . .. .....2 t . 1 1i ,1.. 4-: .. . . .4 , . ' % 4 ..., i. „ ••'', - . r• .":' •; ••, 4. • ileht. 4 I ••• ..11 --, •,4, ..qi 4 PP ,. ••.:, -,-, •• .."-...,.. ,... „t.I 111. . , . . 14;...... s —.,•_ . -. . _-.... ,. f„.i..:1 , , 7,:...- '.•41,',.7*-Z-,..L..,.e-:."_t' .;,.' !' '''- - .. '''''';': ' .. 4. , • -. .. _. . •. . . . s -'1/)CR C... 61.444-,LJ: bleX.Z:' in a 1 (9.,--e-v•-- --? ci. Cr\6-4, ...001)R.1 . — -k--,e1A ci 4> •0 n %t+e- • 0 N 0 „3,c_it -Q--e-n ci....0 / Si--rek.L.0 kAdVI 4. 2 i 1 • % Allblig IN 4 ..;•,.!. .t 1 .! il. • . .. C .4 40., ; , , ; • . • .. . -, ,•_, ‘• : • . . , . • , -op lii..„.:' , .•• :rt iii ii::,' .1 • , .. . . I ' ' H•: I. . . 4 ,..'4-'*' . k ..,..I... , I, , . . Ai' , . . .. ... , . .. - .1.... . . • ..., • , ..._—...... .. ...... • '••••; - • . . • '7:S.4.1,‘'‘. 0 *I, • Claudia Donnelly B Forrest Terrace • May 8.2021 at 5.23 PM ECY RE NWRO ERTS . Armondo Pavone . ., ECY RE NWRO ERTS . Highlands Neighbors Ronda Bryant - PETER EBERLE mcn; r LOON at the slopes. Shouldn't there be straw down? Alex You told me once that you have never seen a clear cut area for a or.velopment Welcome to your first one Eventually,the neighbors on 158th wil have seen this pictures. Who is going to be held accc iilaule for violating Renton's tree retention program? So much for the trees? Have a good day. Claudia Oral all".2111' a. 'z v• lib ! .Y= ,1 � Y�i h r' F,.,rr. Claudia Donnelly II):;,..rm ys.wek,net B "ct FT 2nd picture a,cD May 8,2021 at 5:14 PMCl). Ir. .1,,ruanrothin remon...a.gov, vdolbeewe?rentcnwn qov „i*: ECY RE NWRO ERTS nvnocrts:;Y ecy wa gov,reoatrancisen.ihotmail.com,Highlands Neighbors n:In ncc neighbcre,uhotmaiI corn, Ronda Bryant wababe1204sFhotmail corn,Pete vonHeichbauor@kingcountygov, Armondo Pavone APq,;na.n i1entonwa cloy notice no protection from the rains that are forecast to come. - ' ' ' i , . t1 rr 1, ... `It . • , ;t u. y<V v. k. , , Sr !.$ • • • • c .r n41— fi4A• .: i:•,..n14,47.�4e,e.".:.,,,it u:�t:i.Yee sa'Jvsithstuarig.L:L...,.:._waiitu :t_.ri iiisyi",°a:'•i t2za .i,oii;..r L. , 0-c, - ?-47.s. .L.,11-) ),14Qf ,3-o ?•4742/d .../a\40u7-,-) V 7 • .. _ i -914, - ; "Min,- * . milillk 9....40 --4110111111111W Alte —1 N. '•-___ _$ •e•g? - .__. • -1 10 ,11 114j. • ---------` IF i fall • • • _ • -4. 1 .ill, .. ..-- lir ,•,.. #. •I,.., , .' , -•1..i . .. .,... , ; • , , :,• .;' „ ... . , . ft -It O' • . 'io• ' - 41100r•'•'''' IL:, ....,..'",. ir . ; ,',,..-.1 .,,,,,,:.; ,,... .• '' '. Cl •''' . ", • . • . ; ,, or (.,(002.... ..s.t....1.... ... XrD voal-a ln,62-A- .61 ?-).) c .."?'"illiki 7 1 io 1‘./C • , ...,'A • • ,,, I• .• . ".',4:J,* ' ' ,J.J,,,, , ,, r „.,,', • „It,- r' ;' 4 . ,,,reISF, t',•..!1.,.: :;, .•'' , .., „. t, ., ,S;,.,:,1,f:pl „, , ,',.•,.. 7.".,,,c'/'4',,, Iliir•,, ,;,;:,., ',4 , fit w\:.,'-'1,,, i , ' ' • °*".`; A• '''' .,at.::.41'; r Ir ,.,,, ,,:‘,.., ;,,J, i .1 ,'• ;•,:•-,,,•,J4 -. ,.. ••••••'• ''`'•1 04'4 '.. ?kir ' ' ',i:',..*;.;7 ... 04.4 i ';',1',.. 4.4C".•(.1 gi '' 1 ' '7‘', f, ., .. . , ,!)., ,„..,—•_-.., _, • ,,."P,444/,4 P, ' „' ,e;:N;,CP p •, .,,•..• •., .'')k` ;, 4?'',,., .,'Nte,„4;i.v. -'-'- .4,,,,F,,11.,.:;-..,,•, .0 I, ,-Y•l• . 1.:, • • , ' 4- dku, Ar.,- 4: ,-,,„i. . . ..,..-- , ., ,, ,„. i I '--, . , -,,,,. : -. 4 ii:,Tiv.ar= • ' # I ',,.'!"..4 d I'%' ,, / ' -'---"--.", - \ -:7431iiiii,: :',,• .ililiti,. ..••••00.., . - '" . .<''''''''' '' .74' 111''''''°.:•,'V. ' .4 "4ii••::,•'. A 11.1„.fi•o— 1 ' • 't 1 ',,r;"..t--. 47 7 f.lsza,-.0:,41,;-", , ,r, "..,'A ' l'or!•". t „,,,it''vi,.•. P,4...-,;• , ::;, .v.f",. -:',-7'.. '' s' , , _ — — ,... • :..4 , 41 ri ; ., 0-•w."7.7 y. •.... .e.ew•wk.wyaMi , , kTit ik' r • i � �i ' • `� n � ' , f ; �/ R Ic r lt14 y 'llI ti,h „. 4i u ti, ti I r 1 +/T;w + o Gc r ♦ i,{ , ♦CFf !. t,i • 9,,y�,,',,tt q/ ,i+) i '+' l,;,it \ a. leak. ✓'I � i'.��R ' .`�It dl 0,{� ,/H I -9* •_,,.I,rr!®l'/� I )'�ig�g, VE li. �i >Of 1A •1; /rt f ai ,, A i Ji W fGy � \ V rViG U Y�'"T [.. I IN Vu e h+o n f'ht✓l+) c u 9 • ! lv D ► CT� h q r-e a Al ) W ►`��'tn , C�N.) 1 b Co G v I cl ry► • • P• • • •1 1 • b M1E_ '4 c 0* rr ev1$ o l\i E 4+h� I ,:i..., r '' ' -970-61..'; , 174. i 081 074e 0120 „, 71:7' ti 00,40 i 1 1 I I) .) 9 0 ,- King County TF4t7,0„98 6----- iN / cr. %r i se 0 , a_____I 130 ° ,....._ 1 0 ' r: "" r ) .r....„,,...--T-' - i, ---',„, • 4.4 rs ,,, t ... '1'-' r 0790 t„,i_ t•-• ' 01.40 03 .„„ 0 i t." 00 100020 d ,II UP 61-f. _ i., ........___ . , i'1 1:',0 ................._ . i r---- A -0.1 2.L0 I :l E:1 50-31 ° r's"' co- =13 031 .zc.; I , , i 1 , m 0 n..„. e,i,1 .)vii 02 30 - -.A 009O1 ''' - - 1_ 0 i . 0 - 1 { -1 1 2_.",v 1 V - 13 1 6 t:-.) 0 0 06 c' 1 0 7 ,...... 00 0 0 0 0- '0 ' 00800070 is- .._ i ,. opoT i Fil—T-7- po, , ,11 „,:,. („)161 .. . — cr 1 [--- ouoy , oo 51- -,0,04 -- 1____'IC li w r--- ..,....:. 4 0 043 00 41) 1 1-7-C'ill5Ctla°4.9-Cki°51 3--c0.1.8 00*/.1: 107 (-al '*.1 018.4 01.05' : , , C'0 1 0 VW(1 ° 8°----i' 0041 0048 41„)•.;-1 2, 1 ''''-f- 0185 0190 !!, 0046 00 4:!:-_,j L--1,-- I- 14-4•9 -.. ..t j 1 , 0 14 '7'- - -44,..* ,;.,,,.,,,,..,,,,,ittz.;;. .4 0064007 1.- 16-1.16,,.,,L. .1 0040 0080 1.4-• f- -- 0-07 3 I. •,..... . _ _ _ 0 1)00 08( •0 ,-L--,,--,,,, t-5° 'JO ;9 -"----, 02 00 02 1 5 00 73 -1-----kr,,, 01)62 7c, i '(' 1 k 1 i 9D-9-2 0.)0 1 ,-%) -,1,-: •-' -, ..., 00 7 5,00 6.7_ 1 1 0 00 63 Oil 1400 1,9 - 0-50-r0,08 070.1.10,0112r090 . ,.---1' 0_0+0,... 6030°059 00 600-100 (1'1.:,41' . 02-* .: - -7 •-, , - 4 0 007tood09 01 0:13091.00 0220 0:, 00 jOy 0 ) -- • I 1 006-6 0 06 5 , -73 1 1 0441 -01440 0-150 I I rt 0 230 0050 0.0 0 1----.-J - — ::,,, ::.) I 1 00 ,- 0 1 lip lAn 0 iso 0215 1---- ) 0226 I —011.4)Ct..1 21 091 -trip 1 .:,11-4,, ; I •- "i- ---:-.0-1.-2.- 1..0 0.• a1170 d ,.. 0231°022 8 -7f, --..1,117,.c) 1 ,,„... 1 1 [ i -)-,', .t. ,,,t..t 1 50 -0J i 11,,,,til,,tpcfp-o 1 — ......... J “311C)21),6660 004000300 20 010 0240 --1 ..- 1 - t"4:' '''-'2-_,..0- -1 1 4,)l_t I I t ..._ 0 07 0 I j 1:.; T- - 7-4. -..1-; 1-'TIc-,20'ir, ?.!(,_,....0h_r_rti di I -,g--i '0' ' I' i 0100 'Af'0010 8 _j .,,,,,, 4 01 tit 4,0 i -I- ,--r-Cc0150'00r3Ozr..-- ,Oti6—_, ---7 . i ! 0o-put- ,_ 01,3,3<tin ,:x0punty2A:ss-0.,sors 0 . . 1 "4:110124414.--t. ' ,. . 1 U'OC1411 (1-070r-1 rrt t..1 .. ...