Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Audience Comments submitted - 6-6-2022
1cV5.€tttt’tç’1t3Oc(eAk)Currensi’.Sleek138Wn.2d.858983P.2d626(September9.1999)SleekandCurrensareadjoininglando\\ners.SleekpropertyishigherthantheCurrensproperty.WaterfromaportionoftheSleekpropertynaturallyseepsintoaforestedlow-IvinesinkareaontheCurrenses’property.Sleekdecidedtoclear-cutandgradeherpropertytodevelopfourhomesites.ShecompliedwithSEPArequirementsandsubmittedanEnvironmentalChecklistthatprovidedIcrtheplantingottreestoenhancethevegetationonthepropertyandinstalldrywellstonhitigutestormwaterimpacts.InI094thelogswerethenclear—ccithutthenewvegetationwasnotplantednorthedrywellsinstalccl.Thenextyear(1995)theCurrenses’propertyfloodedcausingIItreestofall.Theyalsohadtoremoveanadditional20treestoensurethesafetyoftheirhomeAdrainageengineerreportedthattheloggingsubstantiallyincreasedthevolumeandpeakt]owratesofstormaterontotheirpropertyatalmostthreetimesthenaturalvoluinethatwouldaccumulateduringalargestormand12timesthenormalvolumecausedbyastandardrainstorm.Theengineerconcludedthatthetreesfellduetotheincreasedrunoff.feelingdamaged.theysuedSleekandtheLouginCompanyin1995.Sleekwonhavingsuccessfullyarguedthattheywereinsulatedasaresultoftheapplicationofthe“CommonEnemyDoctrine.TheCourtofAppealsupheldthetrialcoLirtbLittheSupremeCourtreversedtheCourtofAppeals.sendingthematterbacktothetrialcourt.TheSupremeCourtsaidthatthecaseisgovernedbythe“CommonEnemyDoctrinevhichhasdirectedthela\\ofsurfacewaterintheStateofWashingtonsince896.Surfacewaterisconsideredtohe:vagrantordiffusedwaterproducedbyrain,meltingsnow,orsprings.Fhe(ourtsdiscussionoftheCommonEnemyDoctrine:Initsstrictestform,thecommonenemydoctrineallowslando\\nerstodisposeofunwantedsurfacewaterinaI,ywatheyseefit,withoutliabilityfurresultingdamagetoone’sneighbor.Theideaisthat“surfacewater”isregardedasanoutlawandacommonenemyagainstwhichanyonemaydefendhimself,eventhoughbysodoinginjurymayresulttoothers.Washingtonstilladherestothegeneralcommonenemrulethatalando\\ncrmaydevelophisorherlandwithoutregardforthedrainageconsequencestootherlandowners.l-lowever.becauseastrictapplicationofthisruleiswidelyregardedasinequitable,thiscourthasadoptedseveralexceptionstotheCommonEnemyDoctrineovertheyears. COMMONENEMYRULECURRENSv.SLEEKPage2of71.Althoughlandownersmayblocktheflowofdiffusesurfacewaterontotheirland,theymaynotinhibittheflowofawatercourseornaturaldrainway.Underthisexception,alandownerwhodamsupastream.gully,ordrainwaywillnotbeshieldedfromliabilityundertheCommonEnemyDoctrine.Anaturaldrainwaymustbekeptopentocarrywaterintostreatnsandlakes,andalowerproprietorcannotobstructsurfacewaterwhenitisrunninginanaturaldrainagechannelordepression.2.Landownersmaynotcollectwaterandchannelitontotheirneighborsland.Surfacewatersrnanotbeartificiallycollectedanddischargedciponadjoininglandsinquantitiesgreaterthanorinamannerdifferentfromthenaturalflowthereof.Thisruleprohibitsalandownerfromcreatinganunnaturalconduit.btitallowshimorhertodirectdiffusestirtcewatersintopre-existingnattiralwaterwaysanddrainwavs.Theflowofsurfacewateralongnaturaldrainsmaybehastenedorincidentallyincreasedbyartificialmeans,solongasthewaterisnotultimatelydivertedfromitsnaturalflowontothepropertyofanother.Thuslv.theCourtreasons:Readinconjunctiotiwiththeaboveexceptions.thecommonenemydoctrineinWashingtonallowslandownerstoaltertheflowofsurfacewatertothedetrimentoftheirneighbors,solongastheydonotblockawatercourseornaturaldrainway.norcollectanddischargewaterontotheirneighbors’landinquantitiesgreaterthan.orinamannerdifferentfrom,itsnaturalflow.TheseexceptionstothecommonenemydoctrinearenotuniquetoWashington.bcithavebeenembracedbynearlyeveryjurisdictionwherethecommonenemydoctrinegovernsdrainageliability.Theissuesthenbecomes,whether,andtowhatextenttheWashingtoncourtsshouldalsoconsiderthereasonablenessofalandowner’sactionsindeterminingliabilityfordamagecausedbyexcesssurface.SleekarguedthattheCommonEnemyDoctrinedidnotpermitthecourttoconsiderthereasonablenessofalandowner’sactionsindeterminingliability.TheCurrensesarguedthatWashington’sCommonEnemyDoctrineshieldsonlyreasonableconductsothatalandownerwhoactsunreasonablymaybeliablefordamagescausedbysurfacewaterflooding.Whenusinga“duecare”(reasonableness)approachalandownerisfreetoaltertheflowofsurfacewater,subjecttotheexceptionthatthelandownermustexercisetheirrightsinfaithandwithsuchcareastoavoidunnecessarydamagetothepropeiyofadjacentowners.ThevariouscourtswhichhaveadoptedthisexceptiontotheCommonEnemyDoctrine