HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters - Support & Opposition Denis Law --
Mayor City Of,
Y `�
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
March 31, 2015
Wayne Potter
Novastar
1821572 nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Subject: Letters in support of TPWAG Appeal (8)
Letters in opposition of TPWAG Appeal (1)
The Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR
Dear Mr. Potter:
Attached are copies of eight (8) letters in support of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy
Group (TPWAG) Appeal and one (1) letter in opposition to the Appeal, regarding the
above-referenced land use application.
I can be reached at (425)430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
A
y,ethk
*Please note that if you signed up to be a Party of Record for this matter you are
receiving a copy of this letter as a courtesy.
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
3112 SE IS" Street MAR 3 0 2015
Renton, Washington 98058 RECEIVED
March 30, 2015 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development
Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee,
There are several issues that I request your permission to briefly bring to your attention
with supporting information and/ or photographs. I will be prepared, with information, to
discuss any of the following issues.
1) SE 16t` Street accident records.
2)Congested hairpin turn as the water tower.
3)Area school capacity.
4)Friendliness and openness of neighborhoods.
5)Isolation of heritage neighborhood homes.
6)Development buffers.
7)Loss of property values to heritage homeowners.
8)Dense housing.
9)Children need to in contact with nature.
10)Neighborhood residents denied the opportunity to gather information for hearings.
11)Requested Environmental Studies.
12)Money emphasis
13)City oversight of builders.
14)Neighborhood disruptions by multi million dollar international corporations.
I
15)Local government's duty to represent the citizens who pay their salaries.
16)Advice to TPWAG to limit issues.
Sincerely,
I&W^ `
William L. Roenicke
425-271-7785
risingr@integrity.com
2
Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015
To: City Council
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
CtTyDFRENrON
Renton, WA 98057 MAR 3 0 2015
RECEIVED I'�`►,..�`"�
From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites comcast.net ��TvctER
S OFFICE
K
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Comments Supporting the 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)(3).
Framework for City Council Decision
What makes this appeal interesting is that the City of Renton used the alternative threshold determination
process commonly referred to as the "mitigated determination of non-significance"set forth in WAC 197-11-
350. With a MDNS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required. An applicant may clarify or change a proposal
by revising the environmental checklist and permit application so that a MDNS can be issued for the revised
project. WAC 197-11-350(2). Alternatively, the municipality may specify mitigation measures and issue a
MDNS only if the proposal is changed to incorporate those measures. WAC 197-11-350(3). Nonetheless, WAC
197-11-350(2) clearly emphasizes: "if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental
Impact,even with mitigation measures,an EIS shall be prepared."
Courts review a decision to issue a MDNS under the "clearly erroneous"standard.A finding is clearly
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the record is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation& Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). For the MDNS to survive judicial
scrutiny,the record must demonstrate that"environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner
sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA,and that the decision to issue a MDNS was based on
information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d
78, 82-83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977). In essence, what SEPA requires is that the presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with
economic and technical considerations. It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by
deliberation, not default. Norway Hill at 272. In order to achieve this goal, it is important that an
environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases.
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 4
In a nutshell, this MDNS process is a mixed hybrid of both procedural and substantive SEPA because the
threshold determination of the DNS (procedural component) is contingent upon the determination that
mitigation measures (the substantive component) can alleviate any adverse environmental impacts. Professor
William Rodgers, an eminent scholar at the University of Washington, emphasizes that the issue of a mitigated
DNS has been hotly debated: "What this process approves is a kind of backroom bargaining outside of the
normal glare of EIS procedures...As a result,the process should remain under sharp scrutiny."The SEPA rules
provide that if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact after mitigation
measures have been applied, an environmental impact statement shall be prepared. This touchstone of the
SEPA review process was designed to provide some protection from abuse: "If a MDNS is issued and an
appealing party proves that the project will still produce significant adverse environmental impacts, then the
MDNS decision must be held to be "clearly erroneous" and an EIS must be promulgated." Anderson v. Pierce
County, 86 Wn.App. 290 (Wn.App. Div. 2 1997).
