HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Response McCable1
Jill Ding
To:Linda McCabe
Cc:andrewt.levesque@gmail.com
Subject:RE: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Attachments:PRE_Daigle_Submittal_170420_v1.pdf; PRE_Wetland reclassification letter.pdf
Ms. McCabe,
Thank you for your comments regarding the BMC Renton Project, you have been made a party of record and your
comments have been included in the official file for consideration by the decision maker. You had concerns regarding
the drainage study and wetland report. Many of your comments regarding the drainage study were also shared by our
City Plan Reviewer. The following comments, regarding the drainage report have been provided to the applicant and will
need to be addressed:
Drainage Report
1. The proposed drainage system appears to direct all site surface water away from the existing wetland which may
impact the hydrology of the wetland. It is not clear how much of the existing site surface water is currently
discharged to the wetland. The applicant will need to provide a full analysis of the wetland and provide
verification that the proposed improvements to the drainage system will not have an adverse effect on the
existing wetland.
2. The off-site analysis does not provide sufficient information to determine the existing flow path of the site surface
water. There is general discussion of some surface water discharging to the existing wetland and then into a
“drainage ditch” located on the property to the south prior to discharge into the public conveyance system in East
Valley Road. The noted drainage ditch is classified as an extension of the existing Wetland A by the City of Renton
as noted in the Wetland Report; said classification is based, in part, on delineation information provided to the
City as part of a previous land use application connected to parcel #3023059085. The off-site analysis should
include maps, diagrams and images of the downstream analysis for the full ¼ mile required to be evaluated.
Reference Section 2.3.1.1 – TIR Section 3 – Off-Site Analysis for all information that is to be included in the
downstream analysis.
3. The project proposes the use of the Reduced Impervious Surface BMP as the On-Site BMP for the redevelopment
project. As outlined in Section C.2.9.2 of Appendix C of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
(RSWDM), the Restricted Footprint BMP is applicable to sites with a total impervious surface of less than 4% of
the project site. The proposed redevelopment exceeds this threshold. Other On-Site BMP options will need to be
evaluated for the proposed development. Acceptable On-Site BMP options must be addressed with the
preliminary design, final sizing and design can occur with the final engineering.
4. All On-Site BMPs must be discussed in the report with valid infeasibility criteria listed for each On-Site BMP not
utilized as part of the proposed redevelopment. The drainage report does not include discussion of Dispersion
(Full or Basic) as an On-Site BMP option. Full or Basic Dispersion could potentially be utilized to direct surface
water to the existing wetland and satisfy concerns noted in Number 1, above.
The drainage report cites limited site area as reason for not utilizing Bioretention as on On-Site BMP option. The
City’s assessment of the site area has determined that there is sufficient space within the project site to allow
the use of Bioretention as a viable On-Site BMP option.
Regarding the wetland report, many of your concerns focused around the classification of Drainage Z. The
applicant originally classified Drainage Z as a manmade, unregulated wetland, however after secondary review
was conducted on that wetland report by the City’s wetland consultant, it was concluded by the City that
Drainage Z is indeed a regulated wetland and is hydrologically connected to Wetland A, which is a Class III
2
wetland requiring a 75-foot standard buffer. This area is mapped, as required by the City’s critical areas
regulations, and is shown on the submitted site plan. This area was also delineated and classified by the
Watershed Company by the property owner to the south of the project site, as provided to the City by Mr. Larry
Daigle as part of the attached pre-application file (PRE17-000255).
If you have further questions or comments regarding this application, please don’t hesitate to ask. As a party of
record, you will receive all future correspondence on this project and you will be notified when the project is
taken off hold and the City’s review continues.
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
6th floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6598
jding@rentonwa.gov
From: Linda McCabe [mailto:linda@mccabeappraisal.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 8:16 AM
To: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: andrewt.levesque@gmail.com; 'Linda McCabe' <linda@mccabeappraisal.com>
Subject: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Subject: Fwd: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Ms. Ding,
Thank you for providing me with the requested materials concerning the City of Renton's proposed use of the
Optional DNS process, limiting opportunity for comment on the environmental impacts of the subject proposal
to this single comment period. The November 9, 2017 Notice of Application for this project states that a DNS is
likely to be issued, followed by a 14-day appeal period.
Please accept this communication as our formal notice of intent to file an appeal to the DNS within the time
period indicated. While we have no objection to reasonable use or proposed improvement of the project site, our
review of relevant project documents has disclosed substantive errors of fact on the part of the Applicant, and of
both fact and administrative process on the part of the City of Renton. These errors, which will be set forth
below, have the clear potential to severely impact the environment, including reasonable use of the adjoining
Harper parcel abutting the subject proposal site to the south, and need to be fully corrected prior to any project
approvals, including issuance of the proposed DNS.
3
The November 1, 2017 Preliminary Technical Information Report for the BMC Renton project includes
differing statements concerning existing runoff from the site.
In Sect. 1.2:
"Most of the site sheet flows to the existing drainage structures or directly to the existing wetland along the east
side of the site.This existing wetland [elsewhere denoted "Wetland A"] overflows into a drainage ditch south of
the site. This ditch conveys water west to the publicly owned and operated drainage system in the East Valley
Road."
This finding is apparently clarified in Sect. 3.4, Task 4.1.1:
"Runoff generated on the existing site sheet flows to existing onsite catch basins before discharging east to the
existing wetland east of the site."
However these roughly compatible findings are contradicted in part in Sect. 2.1.1:
"Stormwater runoff generated on the existing project site discharge both east to the existing wetland and west to
a publicly owned and operated drainage system in East Valley Road. The existing wetland overflows into the
existing drainage ditch South of the project site, which discharges to the drainage system in East Valley Road."
Similarly these findings seem to be wholly contradicted by field inspection findings in Sect. 3.3.9:
"The project site does not discharge to an offsite conveyance system or to adjacent private properties."
The Applicant needs to clarify if no runoff leaves the site, if portions of the site presently drain directly from the
site to West Valley Road, or if all existing runoff is directed first to the easterly wetland, thence through the
privately owned drainage ditch on the Harper Property to the south, thence west to Renton's stormwater system.
Similarly, Sect. 3.1 states:
"There are no upstream tributary areas contributing to the onsite basin area."
However, Sect. 5.1, Wetlands, states:
"Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by a seasonally high groundwater table, direct precipitation, and
stormwater runoff from adjacent high intensity land uses with excess impervious surfaces." Appendix F,
Wetlands, to the SVC report discussed more fully below also notes in Sects.D2.1 and D.5.1 that the wetland
unit receives stormwater discharge.
Certainly stormwater entering a wetland mapped on a portion of the subject project site prior to discharge from
that wetland to the Harper site is coming from "tributary areas contributing to the onsite basin area" of the
BMC Renton site. If not, all runoff entering the wetland would presumably be coming from the BMC Renton
site. Clearly this is not the case.
Please note that no mapped demarcation of existing onsite or offsite drainage basin source areas or discharge
locations is provided to properly identify where existing flows originate, where they enter the site, where they
enter the wetland, or where they are presently conveyed offsite to help resolve these related questions. Sect.
D.4.3 of the SVC Habitat Report directly states that no definition of the area tributary to the wetland has been
mapped or measured. No finding regarding potential project impacts to the Harper site or on the adequacy of the
proposed site measures to address such impacts can be made without this information regarding existing
drainage conditions.
We have similar questions regarding proposed onsite drainage improvement measures.
Sect. 2.1.1 proposes:
"...discharging all runoff generated onsite to the publicly owned drainage system in East Valley Road."
4
Sect. 4.1.2 proposes that:
"The project site will be split into two separate drainage basins. The north basin will...[be]...discharging into the
municipal stormwater system...The south basin...runoff will then be conveyed to the City of Renton Stormwater
system at a separate connection point from the northern basin."
This is clearly a diversion of discharge from the described existing discharge location, first to the east, then
south offsite.
Sect. 7.2 of the accompanying SVC Habitat Report purports that "the project provides comprehensive
stormwater treatment and flow control to minimize impacts on [wetland] hydrology."
However four things are evident in comparing this proposed project discharge configuration with the already
conflicting statements regarding existing drainage conditions at and adjacent to the site, as discussed above:
(1) The proposed drainage system will involve a wholesale diversion of existing site runoff away from the
existing Wetland A, where it is described as currently discharging.