„ c .7 :f ..),. ) .,, r___—......;.7 I, '..i 1 The nformation included on this map has been compied by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice King County makes no representations or warranties express or implied,as to accuracy completeness,trnelness, or rghts to the use of such information This document a not intended for use as a survey product King County shall not be sable for any general,special ndirect incidental.or consequ ential damages including,but not Invited to,lost revenues or bst profits resulting from the use or msuse of the infomiatgn contained on this map Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohbited except by written permission of King County Date: 9/14/2021 ‘P4 ar D on cv3 ir o +1 sets)i_d pr per'-hr , ocqAk y ow. cpc,) es s Pr Ger,..e......f. - need info 9/16/21, 12:55 PM RE: need info • September 13, 2021 4:13 PM To: "Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.net> Name Jan and Rebecca Frandsen 13025 158th Ave SE. Renton 98059 Good luck! I have not been able to get any type of response from Alex Morganroth. And I really believe that he should be back working in his office by now! Yes , we have been advised that the removal of so many trees from the Varma property will affect our trees adversely! Sent from Mail for Windows From: Claudia Donnelly •Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 10:34 AM • To: dailigtotiantinsamb Subject: need info am appealing the city's decision on the Varma property and need your name for my report. Can you please send it to • hanks much. Claudia Donnelly • )out:blank Page 1 of 1 DocuSign Envelope ID:8B11A0FC-D113-40F3-AD61-D290CDEE8793 Arborist Report—Varma Renton Subdivision Assignment Layton Tree Consulting, LLC was contacted by Kushal Varma, and was asked to compile an Arborist Report for two parcels in Renton. The subject property is located at 13016 156`h Avenue SE and includes Parcel 366450-0185 and 366450-0205. The purpose of the report is to satisfy City requirements associated with tree retention regulations and the proposed development of the property. My assignment is to prepare a written report on present tree conditions,which is to be submitted to the City with the development application materials. This report covers all of the criteria set forth under the City of Renton's tree regulations, Municipal Code Section 4-4-130-Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Dates of Field Examination: July 6`h and 7`h, 2020 Description 198 trees were identified and assessed on the subject parcels. The majority of the property is heavily treed. Trees were identified in the field with a numbered piece of orange flagging tape or a numbered aluminum tag, attached to the lower trunk. These tag numbers correspond with the numbers on the attached Tree Summary Tables and attached Tree Plan Maps. There are also several significant neighboring trees whose crowns or canopies encroach upon the subject property. These trees were assessed and are included in this report. A 'significant'tree as defined by the City is 'A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), or an alder or cottonwood tree with a caliper of at least eight inches (8").Trees qualified as dangerous shall not be considered significant.Trees planted within the most recent ten (10)years shall qualify as significant trees, regardless of the actual caliper'. Methodology Each tree in this report was visited.Tree diameters were measured by tape. The tree heights were measured using a Spiegel Relaskop. Each tree was visually examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors: The crown or canopy of the tree is examined for current vigor/health by examining the foliage for appropriate color and density, the vegetative buds for color and size,and the branches for structural form and annual shoot growth;and the overall presence of limb dieback.and/or any disease issues. The trunk or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities,wounds,fruiting bodies of decay(conks or mushrooms), seams, insect pests, bleeding or exudation of sap,callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects can include but are not limited to excessive or unnatural leans, crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments. The root collar and exposed surface roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insect damage, as well as if they have been injured or wounded, undermined or exposed,or the original grade has been altered. Page 3 Layton Tree Consulting LLC July 13, 2020; Updated 2/23/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID:8B11A0FC-D113-40F3-AD61-0290CDEE8793 Arborist Report—Varma Renton Subdivision Judging Condition The three condition categories are described as follows: Good—free of significant structural defects, no disease concerns, minor pest issues, no significant root issues, good structure/form with uniform crown or canopy,foliage of normal color and density, average or normal vigor,will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees,suitable for its location Fair—minor to moderate structural defects not expected to contribute to a failure in near future, no disease concerns, moderate pest issues, no significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, average or normal vigor, foliage of normal color, moderate foliage density,will be wind firm if left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, cannot be isolated, suitable for its location Poor—major structural defects expected to cause fail in near future, disease or significant pest concerns, obvious irreversible decline due to old age, disease or pests, not suitable for its location The attached tree plan maps indicate the 'condition rating' of the subject trees found at the site. The attached Tree Summary Table provides specific information on tree sizes and condition; and drip-line measurements for trees with a potential for retention. Judging Retention Suitability Not all trees necessarily warrant retention. The three retention suitability categories as described in ANSI A300 Part 5 (Standard Practices for the Management of Trees During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction) are as follows: Good—trees are in good health condition and structural stability and have the potential for longevity at the site Fair—trees are in fair health condition and/or have structural defects that can be mitigated with treatment. These trees may require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the"good" category. Poor—trees are in poor health condition and have significant defects in structure that cannot be mitigated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for the intended use of the site. Observations The subject property is heavily treed and contains a variety of native species and some planted ornamental varieties. Many trees were planted approximately 20 