Review of Record Leaves Definite and Firm Conviction that Mistake Committed
What makes this appeal unique is that the full scope of mitigation measures were not specified and
determined until the Hearing Examiner issued the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26,
2015. The gist of TPWAG's appeal to the City Council is that 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 MDNS determination under SEPA. Consequently the preliminary plat
application should be denied and an environmental impact statement must be prepared.
The record clearly reflects:
1. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own
wetland assessment on the property. The City and Applicant's wetland assessment understates the
extent of wetlands on the site.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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, lock and load
retaining walls, and extensive grading operations and provides inadequate mitigation for the
impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision improperly defers
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 4
consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no
input.
5. 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.
6. 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.
The City Council's review of the record should lead to the definite and firm conviction that it would be a
mistake to rubber stamp this preliminary plat. The extensive mitigation measures outlined in the hearing
examiner's decision, and discussed above, are a reliable indicator of major action with significant
environmental effects.The mitigation measures do not reduce all significant adverse environmental impacts
below the threshold level of significance, but merely postpone their evaluation to the construction permit
stage. Consequently the City Council should deny the preliminary plat application and require an
environmental impact statement.
Conclusion
The members of TPWAG are proud that we have persevered in the face of considerable adversity at the
consolidated SEPA/preliminary plat hearing. Given that the deck was stacked so highly against TPWAG and in
favor of the Applicant, it is remarkable that we were able to prevail with the hearing examiner so that the
Applicant was required to provide the plethora of additional documentation to the city prior to construction
permit approval. Most of these issues were simply glossed over or ignored by the Environmental Review
Committee's threshold determination and were not included as mitigation measures. Rather than providing
reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, all of this additional documentation is tantamount to
a reliable indicator of and suggests significant environmental impacts. Once the Applicant provides this
additional documentation, we are confident that it will reveal a wide array of marginal impacts that are very
important to the neighbors and together result in a significant impact.
TPWAG initially organized to advocate for the preservation of the character of the woods at Tiffany Park as a
unique and mature forest in an urban area, habitat for wildlife and sanctuary where community residents hike
or simply find peace in the middle of the city. Over time it became apparent that the Applicant provided
insufficient and inadequate information to truly understand the massive scope of the proposal and its
detrimental impact on the environment.We now have the definite and firm conviction that it was a mistake to
excuse an EIS which should give detailed consideration to the alternative possibilities that Applicant's
preliminary plat is proportionally and aesthetically out of touch and not compatible with the neighborhood;
that existing streets are inadequate to safely handle ingress and egress for the site; that "backroom
bargaining" understated and minimized the wetland requirements for the site; that unlawful discharges to the
wetlands may destroy the wetlands or cause flooding downstream;that the geotechnical information for the
site may be inadequate to understand the risks associated with the massive grading operation, the extensive
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 3 of 4
excavation necessary for the drainage vault, or the construction of an extensive and intricate network of
retaining walls; and that the proposed storm water system may exacerbate downstream storm water capacity
issues that the City already considers an environmental nuisance. This proposal continues to have a probable
significant environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, so it is important that an environmental
impact statement be prepared
For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to deny the preliminary plat application and require
an environmental impact statement.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
iZ�.� ,3
RENATE BEEDON
President
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 4 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
To: MAR 3 0 2015 j$00 ►�
City Council RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision
(LUA13- 001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council
Dear Council members:
We would like to add our support to the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group' s
Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration
dated February 26, 2015. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building
of roads, utilities and residences may have a negative impact on wildlife, the
environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton.
Here are our comments based on some of the points made in the Appeal (Item
numbers from the Appeal):
Item 3: "TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity
to perform our own wetland assessment on the property." In a fair and open
process there should be nothing to lose by having a second study of the
wetlands done to ensure they are properly protected.
Item 4: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as
to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste". Shouldn't that be one
of the first things established before allowing homes and yards to be built there?
