The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutclerk ltr/denial a Denis Law City Of Mayor ti Y O ® U rC> a ♦ .� City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC March 30, 2015 Wayne Potter Novastar 1821572 nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Subject: Request for Dismissal of TPWAG Appeal & Request of Earlier Consideration of TPWAG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Mr. Potter: Attached is copy of a Request for Dismissal of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) Appeal and a Request for Earlier Consideration of the TPWAG Appeal submitted by Nancy Bainbridge Rogers of Cairncross & Hemplemann, representing Henley USA, LLC, for the above-referenced land use application. The City of Renton received the requests on March 27, 2015. 1 can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, 6 pJasyon . Sethrk Attachments cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante,Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince,City Councilmember Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison Henley USA, LLC,Applicant Parties of Record(111) 1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516• rentonwa.gov CITY OF RENTON ;4;rYO MAR 2 7 2015 i24 2nd Ave.Suite 500 off ce 206 587 0700 RECEIVED 'V1✓A osaoA ;ex zoe 5a7 25oa CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ass Com CH& March 27, 2015 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Request for Dismissal of TPWAG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572 Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat referenced above (the "Preliminary Plat"). By this letter, Henley asks the Council to summarily dismiss the appeal filed by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG"). Because this is a procedural dismissal mandated by law, we ask that the dismissal be entered now so that all parties can avoid the unnecessary and wasteful delay of waiting for the June 8th hearing date. ` On March 11, 2015, pursuant to Renton Municipal Code section 4-8-110(F), TPWAG filed an appeal to the City Council of the Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). TPWAG's appeal to the Council is an unlawful second administrative SEPA appeal in violation of SEPA, the SEPA Rules (Ch. 197-11 WAC), and the Renton Municipal Code. Henley's application for Preliminary Plat approval required a threshold determination as to its probable environmental impacts under SEPA. On September 25, 2014, the City issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated ("DNS-M"). The DNS-M states that the project's probable significant environmental impacts would be mitigated by the eleven mitigation measures imposed in the DNS-M. On October 10, 2014, TPWAG appealed that threshold determination to the Renton Hearing Examiner ("SEPA Appeal"). The Examiner consolidated the TPWAG's SEPA Appeal with the mandatory open public hearing for Henley's Preliminary Plat application. During the consolidated hearing, TPWAG, the City and Henley presented testimony and evidence supporting their positions. The Hearing Examiner then extensively reviewed the evidence provided by TPWAG, Henley, Renton City Staff, and third-party consultants. Based on this review, the Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision on January 8, 2015 approving the Preliminary Plat and affirming the City's DNS-M threshold determination. TPWAG then nrogersna cairneross com direct:(206)254-4417 102773315.DOCX;6} Mayor Law & City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 2 filed a request for reconsideration, which the Examiner also denied. TPWAG now has filed an appeal to the Council asking the Council to review the City's SEPA threshold determination for a second time. The law is clear. The Council is prohibited from holding a second appeal of the City's threshold determination. Washington statutes, the SEPA Rules (Ch. 197-11 WAC), and the City of Renton Municipal Code are clear that a party may appeal a SEPA threshold determination only once before the City itself. That single appeal has already occurred and was heard and decided by the Hearing Examiner. RCW 43.2 1 C.075(3)(a) states an agency may permit "no more than one agency appeal proceeding on each procedural determination (the adequacy of a determination of significance/nonsignificance or of a final environmental impact statement)." WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iv) also dictates that"an agency shall provide for only one administrative appeal of a threshold determination or of the adequacy of an EIS; successive appeals on these issues within the same agency are not allowed." The Renton Municipal Code adopts the same appeal limitation, stating: "There shall be no more than one appeal on a procedural determination or environmental determination such as the adequacy of a determination of significance, nonsignificance, or of a final environmental statement." RMC 4-8-110(C)(8). TPWAG now asks the City Council to entertain an impermissible second appeal of the SEPA threshold determination of the Preliminary Plat. TPWAG opens its appeal by asserting that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient "to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA."See TPWAG Appeal at pg. 1. TPWAG then asserts that the DNS-M provides for inadequate mitigation of certain environmental impacts—i.e., that the DNS-M was incorrect because the mitigation measures did not mitigate the Preliminary Plat sufficiently to reduce the probable significant adverse environment impacts and, therefore, a Determination of Significance should have been issued. TPWAG's appeal concludes by asking the City Council to set aside the City's DNS-M threshold determination and instead require preparation of an environmental impact statement. This is the same relief sought by TPWAG in its first appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3)(a), WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iv), and RMC 4-8-110(C)(8), the Council is prohibited from holding a second appeal on the City's DNS-M threshold determination. For that reason, TPWAG's appeal must be dismissed. Henley respectfully requests that the City Council dismiss TPWAG's appeal. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Very truly yours, GYM �7 Nancy Bainbridge Rogers v NBR/kgb 102773315.DOCX;6} CITY OF RENTON 1-' 4✓rw MAR 2 7 His ;sin 2:d 'A,.,- r soo oroe 583 RECEIVED e,ttes/4 99104 ra,21Ob 587 230-P CITY CLERKS OFFItt- CH& March 27, 2015 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Letter Requesting Earlier Consideration of TPWAG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572 Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's ("TPWAG's") appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and Henley's Letter Requesting Denial of TPWAG's appeal. As Henley's Motion to Dismiss explains, the City is barred by State law and the City's own Code from allowing TPWAG a second appeal of the City's SEPA threshold determination. TPWAG's appeal should be dismissed immediately. Because the matter should be dismissed immediately without further review, Henley asks that the Council take action to dismiss the unlawful appeal now, rather than waiting more than two months from the date of appeal to consider the issue at the scheduled June 8, 2015 Planning and Development Committee meeting. If the Council chooses not to dismiss all or portions of TPWAG's appeal, this case can still be resolved quickly because TPWAG has failed completely to meet its burden of proving that"a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record," as required by RMC 4-8-110(F)(5)&(8). The Council's long delay is prejudicial to Henley and the Renton School District, and the delay is unnecessary. TPWAG's appeal can and should be heard and resolved quickly. Henley asks the Council to set an earlier hearing date than June 8, 2015. It appears from the City's public meetings schedule that the Planning and Development Committee and the Committee of the Whole both have five or more meetings between March 27, 2015 and June 8, 2015. If the Planning and Development Committee agenda is full through June 8`", then Henley asks that the hearing instead be held expeditiously before the Committee of the Whole. Thank you for seriously considering Henley's request for a prompt review and resolution of TPWAG's appeal. Very truly yours, Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb nrogers�a;cairncross.com Direct:(206)254-4417 102774588.DOCX;2}