to 25 years ago. No trees have been planted within the last 10 years. Douglas fir is the most dominant species on the property. The vast majority are in good condition with foliage of normal color and density. No root disease concerns were identified on the property. There are two age classes of Douglas fir, approximately 60 to 70 years and 20 to 25 years. The younger Page 4 Layton Tree Consulting LLC July 13, 2020; Updated 2/23/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID:8B11AOFC-D113-40F3-AD61-D290CDEE8793 Arborist Report—Varma Renton Subdivision planted fir trees are found mostly on the south half of the study area. Some of these have major structural defects (forked tops with codominant (equal diameter)stems that have begun to fail or will fail in the near future. Western red cedar is also commonly found on the property. Trees are of good vigor for the most part, with foliage of normal color and density. Some have major structural defects(forked tops with codominant(equal diameter) stems that have begun to fail or will fail in the near future. There is a grouping of four mature Scouler's willow clusters in the middle of the property. All are in obvious decline due to old age with dead tops and the development of significant trunk decay;which is common for the species. These are in 'poor' condition and have poor retention suitability. Several other coniferous trees were planted on the property many years ago which include white and Norway spruce; ponderosa, Scots, Western white and shore pine; a grand fir and noble fir, and a giant sequoia. These are primarily young to semi-mature specimens. Most are in fair to good condition. One of the two Western white pine has a bole infection of blister rust and is in 'poor'condition. A few deciduous varieties were also planted on the property several years ago,which include red maple, silver maple, an English walnut, paperbark maple and Siberian elm. Most are in fair to good condition and have developed typical form or architecture for the species. Several trees were identified that have major structural defects. These are mostly forked trunks with codominant (equal diameter) stems that are weakly attached to the main trunk. This is evident by a significant buildup of included or embedded bark at the fork and a longitudinal seam. Some have already partially failed or are beginning to split apart. These trees cannot be safely retained and are rated as 'poor' condition. 4 Neighboring Trees Adjacent to the north parcel exists a closely spaced planted row of semi-mature Western red cedar near the east property line. Trees are located 2 to 5-feet from the existing fence.Tree diameters range between 6 and 20-inches with heights of 50 to 60-feet. Vigor is good. Trees have foliage of normal color and density. No signs of decline were observed. There is a small planted row of four Western red cedar trees north of proposed Lot 7 as well. These are approximately 6-feet off of the property line/fence. All are in fair to good condition. Trees #501 and #502 are located off of the north property line of the south parcel. Both are located roughly 3-feet off of the fence/property line. These are a semi-mature Douglas fir and Western red cedar, #501 is in good condition. #502 has a forked top and is rated as'fair' condition. Tree #503 is a semi-mature to mature Douglas fir located off of the southeast property corner. It has an old broken top and English ivy covering the root crown. Vigor appears to be fairly good. No outward indicators any significant internal decay was observed on the lower trunk. Condition is 'fair'. Page 5 Layton Tree Consulting LLC July 13, 2020; Updated 2/23/2021 1 IA?Wt1oUN(��' ©U 02pZ kD(/1l �" v �fi���„ i-s'iJJ0,� i r��., . . 41* . f ,�,' ?k.' .i• " Tom. 'r�" y ,,,gam i - • •. yea . J + h_ .` M ,' '111 r \ f�" } , _ - s F i .17 ° wy cJn c- , u-rf 4. I `s 14114 0 _4 ,L P '1 ( 1 /4-$ P70 --'. 91 0-I. i 1r tip- 41/71+''d °d,' ' Ua- �,� ►s v ,t o (di — gvoI LAY) k.di d 4 'L �q 1 lam'. i'ry'1' • ( .g :. Jwa4 � v '1P ....... j;-,r, - r., _ Al R 41 . . _ :_ # Y, . ° .. 1-'1 ‘.'ii'l''''. :::''''.';'7.' '' . '';f:13% '. :1'II I'' ' 'I 1...:'''.': .; .:. ::::;r:'4'::1 1.‘''''' I III 1:4: .: '. .1 ., 1�t „ 1 A. S 1 • r 1. ii : Claudia Donnelly thedunnellys s5oo.net B Subject:'Union Short Plat it. Date: January 4,2020 at 12:11 PM `'r:4i �. To: Jennifer T.Henning jhenning@@rentonwa.gov Cc: t)irbuzz135( outlook.com, June casper junecasper@att.net, Reagan Dunn reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov, Taylor,John-Dir ohn.tayior@ kingcounty gov, Murphy,Michael michael murphy':vkingcounty.gov, Mulvihill-Kuntz,Jason x:,xm reel vlhili-kuntz@kingcountygov, ECY RE 1WF1O ERTS nwroerts(wecy.wa.gov, city councK4rentonwa.gov • Jennifer: While our getting the picture on SE May Valley Road I drove over to Union and saw this: When we built our addition in 2009,we had to have silt fences up—and yes we are in KC. But Fish and Wildlife required them for Stonegate years ago. Winstone was required to have them —how come this short plat is exempt: Notice no silt fences up—am I wrong about this and DOE doesn't require silt fences to be up? Can you cite me which Renton Construction Code I'm missing? Thanks. Claudia // j ,t.1)...4. .+;4'0 :; '••!..,• r 1 /. •Ij SIN r _al,/ , ! ,i • v ,i.r:8L-„,......,:r.-..•,:i - ��'y 5 'r' 1 i1C'. p ,I Il+•"• er- `r.. • - i 4 • �,I�il1�i1� 11{AI{l)ll t''l,l,1 t'' f[ 1. ilaille --1' '. • .. m (J '• I A •,;i4 h t���i��jl{llili{ �ttil'(i1j-jX'._z _ f ems'. k� �z .. .._ , ,,,,, 111,1 III1,1iiilt1,i) J�•t '- • '''..''d,I1`. IM1.1101 'W 1,6i.,' a .. ' - ' . • '.1, r 11 i8 to �41 pt.. ...111111\1,1 ., Pri),4, ,. ., it ".. '''. ' ' ., . .,, , , • , . , . :4 1 • ;,tl . . M .v_ ...:\a..•:_fla& tiit. 6.u7`V1.;'>4Nwt��xfeintLVntfitf.:'.llo.24.:Al tGJ+ K:R..Iiiitti' i- \ 1 ij 1,�rtj�_y'xs3�:::�r:� 11$.