Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC. Appeal - TPWAG Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 To: City Council City of Renton CITY OF RENTON CPG� 1055 Grady Way (� Renton, WA 98057 MAR 12 2015 i3 RECEIVED From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net Gln CLERK'S OFFICE 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F). TPWAG hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. Summary of Substantial Errors of Fact or Law 1. The hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. 2. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton to exercise that authority for all issues raised in this Notice of Appeal. 3. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The wetlands delineation has been done incorrectly. The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls and lock and load retaining walls and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 2 community. Instead th vision improperly defers consideration Mese issues to the construction permit staghere the public has little or no input. 7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 8. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. 9. The hearing examiner's decision improperly concludes that there is no need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review, or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. 10. An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared if after applying mitigation measures by changing, clarifying or conditioning of the proposed action, a proposal continues to have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group SLA s-,—,4 RENATE BEEDON President CC,: Lc,rf�lti u� U�� 2SSc� -�\b es TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 2