COMMONENEMYRULECURRE.VSt.SLEEKPage3otndicatethatitservestocushiontheOther\\ScharshLiilocationofrihtsundertheCommonEnemyDoctrine.Althoughitdoesnotaffectalandowner’sabilitytoaltertheflowofsurfacec’ater.itdoesrequireavoidanceofunnecessaryinfringementuponaneighborsfreecnJu\iiieflt01hisorherproperty.Therefore.inpractice.landownersmaimprovetheirlandvithimpunity(subjecttolocalanduscandpermittingrequirements)andarenotliablefordamanecausedbythechangeinthefio\\ofsurfacewaterontf)theirneighborsland.solongasthelandownersactinttooclfaithanddonotdamaceadjacentpropert\inexcessofthatcalleclforhvthepaicularproject.ThecourtanalviedthedoctrineinWashintonandnotedthatithadneverstatedtheduecateexceptioninusingtheterm‘duecare”hutithasalloednegligence”tohearelevantfactor.inthatthelandownercannotdevelophisandorfendoff’diffuse\\atersneligentlvandthatthelandownerisnotallowedtoincreasethedrainaceofsurfacewaterintoadrainwatosuchanextentthatthecapacitofthedrainisovertaxed.Thelandowner’stiseofhislandithrespeLttOsuracewatersmustthereforebereasonable.TheCourtthenstates:\\ashinutonrecluiresthataliinclowiierexerciseduecarewhenengaginginacti\tiesthatafflcttheflowofsinCicewater.lurthermore.suchanexceptiontoihecommonenem\doctrineismandatedbytherealitiesofincreaseddevelopmentdensitvintheState.Indeed.weknowof’nootherjurisdictioninthecountrythatstilladhet’estothetraditionalcommonenem\doctrinewithoutsomesortofrequirementthatlandotiersnotunreasonablyinterferewiththeirneighborsenjoymentof’theirpropert\.Wethereforeunambiguouslyholdthatexercisethen’ngl\\tbthtccitcidnncc.mjctoIh;pcii\\edeclinetoabandonotirconiinonenem\urisprudenceinfaorof’thereasonableuserLile.ThecriticaldifferencebetweenthetwoapproachesisthattheCommonEnemyDoctrinecluesnotrequireanyincluir\intothenilIit\ulparticularproject.WhendeterminingliabilityundertheCommonEnem\Doctrine.theduecareexceptionrequiresthecourttolookonlytowhetherthelandownerhasexercisedtinecareinimprovinghisorherland.i.e..whetherthemethodemployedbythelandownerminimizedanyunnecessaryimpactsuponadjacentland.Lnlikethereasonableuserule,alandowner’sdutyundertheCommonEnemyDoctrineisnotdeterminedHweighingthenatut’eandimportanceoftheimprovementsagainstthedamagecausedtoonesneighbor.Rather.Lilandownerhasanunciuaiifiedrighttoenibarkonanyimprovementsnthisorherlandallowedbylaw,butmust COMMONENEMYRULECURRENSr.SLEEKPage4o17limittheharmcausedby.changesintheflowofsurfacewatertothatwhichisreasonablynecessary.ThustheCourtissaving,theinquiryisastowhetherornottheotherpropertyonerhaschangedtheflos’ot’surf’acewaterandlimitedthatchangetothathichis‘reasOnahl\necessary”.Whatis“reasonablynecessar\“.is.ofcourse.ajudrnentcall.TheCourt‘citthathavingthetwopropertyownerslitigatetheimportanceot’aparticularprojectinordertoapportionliabilitywasinconsistentwiththestateshistoricaldeferencetopropert\riehts.andadoptingareasonableuserulewouldbeanabruptbreakwithpreviousrulingsandeases.Rather,theCourtf’eltthattheCommonEnemyDoctrine,temperedwiththeduecareexception.wasconsistentwiththegradualevolutionof’surfacedrainagelaw.WhentheCourtappliedtheCommonEnemyDoctrineinthiscaseitstatedthatSleekwouldnotbeliableforflooddamagecausedbyherimprovements,unless,inthecourseot’makingthoseimprovetnentssheblockedanaturaldrainorwaterway,coHectecianddischargedwaterontoherneighbor’sland,orfailedtoexerciseduecareinpreventingunnecessarydamage.thecourtconcludedthatunderthefactsofthiscase.itisclearthatthefirsttwoexceptionstatheCommunEnemyDoctrinedonotappl\:(I)Sleekdidnotblocktheflowol’awater\\aoranaturaldrain.(2)Not’didshecollectanddischargewaterontotheC’cirrensespropert).Ingradingherland.Sleekcausedwaterthatotherwisewouldhavebeenabsorbedintothegroundtorunoff’ontotheCurrensesproperty.(3)ShedidnotconstructcLilvertsorditchesorartificiallychannelthewaterinanyway.