�arit°�fa.1b'i',.?IY �7-sisY Stoneridge 2 Short Plat Page 3 of 3 Response to Donnelly letter complies with the requirement as stated above,there is no violation of the erosion control. As the SEPA condition is written the downstream neighbor should not experience any additional silt in the storm water. This does not mean there will never be silt or color in the water,just no' more than the normal conditions or ds the water enters the construction site. 8. The installation of silt.fences on the cleared perimeter (outside buffer) is the first erosion control measure in place. The silt fence prevents runoff from entering the storm water system until the temporary channels and pond(for sediment) is installed. This is all done in conjunction with the initial grading and clearing of the site. Usually the clearing, installation and connection of the temporary or even permanent pond is done during the dry season to help minimize the. possibility of silt leaving the site. No work is allowed without the erosion control in place. Private citizens always have the right of complaint to the city, to the DOE and in the case of damage to property may file a claim with the City Clerk's office. All trigger investigation and action within the legal indications of violation, error or negligence. Erosion measures may occasionally fail, usually on a weekend or after regular business hours during heavy rains, but the developer is responsible for their system ours a day/7 days a week until all construction is complete. Complaints have been ho ie into the Cit f Renton maintenance and/or police departments for emergency response. C,ontacnumbers are 'ailable through the permits and the inspectors for action immediately and foi.fojlaw.uLdurileg re l it business hours. 9,The City of Renton will, to;s'lte construction Thee'` lso be placed on the face of the final plat. '� <4 i, h t 1 s C $..a6'b'd .. ,a a` m / .. , A * 10. The City of Renton will continue to inoni or throi the use of inspectors,weekly inspection reports, communication with the engineer and contractors, and responding to any complaints from private citizens or other jurisdictions. No extr rdinary measures are indicated or required beyond the usual processes. 4.��_,� •�� e Please contact me at(425)430-7382 if you_have questions. Sincerely, 1, .._.-------"--- . Susan A. Fiala,AICP Senior Planner Development Services Division cc: Wayne Potter/Ali Sadr—Barghausen Engineers Juliana Fries 4 lerIIP.,...: -14.4.• .., 1 ,..„. ..- ..-/Alifi.allilipileAf 1),_ tiro, 4 S VA AI, * ... .b it- ,• '. ' 4 .110 " ' . # 44 ' 1 i ''' .am 4 ;*-• ... '.. ' -' EF. ,..4.- , 41IL'''' ° 4'# • ---" " i k • . VeirjaAr4.1k,r`Nq771.71-1 I i '4 *'' 1 1 1 111‘ •i t. "iti. .‘ ilia 06La W, WO _ i 0.• • „ „ . , - I , • ' Z I —A.; Ir lo rk . . r _ .11 4:.. ,to, • i ., • . • Ar y'I'_a...,• - . • 41r" f 4 1. 1 •Illpit 1,..!$4. 11414/‘ s ;*. it, 4 li • W i I..' R • $ • at. . 3r'''t, •/- ao *) • .ID It ktw . . 'I 4 : g . ' °I • , ' ' 4 ,..'06( S, s 1 . N'".• , "•.4 . ' , . 4. AI 1,„, 1' "'" ' --4 i 't ' k '4 . • .is &a,,,,„t . A 1‘ t* 0,4 ' • , ", IP , $ , .• , •...74. ,, . " , ( ,. jr • . ' 0--0-3 0 n- 4/ ,ss41/0 "cal rrl — --)-,, 0.,,x3 ...)frt. . , _ . - -,..-- •;,. --,.., .44,i -4, , ,4:11% ell".C'''''.6 , e C 4.4....4 -.5_. / --..' « . ,, ,„J, ., , ul*, - .- ..... •• moor: Illiell , 1 G3S013 1 TIVM3CIIS 'A 1 re--, .4 frii•'S' W k'MA -126,1 . 1--.10, 11 1 " , AAR is 4 r'14. ' •••* ' 0 II t!r il. '.I-ft1/41'-'4P.«,,- il i Z t j .•CA )1., 1 til 1, ,,. i • ,7"r ,., ... ,,,t,,••. . , • - ,.. • ' 1 V # -t in -,, •. . V, -' •••• s ,•At ; t It • Ti' 4. ' 4 • • ' , , 4.. 41P, OP: . 4 ' ",7.11P. Wol„ ,,,,,,,,,, • ( • il, 1 ' 4* * ...,., lieti: . AL. • . - . 'IA • 1,, -• 1 , ir4:. %1‘k $., tll, , ( , ..I..- '• ..:,„‘ ' * ' + t',:N; t , .4,. .„' z, fr. 1/4. ‘, 0 - .• . ,,- t '4440 '' r . - Jr S) Jz Storm Water: The report states that surface water flows towards the south and south east. What I remember is surface water coming from the property—owned by Mr. Varma— to the north of my parents. At one time, mom dug a ditch that ran east from the mid-property to about 500 feet to a point where the ditch ran south in the middle of the field and pooled, then it ran under a fence to the neighbor's yard. (on the KC GIS map, I've colored Mr. Varma's property pink and Mr. Craig's property green). Later mom installed a black corrugated pipe in the ditch to carry the water and covered it up. (The black line on Mr.Varma's property shows the approximate location of the ditch mom dug to get rid of the surface water that came from the property next door.) For this project, a neighbor—James Craig—has a detention pond he is concerned about. Mr. Craig's address is: 13009— 158`' . something is fishy about this? Mr. Craig lives in King County—this project if it is approved, is in Renton. I am enclosing a King County GIS map of the area. You can see where Mr. Varma's property is located—the pink property, and Mr. and Mrs. Franden's property (yellow), and Mr. Craig's property—green. Also, the flow of surface water flows south not north. Did anyone check the address of Mr. Craig's property on this? Did Mr. Varma know about this feature on his property? I live in an area that receives surface water runoff from 150 acres above me—Renton homes and roads, KC roads and homes and SR900. Because of the stormwater runoff we get, I consulted with a Bellevue land use attorney. During one of my visits, he gave me a document—a summary of a case regarding surface water runoff from the WA State Supreme Court—Currens v. Sleek. — 1999. I am not an expert but from what I read, I take away that a land owner cannot collect water and then send it in another direction to get rid of the water. In addition, Renton has a history of allowing detention ponds to break and spill yellow water downstream. In April 2004, I walked out to my side yard and saw yellow water going into May Creek. I called the Renton planner and was told that the detention pond broke. In December 2004, we had lot of rain—so much so that the developer was using a sprinkler to disperse the water. There was a Renton inspector on site—I went out to my side yard and more yellow water was flowing down to May Creek. I got 4 bottles, filled them with water and drove to DOE offices in Bellevue to get help. I saw 4 water quality staff members and they were appalled by what they saw—one went to call Renton officials, the other 3 continued talking to me. By 1 pm a DOE person was out here and stopped the flow. On Hoquiam Avenue, the Piper's Bluff development had a detention pond break 3 different times and sent more yellow water down Honey Creek to May Creek. In addition a large wet land on Hoquiam had yellow sediment fill it. Exhibits EXHIBITS: GIS map from King County showing the approximate location of a pipe put into the ground on the subject property to drain surface water by my mother. It also shows the location of the Franken's property (yellow) and Mr. Craig's property—in green. Mr. Craig does not live next to the subject property. And water doesn't flow north to his property. I have a note from Becky Franken about Mr. Craig's property. Mr. Craig lives east of another house that Mr. Varma built on the property to the north of the subject property several years ago'. Last is the case from the WA State Supreme Court in 1999 about storm water runoff. I am not an attorney or expert on stormwater runoff. However, from what I read, a developer/property owner cannot collect stormwater and divert it in a different direction to get rid of it—it has to run in a natural site. Case law document from WA State Supreme Court—Currens v. Sleek, 1999. I previously sent a copy to Ms. Dolbee and Mr. Morganroth. King County ' 1+ ��1011 ;-1�7 0120 63' ' . 