Attached is a note I sent to Oakbrook Townhouses Board members and others on December 20, 2014, summarizing a meeting earlier that day
Greetings,
Several
representatives from the Oakbrook 4th Addition, Oakbrook Condominium
Owners Association, and Oakbrook Townhouses (Nancy Dilworth and I) met today to
review the revised Ruby Apartments project proposal now before the City of
Lakewood. Don Macsparran, who has been following this issue most closely,
reported recently that:
“…The City has completed the Community
Design Review for the Ruby Apartments. Notification should be received by
all interested parties within the next few days. There is a 14-day appeal
period which will begin from the date of the official notification--which
should be today or tomorrow. If an appeal of the Community Design Review is
received by the City, the appeal must/will go to a hearing examiner.
That process would most likely extend into February or March.
“I believe an appeal of the Community Design Review is critical, even considering the legal action the HOA has engaged in to stop the Ruby Apartments. If no appeal is made, the Community Design Review will be final, and the City will proceed to issue both a Site Development permit and a Building permit. We can then most likely expect construction on the site to begin within days after the first of the new year. And--if the HOA's legal course is not successful, what is contained in the Community Design is what this community will have to live with--period…”
“I believe an appeal of the Community Design Review is critical, even considering the legal action the HOA has engaged in to stop the Ruby Apartments. If no appeal is made, the Community Design Review will be final, and the City will proceed to issue both a Site Development permit and a Building permit. We can then most likely expect construction on the site to begin within days after the first of the new year. And--if the HOA's legal course is not successful, what is contained in the Community Design is what this community will have to live with--period…”
The
discussions today centered on the tree retention plan, several issues which the
group felt needed to be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit,
and strategies for managing the technical and legal issues in the future. The technical issues included:
Stormwater Runoff
The City’s required mitigation measures include a
provision that “…Prior to any clearing, grading, or construction, a Site
Development Permit and Drainage Review are required (LMC 12A.04.040). The
applications shall include street frontage improvements and
stormwater management in compliance with the 2008 Pierce County Storrnwater
Management and 2005 Site Development Manual or the Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, as noted in the September 19, 2014 comment
letter from the Lakewood Public Works Department…”
It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit
may precede the Site Development permit and Drainage Review. There are no references to such stormwater
management plans or facilities in the documents we reviewed.
Tree
Management
The City’s required mitigation measures include a
provision that: “…The applicant shall apply for a
Tree Removal Permit pursuant to and consistent with LMC 18A.50.320.0 and 18A.50.320.D. In order for staff to accurately
calculate tree replacement pursuant to LMC Chapter 18A.50.300, application
materials must include a report from a Washington
State certified arborist that provides the following information:
1)
The existing condition of each
significant tree on the site.
2)
An analysis of existing trees
located close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for
removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction.
3)
A recommendation for the location of
the west driveway between the clusters of trees numbered 69 through 78 and 79 through 81 as shown on the December 27,
2013 tree plan for the purpose of saving as many of the trees as
possible.
4)
Identification of trees that can be
saved from significant root damage with relocation of the City sidewalk into the streetscape.
5)
Identification of trees that will be
threatened by the three-foot high berm required between the
south sidewalk and the parking lot.
6)
Recommendations for protecting impervious
surfaces as the roots of existing and new landscape trees grow out…”
Examination of the materials at our meeting revealed no
report from a Washington State certified arborist which addressed these 6
items. A one page arborist note listing
about six trees, and a listing and mapping of trees considered to be
significant or non-significant, and to be removed or not removed, are the only
provisions we were able to discern in our review of the plans.
It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit
may precede the report of the arborist and the Tree Removal Permit. The materials in the plans we were able to
review clearly fail to meet the 6 above requirements.
Geotechnical Report/Landslide Risk
The
City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that: “…The project design shall incorporate all recommendations provided
in the conclusion of the project's
Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoResources, LLC on December 12, 2013, as well
as any recommendations provided in a supplemental report that was requested to
reanalyze impacts the development might have to the nearby landslide
hazard area…”
The materials our group was able to review did not contain any
information relative to the geotechnical report or its supplemental report, so
we were unable to review either.
It
is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the completion
of the geotechnical report and it’s supplement.
Toxics
Cleanup
The City’s required mitigation measures include a
provision that: “…Construction activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent
with requirements provided in the Department of Ecology letter dated February
27, 2014, attached as Exhibit A.
Construction notes consistent with this letter shall be included on the civil
and building permit plans. With
respect to the Toxics Cleanup discussion in the letter, the site soils shall be tested for contaminants in the required open
space area. A report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement
of any building construction. If lead
or arsenic concentrations exceed Model Toxics Control Act cleanup levels, the
applicant shall comply with requirements specified by DOE to clean up the
site…”
This
provision clearly states that soils shall be tested and reported prior to the
commencement of any building construction, along with compliance with
applicable regulations. The documents we
reviewed did not contain any information on this topic.
It
is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the completion
of the testing, reporting to the agencies, and commitment to compliance.
NPDES
& Wastewater Discharge Permits
The City’s required mitigation measures include a
provision that: “…Prior to any clearing, grading, or
construction, the applicant shall apply for a construction stormwater
permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction with the Department of Ecology if one or more acres
of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities, and the site
already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will
have offsite discharge during construction…”
This
provision clearly states that listed permits must be secured prior to any
cleaning, grading, or construction. The
documents we reviewed did not contain any information on this topic.
It
is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the issuance
of the required permits.
Ken Karch, PE
No comments:
Post a Comment