(4)Rather.thewaterflowedinadiffusefashion.b\tbrceof’uratv.f’romahigherelevationtothesinkholeontheCurienses’propert\ThequestionhereiswhetherthethirdexceptionappliestoallovtheCurrensestobringsuit.TheduecareexceptiontotheCommonEnemyDoctrinespecifiesthatalandownerwillheshieldedfromliabilityonlywherethechancesinsurfacewaterflowarcmadebothingoodfaithandinsuchawayasnottocauseunnecessarydamage,theCurrenseshavetheburdenof’irooItosho\\thatthefloodingdamageoftheirpropertywasaresultof’Sleek’sbadfaith.orthatitwasinexcessof’thatnecessaryforthecompletionot’theproject.TheC’ourtthenremandedthecasebacktothetrialcourttomakethatdetermination:ashowingof’badfaithoraprojectthatwasexcessiveandactionsthatetcnotnecessarthatcausedthedamage.(‘Linenarcuedthatthet’aitireofSleektodothemitigationmeasuresspedliedandcalledforintheSEPAEnvii’onmentalChecklistviolatedtheduecareexceptiohtotheCommonEnemyRule.TheCourtsaidthatnotfollowingSEPAinandofitselfdidnotconstitutealackofduecare,however.such /MMONENEMYRULECURRENSv.SLEEKPage5of7Asyoucansee,itisthefactsuponwhichtheselegaldoctrinesrevolve.ItwasinterestingthatCurrensarguedthatfailurebySleektocomplywiththeSEPAEnvironmentalChecklistviolatedtheduecareexception.Thecourtsaidthatthefailuretofollowinandofitselfdidnotconstitutelackofdciecarebutthecourtcouldconsidet’theissueastowhetherSleekactedingoodfaithandwithsuchcareastoavoidunnecessarydamagetotheneighbor’sproperty.TheDissentTheCtirrensv.SleekdecisioncontainsascathingdissentbyJusticeSandersarguingthatthemajority(sixoftheninejustices)weretryingtoplaynicewhiletorturingthecommonenemyrule.Dissentsarenotthelawnordotheyestablishprecedencebutaretreatedasimportant\vhenyouwanttoargueagainstatrialcourtusingthemajoritydecision.SometimesdissentsarethefoundationForalaterappellatedecisionastowhythemajoritydecisionwaswronglydecidedandthengetsoverruled.Finally,dissentsdoprovideinterestinginsightsintothenatureoftheissuesinconflictattheappellatecourtlevelbutthepronouncementsareconsidereddicta.anddictaisnotarulingonthefactsorthelaw.JusticeSandersframestheSleekcaseissuetobe,asfollows:Henotesthatthemajoritycorrectlyfoundthatthetwoexceptionstothecommonenemyruledidnotapplyinthiscase,leavingthecourtwiththreechoices,affirmthetrialcourt;abandonthedoctrineorengrafta‘reasonableuse”exception.ThemajoritychosethethirdbittJusticeSanderswouldgowiththefirst,affirmthattherewasnoliability.Hethengoesontoargue.thatevenityouacceptthemajority’srule.thefactsofthecase,ashesays,donot“flowwithinitsbanks.”JusticeSanderscriticizesthecourtwhenitstatesthatitwouldnotadoptthereasonableuserulewhileadoptingareasonableuseexception.JusticeSandersarguesthatboththeruleandtheexceptionlackcertaintyandpredictability,leadingtoadhocjurisprudence.Hefurthernotesthatthelegalcommentatorsseettttofindnodistinctionwhenapplyingthereasonableuseru/eandthereasonableuseexception.Finally,hearguesthatifthecommonenemyrulesays:YOUCANTAMPERWITHNATURALFLOW,andthemodificationadds:IFYOURCONDUCTISREASONABLE,and,ifthenaturalflowrulesays:YOUCANNOTTAMPERWITI-INATURALFLOW,andthemodificationadds:UNLESSYOURCONDUCTISREASONABLEthen,therewouldseemtobenodifference,andthereforethesummationwouldresultinanewrule:failurecouldbeconsideredbythetrialcourtindeterminingifSleekactedinbadfaithandwithsuchcareastoavoidunnecessarydamagetotheCurrenses’property FCOMMONENEMYRULECURRENSv.SLEEKPage6ofYOUCANORCANNOTTAMPERWillINATURALFLOWDEPENDINGUPONWHETHERYOURCONDUCTISORISNOTRLASONA13LE.JusticeSanderspointsoutthattheewexceptiontothecommonenernruleisdifficulttoappl\tothefactsofthecasethatwasbeingdecided.Themajoritysaysthatwhilelandownerscanimprovetheitpropertywithimpunityandarethusnotliablefordamagecausedhethechangeintheflowofsurfacewaterontotheirneighborsland.theecanonlyhenon—liableifthe\actedingoodfaithanddonotdamagepropertyinexcessofthatcalledforbytheparticularproject.I-Icdiscussesthatinthe/eekcase,theuphilllandownerclear-cutforestedland[orfuturedeselopment.Therewasnoclaimthattheclear-cutwasunreasonableorunnecessaryIbreitherthedevelopmentorhrtheharvestineoftimber.Therewasnoclaimthattheclear-cut\\asaccomplishedinanextraordinaryorunusualmanner.althoughallconcedethatclear—cuttinetreesmaemcreasediffusesurfacedrainage.Therewasnoevidencethatremovalofthetreeseitherblockedawatercourseorcollectedorchanneledwater.Thecommonlawruledoesnotimposeliabilityontheuphilllandownerduetoamereincreaseinsurfacedrainagehichhisdevelopmentmightcause.AnuphillownetmaeincidentaH’increasethequantitsorselocitsofsurfacewaterinnaturalwatercourseordrainsolongasthewaterisnotultimatelydivertedfromitsnaturalflow.Themerefactthattheamountofwaterreachingtheotherpropcrt\owner’slandbecauseofthedevelopmentofplattedlandsmightbegreaterthanitformerlywasdoesnotentitletheaffectedpropertyownertocompensationforanyresultinedamace.JusticeSandersstatesthattheproperlegalconclusionisthattheincreasedrunoffoccasionedb\thisproject\\ouldnot.underanconstructionoftheestablishedrtile.imposeliabilityontheuphillowner.Indeed.hesays,theonEthinthatSleekEuledtodossaspreventrtinoft’ontohisdownhillneighborbyconstructingadrywellorintersectingditch.WhileSleekcouldbasedonethesethings.JusticeSanderssaysthattheverypurposeofthetraditionalruleistorelievetheuphilllandownerofthatresponsibilityandinsteadplacingthatresponsibilityonthelowlandowner.thus,tosaythattheuphillownerisrequiredtoexercisecluecareinthesensethattheuphillownermustnotdischargesurfacewaterontothelowlandowneristoallowtheso-calledexceptiontocievotirtherule.EventheItirisdictionsthattisethereasonableuseruleexceptiondonotrequirealackofduecareonthefailuretoconstructadrainageditch.JusticeSandersthensays:Butnowthemaorityhasapparentl\imposedanundefineddutyupontheuplandownertouse‘duecare’nottodischargeincreasedsurfacewatersontothelowlandpropertyesenthoughthosesurfacewatersarethetiecessarvresult ,..‘iI_,O1MONENEMYRULL’CL’RRENSv.SLEEKPage7of7ofthedevelopmentofthelandorcivilizeduse.Bypredictableconsequence,everytimethelowlandpropertyownerexperienceswaterdamageattributabletodrainagehewillhaveapotentialclaimagainsttheuplandownerforfailuretouse‘duecaretopreventthe\\aterfromflowingontohispropertyinthehrslplaceAlthoughthemajoritycastsitsruleastheopportunitytoclarifyWashington’sdrainagelaw,inpointoffactitisatotalabrogationofthecertainruleot’nonliabilityinsuchsituations.Moreoer.ifimposeadutyof“duecare,’howdowedeterminewhenthatdut\hasbeendischarged?Themajorityapparentlydefersthisquestiontothejur\withoutfurtherdefinition,therebyinvitinglackofcertaintyandadhocdecision-making.Itdoessuggest.however,thatthefailureofalandownertocontbrmtohisenvironmentalchecklistnaybe‘‘consideredbythetrieroffact”althoughthemajoritycluesnotpurporttolimitthedutyofduecaresimplytoariutionsfromtheenvironmentalchecklist,norevenholdsuchlackofconlbrmit\.iffuunl.demonstrateslackofduecure.InthefinalanaRsisthemajoritvsimpositionofageneralizeddutyof“dtiecare”isnotaclarificationofpreexistingla\\butitscompleteabrogation.Moreover,theonlyfactsofrecordsuggestingtheuphilllandownerfailedtouse“duecare”inthiscaseisthefailureoftheuphilllandownertotakepositivemeasui’erstodivertthenaturalflowofsurface\UtCI’awaytrumthedo’\nhillproperty.Thecommonlawruledoesnotimposesuchaduty,nordoesourprecedent,nordoesprecedentfromeventhosejurisdictionswhichhaveadoptedthereasonableuseexception. GoodeveningMr.MayorandmembersoftheCityCouncil.MynameisClaudiaDonnellyandIliveeastofRentoninKingCounty.Myaddressis:10415—l47I1AvenueSE,Renton.IwanttotalkaboutstormwaterrunoffwearegettingfromRenton.Thereisastatelawthatsaysupstreampropertycannotadverselyaffectdownstreamproperty.AdefinitionofWatersoftheUnitedStalesis:Altwaterswhicharecurrentlyusedinthepastormaybesusceptibletouseininterstateorforeigncommerce,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandlowofthetide”.WegetstormwaterrunofffromRentonhomes,roads,anddevelopments—WindstoneandIVIarten’sRanchamongothers.IamprovidingeveryonewithsomedocumentsthatIhaveaccumulatedovertheyearsincludingoneIgotfromaBellevueland-useattorney.Itiscaselaw“Currensv.SleekfromtheWAStateSupremeCourtI38WN.2D,858(September9,1999).ThisIwillgivetoyou,Mr.Mayor.In2008,thecityannexedtheMacKaypropertynearStonegate.Thisiswhatwaswritten:“theproposedannexationislocatedwithintheMayCreekdrainagebasin,whichhasbeenidentifiedashavingsignificanterosion,waterquality,andhabitatproblemsduetourbanization.”Sofar,I’veseennothingdonebyRentonorotherstofixtheproblem.In2009,adeveloperfortheMartinRanchdevelopment—,aboveWindstone--contactedaKCWaterandLandResourceengineer—BrianSleight--insteadofdoingarealdrainageanalysis.Thecityacceptedhisrecommendations.In2009,thisengineersaidthis:“12/29/09:Ms.DonnellyisontheNDA(NeighborhoodDrainageAssistanceProgram)list.Theprogramiscurrentlynotfunded.Ms.Donnellyiscurrentlynearthetopofthelistandhasagoodchancetobefundediftheprogramisfunded.