9025TRI i fJ t 411 1 �� 1 t L«• - I_ -- F---�--•i 1 c(1) 0 130 •�? r+ r E 1. -'' ^' _�0 i f- 1 11 i1 1 C ^ I ...� .•" �, ; f 1 1 )i�7 ra 1I, (, _t-" C 1 i� -`' :) i Tr"` ^^' +'� I (�r r► ,, ., ,W1 '.` c'c 00100020 a , , j 1 'L.)I-Li`U�1 7.. (:1 I.1 -1 d c,1 1"r I_11 1.1 41 { 1 r-.'_- T.._.. _ W 4 ' k_ I _1 !_I,SQ . - • ••,C I f f f 11_1.:f I.-' 1 II } 1)' Hill 06'0 ,� -- - '- •�(' G �__ l r--I 4 i _____ _ 1 00- r% f ' cf :i 1 t�04 — 4 I i ] 1 0 10 --1 Li i 11.1' -----1 2t 1 �► :HOt>., ,- 1 t I I 030f 1 j _ 0047 r,_,., '_ rJ 0'.' t• i U 0 -� f '.jt-'r1 7 , , ,1,1 �_ 01.7 �� 1t,CT vuG6 _ 00 SO 020.0- ,0 � _^: �tfr(I�il�t It lira 0 i.� 1`!(i 41 (� '; }}gi') -lcclil•�rC1i 0 I-- 4ti i •th I =''' 1 11 1 004: 0040 �0 _ 40.04.0. �`f 1;,, I _`R 1 -� --i. 1`, 0010 0 t ' . �.i,i 1 0041 0080� r 0341 t.11 '5 0190 0048 0160. 0�130 010 0!''`0 _--i-, �, I• 0046 004 1 1J 0 0i1 11 4 . II _jY1-1 ' -;_,.114 1 11t? "' - 006-1 - - +^� 10 00 I-tit-0 _ ,i-1 —, t --- O O �4 0 0 7 1 y 0140 0 0080 1_.i: c,i, ;�J 0215 0073I k 0062 rf :I_t, I i 'L ' 91j- 0201 0210 0075006.7� 1--1 0006�;-0q 1-11-1 j t 1 1;;i1 O_11 O_012 4 00 70 ) L- 0059 0 i I r 71 1 r 1 ) - 5 0030, 00f00, 00.0-1t�E .+,., -�i I0U':�0) 011 300i 0o _ 0220 _0 7 0,0700 t�G 040 0066 C 'cos ;r,.1 1�c,-r�14t {s1-�01 � t) --' ?230 54 0020 __.J �; 1 }!,!� r. ,i.�1 1. OI ' t 0180 0.225 _ 0.-?2$ 0I14'0 120i ) r t' r� rt1-_'00050 Q1-,QT_ _0i: 31'0228 -1 t 1 l I _ • 1 r i -t` I 1 01 iSC +� 11�•° 1 g I"ar-P-Ci - 1-+I,t•1�, 1)0;4000300 �2Op010 0240 0 10 -- �, -To-ri u di '( i 5 _ r_I� i , 1_ t Tit{� 4,1 0� 0070 ,i If 1wrIJ2" i c.l.' c ri, -,5(rr 1 I 1r�h sr—/ry ' ItI 1 �J(1 t�i"J. "I , , t IFIy_� —� L�i.l t� I J II+t43O.rf`1 I� OU�f. T,t1 ,r,�} ,r—... ,1 3 �0"5 F:-�E ' - 134th �—: l . "0 �j }c 0 0 33.0.0 _0.8 0 rip 1 �� 01 01 -,.6 1,V..1 1 a.. IK:._ aP50.0 '61)--.0 Or C'�-�- I f my L - -1111[.-J I".4. I —f.4 ul.. 0' -V _,fir �-1•Q0_,_,r. i 0 1 3.5? 1 1- '4,; i in,k_ c ft 4 itq.Oter 1GtS G�rt_i�: U In o '� ' - i rI 1�m f A� �s ffictr i n� �IiS tte --i` Y The ntamatton inckidedon this map has been compied by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice King County makes no representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,briefness, or rghts to the use of such information.This document s not intended for use as a survey product.King County shall not be fable for any general special ndirect:inadental.or consequential damages including,but not'hilted to,lost revenues or bst profits resulting from the use or msuse of the infomtatbn contained on this map.Any sale d this map orinformation on this map is bran tnted except by written permission of King County. Date:9/14/2021 April 21, 2021 Alex Morganroth Senior Planner; CED--Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Sir, I am writing with regard to PR 21-000140 Varma Short Plat I live on an adjacent property and have a storm water retention pond on my lot which overflows, seasonally,onto the adjacent subject lot. If the proposed project moves forward some provision, such as a catch basin,will have to be made for this seasonal water flow. I bring this up now,as it should be taken into consideration in their overall surface water plan if they wish to avoid a surprise at some later date. Sincere y, J• s raig 13009 158'h Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 (206)852-4611 Re:some questions 9/16/21,10:07 PM Re: some questions September 16, 2021 3:07 PM To: "Claudia Donnelly"<thedonnellys@oo.net> Yes, that is true. It is also true that Craig has an easement on our property that the builder, Larry Peters, put in the deed that puts part of his septic drain field on our property. As far as taking a picture, he had an old fishpond that he has attempted to fill in on his property. When it rains heavily that overflows and runs under the fence and on to our property . Since we have a drought, I cannot take a picture for you! From: Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:37:50 PM To: -� Subject: some questions Becky: I have a couple of questions I hope you can answer for me. Your property borders the big house that Mr. Varma built. Does your neighbor to the north also border that property? I may have uncovered something fishy going on. Mr. Craig says he has a detention pond that flows at times onto your property. Is that correct? Can you get a picture of it for me? . .,anks again for your help. Claudia about:blank Page 1 of 1 • Currens v. Sleek 138 Wn. 2d, 858 983 P.2d 626 (September 9, 1999) Sleek and Currens are adjoining landowners. Sleek property is higher than the Currens property. Water from a portion of the Sleek property naturally seeps into a forested low-lying sink area on the Currenses' property. Sleek decided to clear-cut and grade her property to develop four home sites. She complied with SEPA requirements and submitted an Environmental Checklist that provided for the planting of trees to enhance the vegetation on the property and install dry wells to mitigate storm water impacts. In 1994 the logs were then clear-cut but the new vegetation was not planted nor the dry wells installed. The next year (1995) the Currenses' property flooded causing 11 trees to fall. They also had to remove an additional 20 trees to ensure the safety of their home. A drainage engineer reported that the logging substantially increased the volume and peak flow rates of storm water onto their property at almost three times the natural volume that would accumulate during a large storm and 12 times the normal volume caused by a standard rainstorm. The engineer concluded that the trees fell due to the increased runoff. Feeling damaged,they sued Sleek and the Logging Company in 1995. Sleek won having successfully argued that they were insulated as a result of the application of the "Common Enemy Doctrine. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to the trial court. The Supreme Court said that the case is governed by the "Common Enemy Doctrine" which has directed the law of surface water in the State of Washington since 1896. Surface water is considered to be: "vagrant or diffused water produced by rain,melting snow, or springs". The Court's discussion of the Common Enemy Doctrine: In its strictest form, the comnibn enemy doctrine allows landowners to dispose of unwanted surface water in .any way they see fit, without liability for resulting damage to one's neighbor. The idea is that "surface water" is regarded as an outlaw and a common enemy against which anyone may defend himself,even though by so doing injury may result to others. Washington still adheres to the general common enemy rule that a landowner may develop his or her land without regard for the drainage consequences to other landowners. However, because a strict application of this rule is widely regarded as inequitable, this court has adopted several exceptions to the Common Enemy Doctrine over the years. • COMMON ENEMY RULE CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 2 of 7 1. Although landowners may block the flow of diffuse surface water onto their land, they may not inhibit the flow of a watercourse or natural drainway. Under this exception, a landowner who dams up a stream, gully, or drainway will not be shielded from liability under the Common Enemy Doctrine. A natural drainway must be kept open to carry water into streams and lakes, and a lower proprietor cannot obstruct surface water when it is running in a natural drainage channel or depression. 2. Landowners may not collect water and channel it onto their neighbors' land. Surface waters may not be artificially collected and discharged upon adjoining lands in quantities greater than or in a manner different from the natural flow thereof. This rule prohibits a landowner from creating an unnatural conduit, but allows him or her to direct diffuse surface waters into pre-existing natural waterways and drainways. The flow of surface water along natural drains may be hastened or incidentally increased by artificial means, so long as the water is not ultimately diverted from its natural flow onto the property of another. Thusly,the Court reasons: Read in conjunction with the above exceptions,the common enemy doctrine in Washington allows landowners to alter the flow of surface water to the detriment of their neighbors, so long as they do not block a watercourse or natural drainway, nor collect and discharge water onto their neighbors' land in quantities greater than, or in a manner different from, its natural flow. These exceptions to the common enemy doctrine are not unique to Washington, but have been embraced by nearly every jurisdiction where the common enemy doctrine governs drainage liability. The issues then becomes, whether, and to what extent the Washington courts should also consider the reasonableness of a landowner's actions in determining liability for damage caused by excess surface. Sleek argued that the Common Enemy Doctrine did not permit the court to consider the reasonableness of a landowner's actions in determining liability. The Currenses argued that Washington's Common Enemy Doctrine shields only reasonable conduct so that a landowner who acts unreasonably may be liable for damages caused by surface water flooding. When using a "due care" (reasonableness) approach a landowner is free to alter the flow of surface water, subject to the exception that the landowner must exercise their rights in good faith and with such care as to avoid unnecessary damage to the property of adjacent owners. The various courts which have adopted this exception to the Common Enemy Doctrine COMMON ENEMY RULE CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 3 of 7 indicate that it serves to cushion the otherwise harsh allocation of rights under the Common Enemy Doctrine. Although it does not affect a landowner's ability to alter the flow of surface water, it does require avoidance of unnecessary infringement upon a neighbor's free enjoyment of his or her property. Therefore, in practice, landowners may improve their land with impunity (subject to local land use and permitting requirements) and are not liable for damage caused by the change in the flow of surface water onto their neighbors' land, so long as the landowners act in good faith and do not damage adjacent property in excess of that called for by the particular project. The court analyzed the doctrine in Washington and noted that it had never stated the due care exception by using the term "due care" but it has allowed"negligence"to be a relevant factor, in that the landowner can not develop his land or fend off diffuse waters negligently and that the landowner is not allowed to increase the drainage of surface water into a drainway to such an extent that the capacity of the drain is overtaxed. The landowner's use of his land with respect to surface waters must therefore be reasonable. The Court then states: ..... Washington requires that a landowner exercise due care when engaging in activities that affect the flow of surface water. Furthermore, such an exception to the common enemy doctrine is mandated by the realities of increased development density in the State. Indeed, we know of no other jurisdiction in the country that still adheres to the traditional common enemy doctrine without some sort of requirement that landowners not unreasonably interfere with their neighbor's enjoyment of their property. We therefore unambiguously hold that under our common enemy jurisprudence, landowners who alter the flow of surface water on their prope y must exercise their rights with due care by actin• in •ood faith and by avoiding unnecessary damag- • 1- Drs.