And if the developer has information about this that they refuse to divulge, then
that definitely casts doubt on the safety of the site.
Item 5: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the
substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system
for the site." Is this supposed to be resolved before approval? Will leaving it to
the construction permit stage allow the developer too much leeway and result in
a poor outcome?
Item 6: "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." This is yet one more thing that should be addressed before
approval of the project. The style, height and nature of these walls will make a
big difference in how this project affects the surrounding neighbors. Is it
standard procedure to delay the definition and review of these features, or is it
just a way for the developer to avoid providing mitigations?
Item 7: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic
impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site." If you look at the two
proposed entry points, they are both situated such that it will be a huge impact on
the people living on those roads. The SE 18th Street entrance in particular will be
very congested, especially during construction, as it was not designed to be an
arterial.
Item 8: "The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional
documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
permit approval" Is there any reason not to require it before preliminary plat
approval? Why not have all the information possible before making that
decision?
Item 10: "An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence."
And by the reluctance of the developer to provide all they know about the
possibility of hazardous waste on the property. And by their refusal to allow a
second wetlands study. It would be proper to know the environmental impact of
development on 21 acres of 79 year old woods before giving approval.
In short, we expect our public representatives to do everything they can to make
sure this site is developed in a responsible way, with an open, thorough process
that results in all stakeholders' concerns addressed before the final decisions are
made. Thank you.
Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch
1717 Pierce Ave SE
Renton, WA 98058
425-228-2346
CITY OF RENTON
To: City Council
City of Renton MAR 3 0 2015
1055 Grady Way
RECEIVED
Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Robin Jones
3624 SE 19" CT
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City
Council
Members of the City Council:
In addition to earlier comments that I have submitted, this letter reflects an expansion
on my earlier appeal comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is required to
follow a process and apply the different information presented to him against the Renton
Municipal Code to ensure compliance, which he has sought to do. What he is not always
capable of doing is considering unique, intangible factors, which is why the process allows for
an appeal to the City Council; hence this letter. I believe the Renton City Council should relook
the land decisions made to date for the following unique circumstances.
1. The land use process that has been used to date has not be able to account for the
unique nature of this land parcel;the length of time that it has been lying unused and
the maturity of the surrounding community. This is a unique block of land that has been
pristine for roughly 35 year, surrounded by homeowners who have a well-founded
expectation that their property would border a green belt. I would ask for the Council
Members to factor this longevity consideration and owner expectations in a re-
examination of the current land decision.
2. The land use process that has been used to date has been unable to account for the
intangible impact on the community and quality of life concerns that this development
action would have. As the representative's for the citizens for this area the Council
Members are in the best position to voice these intangible but highly critical concerns.
The citizens impacted by this decision have significant worries around school
enrollments, decreasing house prices, loss of recreational areas, a declining quality of
life and loss of community cohesion. I would ask for the Council Member as our political
representatives to assess the current land decision to ensure that our concerns in these
areas have been addressed.
I The Land use decision today has not accounted for the ongoing legal action against the
Renton School Board around the land action process. This legal action, challenges the
Renton School Board's assertion that entering into a single source binding contract prior
to engaging with the general public does not meet the intent of the State Law. This legal
action is currently active and in the discovery phase. I would ask the Council Member
take into consideration that there is a strong possibility that this land action has not
followed the legal process as dictated by Washington State Law.
Based on these three unique factors of this area of land I would asked the Council Members to
re-examine the current land decisions and re-shape the current decision to reflect this unique
concerns raised above.
Sincerely
Robin Jones
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 2 7 2015
RECEIVED
2707SE 16th Street CITY CLERICS OFFICE
Renton, Washington 98058
March 24, 2015
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Re: Traffic Safety SE 16th Street, Tiffany Park Woods Development
Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council,
I am a resident of Renton, having lived at the above address for 10
years. During that time there have been many automobile accidents
on the streets, and street corner, which border my home, property.