(2) The diversion of this stormwater from Wetland A would constitute a direct modification of and
environmental impact to wetland hydrology, as "stormwater runoff from adjacent high intensity land uses with
excess impervious surfaces" is noted as one existing source of this hydrology in Sect. 5.1.
(3) The fact of this impact to Wetland A's hydrology is not described, nor is the likely nature or magnitude of
the impact addressed.
(4) Because this impact is not addressed, no impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are
proposed that could justify issuance of the proposed DNS.
We are also asking Renton to address several additional issues of concern relate to the findings of the October
2017 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Restoration Plan prepared by Soundview
Consultants (SVC), which appears to have been prepared in "winter 2016."
From the Executive Summary:
"The site investigations identified one wetland (Wetland A) located on the eastern border of the subject
property" [the BMC Renton site], which "was classified as a Category III wetland... requiring a standard 75-
foot buffer..."
SVC also "identified ...one non-regulated drainage ditch (Drainage Z) located on the southern property
boundary." This privately owned drainage ditch is located wholly on the Harper property, as is the "offsite
construction stormwater pond approximately 30 feet south of the subject [BMC Renton] property." Both these
offsite features on the Harper site are shown on both the Existing Conditions and Proposed Project site maps in
Appendix C of the SVC report with the specific note that they are NOT DELINEATED.
Moreover SVC specifically documents that Drainage Z is an intentionally created feature and is not subject to
regulation per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050.G.7.b.
The Table 5 provided by SVC for Drainage Z determines that any potential wetland rating for Drainage Z is
"N/A" (Not Applicable), that it is not regulated under RMC 3-3-050, that it is "not regulated" under RCW90.48,
and that it is "not likely" to be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The DNR stream type, the Local (Renton)
rating, the buffer width, and the Building Setback are all shown as "N/A", since it is an intentionally created
feature. Figures 1 through 10 in Appendix D (Aerials) show an exhaustive sequence of site views plainly
5
showing the intentional construction of Drainage Z in conjunction with early construction of Highway 167,
along with roughly simultaneous fill placement on both the BMC and Harper sites.
Sect. 5.2, Drainages notes:
"...purposeful creation is documented through [this] historic aerial photograph research...", before concluding:
"Therefore Drainage Z should be considered an intentionally created feature."
Sect.6.1.2 also is clear:
"Drainage Z is a linear drainage ditch intentionally created in an upland area."
SVC then states at several locations in their Report:
"However, after review, the City of Renton is classifying Drainage Z as the same regulated wetland as Wetland
A."
We have four concerns with this unsupported finding:
First, no wetlands mapping, classification, rating, or categorization is provided as a basis for this determination.
We are concerned that this constitutes a significant administrative and procedural error on Renton's part, which
results in an adverse condemnation of property interests held by M's. Harper, since the feature in question is
located wholly on her parcel. We do not believe that issuance of a DNS by Renton is appropriate under these
circumstances, and intend to appeal if one is issued.
Secondly, the administrative error on Renton's part is compounded by the factual error in issuing their
unsupported finding. Not only does SVC continue to disagree with the "classification" of this privately owned,
deliberately constructed ditch as "wetlands" by Renton, such a requirement is not only wholly unsupported by,
but actually directly contradicted by their findings, all of which appear to be rigorously consistent and
compliant with all relevant codes and regulations, and procedures, including Renton's own. We do not believe
that issuance of a DNS by Renton is appropriate under these circumstances, and intend to appeal if one is
issued.
Thirdly, though we can hardly fault the BMC Renton consultants or project proponents for this state of affairs,
absolutely no wetland mapping, boundary determination, or delineation of Drainage Z has been provided with
the project proposal in support of this "classification" by Renton. In fact project documents note this feature is
NOT DELINEATED. Moreover, since no wetland boundary determination or classification can apparently be
derived from application of the existing, recognized, lawfully required and regulated methodologies and
procedures applied to Drainage Z by SVC in their study, it would appear that no wetland delineation of this
feature is even possible. We do not believe that issuance of a DNS by Renton is appropriate under these
circumstances, and intend to appeal if one is issued.