- r • others. We decline to abandon our common enemy jurisprudence in favor of the reasonable use rule. The critical difference between the two approaches is that the Common Enemy Doctrine does not require any inquiry into the utility of the particular project. When determining liability under the Common Enemy Doctrine, the due care exception requires the court to look only to whether the landowner has exercised due care in improving his or her land, i.e., whether the method employed by the landowner minimized any unnecessary impacts upon adjacent land. Unlike the reasonable use rule, a landowner's duty under the Common Enemy Doctrine is not determined by weighing the nature and importance of the improvements against the damage caused to one's neighbor. Rather, a landowner has an unqualified right to embark on any improvements of his or her land allowed by law, but must COMMON ENEMY RULE • CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 4 of 7 limit the harm caused by changes in the flow of surface water to that which is reasonably necessary. Thus the Court is saying, the inquiry is as to whether or not the other property owner has changed the flow of surface water and limited that change to that which is "reasonably necessary". What is "reasonably necessary", is,of course, a judgment call. The Court felt that having the two property owners litigate the importance of a particular project in order to apportion liability was inconsistent with the state's historical deference to property rights, and adopting a reasonable use rule would be an abrupt break with previous rulings and cases. Rather, the Court felt that the Common Enemy Doctrine, tempered with the due care exception,was consistent with the gradual evolution of surface drainage law. When the Court applied the Common Enemy Doctrine in this case it stated that Sleek would not be liable for flood damage caused by her improvements, unless, in the course of making those improvements, she blocked a natural drain or waterway, collected and discharged water onto her neighbor's land, or failed to exercise due care in preventing unnecessary damage. The court concluded that under the facts of this case, it is clear that the first two exceptions to the Common Enemy Doctrine do not apply: (1) Sleek did not block the flow of a waterway or a natural drain. (2)Nor did she collect and discharge water onto the Currenses' property. In grading her land, Sleek caused water that otherwise would have been absorbed into the ground to run off onto the Currenses'property. (3) She did not construct culverts or ditches or artificially channel the water in any way. (4)Rather,the water flowed in a diffuse fashion, by force of gravity, from a higher elevation to the sink hole on the Currenses'property. The question here is whether the third exception applies to allow the Currenses to bring suit. The due care exception to the Common Enemy Doctrine specifies that a landowner will be shielded from liability only where the changes in surface water flow are made both in good faith and in such a way as not to cause unnecessary damage. The Currenses have the burden of proof to show that the flooding damage of their property was a result of Sleek's bad faith, or that it was in excess of that necessary for the completion of the p ro iect. The Court then remanded the case back to the trial court to make that determination: a showing of bad faith or a project that was excessive and actions that were not necessary that caused the damage.' 1 Curren argued that the failure of Sleek to do the mitigation measures specified and called for in the SEPA Environmental Checklist violated the due care exception to the Common Enemy Rule. The Court said that not following SEPA in and of itself did not constitute a lack of due care,however,such • ,• • COMMON ENEMY RULE CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 5 of 7 As you can see, it is the facts upon which these legal doctrines revolve. It was interesting that Currens argued that failure by Sleek to comply with the SEPA Environmental Checklist violated the due care exception. The court said that the failure to follow in and of itself did not constitute lack of due care but the court could consider the issue as to whether Sleek acted in good faith and with such care as to avoid unnecessary damage to the neighbor's property. The Dissent The Currens v. Sleek decision contains a scathing dissent by Justice Sanders arguing that the majority (six of the nine justices) were trying to play nice while torturing the common enemy rule. Dissents are not the law nor do they establish precedence but are treated as important when you want to argue against a trial court using the majority decision. Sometimes dissents are the foundation for a later appellate decision as to why the majority decision was wrongly decided and then gets overruled. Finally, dissents do provide interesting insights into the nature of the issues in conflict at the appellate court level but the pronouncements are considered dicta, and dicta is not a ruling on the facts or the law. Justice Sanders frames the Sleek case issue to be, as follows: He notes that the majority correctly found that the two exceptions to the common enemy rule did not apply in this case, leaving the court with three choices, affirm the trial court; abandon the doctrine or engraft a "reasonable use" exception. The majority chose the third but Justice Sanders would go with the first, affirm that there was no liability. He then goes on to argue, that even if you accept the majority's rule,the facts of the case, as he says, do not "flow within its banks." Justice Sanders criticizes the court when it states that it would not adopt the reasonable use rule while adopting a reasonable use exception. Justice Sanders argues that both the rule and the exception lack certainty and predictability, leading to ad hoc jurisprudence. He further notes that the legal commentators seem to find no distinction when applying the reasonable use rule and the reasonable use exception. Finally, he argues that if the common enemy rule says: YOU CAN TAMPER WITH NATURAL FLOW, and the modification adds: IF YOUR CONDUCT IS REASONABLE, and, if the natural flow rule says: YOU CAN NOT TAMPER WITH NATURAL FLOW, and the modification adds: UNLESS YOUR CONDUCT IS REASONABLE then, there would seem to be no difference, and therefore the summation would result in a new rule: failure could be considered by the trial court in determining if Sleek acted in bad faith and with such care as to avoid unnecessary damage to the Currenses'property. d fir' . . • COMMON ENEMY RULE CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 6 of 7 YOU CAN OR CANNOT TAMPER WITH NATURAL FLOW DEPENDING UPON WHETHER YOUR CONDUCT IS OR IS NOT REASONABLE. Justice Sanders points out that the new exception to the common enemy rule is difficult to apply to the facts of the case that was being decided. The majority says that while landowners can improve their property with impunity and are thus not liable for damage caused by the change in the flow of surface water onto their neighbors' land, they can only be non-liable if they acted in good faith and do not damage property in excess of that called for by the particular project. He discusses that in the Sleek case, the uphill landowner clear-cut forested land for future development. There