Yes, and many accidents in the last five years. The police have been
at some of the accidents. Many times the driver is able to drive off
before the police arrive.
My property has been damaged many times. I have not been
compensated for the damage to my property. Fortunately no children
in my family have been injured by one of these accidents.
I have asked for help from the city to make the street safer, but my
requests have always been ignored.
I would like to come and explain this problem to the City Council
asking for help to make this street safer. To repeat, there have been
many accidents on this street in the past five years, some with police
attendance.
Sincerely,
Ruka Khazehie
14
CITY OF RENTON
tt
la
f° MAR 2 7 2015
RECEIVED
CITYCL€W,%-BF-FIGS_
-__
,i
I
3 __SZJ!7 r_C_ LTU_.CLQ K _
11,E �,�aITU ! C.I1V Cf�UAlCCL
1�5 5 SoTkfw
Uv�, G rad -
R4l��C�GN m' 9_e OS7
�RWFIC 5RFC.TV 5E I6 STMCC
i
�A(L MAV Old- OLN N Ir-.. l&W At\O DnC RE Tbm C lTV COU ML l
z a��
TI-1E C,ITV OF
' R�Jv�UA1 ►vL7 H�U_ u U iO ON S F_ , I C rk S Orcu-
SINC.�_ 1987,
i W OUM U KS_ TO COWL 6�,F L T11 E COU N C I L Fal®
l l
B11- A PArLrI/ O Cc»zy,
i
\Jq buLbLSU_ c��p P C�1 �_...L IL.S
My _ DO nOL hF C, i10Mr,
i l n I✓ ako DD ,[� frmm r l MCLJ 0
Cynthia Moya
From: Jason Seth
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:58 AM
To: Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW:Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572
CITY OF RENTON
Letter supporting the Reserve at Tiffany Park appeal.
-Jason
MAR 2 7 2015
Jason Seth, CMC
RECEIVEDCity Clerk
iseth@rentonwa.gov CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
425-430-6502
From: Craig &Jill Jones [mai Ito:cajones52;acomcast,net]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM
To: Jason Seth
Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572
To: Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee
c/o Jason Seth, City Clerk
As parties of interest we are writing to register our support of the appeal by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group(TPWAG)of
Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the proposed development, Reserve at Tiffany Park(LUA13-001572).
We agree with the ten points made by TPWAG that the adverse impacts of this development have not been adequately studied or
addressed.
It is unusual for such a fully-canopied parcel of forest to be available for development within the city limits. The proposed development
of this tract for 97 homes is problematic in several ways:
•the parcel lies at the heart of a long-developed community
•it contains several wetlands that require protection
•has limited road access
•is directly upslope from a city park
•is a block away from an elementary school.
The issue of storm water runoff and drainage should be of particular concern to the city.As previously testified,the Tiffany Park
neighborhood already has water drainage issues during and after heavy rains.The city park,Tiffany Park, is at the lowest point of the
entire neighborhood and sits on top of Ginger Creek,which was culverted when the park was built. During the rainy season the park's
wooded patch becomes a small pond and the playground and playing field become saturated and unusable.Along the curb of Lake
Youngs Way near the baseball diamond a puddle often extends well out into the street, sometimes with a footprint as big as a house.
The proposed development will remove a thousand mature trees and forest duff,which absorb rain, and replace them with pavement
and rooftop to an extent far greater than the surrounding neighborhood.The developer proposes a water retention vault directly behind
and upslope of existing houses and about 150 yards away and upslope from the park. If the vault leaks or proves inadequate,flooding
could impact those homes and the city's park.
We urge the city council to seriously consider the TPWAG appeal and the concerns of the people of the Renton neighborhood who will
bear the burden of this development.
Thank you.
