HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2026 - HOA email - Request for Administrative Reconsideration – LUA25‑000432 (RVMP)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.
From:Marcel Scheel
To:Cynthia Moya
Cc:becka.wiest@novaamp.com; jessy@aplustree.com; CityClerk; Matthew Herrera; khanallurahoa@gmail.com;
Michael C. Lin; Karen Johnson; NGUYENLYX@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Request for Administrative Reconsideration – LUA25‑000432 (RVMP)
Date:Monday, January 5, 2026 9:36:23 PM
To whom it may concern.
The Association wishes to clarify the status of a recent request for
administrative reconsideration submitted regarding Project Number
LUA25-000432 (RVMP).
The correspondence was submitted by an individual owner who also serves
as a director; however, it was not authorized by the Board of Directors and
does not represent the position of the Association. Under the Association’s
governing documents and Washington law, individual directors do not have
authority to act or speak on behalf of the Association outside of duly
noticed Board action.
The Board previously reviewed and approved the tree removal, subject to
the issuance of the required City permit. The permit was subsequently
approved by the City with conditions, and the Association intends to
proceed in compliance with those conditions.
To the extent the submitting party wishes to challenge the permit decision,
they may do so in their capacity as an individual owner through the City’s
established appeal process. The Board has not directed, endorsed, or
authorized an appeal of the approved permit.
Please update your records accordingly. Should the City require
confirmation of the Board’s position or additional documentation, the
Association will respond through its authorized representatives.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Board President
Allura at Tiffany Park Homeowners Association
Marcel Scheel | 206.300.0345
On Jan 5, 2026, at 7:42 PM, Marcel Scheel <marcelscheel04@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.