“BS”.Thisisnothingbutabiglie.IlivedownstreamfromthisleveloprnentandamsureIcomplainedat)Outwhattheadditionalwaterwoulddotomyproperty—butRentonplannersdon’tcareaboutprotectingotherpeoplesproperty—especiallysomeonewhodoesn’tlivewithinthecitylimits.KingCountydoesn’tcareaboutlyingemployeeseither.Mr.Sleightdoesn’tliketalkingaboutwhathewrote.DidhetaketheslopeoftheMarten’sRanchpropertyintoaccount?Idon’tknow.In1999/2000,bothKCandRentonwantedtheWindstonedevelopmenttogoin.MyhusbandandIappealedtheDNSforthisdevelopment—butwereoverruledby“peoplewhoknewbetter—orsotheyclaimed”.Wegetstormwaterrunofffromthedetentionpondandvault.In2018,thecityofRenton,KingCountyandNewcastlewereconcernedaboutaproposedclearcutontheDeLcoWallareaofCougarMountain.FormermayorDenisLawwrotealettertoDNR.HecaredaboutwhatwouldhappentoMayCreek.Hereissomeofwhathesaid:“theCityofRentonisveryconcernedaboutdeleteriousimpactsthisproposalcouldhaveonthedownstreamenvironmentandthetragileMayCreekBasin.”MyhusbandandIexperiencedthesametypeofclearcutin1989fortheWindstonedevelopment.WegetstormwaterrunofffromtheWindstonedetentionpondandvaultandotherdetentionpondsinthearea.IhaveanotefromtheWindsioneHOApresident—whotoldmethis:“Regardingyourquestions,yesititmyunderstandingbasedoncitydiagramsthatthewaterfromtheretentionpondsandvaultthatcollectstormdrainwaterfromthesubdivisiondoultimatelydumpwaterintoGreenesStream.”IgavetheNewcastlecitymanagersomeofmypicturesandthecityattorneytookthemtoaKingCountyjudgeandgotatemporaryinjunctionagainsttheDeLeoWaltclearcut.Igavethesamel)ictulesORentonofficialsfortheWolfWoodsAnnexationalongwiththeBRB.IattendedaBRB Feet07501500n4caeAc.notLegendSirmsaiiiversRA-urutAio,uneDUpul5acresDonnellyPrupuyRA-10RutalArea,oneDUper10acresPjrcelR-1-ResiduntiCi,oneDUperacreIatNCWCOStICR--t-Residofltl8l,4DUperacreCay ofRontoflfigure4.Lu1’,nterusandZoninginVicinityufheProperty Whatisthedefinitionof“WatersoftheNArmyCorpsUnitedStates”&“NavigableWatersoftheUnitedStates”?WatersoftheUnitedStates4t)CFR23t).3(s)[hetermwatersoftheUnitedStatesmeans:1.Allwaterswhicharecurrentlyused,orwereusedinthepast,ormaybesusceptibletottseininterstateotfoteigncommerce,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandtiow01thetide;2.AIIinterstatewatersincludinginterstatewetlands;3.Allotherwaterssuchasintrastatelakes.rixers.streams(includingintermittentstreams),mudflats.sandflats.wetlands.sloughs.praitiepotholes,wetmeadows,playalakes,ornaturalponds.theuse,degradationordestructionofwhichcouldaffectinterstateorloreigncommerceincludinganysuchwaleus:(I)Whichareorcouldbeusedbyinterstateorforeigntravelersforrecreationalorotherpurposes:or(ii)(Frohwhichlishorshellfishareorcouldhetakenandsoldininterstateorforeigncommerce;or(iii)Whichateusedorcouldbeusedfiwindustrialpurposesbyindustriesininterstatecominerce;4.AllimpoundmentsofwatersotherwisedefinedaswatersoftheUnitedStatesunderthisdefinition:5.Tributariesofwatersidentifiedinparagraphs(s)(1)through(4)ofthissection;6.[lietetTitonalsea:7.Wetlandsadjacenttowaters(otherthanwatersthatarethemselveswetlands)identifiedinparagraphs(s)(I)through(6)ofthissection:wastetreatmentsystems,includingIreatmentpondsorlagoonsdesignedtomeettherequirementsofCWA(otherthancoolingpondsasdefinedin4t)CFR423.11(m)whichalsomeetthecriteriaofthisdefinition)arenotwatersoftheUnitedStates.WatersoftheUnitedStatesdonotincludepriorconvertedcropland.Notwithstandingthedeterminationofanarea’sstatusaspriorconvertedcroplandbyanyotherfederalagency,forthepurposesoftheCleanWaterAct,thefinalauthorityregardingCleanWaterActjurisdictionremainswithEPA. ProposedMackayAnnexation10%Noticeof[ntemWaterUtility.ThesubjectsiteislocatedwithinWaterDistrict90’swaterservicearea,byagreementundertheEastKingCountyCoordinatedWaterSystemPlan.AcertificateofwateravailabilityfromDistrict90willberequiredpriortotheissuanceofdevelopmentpermitswithinthesubjectarea,followingannexationtotheCity.ItisexpectedthatdeveloperextensionsofDistrict90’swatermainswillberequiredtoprovidewaterfortireprotectionanddomesticusewithintheannexationarea.WastewaterUtility.Currently,sewerdoesnotservethearea.However,theannexationsiteislocatedwithintheRentonSewerServiceAreaandinthefutureitisanticipatedthatasnewconstructionoccursinthearea,developerswillbearthecostsofextendingthesewerlines.Theannexationdoesnotpresentanyproblemsfortheutilityanditrepresentsalogicalextensionoftheirservices.Parks.KingCounty’sMayValleyParkisoneparklocatedwithinapproximatelyY2mileoftheproposedMackayAnnexationArea.Itisa54.26-acreparklocatedtothesoutheastoftheannexationareathatfeaturesasystemoftrails.ThenearestCityofRentonparkisMayCreekParklocatedwithinV2milefromtheannexationarea.MayCreekParkislocatedtothenorthwestoftheannexationareaandisa10-acrededicatednaturalarea.Staffnotedthattheareahasashortfallofparks,aswellasrecreationamenitiesandactivitieswhencomparedwithCityofRentonLevelofServicegoals.InordertoservetheareaatalevelthatwouldmeetCityofRentonLevelofServicegoals,theCitywouLdneedtoacquireanddevelopparkiand.Thisoughttooccurovertheten-yearbuildouttimeframeinordertoservetheprojectedpopulation.Thedevelopmentandmaintenanceofsuchaparkwouldrequireadditionalstaffing.However,theCoimnunityServicesdepartmentindicatedthattheannexationareadoesnotpresentanyproblemsfortheirdivisionandthatitrepresentsalogicalextensionoftheservicesprovidedbytheirdepartment.Police.ThePoliceDepartmentdidnotindicateanyconcernsregardingthisproposedannexation.Staffestimatedthenumberofcurrentannualcallsforpoliceserviceas13.1andfuturecallsforservicewereestimatedtobe29.Theannexationdoesnotpresentanyproblemsforthedepartmentanditrepresentsalogicalextensionoftheirservices.Fire.FireDistrict10currentlyservesthearea.Uponannexation,RentonFireandEmergencyServiceswiltprovidetireandemergencyservicestothearea.Staffdidnotindicateanyconcernsregardingthisproposedannexation.SurfaceWater.TheproposedannexationislocatedwithintheMayCreekdrainagebasin,whichhasbeenidentifiedashavingsignificanterosion,waterquality,andhabitatproblemsduetourbanization.StaffnotesthatfuturedevelopmentshouldbeconditionedthroughSEPAtomeetthe2005KingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManualorcurrentdrainagestandardsequivalent.Thedrainageintheareaconsistsofditchestoconveytherunofffromstreets.KingCountyrecordslistnosignificantdrainageproblemsinthearea.Staffnotedthatinordertoservethearea,staffinglevelswouldneedtoexpand,especiallyastheareadevelopsandthereisadditionalpublicinfrastructuretomaintainandoperate.ItisassumedthattheneedforstaffingPage3of6 1CityofRentonPi13/PWDepwlmontPreliminaryRoporttotheHearingExaminesWINDSTONEIIISHORTPLATLUA-04-136,SHPL.H,LLAPUBLICHEARINGDATE:FEBRUARY8,2005Page8offltheproposal’spotentialimpactstoemergencyservices.Thefeeisestimatedat$2,440.00(5newlotsx$488.00=$2440.00)andispayablepriortotherecordingofthefinalshortplat.Recreation:Theroposaldoesnotprovideon-siterecreationareasforfutureresidentsoftheproposedplat.therearenoexistingrecreationalfacilitiesintheimmediatevicinityofthesubjectpropertyanditisanticipatedthattheproposeddevelopmentwouldgeneratefuturedemandonexistingCityparksandrecreationalfacilitiesandprograms.Therefore,theapplicantwillberequiredtopayaParksMitigationFeebasedon$530.76pernewsinglefamilylotwithcreditgivenforthelotoriginallypartofStoneridgeI.Thefeeisestimatedat$2,653.80(5newlotsx$530.76$2,653.80)andispayablepriortotherecordingofthefinalshortplat.School:ThesiteislocatedwithintheboundariesofthelssaquahSchoolDistrict.Citycode(RMC4-1.1600)requirestheapplicanttopaytheappropriateISDimpactfeeof$2,937.00pernesingle-familylotpriortobuildingpermitapproval.Theschoolswouldinclude:NewcastleElementary,MarwoodMiddleSchoolandLibertyHighSchool.StormDrainage/SurfaceWater:TheapplicantsubmittedaTechnicalInformationReportfTIR)preparedbyBarghausenConsultingEngineers,Inc.datedOctober15,2004withthelanduseapplication.ThereportindicatedtheproposalistoconstructthelotsandstreetswithcatchbasincollectionandpipeconveyancesystemstodrainintotheconstructedstormpondsystemfortheStoneridgeIplat.Maintenanceofthedetention/waterqualitypondshouldbesharedwithStoneridgeIHomeowner’sAssociation,sincethevolumesarebeingaddedtothereferencedpond.Thereforestaffrecommendsasaconditionofshortplatapproval,theapplicantamendtheStoneridgeCovenants,ConditionsandRestrictions(CC&R’s)toaddressthesharedmaintenanceresponsibilitiesofthestormwaterfacilities.ThisprojectdrainstotheMayCreeksub-basin.Duetodownstreamcapacityissues,Staffrecommendstheapplicantshallcomplywiththe1998KingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManualtomeetbothdetention(Level3flowcontrol)ancwaterqualityimprovements.WaterandSanitarySewerUtilities:ThesiteislocatedwithintheKingCountyWaterDistrict90(WD9O)servicearea.ACertificateofWaterAvailabilityfromWD90isrequiredshowingthattheDisttict