HomeMy WebLinkAboutA_Request for Administrative Reconsideration_LUA25‑000432_RVMP_260106.pdfFrom: Cynthia Moya
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 4:00 PM
To: becka.wiest@novaamp.com; jessy@aplustree.com;
marcelscheel04@gmail.com
Cc: CityClerk; Matthew Herrera; khanallurahoa@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Request for Administrative Reconsideration – LUA25-000432 (RVMP)
Party of Records:
Below you will see that the City Clerk’s office has received this Request for Administrative
Reconsideration for LUA-25-000435 from Mr. Khan on January 5, 2026.
Thank you,
CINDY MOYA | CITY CLERK SPECIALIST
City of Renton / / City Clerk’s Office
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
Office (425) 430-6513
Work Schedule:
Tues, Wed & Thurs: City Hall
Mon & Friday: Work from Home
From: CityClerk <CityClerk@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 3:11 PM
To: Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: FW: Request for Administrative Reconsideration – LUA25-000432 (RVMP)
FYI
JASON A. SETH, MMC, CPRO | City Clerk/Public Records Officer
City of Renton // City Clerk Division
cell 206-635-6100 // office 425-430-6502
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56.
Book time to meet with me
From: Kahlil Khan <khanallurahoa@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 2:34 PM
To: Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Request for Administrative Reconsideration – LUA25-000432 (RVMP)
Mr. Herrera,
I am submitting this email to request an administrative reconsideration for Project
Number LUA25-000432 (RVMP). My reasons are outlined below:
1. The proposed removal or snagging of the landmark Douglas Fir may not
meet the criteria in RMC 4-4-130.F.2.c.
a. Tree is not high-risk. The arborist identified the tree’s overall risk rating as “likely
moderate.” Attachment B (ISA Basic Tree Assessment Form) characterizes the likelihood
of trunk failure as “improbable.” Attachment A (Arborist Report) states that the “resident
has requested removal for their peace of mind,” indicating the recommendation was
driven by homeowner preference rather than objective hazard criteria.
b. No obvious physical damage. The minor roof damage cited in the determination has
not been verified as being caused by the subject tree. The incident occurred during the
2024 bomb cyclone—an extreme and infrequent event—and the debris could have come
from any nearby Douglas Fir.
c. Less aggressive alternatives exist. There are feasible options to improve tree health
without removal or snagging, such as widening the fence perimeter to increase airflow and
promote root growth, and providing targeted treatment. As a landmark tree within a
designated tree protection area, proactive measures to support its health may be
warranted.
2. The removal or snagging may introduce risks not reflected in the arborist
report.
Section 7 of the Planning Division Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Certificate
of Exemption Evaluation Form does not appear to consider the following hazards:
a. Increased flooding risk. Homes adjacent to the tree sit lower than the surrounding trail,
with crawlspaces and yards vulnerable to water intrusion. Removing a mature tree
eliminates a significant source of water absorption and may increase stormwater runoff,
potentially affecting multiple homes during heavy rainfall.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
b. Potential harm to adjacent Douglas Firs. The subject tree may provide wind buffering
and root-system interdependence for nearby Douglas Firs. Removal could destabilize
these trees by: • Reducing wind protection from the existing canopy • Disrupting
intertwined or mutually supportive root structures
3. Concerns regarding tree credit calculations (Attachment C).
The tree credit calculation appears to be based on a single tract, even though the HOA
controls multiple tracts that include the subject tree. This may understate the cumulative
impact of removals.
Additionally, multiple removals and snagging activities over the past five years may exceed
the RMC 4-4-130.C.9 limit of five significant trees within a five-year period. This cumulative
impact does not appear to have been evaluated.
4. Community impacts were not addressed.
Although the tree is rated as moderate risk, the justification for removal is primarily the
homeowner’s desire for “peace of mind.” The broader community value of the tree has not
been considered, including:
• Noise mitigation from Highway 169 • Dust and particulate buffering from the
transmission line right-of-way • Aesthetic and ecological value of a mature landmark tree
These benefits are significant and should be weighed against a removal request based on
unverified damage and subjective comfort.
If you have availability, I would be happy to discuss my concerns by phone or in person. I
was recently elected Vice President of the Allura at Tiffany Park HOA, and I want to ensure
that our community continues to thrive.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kahlil Khan