was no claim that the clear-cut was unreasonable or unnecessary for either the development or for the harvesting of timber. There was no claim that the clear-cut was accomplished in an extraordinary or unusual manner, although all concede that clear- cutting trees may increase diffuse surface drainage. There was no evidence that removal of the trees either blocked a water course or collected or channeled water. The common law rule does not impose liability on the uphill landowner due to a mere increase in surface drainage which his development might cause. An uphill owner may incidentally increase the quantity or velocity of surface water in natural water course or drain so long as the water is not ultimately diverted from its natural flow. The mere fact that the amount of water reaching the other property owner's land because of the development of platted lands might be greater than it formerly was does not entitle the affected property owner to compensation for any resulting damage. Justice Sanders states that "the proper legal conclusion is that the increased runoff occasioned by this project would not, under any construction of the established rule, impose liability on the uphill owner." Indeed, he says, the only thing that Sleek failed to do was prevent runoff onto his downhill neighbor by constructing a dry well or intersecting ditch. While Sleek could have done these things, Justice Sanders says that the very purpose of the traditional rule is to relieve the uphill landowner of that responsibility and instead placing that responsibility on the lowland owner. Thus,to say that the uphill owner is required to exercise "due care" in the sense that the uphill owner must not discharge surface water onto the lowland owner is to allow the so-called exception to devour the rule. Even the jurisdictions that use the reasonable use rule exception do not require a lack of due care on the failure to construct a drainage ditch. Justice Sanders then says: But now the majority has apparently imposed an undefined duty upon the upland owner to use "due care",,not to discharge increased surface waters onto the lowland property even though those surface waters are the necessary result l 1 COMMON ENEMY RULE CURRENS v. SLEEK Page 7 of 7 of the development of the land for civilized use. By predictable consequences every time the lowland property owner experiences water damage attributable to drainage he will have a potential claim against the upland owner for failure to use "due care" to prevent the water from flowing onto his property in the first place. Although the majority casts its rule as "the opportunity to clarify" Washington's drainage law, in point of fact it is a total abrogation of the certain rule of nonliability in such situations. Moreover, if we impose a duty of"due care," how do we determine when that duty has been discharged? The majority apparently defers this question to the jury without further definition, thereby inviting lack of certainty and ad hoc decision-making. It does suggest, however, that the failure of a landowner to conform to his environmental checklist may be "considered by the trier of fact" although the majority does not purport to limit the duty of due care simply to variations from the environmental checklist, nor even hold such lack of conformity, if found,demonstrates lack of due care. In the final analysis the majority's imposition of a generalized duty of"due care" is not a clarification of preexisting law but its complete abrogation. Moreover,the only facts of record suggesting the uphill landowner failed to use "due care" in this case is the failure of the uphill landowner to take positive measurers to divert the natural flow of surface water away from the downhill property. The common law rule does not impose such a duty, nor does our precedent, nor does precedent from even those jurisdictions which have adopted the reasonable use exception. Qi2iLe)Ai work_ GctVe___ Weekend work: Don't believe it will be adhered to. Renton allows work on the weekend because the people can get away with breaking city law. See picture of Forrest Terrace where a white truck can be seen on site. Developers like to work on the weekend. Saturday is allowed—work on Sunday is not. I heard lumber drops—and hammering on Sundays from above me at Windstone—I'd call it in and the non- emergency operators wouldn't know where the developments were located. This problem also happened at the Stonegate development. Renton officials didn't care. I testified before a hearing examiner about the Mountain Vue development about contractor's working on weekends. The other people at the hearing realized what they had been hearing from the development across the street from Mountain Vue. It was people hammering. N 0 Exk 1 6 its EXHIBITS: I live downstream from the Windstone property and heard hammering on Sundays and lumber drops. I saw vans in front of new homes where work?Was being done inside the house. Ditto with what happened in the Stonegate development. Some work started at 6 am and went to 10 pm? Renton police didn't help any.. At the time, I had a medical condition called Graves Disease—which affected my thyroid. Engles Eagles: • From 2004— 2006, my mother and I looked out the window of the addition to the house and saw a Golden Eagle land on the Redwood tree. The eagle landed at the top of the tree and bent the branch with his weight. We talked about where this bird had been before he landed in the tree—did he just have breakfast at Cedar River? • 0 No & LitS • ( • ID • • EXHIBITS: My memory. • • castes Eagles: According to the preliminary plat, there needs to be a report on whether or not any bald eagles or golden eagles are using the project property. Ms. Weighs said that that was for Mr. Varma to notify the city about. As previously stated, my mother lived in the house from 2004—2006. During that time, both mom and I saw a golden eagle land on a tree on the property. I do not recall the date --- I did not know I needed to keep tract of a date for some future use. I saw it several times and can tell you what tree it was sitting on. The bird weighed the branch down and just sat there majestically. Re coMmendo.tlofJ Recommendation: My recommendation is that this project should be cancelled. The city never took into account what this development would do to the neighbors—the Frandsens'—trees. Also, my late mother and I saw a golden eagle fly into the property and land on one of the trees on site. That property should now be protected.