Fourthly, since no wetland boundary has been or apparently may be determined for this feature, it should be
obvious that no buffer area of any dimension can be established with respect thereto. This point needs some
added emphasis on our part, as SVC repeatedly notes: "The Applicant will accept the recommended buffer
for...Drainage Z by the City of Renton to enable the project to move forward." This may be a trade-off suitable
for the BMC Renton site proponents, as they are apparently in possession of sufficient acreage to still make use
6
of their site even with such reductions in useable site development area, but such is not likely to be the case if
Renton's entirely unsupported wetlands mapping of Ditch Z on the Harper site were to lead to similar use
restrictions in the future. The Harper site is conspicuously smaller than adjacent sites sharing the same land use
zoning designation, and will be unreasonably constrained as a consequence of this regulatory action by Renton.
At the very least, impacts to the Harper site's use potential and economic valuation resulting from this mapping
determination by Renton are clearly within the nexus of the proposed action and should be fully addressed by
the project. We do not believe that issuance of a DNS by Renton is appropriate under these circumstances, and
intend to appeal if one is issued.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We have also mailed a hard copy of these comments
for your convenience.
Regards,
Andrew Levesque and Linda McCabe on behalf of Mae Harper
253-653-0300 Cell
AndrewT.Levesque@gmail.com
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>
Date: November 22, 2017 at 9:10:08 AM PST
To: "'andrewt.levesque@gmail.com'" <andrewt.levesque@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Andy,
No problem. I've uploaded the items on OneDrive just in case:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiqJKI_D_CSDgQd0sUOwb5LaP2Au
Thanks,
Clark H. Close
Senior Planner
City of Renton
425-430-7289
-----Original Message-----
From: andrewt.levesque@gmail.com [mailto:andrewt.levesque@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:05 AM
To: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Yes Jill, I should have included the following mailing address as well:
Andrew T. Levesque
7
26526 201st Ct. SE
Covington WA 98042
Thank you for your prompt response.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:22 AM, Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Andrew,
I have received your email and will add you and am happy to add you and your
wife as parties of record, please provide me with a mailing address. Attached are
the reports you had requested, please note that the stormwater construction permit
you have requested is a permit that the applicant will need to get before they start
construction it is not a report that I have a copy of at this time. Unfortunately I am
not able to extend the public comment period at this time. The status of the project
is that it is currently "on hold" per some corrections that need to be made to bring
the proposal in compliance with the City's design standards. I have also attached
a copy of the hold letter as this correspondence was sent to parties of record.
Some of these files may be too large and not fit in one email, if that is the case I
will send separate emails.
Thanks,
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
6th floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6598
jding@rentonwa.gov
8
-----Original Message-----
From: andrewt.levesque@gmail.com [mailto:andrewt.levesque@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:22 PM
To: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Linda McCabe <Linda@McCabeAppraisal.com>
Subject: BMC Renton Project; Land Use No. LUA17-000445, SA-A, ECF, MOD
Ms. Ding,
This email is to respectfully request that my wife, Linda McCabe, and I be made
parties of record regarding the subject land use permitting application. Linda has a
Power of Attorney and is representing the interests of her Mother, Mae Harper,
who has recently inherited title to the property immediately adjoining the BMC
Renton project location, to the south.
I called and left you a voice message this morning, but note your phone message
states you are only in on Mondays and Thursdays. Since this coming Thursday is
a holiday, I may not be able speak to you in time to properly request access to
relevant project documentation over the phone. Therefore I am conveying this
request via e-mail.
Specifically, we would like to obtain and review copies of the following:
*DOE Stormwater Construction Permit
*Drainage Report
*Geotechnical Report
*Wetland Assessment
Each of these project elements of the overall permitting process has adversely
affected previous attempts to develop Ms. Harper's adjoining parcel in the recent
past. We are interested in determining how studies for the BMC Renton project
proposal may bear upon her future efforts to do so.
With the Thanksgiving Holiday and weekend intervening before comments are
due by 5:00 PM on Monday November 27, 2017, we are also therefore
respectfully requesting an extension of the limited comment period for one
additional week, in the event we find project elements of concern.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Regards,
Andrew T. Levesque
9
253-653-0300
andrewt.levesque@gmail.com
Sent from my iPad
<36_Drainage_Report_v1.pdf>
<32_RS_Geotechnical_Report_170124_v1.pdf>
<C_hold ltr.pdf>