Jill Jones
Derek Jones
Kyleigh Jones
1413 Newport Ct. SE
Renton,WA 98058
1
I
CITY OF RENTON
Jason A. Seth,CIVIC MAR 2 7 2015
City Clerk RECEIVED
City of Renton CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1055 South Grady WayAY'
Renton, WA 98057t� �V
Re:Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26,2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park
PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE)
Dear Mr.Seth,
I am writing in support of the appeal filed March 11,2015 by Renate Beedon,the designated
representative of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group(TPWAG). I am a party of record,because I
gave oral comments at a meeting held at Tiffany Park Elementary,and submitted written comments to
City Staff at that meeting. I do not live adjacent to the Tiffany Park Woods. But I know enough about it
to have an informed opinion.
The errors of fact or law presented in the TPWAG appeal letter seem true to me.The written record as 1
have seen in letters mailed from City Staff indicates to me that the hearing examiner gave the developer
instructions on doing many things that they should have done prior in the process. Now the developer
can do it the back door way by having only the project manager watching what they're doing,and the
public gets no input.As one of several examples,the hearing examiner requires the applicant to submit
extensive additional documentation to the project manager before construction permit approval. But all
of this should have been prepared prior to preliminary plat approval.Overall,the written record
indicates to me that the process has been unfairly allowed to go forward,basically no matter what.To
me,this has the appearance of a pre-determined outcome,with the public interest not seriously
considered.
I request City Council, in consideration of the written record previously established, including the facts
presented in the appeal letter, please stop this runaway process,and find a better alternative use for
the unique and beautiful Tiffany Park Woods than the current development plan which is not in the best
interests of current and future residents of the City of Renton.
Sincerely,
,baol�ct ZZ41-�
Daniel Goldman
1608 Glenwood Ave SE
Renton,WA 98058
425-271-6058
CITY OF RENTON
' , T`',�{��
MAR 2 7 2015 L
- RECEIVED
52d 2nd Ave.Suite 500 o=f ce 206 58 070, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
"Seattle W4 98104 'w zQL•58;2308
IC-05s com CH&
March 27, 2015
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Letter Supporting Denial 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(the "Preliminary Plat"). By this letter,
Henley asks the Council to deny the appeal filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
("TPWAG").
This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss TPWAG's appeal of the
Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental
Policy Act("SEPA") as an improper second appeal of the SEPA threshold Determination of Non-
Significance ("DNS-M"). Should the Council deny the Motion to Dismiss, Henley requests the Council
affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision because the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with the
governing regulations and approval of the Preliminary Plat was proper.
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(F)(5) and(8), TPWAG has the burden of proving that"a substantial
error in fact or law exists in the record." Absent such proof, the Council must affirm the Examiner's
decision. TPWAG's appeal fails to raise any errors of fact or law, and its request for the extreme relief
of overturning the findings and conclusions of expert City Staff and the Hearing Examiner should be
denied. The Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision.
TPWAG Assertions Nos. I & 2:
TPWAG's first two assertions fail to raise any error of fact or law capable of review. TPWAG
instead makes broad generalized statements that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient to
support the DNS-M and the Council should require additional mitigation. The record before the
Examiner confirms, as the Examiner ruled, that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision to approve the
Preliminary Plat with the DNS-M is adequately supported by the numerous studies provided and expert
conclusions reached during the application process and the hearing before the Examiner. Nothing in
TPWAG's Assertions in paragraphs 1 and 2 warrant reversal of the Examiner's Decision.
nrogers c�i.cairncross.com
direct(206)254-4417
(02773006.DOCX1-5 )
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 2
TPWAG Assertion No. 3:
TPWAG next asserts that the wetlands delineation was done incorrectly, the Hearing Examiner's
Final Decision did not fully evaluate the adverse environmental impacts on wetlands, and it improperly
deferred these issues to the construction permit stage. All of these arguments are unfounded. A
thorough review of the environmental impacts of the Preliminary Plat on wetlands was conducted and
numerous experts, including a third-party review by the City, concurred that an EIS was unnecessary
because no probable adverse impacts were likely.
TPWAG argues as a basis for its appeal that it was denied a fair opportunity to perform a
wetlands assessment of the property. A fundamental tenet of property law is that there is no public right
of access to private property. TPWAG therefore had no right to access, and the School District had no
duty to provide TPWAG, or the general public, access to this private property for the purpose of
environmental investigation.
There were extensive studies of the environmental impacts on wetlands and numerous experts
confirmed that no Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") was required because no probable
significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. In October 2013, Henley submitted a Wetland
Determination study and in February 2014, to account for revisions to the plat, Henley submitted a
revised Wetland Determination, both of which were performed by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. At the request
of the City of Renton, these studies were then reviewed by an independent third-party consultant, Otak.
Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Otak study, Henley again submitted a Revised Wetland
Determination and Response in June 2014 and a further response in July 2014. The Hearing Examiner
reviewed all of these studies in reaching his Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and
specifically held that"[g]iven the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of
wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is
concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands." Final Decision upon
Reconsideration,pg. 19. In fact, the project does more than simply avoid adverse impacts to the
wetlands. As the Examiner noted, "[t]he applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Soundview
Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an
improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present
situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present." Final Decision upon
Reconsideration, pg. 13.
Thus, the evaluation of environmental impacts on wetlands and the wetlands delineation are the
product of several iterations of expert review and recommendations, and revisions of the Preliminary
Plat by Henley to meet these recommendations. This process culminated in an informed and proper
decision by the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat. The only matters deferred to the time
of construction permitting are matters of engineered design that can only be addressed at the time
construction permits are processed by the City.
{02773006.DOCX;S}
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 3
TPWAG Assertion No. 4:
TPWAG's fourth asserted error alleges that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is
free of hazardous waste. This argument stems from the belief that the property was once subject to two
easements in favor of the Department of Defense and therefore it is possible the property was exposed to
hazardous substances. TPWAG's allegations relate to sections 3 and 4 of a recorded 1957 summary of
five different even older grants, conveyances, and easements. At most, TPWAG's allegations establish
that there was a grant of an easement to the Defense Plant Corporation in 1944 across a 14 foot strip of
land somewhere in this area, that may or may not include a portion of the land within the plat.
TPWAG's allegations are purely speculative as to the presence of hazardous material. TPWAG
has provided no evidence of the existence of hazardous materials on the property. As highlighted by the
Hearing Examiner, TPWAG was"unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination
visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's
determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further
environmental review." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 12. TPWAG's bald speculation
about possible hazardous waste on the site fails to carry its burden of proving that"a substantial error in
fact or law exists in the record."RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). The Council should deny TPWAG's appeal and
affirm the Preliminary Plat approval.
TPWAG Assertion No. 5:
TPWAG also asserts that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision inadequately addresses adverse
impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system and demands more precise and exhaustive
mitigation conditions at this early stage. Again, these arguments are misguided, as the Hearing
Examiner based his approval of the Preliminary Plat on a thorough analysis of more than adequate
studies and technical plans to address storm drainage and TPWAG did not present any evidence to the
contrary. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted that TPWAG's strategy of making vague
accusations that studies and plans are generally inadequate, without providing any support for its claim,
is insufficient to overcome the surplus of evidence Henley provided demonstrating compliance with all
applicable regulations. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated TPWAG has "not identified any
deficiencies in these [stormwater runoff] calculations or the regulations that require them."Ruling on
Reconsideration, pg. 6.
Further, the Examiner noted, "[TPWAG has] not specifically identified how any part of the
proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its
interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining
compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision
review regulations."I Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. The Code does not require exhaustive final
' See also Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 18-19(noting the City had"reasonably sufficient information at this
stage of review to evaluate downstream impacts"and"[s]ince the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all
applicable regulations,is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the
proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts.")
(02773006.DOCX;5}
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 4
plans at this preliminary plat application step, but instead provides a logical and reasonable multistep
process by which supplementary materials are added to appropriately fine tune the project as needed.
Granting TPWAG's appeal and requiring Henley to submit extremely detailed plans that are required at
later stages would be contrary to law. The Council should instead affirm the Hearing Examiner's
Decision because the Preliminary Plat complies with the City's development regulations and
environmental review procedures. TPWAG has established no error of fact or law in the record that
would support reversal of the Examiner's Decision.
TPWAG Assertion No. 6:
The Council also should reject TPWAG's argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to
adequately mitigate the probable adverse impacts of structural retaining walls. The Hearing Examiner
found that retaining walls greater than four feet in height that are visible off-site have a significant
adverse aesthetic impact. But the Examiner also expressly concluded that "[t]he aesthetic impacts of the
retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a [sic] ten foot perimeter landscaping strip." Final
Decision, pg. 10. The Examiner concluded that the ten-foot buffer requirement for visible retaining
walls"will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental
impacts." Final Decision, pg. 11. Again, the Hearing Examiner's careful analysis and thoughtful
Decision should not be disturbed in the face of the bare allegations presented by TPWAG. TPWAG has
failed to establish an error of fact or law to support reversal. The Council should reject TPWAG's
appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Preliminary Plat.
TPWAG Assertion No. 7:
TPWAG's last argument asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately address the
project's traffic impacts. TPWAG's argument lacks any support in the record, as the Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision was based on extensive traffic studies submitted by Henley and an
independent consultant, and these studies concluded that the impacts on traffic were either within the
acceptable levels of service or sufficiently mitigated by the required DNS-M conditions. The Hearing
Examiner reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TranspoGroup and the Independent
Secondary Review requested by the City and prepared by Perteet, the City's third-party transportation
reviewer. These studies fully captured any adverse traffic impacts resulting from the project and
TPWAG again failed to present any evidence to the contrary.
TPWAG also asserts that there will be significant adverse impacts from the conversion of SE
18th Street and 124th Place SE from cul-de-sacs to "arterials." In fact, these residential roadways will
remain residential roadways. No such conversion of these roads into arterials is contemplated by the
Preliminary Plat and, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, TPWAG did not produce any evidence that
connecting these roads would create adverse environmental impacts, including diminished property
values. Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, pg. 6. Both roadways were long planned to connect to
serve this site, whether it was developed as a school, or a residential subdivision.
{02773006.DOCX;5}
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 5
Pursuant to a review of the various traffic studies and expert opinions, the Hearing Examiner
made an informed technical decision that any adverse impacts to traffic would be sufficiently mitigated
by the conditions imposed. Again, Henley is not disputing any of these conditions and plans to comply
with them. Thus, the Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the
Preliminary Plat and deny TPWAG's unsubstantiated appeal.
TPWAG Assertions 8-10:
TPWAG concludes its appeal by making additional generalized arguments that do not raise any
specific error of fact or law, but instead urge the Council to abandon the process required under the
Renton Municipal Code and SEPA. TPWAG again argues that additional technical studies and detailed
plans should be required at this preliminary plat stage instead of later in the development process. But
to require Henley to provide engineering and construction level analysis at the time of preliminary plat
would be contrary to law. Indeed, under State law, a preliminary plat is a"neat and approximate
drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and
other elements of a subdivision." RCW 58.17.020(4). TPWAG argues for more, more, more, but neither
State law nor the Renton Code demand the exhaustive level of analysis that TPWAG requests at the
preliminary plat stage of review. The Council should affirm the Examiner's Decision.
TPWAG's final generalized argument also is contrary to law, as it asks the Council to overturn
the DNS-M reached by City Staff, independent third-party experts, and the Hearing Examiner. While
Henley firmly asserts that the DNS-M is proper for all of the reasons stated above, we also reiterate our
arguments set forth in our Motion to Dismiss that this second appeal of the SEPA threshold
determination is barred by law and not subject to review by the Council.
Thank you for your time and attention to this response. For all of the reasons stated above,
Henley respectfully requests that the TPWAG Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon
Reconsideration be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat be
affirmed.
Very truly yours,
NBR/kgb Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
{02773006.DOCX;S }