’ssystemcanprovideaminimumot1,000gpmofavailablefireflowperfirehydrant.Theapplicantmustveritytherequiredlees,permitsandsubmittalswithWD90,ThefinaldesignorthewatermainimprovementswouldbeapprovedbyWD90withconcurrencebytheCityofRenton.ExistingandnewhydrantsarerequiredtoberetrofittedwithStorzquickdisconnecrfittings.An8-inchsanitarysewermainistobestalledwithStoneridgeIandistobestubbedtotheaccessroadofthisproposedshortplat.TheapplicantshallberequiredtoobtaindedicationofthesewermainthroughStoneridgeItotheexistingdownstreampublicsanitarysewersystempriortotherecordingoftheshortplatH.RECOMMENDATION:StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheWindstoneIllShortFlat,ProjectFileNo.LUA-04-136,SHPL-Hsubjecttothefollowingconditions:1.TheLotLineAdjustmentshallberecordedpriortorecordingoftheshortplat.ThesatisfactionofthecompletionofthisrequirementshallbesubjecttothereviewandapprovaloftheDevelopmentServicesDivision.2.Theapplicantshallnotetheyardsetbacksbedesignatedasfollows:thefrontyardsetbackforLot5fromthesouthernpropertylineandforLot6fromthenorthernpropertyline.AnoteshallbeplacedonthefaceoftheplatdenotingtherequiredsetbackorientationandthisconditionshallbesubjecttothereviewofDevelopmentServicespriortotherecordingofthefinalplat.3.TheapplicantshallensurethattheresidentialaddressesbevisiblefromthepublicstreetbyinstallingaprivatestreetaddresssignlistingresidentialaddressesofthesubjectshortplatthatarenotvisiblefromKitsapPlace.NE.ThesatisfactionofthecompletionofthisrequirementshallbesubjecttothereviewandapprovaloftheDevelopmentServicesDivisionpriortotherecordingofthefinalshortplot.HEXRPTO4-136aocJJ DenisLawMayorApril27,2018StateDepartmentofNaturalResourcesForestPractices1111WashingtonStreetSEOlympia,WA98501-7010RE:CityofRentonCommentsRegardingForestPracticesApplication/Notification#2420111DearSirorMadam:TheCityofRentonisherebysubmittingcommentsenForestPracticesApplication/Notificationp2420111madebyDalpayPropertiesLLCanddatedApril20,2018.Theapplicationistoharvest2$acresoftimberontwoadjacentparcelsonCougarMountain,onelocatedintheCityofNewcastle,andonelocatedinunincorporatedKingCounty’TheCityofRenton’sboundaryabutsthewestendoftheKingCountyparcel.Stream‘A,’aType‘F’fishbearingstream,flowsthroughtheNewcastleparcelandemptiesintoMayCreek,aShorelineoftheStatethatsupportsthefollowingspeciesofsalmonids:Chinook,Sockeye,Coho,Steelhead,CutthroattroutandKokanee(confirmedwithinthelasttwoyearsinirnediatelyupstreamofthe1-405MayCreekBridge).MayCreekflowswestthroughRentonandemptiesintoLakeWashington.TheCityofRentonisveryconcernedaboutdeleteriousimpactsthisproposalcouldhaveonthedownstrearnenvironmentandthefragileMayCreekBasin.Specificallyweareconcernedaboutimpactsonsteep,unstableslopes,thepotentialIcrsilt-bearingrunofftoenterStream‘A’andthenMayCreekleadingtotakesofthesalmonidsthatlivethere,thelossof0.7acresofforestedwetlandthatwouldbefilledtocreatetheaccesstoad,theinstallationofaculvertinStream‘A’thatcouldintroduceafishpassagebarrierandotherassociatedimpacts.Theseimpactsarebarelyrecognizedintheapplication,andthereisnoevaluationormitIgationoffered.Theseconcernsareaddressedmorespecificallyasfollows.RentonurgesthattheDNRdisapprovetheapplicationbecause,amongotherreasons,theintendedtimberharvestismisclassifiedasaClassHIforestpractices.Ataminimum,thisapplication,whichwassubmittedasaClassIllforestpractices,shouldhereclassifiedtoaClasstV-specialandsubjectedtoSEPAreview,andshouldbereiewedbytheDepartmentofFishandWildlifeasahydraulicprojectinvolvingTypeFwaters.RentonCityHall,7thFloor1055SouthGridyWay,Renton,WA98057rentonwa.gov U-f-i‘‘3providedunderastraightforwa;dsewerextrusionoraLocalImprovementDistrict(LID)program.Propeitiesthatarenewlydevelopedwiiia’sotse;veclbytheRentonPublicUtilitiesDepartmentatthetimeofdevelopment--alsoeitherwithastciçhtIon,vaftiextensionor,ifnecessary,underanLID.Stormwateimnagernentwillbej:rovic;odUI;c’cllyor‘uacontract—inamannerthatisconsistentwiththeCityofRentonStormwaterManual,KingCountystandardsandapplicableStateofWashingtonguidelines.AsdescribedinSechonNo.3,theCityisowareofsomepreviouslyreportedstormwatermanagementchallengesinnearbyareasWhileannexationpersewillnotimpactcurrentmatters,CityofficialsreportanintentiontodevelopaplantobetteraddresstheseissuesfollowingannexationoftheWolfWoodsArea,TheChyofRentonPoliceDepartmentwilldirectlyprovideservicetotheWolfWoodsArea.TheCityofRentonFireDepartmentwillprovidetireserviceandemergencymedicalservicestotheWolf\AjoodsAreaproperteseitherviaFireProect’c’;DstrclNo.1CorfromtheRentonRegionalFireAuthority.