City Hall email exchange regarding latest imputs from Shoreline Coalition

For those of you following the final SMP approval process, here is an additional email chain we exchanged at city hall yesterday. (Latest email is on top, earliest on the bottom).

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Alexander Pietsch” <apietsch@Rentonwa.gov>
To: “Randy Corman” <rcorman@Rentonwa.gov>, “Council” <council@Rentonwa.gov>, “Julia Medzegian” <jmedzegian@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: “Jay B Covington” <jcovington@Rentonwa.gov>, “Chip Vincent” <cvincent@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 4:27:08 PM
Subject: RE: SMP follow up

Thanks, Randy.

The proposed SMP allows existing bulkheads to be maintained and even replaced for existing uses. If we were to eliminate the requirement to consider alternatives and justify the necessity of hard armoring through a geotech report when the use changes and/or there is new development, we would be essentially preserving the bulkhead forever. It is not that we don’t believe this bulkhead may be necessary in this location. We simply would like to have an expert tell us so in a complete, formal, and legally defensible way.

Alex

________________________________________________________

From: Randy Corman
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 4:15 PM
To: Randy Corman; Council; Julia Medzegian; Alexander Pietsch
Subject: Re: SMP follow up

Thanks for the note Alex and Erika.

I have to wonder whether our staff and Mr. Halinen are somehow talking past each other on one major point.

Erika Conkling’s memo says:

“The “compromise” that Mr. Halinen speaks of on the third page of the table document, is not really a compromise, it is a demand for what they have been asking for all along for shoreline stabilization, which is unrestricted replacement of an existing bulkhead even if a use changes or has been discontinued, based on a needs assessment that does not require a geotechnical report, and without having to follow the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives.” (Emphasis added)

However, when I have spoken with Mr. Halinen and other property owners, they have told me that they seek unrestricted RETENTION OF EXISTING SERVICEABLE bulkheads, not unrestricted replacement.

There is a huge difference in asking to keep something that isn’t broken, versus replacing it when it fails. It is important to me that we never treat these two situations interchangeably when developing new requirements. When something needs to be replaced, it is already essentially gone, and it already needs engineering evaluation to replace it. When something is in place and working fine, then any requirement for engineering to review it, or work to remove it, are all added burden.

The way Ms. Conkling’s memo reads makes me wonder whether city staff and the citizens are talking about two different things.

Is there a misunderstanding here that is keeping staff and citizens from achieving common ground on this topic?

Thanks,

Randy

——————————————-
From: Alexander Pietsch
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:06:26 PM
To: Council
Cc: Jay B Covington; Denis Law; Erika Conkling; Chip Vincent
Subject: SMP follow up
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Council Members…
Hopefully you have received and have had a chance to review the Administration’s memorandum regarding the remaining issues in the Shoreline Master Program.

Subsequent to the preparation of that document, we received additional materials from both Mr. Halinen, representing the Anmarco Property (Stoneyway), and Mr. Rodabaugh, representing RaMac (Riviera Apartments).

In response to Mr. Halinen’s materials, Erika has prepared the analysis in the email below. We believe Mr. Rodabaugh’s additional comments have been adequately addressed in the original memorandum.

As always, if you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me, Chip, Erika, or any of the other Administrators who provided input and signed on to the memo.

From: Erika Conkling
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Alexander Pietsch; Chip Vincent
Subject: Review of latest SMP package

Alex and Chip-
I finished reading and analyzing Mr. Halinen’s latest submittal. With the exception of the cover letter and the attached three page table, the other documents have already been received and reviewed by the City. The cover letter introduces the documents. The three page table presents, in a different style, the same issues that have already been presented, and revives the RCW 82.02.020 argument (which has been dismissed recently in case law, where it was decided that 82.02.020 does not apply within areas under the jurisdiction of the SMA because the SMA is a state issue, not a local issue).

The “compromise” that Mr. Halinen speaks of on the third page of the table document, is not really a compromise, it is a demand for what they have been asking for all along for shoreline stabilization, which is unrestricted replacement of an existing bulkhead even if a use changes or has been discontinued, based on a needs assessment that does not require a geotechnical report, and without having to follow the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives.

Outlined below is our reasoning why Mr. Halinen’s request is infeasible:

1. The proposed revision changes the language to apply to all “replacements of existing structures.” This means any replacement that would qualify as a repair for an existing use (including single-family homes) under Subsection c.i, would have to follow the rules in Subsection c.iii, which would call for a needs assessment (albeit one that doesn’t require a geotech report). Nevertheless, this would increase the restriction and complication of replacing bulkheads universally. It was our specific intention not to make things more complicated than necessary for those entitled to repair/replace their bulkheads, especially for single-family homeowners. Frankly, it is surprising that the single-family property owners represented by the Renton Shoreline Coalition would agree to such an additional requirement.

2. The proposed change that protects existing and changed uses and structures is a violation of SMP guidelines according to DOE.

3. Our formal memorandum outlines the need for a geotechnical report, but simply stated: a geotechnical report is the standard for needs assessment for new development and it is the standard analysis we use in the RMC to study such issues.

4. Eliminating the shoreline stabilization hierarchy undermines the whole SMPs approach to shoreline stabilization and to achieving no net loss, given our existing conditions. The WAC and our Inventory both conclude that hard armoring doesn’t create one-time impacts to the environment, rather on-going impacts with cumulative negative effects. The environmental effect of “doing nothing” is continued degradation, making it impossible to achieve no net loss without provisions that result in cumulative improvements over time. Given our existing conditions and built environment, we know that removing bulkheads will be difficult, and not possible in many cases. The hierarchy establishes where it is possible to make changes to bulkheads and mitigate for the cumulative impacts they create. DOE has gone on record that it doesn’t expect communities to be returned to pristine conditions, but merely to do the best they can. The hierarchy is the way Renton’s SMP does this. DOE recognizes this as Barbara Nightingale has made the comment several times that getting rid of the hierarchy undermines our whole SMP.

Mr. Halinen also brings attention to some “minor” changes on pages 8, 9, and 11 of a document submitted for Council review which marks up portions of the code. These changes would have major impacts:

1. The first proposed change is to re-title the table regarding “Alteration of an Existing Structure” (for non-single family residential) to “Alteration of an Existing Development/Use.” This appears to be a backdoor attempt to achieving the Mr. Halinen’s desired outcome regarding shoreline stabilization on the Stoneway site.
There is reason to support the continuation of non-conforming structures. Likewise, there is no reason to support non-conforming uses. Except in sensitive natural or conservancy areas where uses are quite limited, the underlying zoning determines use in other overlay areas. Which means in most cases, if this change were made, non-conforming uses would be perpetuated in areas that the City doesn’t want them, and would be subject to more relaxed restrictions in the shoreline than in the rest of the City.

2. The second set of changes make a change to the third option for mitigating shoreline stabilization impacts when changes are made to a non-conforming structure. If the proposed change is accepted, site improvement to mitigate the impacts of shoreline stabilization would never have to be considered. Instead they could simply contribute financially to a fund. The Planning Commission had excellent discussions on off-site mitigation provisions and it was very clear that these were to be limited to a last-resort option. This change would go against the Planning Commission direction.

Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov