The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-05-089_Request for Reconsideration and Appeal.pdf-.-~ .-- i I . r , ----___ ~.-'~~--'~ r-__ , rr'\ L-1'\ S··--'\ E~ \ _. '. " --. I :.i : 'J.-~\._ ·i~lt.' ·f. 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts. Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TAL-931 Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream S, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936, 1946, 1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We ('::In IIrr",irl<> ::I (,f"lII" f"lf thl'l c:tl'lr<>f"I lI::Iire: tf"l thl'l r.it\f if it IAlf"lIlirl ::Ie:c:ic:t in r<>"il'llA/ f"lf thl'l fl'l::ltllrl'le: Thl'l -_ .. 1'-"-----r-J _ ..... - _ .. _._-..... -.. ---..... -_ ... J ..... "--'----'-" •... _ •. _ •• _. _ .. -.----.--.. ,.- aerial photos indicate that Streams Sand C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Sand C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream S, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MDNS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MDNS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artificially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, TAl A~AFA r.nN~11I TANTS !NC -<~: ------------7---, C ~~ ·7 7e:=~C------~ Jason Walker, RLA. ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936- Site Ar~a~9~6 - Site Area;~1.965 ~.~ _~N·rz.-rM