\tOjlfWoodsArearesidentswillhaveaccessIviontvnibranes,parks.andrecreationfacilities.Lawandjusticeservicesandhumanserviceswouk,similarly,beproviaedtothecitizensoftheWolfWoodsAreaStudentsvF.;lUcontinuetobccrveJythelssaq’.iahSchoolDistrictand/ortheRentonSchoc’DisircE.Obj.eDtive4UwcuLhub,chve7TheseOtjectivescullfQrtheacolevementofreasonableboundariesforajurisdiction.iheCityisseekingannexahoninoroertoprovidepracticalandregularboundariessothatallservcesandlanduseiegidatiersafieatingthisareamaybeetficientlycoordinatedbyasinglelocalgovernmentiinittothebenfdoftlrecoiriinunity.QectiveSimilarly,theCityreportschatthisannexationwouldbeconsistentwithObjective8,whichcallsforinclus’cnofcirhanareaswtlhnnumncipaiities,TheWolfWoodsAreahasbeenestablishedforancexationthroughtheRentonComprehensivePlan.ThisactionissupportedaswellbylheStateGrowtht•AananerncntActandtheKimigConmityComprehensivePlan.TheCityofRentoihasconductedafiscalstudytomeasurecostsandrevenuefortheproposedfortheWolfWoodsannexationThisstidyincludedrevenueandexpendituresbothatthetimeofannexationandtenyearsintothefutuiePsreportedthattheWolfWoodsAreaAnnexation,atexistinglevelsofdevelopment,willgeuerateongoingepanditt.iresof$10236.53andrevenueat$13,172.15.Withfuturenewdevelopment(ariticpatedtobeatmaximumlevelsinapproximately2028),theCityestimatesannualexpendituiesofapproximately$34919.76andrevenueofapproximatelyS3780D.06Atthattime,thenetfiscalimpacttartoeWolfWoodspropertieswouldheapProximatelY$2863.90.TheCityispreparedtogovernandservetheWolfV\/eodsAreaatannexationandintofutureyears.WolfWoodsAreapropertyownerswillassumetlieHshareoftheregulartaxes/fees(e.g.,propertytaxes)andspeciallevyratesoftheCity.Withthoserevenues,andotherrevenuesavailabletothejurisdiction,CityofficialsreportthattherearesufficientfundstoundertakethecostsforgovernanceandservicetotheWolfWoodsAreabothcurrentlyandwithfuturedevelopment--inamannerequivalenttolevelsofserviceprovidedtocitizensottheexistingCityofRenton.The’CitylooksforwardtoservingthecitizensoftheWolfWoodsArea.6 tisrIacevaterrijnotiSubject:Re:susrfacewaterrunoffFrom:JohnFarmer<john.glenn.farmergmail.com>Date:1/20/22,6:22AMTo:ClaudiaDonnelly<thedonnellys@oo.net>CC:RonaldStraka<rstrakarntonwa.gov>,GaryFink<gfinkrentonwa.gov>HiClaudiaIamtheWindstoneHOAPresident.Thankyouforyournote.BeforeansweringyourquestioniwouldliketomakeclearthatwhilethetheretentionpondsandvaultsresideonHOAproperty,ouronlyresponsibilityforthoseareasistoperiodicallymoworclearvegetationfromnonfunctioningareaswithingthefence.Thecityisresponsibleformaintainingthefunctioningareaoftheretentionpondsandvaultstoensurecorrectoperation.Regardingyourquestion,yesitismyunderstandingbasedoncitydiagramsthatthewaterfromtheretentionpondsandvaultthatcollectstormdrainwaterfromthesubdivisiondoultimatelydumpwaterintoGreenesStream.Thatisaboutthelimitofourknowledgethough.Sincewewerenotresponsibleforthedesign!constructionofthesefacilitiesnorareweresponsibleforthemaintenanceandoperationoftheseareas,IsuggestyoureferallfurtherquestionstothecityofRenton.ThankyouJohnFarmerOnWed,Jan19,2022,9:48AMClaudiaDonnelly<tiiedunriejjyslOoo.net>wrote:DearMr.Glenn:Thankyouforlettingmetalktoyou.Iliveabout1/2milenorthofWindstoneandwasherewhenitwasdeveloped.Igetsurfacewaterrunofffrom150acresaboveme—KCRoadsandhomes,RentonhomesandroadsandSR900.Noonewantstohelpusprotectourproperty.Idohave1questionforyou:A1r1ftIsti.stomdrainFromlitin?DOeSitgointoGreenesStream?ThatiswhatbringswatertomypropertyandthenontoMayCreek.WhileWindstonewasstillunderconstruction,ahousewasbeingbuiltwhere1727and?arelocated.The?housewasbuiltnexttoGreenesStreamandthecontractorwasabletostartbuildingwithoutusingsiltfences—beforeIcontactedDOE.Didyouknowthatonedaywegotaroofshingleinouryard?IthinkIstillhavepiecesofit.Anyway,wegetyourwaterandIwantmypropertyprotected.Inthespringof2004,I124/l7/22II7>AM C oCZ+(Oh __________________ - C.-30pItC.-VjC00a-0-00C3V)00z 0-91tOD18ckfoL1I pt-’7lUVd1?4•:-:.---•“-I‘-.,.---‘-1--*,,,_-‘-“%j•_,4.•—.,-,>%p4——.-_______-2—0Q-5QL4 U!411?7AfrilcP9COe171‘1?)9At-rQUi1+i’1-p-ocp2ts-0